Submit Content  |  Subscribe  |  Customer Service  |  Place An Ad 
* Weather * Events * Visitor's Guide * Classifieds * Jobs * Cars * Homes * Apartments * Shopping * Dating
*
Cincinnati.Com
Blogs

*
*
*

Cincinnati.Com

NKY.com
Enquirer
CiN Weekly
Community Press & Recorder
cincyMOMS.com
CincinnatiUSA
Data Center
*
*
*
*
*

*
Classical Music
Janelle Gelfand on the classical music scene


Janelle's pen has taken her to Japan, China, Carnegie Hall, Europe (twice), East and West Coasts, and Florida. In fact, Janelle was the first Enquirer reporter to report from Europe via e-mail -- in 1995.

Janelle began writing for the Cincinnati Enquirer as a stringer in 1991 while writing a Ph.D. dissertation in musicology at the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. She joined the Enquirer staff in 1993.

Born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, where she graduated from Stanford University, Janelle has lived in Cincinnati for more than 30 years. In her free time, this pianist plays chamber music with her circle of musical friends in Cincinnati.

She covers the Cincinnati Symphony, May Festival and Cincinnati Opera, the Cincinnati Chamber Orchestra, chamber music ensembles, and as many recitals and events at CCM and NKU as possible.

Powered by Blogger

Friday, March 07, 2008

How we hear

Frequently, the issue of orchestras not being "visual" enough for today's audiences comes up. Every orchestra is struggling with this issue, believing that somehow trying out something new, changing the format and the look of the concert experience, may make it more accessible and therefore more appealing to the casual concertgoer. The Cincinnati Symphony is experimenting with a video screen showing Paavo speaking informally about the music, played just before he comes onstage, for instance.

For years I've wondered why the orchestra's stage (and this is a general comment that applies to many orchestras) must look so bland, so poorly lighted, with its musicians just plunked down with little thought about presentation or theatricality. Not that it should look like the Pops, but I'm told there is lots that could be done with lighting alone to make a concert much more appealing.

Then there is the whole aspect of how the performers look onstage. Recently, the NY Times' Bernard Holland devoted some column space to singers (and pianists) who gesture and move too much for his taste. Certainly there are times when performers can distract from the musical message they are trying to impart, by using too much extraneous movement or even by wearing odd clothing. Frankly, I don't mind when the musicians in the orchestra move or smile a little as they perform -- in fact, it makes me believe they are feeling the music and expressing themselves. But orchestras today -- unless you play with Andre Rieu -- neither move nor smile very much.

And now for opera, we have surcaps, another visual element which has been a boon for opera companies and made the experience more enjoyable for us all. But recently on vacation, I was in Los Angeles where I saw James Conlon conduct Otello at LA Opera, and from my seat I couldn't see the surcaps. Of course, I know the story, so I only felt compelled to strain to see the text a few times. It made me realize how much I've been missing -- not only of what's happening onstage, but also musically. I heard this performance so much more vividly. Surcaps, I fear, have become a crutch.

I just stumbled upon some thoughts by Henry Fogel, president and CEO of the League of American Orchestras. I'll think you'll be interested in what he writes, as well as the comments, some of which are from musicians and music critics.


45 Comments:

at 3/08/2008 10:24:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

OT: What is up with tonight's concert? Everything else is cancelled, the police are saying to stay off the roads and yet the CSO is going on as planned (per their website) it's not like it is going to clear up by tonight! Are they that money hungry? Not to meniton that careless regarding their staff, orchestra and patrons safety!

 
at 3/08/2008 11:15:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Engaging with my colleagues in the section (and nearby sections) is one of the great joys of playing in an orchestra. I also fine body language is essential for making music. That said, I've consciously cut it back in recent years because I've seen how disrupting and distracting it can be when not 'edited'. I've seen that explosive movements are usually accompanied by explosive, ugly sounds. There's a line to be walked is all I'm saying I suppose. I love the spruce up the stage idea very much.If we could make it sound good too, that'd be even better.

 
at 3/08/2008 11:22:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The main roads are fine. Much of the country drives when it snows...

 
at 3/08/2008 12:03:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most people don't live on the main roads Einstein....thanks for that amazing input.....

 
at 3/08/2008 02:04:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

To - 10:24 am - you are right about CSO 3/8 - but what about those 8-10
ticket holders who walk up to a locked door at Music Hall, and proceed to cancel their series subscription next year.
They got thru the snow but so many of us will not be able to get out of our houses, and hate to return at 10pm on icy frozen roads. Can't win.
We stay home and healthy.

 
at 3/08/2008 09:57:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I seem to recall that Bernard
Holland's comments concerned flamboyant pianists, not singers.
We have a lot of keyboard
exhibitionists these days.
And quite a few of them find
their way into the CSO soloist
schedule. Quite sad.

 
at 3/09/2008 10:36:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm probably in the minority on this but I'd have liked to have played last night . I wanted another run at Sibelius 3. Also, the roads in my neighborhood and beyond were in great shape by mid afternoon, the sun was out, it was a lovely evening. I agree with the 11:22 poster. In general, I think we tend to over react.

