I just had a long discussion with some colleagues at a lunch break yesterday, and it revolved around the fact that we’re playing without a contract (since last June) and progress right now is painfully slow because we don’t have a full-time president of the association (the management CEO) due to immigration work-visa problems (the person in question is Canadian).
I think that there is a high level of frustration with the fact that we don’t feel valued by the community in which we live and perform. It might not be true, but it feels about true to us when we look out into a half-empty auditorium for many of our concerts. We’re up on stage, working hard, making music to standard that is the highest in the orchestra’s history. However, the orchestra is unable to meet fund-raising goals which would make financial security viable, while less people each season seem to want to attend our concerts.
We’ve had some vanity gifts which have enabled our previous music director to record anything he wanted, but nothing that would enable recording anything with our current music director. On that front, we cannot even afford to record our concerts at broadcast or recording quality due to budget constraints – and these performances will be lost forever for future use. It’s not that we can’t afford to produce the recordings, but that we can’t even afford to hire the engineer to record, rent equipment and edit the masters.
So, this leads me back to the larger questions/thoughts:
1. How can we motivate those with the deepest pockets to see the orchestra as a community asset which helps the greater good of the community in which it resides?
2. Since fancy new attempts to attract the 25-40 year old “golden” audience demographic seem not to work here in Portland – how do we appeal to people who are indifferent to classical music in practice (but in favor of it in theory) in a cultural landscape that favors the hip and cutting edge without alienating our primary base audience which sticks with us through thick and thin?
3. If we alienate our base they won’t come back for years. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the public flap about the non-renewal of our former principal flutist has led to negative feelings about our music director and that those who are feeling badly are very reluctant to return to concerts, regardless of who is on the podium.
4. How do we reconcile our low level job satisfaction with our need to project positive and involved personas on-stage?
5. Given that studies have shown that the vast majority of major donors and/or board members of symphony orchestras have studied music earlier in life for at least a couple years, do we really have a chance to reverse the trend when arts programs are among the first to be cut and the last to be reinstated due to budget shortages?
I’d welcome your thoughts on these questions – I’m stumped, and I think that the industry as a whole is, too.
You can contact me directly here.
3 replies on “Classical music: if not dying, at least crippled?”
Jeffrey Kahane brought in Yo-Yo Ma and that seemed to recharge the giving community in Sonoma County. The Oregon Symphony is so far superior to the Santa Rosa Symphony. Whatever it takes to invigorate the people with the real money.
[…] I came across this recent post from Charles Noble a few days ago discussing some challenges currently being faced by the Oregon Symphony. I would not presume to comment directly on the Oregon Symphony, but Charles’ post did get me thinking about general principles of managing change in an orchestra. Of course, readers are more than reasonable to maintain their skepticism when reading thoughts from a conductor on how to choose a conductor. Nevertheless, I wade in here with the first of what I think might be a few pieces…. Limiting the Damage  When managing a succession of Music Directors, the institution has to be acutely aware of where the risks are to the organization in the transition. Are there major, long-term donors whose primary allegiance is to the outgoing MD? Are there donors who felt their voice wasn’t heard in the search? Are there subscribers who didn’t want to see the old conductor leave? Are there audience members who felt the orchestra hired the wrong candidate. The same questions can be asked when there is a change in any significant position in the orchestra, including players. In every transition, the answer to all these questions will ALWAYS be a yes. There will always be a negative impact on the organization’s relationship with some donors when there is change. The board and the management need to be award of this and plan for it to minimize the impact on the orchestra. The goal is to make the change lead to a net positive impact- some supporters might be upset, will be upset, by the transition, but the organization has to keep its eye on limiting the damage and maximizing the positive impact of the change. There are ways in which each of these risks can be minimized during the transition, and it’s vitally important that the organization stays aware of minimizing threats during transition. Simply trumpeting how wonderful the new music director is or calling attention to the improved standards of playing is not enough.   Keeping some consistency  All organizations are to some extent personality driven. It is personalities that set direction, that make connections, that create interest, solve problems and that set goals. When organizations thrive, it is because they have the right people working for them. For better or worse, in most American orchestras, there are four people whose personalities are the most influential in determining the health of the orchestra. These are-  The Music Director The Executive Director The Board President The Director of Development  When any one of these positions turns over, the orchestra is at higher risk than usual. Big, bread-and-butter major donors nearly all give the money that they do because of their relationship to one of these four people. Having changes in more than one of these positions at the same time, or even in the same era, can be a recipe for financial disaster. These days, orchestras often hire an ED whose primary job is to get rid of an MD who’s stayed too long. That means you’re setting up a situation where there is bound to be too much turnover. The new ED fires the old MD, and all of his friends stop giving money and all his fans stop coming to concerts. The new MD comes in and the old ED leaves saying “my work is done†(or the new MD pushes them out because he can’t trust him/her- they’ve seen them push out their predecessor). All their friends stop giving money. The orchestra hires a new ED, but he/she can’t get along with either the prez or the DD. You see how this goes. I have come to believe that the best way to minimize the risk inherent in personnel changes (other than avoiding them except where needed) is to bring another player into the game in addition to these four, and that is the orchestra itself. After all, it is among the musicians where institutional stability tends to be highest. I think it is fair to say that many organizations make the fatal mistake of letting the public perceive the orchestra as the machine that executes the artistic vision of the conductor. As a result, any change in conductor, any shortcoming of the existing conductor, unpopular repertoire choice etc will lead to a disproportionately negative outcome. I think all the organization’s stakeholders- conductors, administration and boards- stand to benefit by recasting the community’s perception of the orchestra with the actual human membership of the orchestra more central. I come back to the question of personality- when the community has a sense of both the overall artistic personality of the orchestra and that of the individual players, I think there will always be more support of the orchestra and that support will be more diversified and stable.  […]
I attended the baroque concert on Monday night. I got the feeling it was a different crowd from most Monday night subscription concerts. It seemed younger than normal. There were faces I had never seen before.
Maybe the answer is more specialty concerts that target a specific demographic. It could mean smaller scale concerts at a smaller venue. A few gala concerts each season could fill up the big hall.
We may have been spoiled by the James DePreist phenomenon. The man speaking to an audience could make anyone from any walk of life feel comfortable at a concert. He built quite an audience that way. It is a hard act to follow.