a response to comments

I’m not sure how this would go over, but maybe a minute for mission sometime in the concert. Churches do this and people still go to church… If not a direct solicitation for money, solicit for ideas on how to make more money.

I recently read a survey result that basically said that people really dislike too much “business” being taken care of during the concert experience. Maybe it would be different here in Portland, but it’s hard to do well – you’ve got to ride the line between keeping the dignity of the concert experience and appealing to a sense of philanthropy for someone who has just plunked down an average of $50 for a ticket for that evening’s concert. That being said, a gentle reminder never hurts…

What were the new attempts that didn’t work? Have you posted about these already on your blog?

I have not, and I might soon, I want to see if there are further changes coming down the pike. However, tinkering with the format is a dangerous game, and I can see why the management would want to take their time in making decisions that could have a potentially disastrous implications for the future in terms of lost revenue or attendance.

And, I’m not sure I have any good solutions. “Bring your child, grand-daughter, niece, great-nephew (no matter how old or young they are) to the orchestra for free” afternoon? A silent auction where major donors get to decide exactly what is played for an entire concert? Maybe an ensemble auction in which small ensembles pulled from the larger group, a quintet here, trio there, duet there (some standard and some non-standard; string quartet or tuba and piccolo), could be auctioned and sold for an hour or two (or even one piece for the small bidders, or one piece over their phone or answering machine) of music at either someone’s home, or, in the case of a bank or law firm, in it’s lobby, or at a holiday party.

These are all great ideas – especially the “bring a young person” idea. We certainly have enough empty seats that it would be possible to do, at least at the less expensive seating areas. I also think that auctioning off ensembles would be a very good idea and that there could be quite a bit of interest on the part of the musicians to do this as well.

Also, was the Pointer Sister’s concert one of these fancy attempts? I went and enjoyed it, and saw other people enjoying it though I would think the target demographic here was more like 40-50+. And, it was mildly amusing to me how pained and un-amused the members of the orchestra seemed from the balcony. (I recently saw a recording of a Sheryl Crow concert during which her string section rocked and jammed throughout the whole concert whether they were playing at the time or not.)

I don’t think so, at least not a ‘fancy’ attempt. I’m glad that the audience enjoyed it. The pained expressions on our faces may have had more to do with the sound levels on stage than the content of the program (I love the motown style). During concerts with pop performers we often have to resort to earplugs in both ears to safely deal with the sound levels which can sometimes exceed the OSHA standards. We have to save our hearing for our other concerts as well – and we hate to have to wear earplugs, and it’s often not possible to get the sound guys that travel with the acts to get the speakers that point our direction down to a safe level.

That being said, you have an excellent point. People come to SEE as well as HEAR live concerts, and a bored or unhappy looking orchestra doesn’t inspire repeat visits.

I’m not sure how to combat the not having a contract issue. I don’t know enough about business or corporations to know why they need CEO’s who get paid exorbitant amounts of money to do something like draw up a contract. Surely there’s a law firm or individual in the area who would be interested in season tickets and/or other perks for it’s partners/family members in exchange for legal services? Probably not as simple as that but I’d like to think I’m being helpful.

No way to combat this – it’s just a matter of bad timing down the line. It took (for a variety of reasons) an entire year to negotiate our last contract (known as a collective bargaining agreement, or CBA), and it expired just weeks after it was signed, because management didn’t want a multi-year contract put in place while they were involved in the search for a new president. So, we’re now playing with an expired contract, which means that the old terms are still in force until either a new contract is agreed to or until talks reach an impasse. It’s bad for us (and should be for management) because we can’t know what our future income/expenses will be beyond this year: will we be paying more for health insurance, or will our salary be cut? It’s not a morale booster, that’s my main point.

And of course, you don’t have to explain yourself to me, but I don’t understand where you are coming from. I’m sure it’s not my place to say this, but even though things are crummy, you are getting paid a living wage to play music, aren’t you? When you say that you’re playing without a contract, does that mean they aren’t paying you?

Just a brief note about a living wage – we’re not paid enough to be able to buy a house in the Portland market, with a base wage (which many of the string players make) of around $39,000 per year. With the median price of around $250,000 for a house in Portland, no mortgage broker is going to approve you for a loan with only that income. Add to this the fact that many of us are providing for families and paying off very expensive instruments ($15,000 and up, up, up for string instruments) as well as student loans and, sure, it’s better than a minimum wage job, but we’ve trained for this profession from an early age, and most of us have advanced degrees from prestigious schools. It’s not so much the bare amount of pay, but how we compare to other professionals who begin with much higher base salaries with similar amounts of training and excellence in what they do.

Again, I’m not sure that I completely understand where you are coming from, but maybe the “knowledgeable” donors and board members are part of the problem. Instead of people who are willing to appreciate, support, and give you unconditional artistic license, they have their own ideas of what is best based on their, perhaps, limited knowledge and background.

What I meant was that board members, donors and audience members with at least a little practical musical education are more likely to give, attend and support orchestras. With the educational system continually devaluing the arts in their curricula, it’s going to be harder and harder to draw in or find people who have this practical experience, and who will bring in others who lack it. We find that these knowledgeable patrons do nothing but good for the orchestra and arts in the community in general. The fact that they’re getting scarcer and scarcer is disheartening to those of us in the arts community.

As for the recording issue, we have a very complicated and long-negotiated national agreement that governs the use of recorded material. Right now, there is much disagreement amongst players and administrators (as well as between them, too) as to how much compensation should be given for various uses, and the advent of downloads has only complicated the issue. I agree that recordings should be viewed mainly as a marketing resource rather than as a revenue source, at least until we understand this rapidly shifting marketplace of ideas and technology. Many don’t share my view, however, and it will be some time before this issue gets resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. My main point was that we should at least be recording our concerts at broadcast/recording quality so that we have these excellent performances “in the can” for future use.

Thanks so much for your response – it was gratifying to see your level of interest and passion for the symphony – I know that many out there share these qualities, and I’m confident that we can make it through this difficult time that all orchestras and arts organizations are facing.