A CSO musician

 
at 3/09/2008 10:58:00 AM Blogger Janelle Gelfand said...

To 9:57, we are both right. Here's what he said about the singer Rinat Shaham: "Rinat Shaham sang in the Bernstein. She has an excellent voice and was a handsome stage presence. She also took her subject matter with great seriousness. I hope that she will one day decide that the concert stage is not the right place for all those operatic gestures. Better to stand straight, keep still and let the music do the talking." (Jan. 24)

Then he devoted a column to the histrionics of pianists such as Lang Lang on Feb. 6. I'll make the link in the text above.

 
at 3/10/2008 10:41:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comments from Henry Fogel were interesting as well as those of the other bloggers. One of his observations that caught my eye was the potential use of risers so the audience can see the rest of the orchestra when it is playing. I think it's an excellent idea because every piece tends to feature any number or group of musicians or another. When the audience is applauding I'm usually seeing them for the first time when Jarvi or Kunzel are pointing them out for recognition. It is funny that at some focus groups sponsored by the Symphony that I attended in the mid to late '90's this very thing was suggested and as with most of the things that were discussed nothing happened and it wound up in a report gathering dust somewhere. Also how to improve the visual aspects of the orchestra presentation were discussed (i.e. screens with roaming cameras like you would see on a PBS broadcast or a contemporary concert), but all we evolved to, reluctantly I might add, were the Jarvi video presentations before the concert. I like them, but I think we can go furhter with more success if it becomes a more total visual experience. There are a lot of seats to fill in that hall and this would be a step toward that.

Steve Deiters/Oakley

 
at 3/10/2008 11:49:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would think the cost of doing video work would be the main drawback. Not only is there a need for the camera operators but one would also need a director,etc.

 
at 3/10/2008 12:28:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cost would be an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one? Aren't hundreds and hundreds of empty seats with zero revenue stream just as costly at virtually every performance? They are, but you don't see it. It is an invisible drain that doesn't show up directly on the P/L statement.
This is when managment needs to put its thinking cap on. Don't we have media companies in this town that are potential sponsors for such a video endeavor? Fortune 500companies with video departments who can lend their expertise not to mention local independent companies? Once the performance is commited to tape you now have something that can marketed and used to build the CSO brand out to a larger national and/or international base through any variety of media-both new and old. Why couldn't CSO performances take a position in the marketplace like "Live from Lincoln Center" that is shown on PBS? The possibilities are only limited by our imaginations.

Steve Deiters/Oakley

 
at 3/10/2008 04:12:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Steve, are you volunteering yet?

 
at 3/10/2008 04:35:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 4:12.
As a matter of fact no. I think with a paid staff of 21+ in the marketing and development departments at the CSO there are more than enough people to implement what is needed to be done and then some. If you consider the sharing of ideas on an open forum such as this internet blog a form of volunteering, well then I guess I am. Since you are a nameless face in the crowd at this point in time I guess it begs the question are you doing and what new ideas have you brought to the table?

SD/Oakley

 
at 3/10/2008 05:49:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve,
You are clueless....video is so expensive.
from a NYTIMES article:
"Currently, it costs about $300,000 to broadcast the average ''Live From Lincoln Center'' program, an amount derived from donations by the Exxon Corporation,foundations, the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting"

(article:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE2D8163CF936A15751C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

 
at 3/10/2008 07:24:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve, I would encourage you to get involved in this or any non-profit organization you have an affinity for. As many of us do. I know your face as you may know mine.

Anon 4:12

 
at 3/10/2008 11:29:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a response to Steve Deiters.

Risers pose many issues. First of all, the CSO does actually use risers for the double basses, winds, brass, and percussion. Risers do however alter the sound balance of the orchestra. Many orchestras prefer playing flat on stage as the brass then has bodies in front of them to absorb some of the sound. Orchestras that perform at Carnegie Hall, for instance, play flat on stage.

If your issue is being able to see the players... then sit higher up in the hall. There are plenty of seats up there, and believe it or not, in Music Hall, the sound is actually better the higher up you go.

As far as video projections... the cost is of course an enormous factor. I also think there are many people who simply don't like it. It's just very distracting and I don't think most patrons would appreciate it as much as you think they would. Many of these visual elements have been experimented with at other venues in other cities with very little success.

I also have to agree with others that you whine too much. It is very easy to offer up advice like "think harder". There are many people trying to "think harder" but things are not as easy as you seem to think. I do pose the challenge to you of volunteering some intelligent solutions that are implementable. I am the first to agree that the symphony orchestra business model needs a lot of change, but I will always be the first opponent to visual stimulation the way you describe. Good music played well can always stand on its own.

---
Tito Munoz
Assistant Conductor
The Cleveland Orchestra

 
at 3/11/2008 10:48:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funny thing about a lot of volunteer work is that one initially gets involved to further the cause of an organization. And what often happens next is personal growth as an unexpected dividend. Try it.

Another irritant with video work can be the roaming cameramen. And Tito, thanks for weighing in so eloquently.




Anon 4:12

 
at 3/11/2008 10:59:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Tito! What a great reply to Steve Deiters who thinks he holds all the answers to problems that many of the arts organizations who use music hall wrestle with every day.
There is not a lack of love, commitment or passion regarding many of the issues, but sometimes the obvious answers are not answers at all!

 
at 3/11/2008 12:55:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not a music lover who needs video or even comments from the conductor. As Tito Munoz says 'music played well can always stand alone'. Great music enables all of us to come to our own conclusions. For me a beautiful voice in recital is often more moving than an opera with all it's staging and accouterments.

 
at 3/11/2008 05:22:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously music played well doesn't stand well alone! That is why the orchestras are going bust. This attitude, to just play good music and they will come, well, it ain't cuttin' it, is it?
This has been the prevailing failing philosophy.

And Tito, Steve doesn't whine--he offers reasonable thoughts and potential solutions.

We need a conductor who the public can relate to, not an esoteric foreign technician. With all due respect to Paavo.

I'm just a schlep, but I would so enjoy the concerts more with some personality at the podium, like Gittleman and Reynolds in Dayton.

You afficionados poo-poo this as insignificant--it is not.

 
at 3/11/2008 09:35:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

A brief response to the previous post: The orchestra has never sounded as great as it does under the current music director. Paavo has a ton of personality, but he does not flaunt it. He considers himself one of the music-makers, like his players. He doesn't need to ham it up, just to put on a show. The results speak for themselves. Oh, and also... Mentioning the fact that he is from a foreign country as a criticism is very small minded.

 
at 3/11/2008 11:39:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

bravo Tito!

 
at 3/12/2008 08:13:00 AM Blogger Janelle Gelfand said...

Historically, the CSO did play on risers, Tito. Eugene Goossens writes in "Cincinnati Interludes": "The orchestra is banked in tiers, since only in that way does the sound of the massed instruments project itself most faithfully at the audience. Were our musicians to play on a flat stage, the double-bass tone would be cut by half and the quality of the horns and lower brasses prove muffled and undistinguished. This seating is in keeping with the best of European and American traditions. The fine old concert halls of Europe and Great Britain all possess tiered stages."

I'll be reporting back on that as I go on tour with the CSO in April.

btw, Goossens has lots to say about the concert setting -- apparently they had a new blue backdrop that he hoped would add "atmospheric distinction to our performances, but also prove grateful to the optic nerves of the audience. It is extremely susceptible to superimposed lighting effects, and can be made to echo the moods of varying types of music..."

 
at 3/12/2008 10:53:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the anonymous poster at 5:22pm yesterday, I'll explain why I believe that good music played well can stand on its own.

If you don't like classical music, then why would you come see a classical music concert?

There may not be as many as we'd like, but there ARE people who come to see symphony orchestra concerts. They come because they enjoy it. Subscribers keep subscribing because they like what they see/hear. People go see heavy metal shows because they like what they see/hear. I don't go to heavy metal shows on a regular basis, as I'm sure most metal heads don't go see symphony orchestra shows. Lots of people don't like classical music... and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is the point that most people miss when they start talking about the "crisis" with classical music.

The problem with the way things are right now, I believe, is two-fold. First, we are just not reaching all potential classical music patrons. It's not for lack of trying, but I think the people in the marketing and PR departments of symphony orchestras are simply not hitting the nail on the head. I will be the first to tell you that I am not the one who has that answer, but I do believe there is a way in each community to reach out to potential symphony concert-goers, and that each community is different!

The other issue is that most symphony orchestras play too many concerts and/or pay their musicians too much money. Demand has never increased, yet the American Federation of Musicians (the musicians' union) has been constantly pushing for higher wages, better pension/benefits, and more services. It's a vicious cycle that I believe will not change until it completely breaks down. I do believe that until it does break symphony orchestras will always be swimming against the current, fighting to stay afloat, even if they are doing all they can to build their audience.

I also believe that all of these suggestions of intense visual stimulation (cameras, circus shows) to attract audience is silly simply because it is NOT the product that we offer. We offer great classical music played well. Circuses offer flying trapeze shows. PBS offers "Great Performances" and "Live from Lincoln Center". The live concert experience is special and unique on its own, and those who keep coming back to Music Hall know that. We just need to get people to show up, the experience will speak for itself. Mr. Deiters may want to see the Cincinnati Symphony on a "Great Performances" broadcast, as would I, but that in itself is not an answer to any issue.

I can go even further, speaking about the lack of music education in the schools and so forth, but I think my point is fairly clear. There are many issues out of the hands of any symphony orchestra on their own. It takes a community, clear and common goals, REALISTIC solutions to achieve those goals, and intelligent people in positions of power to help implement them.

To respond to Janelle Gelfand: Certain orchestras in certain venues prefer sitting flat for acoustic reasons. I gave Carnegie Hall as an example. Boston's Symphony Hall is another. The acoustic reasons should take precedent over any kind of visual concern for the audience. The CSO may very well be sitting on risers for acoustical reasons. I never said they weren't.

Furthermore, Mr. Goossens lived in a Music Hall that was much different from today's hall. If you want to talk specifics about "who sounds better where", then you would need to take into account the acoustical shell, the positioning of the sections of the orchestra, how far away from the apron the orchestra plays (if the pit area is used or not), how many people are sitting in the hall, etc. Also, his opinion is only one. I have no reason to discredit it of course, but I would take his comments with a grain of salt.

 
at 3/12/2008 11:10:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jarvi regularly conducts the major orchestras of the world, is music director of a major American orchestra and a major European orchestra. I'm pretty sure there is a reason that Gittleman or Reynolds has not done any of those things. If seeing a game show host is more important to you that great music-making, maybe you should watch more television and stick to the Dayton Philharmonic.

 
at 3/12/2008 02:04:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fine Anon 11:10, I'll just watch game shows and stick to the Dayton Philharmonic. Thanks.

Just remember, you HAVE the symphony literatti already. You are trying to reach the common folk. You won't do that by staying as esoteric as you've been.
It is a legit concern.

If the CSO wants to continue to appeal to the miniscule group of symphony afficionados, fine. If you want to reach out to "the people", then things will will need to change.

My only point is that a personality is needed on the podium. Frankly, he can conduct on the planet Mars, but if he can't hold an audience, then what?

 
at 3/12/2008 07:18:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Symphony literatti are not just musicians, they are common folk as well. Tito Munoz's point about music education is the root of the problem. Paavo's personality isn't the issue, and it's not the product. The music he makes is the product. He provides it in the way any other conductor does. What do you expect him to do? Do cartwheels on stage?

 
at 3/12/2008 08:00:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there's very much room and need for a 'light classics' type of series here led by a talented speaker and conductor. This would appeal to many first time symphony goers as well as many long time Pops goers (and others, no doubt). What better way for someone who may be intimidated or put off by Bruckner symphonies, etc. Also Tito, as you'll find out over time, it's not the AF of M that sets pay scales. That's done by mutual agreement between management, the musicians and the union. And believe me, if you ever get your own orchestra, you're gonna want one of the well paid ones.

 
at 3/13/2008 03:05:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firstly, with regards to the light classics suggestion, I agree that there is room for something like that in an orchestra's season. Many already have it; however, there is now statistical proof (thanks to the Knight Foundation) that concerts such as these will create an audience just for that particular type of concert. It is also how the symphony pops genre came to be in the first place... so like all new ventures, it has to be done carefully and selectively.

Now on to the gritty... the AFM is the catalyst for the cycle that I mention. There of course has to be mutual agreement between all parties during negotiations, otherwise there's no orchestra. I think most symphony orchestra administrators that have had to deal with striking musicians will tell you who's in control of whom. So the previous comment makes very little sense as some kind of argument to my point.

I'll elaborate. Unions are here for a reason. Times were tough and orchestral players got the short end of the stick. Abusive and tyrannical conductors were the norm. Wages were awful. It is when the phrase "starving musician" really had merit. We are now at the complete opposite end of the spectrum, to the point where the only job that can compare in both salary and security to a musician in a major American orchestra is that of a tenured university professor.

I was previously a member of AMF Local 802 in New York. I was previously a professional violinist. I am well aware of how a collective bargaining agreement is negotiated. Before you feel the need to bring my personal goals into the discussion (hypothesizing cowardly behind the screen name "anonymous"), I challenge you to take into consideration that the musicians themselves might be part of the problem, perhaps even a large part of the problem; not in how they present themselves on stage, not whether the orchestra is marketed properly or not, not in how a conductor engages audiences... but in the union mindset that has simply been taken too far.

The creation of the AFM was needed, but it has created this cycle that we are finally seeing the results of. It will be, and already has been, the inevitable bane of many symphony orchestras in America. What musician in their right mind will say that they have it too good?

 
at 3/13/2008 08:47:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tito, I think there is sometimes a feeling of entitlement just as you imply. I also think there's a lot of waste with any union and sometimes the jobs that are being protected are those of the employees of the union in question. Also, as a former NYC freelancer and 802 member--that wasn't my warmest and fuzziest union experience. However, it is indeed the community that gets to say what kind of orchestra they'd like and what to pay them. And I reiterate: given the opportunity, you're gonna want one of those better paid orchestras in one of those more enlightened (or blind--depending on your position) communities. See you at the Symphony and don't forget to keep practicing!

Matt Zory

 
at 3/15/2008 10:20:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tito, this is not anonymous! It is also not "cowardly" to bring your personal goals into the discussion - you brought mine into the mix! Do you think conductors are also payed too much, or just union musicians? By the way, the BSO does not play flat - their stage is raked - no need for risers - if you were ever there you would know that.
A bit of advice, young man: it takes more than moving to Cleveland
and writing anti-musician blogs if you expect to be the next George Szell!

William Platt
Principal Percussion
Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra

 
at 3/17/2008 02:41:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry that my posts have caused such strong resentment, but I did expect it and it is of course completely understandable. It seems like an anti-musician's point-of-view, and I am aware that it is also my own livelihood that I seem to be naively questioning... but this is something that every classical musician needs to think very strongly about.

Bill... yes, I do believe that it is not just orchestral musicians that are over-paid (that's a whole other topic that maybe I can write about another time) and I never said that all orchestras everywhere are overpaid; however, an increase in salaries of many orchestras (Cleveland included) have happend more rapidly in the past 20-30 years than development departments can keep up with. Matt commented that it is the community that decides what kind of orchestra they should enjoy and how much it should get paid. I agree wholeheartedly, and you hear what the community has to say with the number of empty seats and the yearly budget deficit.

I have been able to discuss these issues with many of your colleagues, all who have brought many valid reasons to the table to attack my position. Not one, however, addressed the lack of a sustainable source of income, when the majority of an orchestra's budget is covered by donations.

Simply put... supply and demand.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the demand has never increased for the product we offer. If anything it has decreased, yet more and more money is spent to produce it every year. I understand the mindset that in order to keep the high artistic level of an orchestra it has to offer competitve salaries; however, things like the economy (cost of living) of the community are not taken into account during contract negotiations. Nor is the fact that most of the budget (which keeps increasing every year) is not covered by any form of a secure revenue source.

This not to say that it is an issue everywhere. There are certain cities that will be able to sustain an orchestra of major size with fewer problems. There are also plenty of regional orchestras that will be ok because there might be a clearer idea of the relevance of the ensemble to its community and a proper financial starting point in which that mindset is realistic.

What is happening at the Columbus Symphony Orchestra is very unfortunate, but is a result of the points I raise. There have been many other orchestras, some smaller and some larger, that have had to file for bankruptcy, cancel a season or fold completely because the musicians (represented by the AFM) would not concede to perhaps a more realistic budget.

This is not me saying that orchestral musicians are money hungry and evil, not at all; but the notion of a tenured orchestral musician earning a six-figure income was in many instances an ill-conceived one, brought on by the incredible growth of the AFM, and all unions, this past century. It is not just in the orchestral world but all across the AFL-CIO. The United Auto Workers is a prime example.

So what does this all mean for us? It's a question I am always struggling with for myself (which is why my prospects are not at all what you assume). The answer is different for each person, and I hope that more people, especially my generation, keeps this in mind as they venture into a whirlwind musical life.

-Tito Munoz

 
at 3/17/2008 02:55:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Boston stage has removable platforms which are usually not used by visiting orchestras. The Boston Pops does not usually use the platforms for the strings or winds. I actually have been there, as recently as last month, and watched a BSO rehearsal where the platforms were removed.

 
at 3/18/2008 12:10:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tito, I must commend you for your comments - you offer much food for thought. Unfortunately, as you might suspect, you offer little with which I can agree. Indeed I have, for many years, given this subject very serious thought. Believe it or not, some of us "over payed" players do care about not only the present state of our business, but the future as well. I consider myself very fortunate to have served several terms on the CSO Players Committee and am currently serving a term on the CSO Board of Directors.
Tito, you seem to have a very simplistic view of a very complex problem.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to attribute most, if not all, of our problems to the AFM and it's "over paid" musicians. You expand this thought to cover all unions, all across the AFL-CIO, the United Auto Workers etc. - is it fair for me to assume that you simply don't like unions and/or associations of any kind? If so, carrying this logic a bit further, one must believe all of our problems with health care are because of the AMA and it's "over payed" MD"s and Nurses - all of our problems with education are because of the NEA and it's "over payed" teachers - all of my problems with my dog are because of the AKA and it's "over payed" groomers - etc. etc. etc.
Sorry to make another assumption,
but I suppose your "fix" for all of this is to simply do away with these organizations - problem solved! In our case, worker's "ill-conceived" incomes are slashed, benefits are history, house is full, "realistic" budget is conceded, we all live happily ever after. If it were only this easy,
and we follow your vision, I can only wish you the very best as Assistant Conductor of the "new" Cleveland Community Orchestra.

 
at 3/18/2008 12:37:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tito, in all seriousness, we have a lot to talk about. I really haven't responded to all of your thoughts, and the responses I have given may be a bit too sarcastic
and/or facetious. But, we can agree on one thing: we certainly have chosen, as you put it so very well, "whirlwind musical lives".
I sincerely hope we can sit down sometime and "chat". I do respect you as an extremely talented member of our musical world. Bill

 
at 3/18/2008 08:56:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Generally, if "supply and demand" economic philosophy were applied to to the symphony business, there would be very few of them left. The CSO is a non-profit organization; it's a tough one to put its business practices in the same category with a for-profit company. Also, the size of Music Hall has not been mentioned. It is so huge, and very difficult to fill. It is true about the economic pressures facing this orchestra. It is also important to remember that the players also face these issues. The last couple of CSO contracts have had wage freezes, a tactic which was designed to save the orch. money. With the cost of living being what it is, a freeze is equivalent to a lower wage. There have been many instances where the players have done their part to help the financial situation of the CSO. They have also done their real job in performing at a world-class level. It is now time for the fund-raisers to do their part and make ends meet.

 
at 3/18/2008 10:56:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

There certainly wouldn't be few of them left-- but there would be FEWER of them for sure. But maybe that's the point. We don't need so many, or so many that are as big as they are, and young musicians are going to need to begin to think about their futures as versatile and enterprising. Going to conservatory to learn excerpts won't be the way of the world anymore. It wasn't for a long long time- and we're now realizing that it just doesn't work.

 
at 3/18/2008 11:01:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tito, just a point of clarification concerning my recent post. My last sentence was certainly not meant in any way to be a slam of the great Cleveland Orchestra and/or your position with it. It was merely my poor attempt at sarcasm, for which I
apologize. It should have read,
"I can only wish you much continued success as Assistant Conductor of the newly re-organized
Cleveland Community Orchestra".
Please know we are all quite proud of your accomplishments. But let's be honest, one of the reasons, if not the main reason, you sought the Cleveland job in the first place was because you felt it was a step up,
with its' higher prestige, higher budget, even higher salaried musicians AND higher endowment.
Matt was right, any young conductor should aspire to lead an orchestra like this.
I agree totally with the last anonymous post - many people are
working very hard to make this all work and realize ENDOWMENT is the key word. Most, if not all, of these people work tirelessly with no pay whatsoever. We all should be thankful for their commitment.
Since the beginning of my career, one of my goals has been to leave my section, my orchestra and my profession in general in better shape than I found it 37 years ago. With only a few short years to go, I hope I have had some success. Going backwards is not the solution. Bill

 
at 3/18/2008 11:33:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is fortunate for us that the CSO has been fiscally responsible in the past. This isn't the first time that times have been tough. I am confident that in spite of that fact, this wonderful orchestra will survive, and will continue to grow and improve. It is undeniable that the CSO has absolutely never sounded better. This is true because of the incredibly high level of talent that it is made up of. I am talking of both the players, and of Paavo. Every time that the orchestra holds an audition, the level goes up another notch. If the quality of the job itself deteriorates then we will not be as attractive to the highest players, conductors and managers. We would all suffer. I'm sure that with prudent negotiations a happy medium will be arrived at that both preserves the working conditions and the quality of this cultural treasure.

 
at 3/18/2008 01:35:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for all of these responses. I think it's wonderful that so many of you care as much as you do about your orchestra and I think it's great to have an open dialogue about these issues in a constructive way. Audiences very much appreciate hearing what musicians have to say.

I do want to make it clear though that it was never my intention to insinuate that any of these issues were particularly pertinent for the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. My comments were a much broader and generalized statement of the situation of symphony orchestras in this country. Each community faces its own unique struggles, along with many similar ones. I remember the last CSO negotiations and the freeze of salaries. The freeze was (as someone mentioned earlier) technically a step backwards, but it was a step that the musicians obviously felt was needed in order to eventually move forward. If there's a sustainable plan (endowments included) that can keep any orchestra moving forward... great!

For whatever reasons, my move to Cleveland has been brought up several times. It might be important to mention that the situation in Cleveland was quite grim just as recently as three years ago. Talks of cutbacks in the number of full-time musicians, salaries, and weeks were all considered. The "great" Cleveland Orchestra was indeed on the verge of becoming (as you say, Bill) the Cleveland Community Orchestra. It really was that dire.

Banking on the worldwide reputation of the orchestra, the orchestra's board created a turnaround plan that would boost the donor base in other cities such as Miami and Vienna where the orchestra would hold yearly residencies. And the 3-week residency in Miami was only possible because of a very lucky connection to the city and to the new hall that was conveniently ready for opening when this all transpired. A bridge fund was created to pay for the increasing deficits while the turnaround plan was implemented. The controversy over this plan, however, is that money from Miami that is going to Cleveland could be used to help the other struggling orchestras in Florida, to help create an orchestra in a city which doesn't have one, or to help create a 52-week orchestra in a state which doesn't have one.

I agree with a previous poster that young musicians need to begin thinking out of the box, to become versatile and enterprising. I think music schools and private teachers need to begin this dialogue with students. I actually do not aspire to be music director of an orchestra like Cincinnati or Cleveland; not because I don't think I would eventually be capable of doing so, but because it really doesn't interest me. Surprising, huh? I would be happy to share my feelings about that in more detail, but my comments on this forum have come to a end.

-Tito Munoz

 
at 3/18/2008 02:16:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's been interesting watching the fireworks from the sidelines for the last couple of days with the latest entries. I think Mr. Munoz would be surprised to know that I agree with him on more things than disagree, as well as Mr. Platt. Sensitive issues of compensation levels were touched on for the first time from the artistic side of these discussions. How people are compensated is part of the business model which needs to be changed and these two gentleman have touched on it with much enthusiasm it seems! How much are musicians, conductors, and guest artists worth? I would say compensation should be as much as the organization can afford to pay them. If the compensation level is to the degree that it is draining the entity to the financial edge then it is too much. If they are compensated at a level that creates a sustainable organization then it is a sufficent. You have to keep your eye on long term survival. What side of this quandry does the CSO fall? Is it at a level that it can sustain itself or is it in peril? Recent history seems to be pointing in a particular direction. Since compensation is a large percentage of Symphony overhead there is no way around the arguement. It is a factor that must be faced at some point in time. Sooner than latter. Having worked in a union environment and dealt with unions, unless something has changed in recent years, the interest of the organization (union) is that of its members and not necessarily the organization it is contracted with even though there destinies are inexorably tied together.
To Anon 3/18 11:30 in response to your comment that the Symphony has been conducting itself fiscally responsible manner I afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. There have been at least two or three ocasions in the last couple of years occasions where they have racked up 7 digit deficits only to be rescued by a white knight when the problems finally came to light joined with a promise to do better and to get their house in order. This coupled with a recent history of tapping into a shrinking endowment to cover day to day expenses would not qualify as fiscally responsible activities.
To Anon 3/18 8:56 while it is true that the CSO is a non-profit entity, that does mean that it is exempt from the same demands and market forces that a for-profit entity faces. Non-profits have salaries to meet, utility bills to pay, health benefit obligations as well as many other expenses. If you don't conduct yourself like a for profit business then you run into ...well... what we have-chronic, ongoing, ballooning problems that eventually threaten the existence of the organization. Also I wanted to correct a mistatement on your blog entry. The musicians did receive an increase in salary in the last contract which last until 9/8/08. It was a small token amount, but the real killer from a business standpoint is that the health benefits and other benefits remained the same. Health benefit cost have increased at double digit rates (25-35% per year)as long as I can remember. This will be a tough one for the organzation to address in the long term. I also might add that health benfits are not a taxable event. So if you include the increasing value (untaxed) of the benefits and the token raise they have received it has been substantial for the environment we all operate with in this day and age. You can read all about it in the CSO press release dated 1/29/07 if you like.
Also the "Music Hall is too big" thing is brought up again. The hall is what it is. What a crutch people use it for this argument. Instead of looking as a large number of seats as potential to be fulfilled it is always looked at as a drag. To fill it is the challenge, to bemoan it is an excuse.

Steve Deiters/Oakley

 
at 3/18/2008 05:23:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - all this over whether or not an orchestra should use risers and pretty lights!

To Steve Dieters: Your passion for fixing the problems of the orchestra world is inspiring. You've obviously done some thinking about all this.

That being said, I think your understanding of the orchestra "industry" lacks some nuance. While it's true that the musicians of the orchestra are unionized, this union should not be mistaken for exactly the same type of union as, say, the UAW or the Teamsters. The musicians of the orchestra don't just make the "product" of classical music, in many many ways, they ARE the product. In order to have an orchestra, you actually must have, well, an ORCHESTRA! And as with most things in this world - you get what you pay for. I've heard orchestras of all stripes, and generally speaking, when orchestras pay less, they don't attract the same quality of musician. I'm not sure communities always understand the difference, unfortunately. For many people, one orchestra is as good (and the same!) as another.

So, we can't have an excellent orchestra without paying people reasonably well to play in it (I’ll leave it up to others to determine what is reasonable). And there's an interesting economic principle in affect when it comes to any performing art. It says that, although most products can be made more efficiently through technology advances and new production techniques, and eventually cost less and less as it takes less and less time (manpower) to produce, a Beethoven symphony / Verdi opera / Shakespeare play will always take the same amount of time (manpower) to produce. This means we’ll always have symphony orchestras around 80-100 people, and they’ll always need to get paid. Due to inflation (and other upward pressures), the cost to produce a concert will always go up. This is one big reason we can’t project a for-profit model on an orchestra.

Of course there are things like health care, as Mr. Deiters mentions, which add to the compensation package, and it’s obvious the price for that has gone up exponentially. So a token increase in salary – probably less than inflation – combined with a huge increase in the price of an insurance premium covered by the employer would probably be seen as a net gain for the employee.

As for CSO – could the management find better ways to find more revenue? Probably. Endowment building, as suggested by Mr. Platt, is the most traditional way to boost the operating revenue. The Cincinnati Art Museum’s everyday budget, I would imagine, is covered primarily by an endowment (how else could admission be free?). In Cincinnati, Riverbend rock concerts make money for the Symphony, and that was a very creative way to find revenue. Other orchestras (St. Paul, Baltimore and many smaller orchestras) have many more “neighborhood” type concerts with shorter and less expensive (to produce and attend) programs. This seems like an untapped opportunity here in Cincinnati.

On the other hand, it’s entirely possible the union work rules need some adjustment to allow for more flexibility in scheduling, in order to accomplish these changes. Maybe when the contract negotiations take place, there will be some acknowledgment of this possibility.

In any case, the answer probably lies somewhere between the extremes. Orchestras clearly can’t be run simply with for-profit standards. On the other hand, a collective bargaining agreement needs to be partly a framework for future growth – not just immediate financial concerns of those who depend on the orchestra's success for their livelihood.

 
at 3/18/2008 11:27:00 PM Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last paragraph of the last poster says it all. I think it should be more towards the extreme of the for-profit model. Musicians are represented by a trade union. What other kind of not-for-profit organization's employees are represented by a trade union, let alone the MAJORITY of them? That is a huge problem because the musicians treat their contract negotiations with the organization as if it was a for-profit corporation. There are too many things in the collective bargaining agreement that extremely limit what the organization can actually do to raise money. For instance, proper promotional video materials cannot be made with the terms set in the CBA. The cost would be monumental.

Steve, you actually do have many great points, but it's obvious that you have not seen the CBA. If you did, you would realize how incredibly limited the organization is because of it. And you are one of the educated ones---- I honestly doubt that most people in this world are aware even of how much musicians make. I would be interested to take a poll of the ticket buyers at the CSO. I bet most would be incredibly surprised to find out the truth.

Some people argue that the analogy for art museums would be the paintings that cost millions of dollars. The are two problems with that- first, it's a one-time investment... whether the museum buys it with donated money, or a donor buys it and lends it to the museum, or even a donor giving the actual painting to a museum. It will be there for people to enjoy, and it doesn't take millions of dollars every year to maintain that system. The other problem is that a painting's worth is not decided by itself. The artist does not decide how much his/her painting is worth. Who decides? That's right, everyone else in the world-- because there is a certain kind of demand for great art. Like classical music, it is enjoyed by most of the older elite who can afford to purchase it, but it is not necessary to repurchase it every year and therefore there is no insurmountable deficit created by the cost of paintings, and there is no canvas trade union holding museums by the neck if they don't pay top dollar every year for it.

The CSO offers a product, and it is Beethoven and Mozart played by an amazing orchestra. It's both, the orchestra and the music. The Beethoven and Mozart part is free, it's the professional orchestra that costs money, and its worth is up to how many people want to buy it, concert goers and donors alike... supply and demand as Tito puts so eloquently. Assuming a board and development department are actually working as hard as Mr. Platt says, then who's to blame if it doesn't sell?

 
at 3/19/2008 09:49:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon: 11:27PM - "What other kind of not-for-profit organization's employees are represented by a trade union, let alone the MAJORITY of them?"

- Ballet, Opera, many professional theatre companies, and (not quite non-profit, but close) most schools to name a few.

 
at 3/19/2008 11:31:00 AM Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aside from performing arts organizations??

Schools are in a unique category altogether. Can't have educated people running anything without educations, but even certain schools have their share of problems.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck


Site Map:   Cincinnati.Com |  NKY.com |  Enquirer |  CiN Weekly |  CincinnatiUSA
Customer Service:   Search |  Subscribe Now |  Customer Service |  Place An Ad |  Contact Us
Classified Partners:   Jobs: CareerBuilder.com |  Cars: cars.com |  Homes: HOMEfinder |  Apartments: apartments.com |  Shopping: ShopLocal.com
Copyright © 1996-2005:   Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of service and privacy policy updated 10/05/2005