Unsung Composers

Stumbled across this interesting article in New Republic:

https://newrepublic.com/article/114221/orchestras-crisis-outreach-ruining-them (https://newrepublic.com/article/114221/orchestras-crisis-outreach-ruining-them)

I never would have guessed the stalwart Philadelphia Orchestra once helmed by Ormandy would be filing for bankruptcy. They emerged by the skin of their teeth, but I fear this portends a dismal future for classical organizations that manage middle-tier semi-professional orchestras which make up the backbone of American classical music life. More and more are shuttering for lack of financial support. Everything below the "Big Five" might be considered semi-pro or 2nd tier and these orchestras are the ones that are in trouble. Community orchestras affiliated with universities, jr. colleges and other institutions might survive in some form, maybe as chamber orchestras as players demand higher salaries to keep up with the cost of living but the pot to draw on is dry for most of these smaller-city orchestras like the Nashville Symphony (mentioned in the article) which also narrowly avoided closing its doors:

QuoteIn recent years, the Nashville Symphony has been running deficits of $10 to $20 million a year, and a contract with the musicians is about to expire. If recent history is any guide, negotiations will be complex and rancorous. 

We rely on these institutions (2nd/middle tier) to bring us works by unsung composers we'd never hear otherwise. The Big Five rarely touch them. 95% of their repertoire are the standards with a premiere thrown in every season or so if the donation is generous enough.

Any thoughts on where American orchestras will be 50 years from now?   :-[

I'm afraid I think that orchestras have got to re-think their whole modus operandi - or they'll die. I've no idea what this will mean, but things clearly can't go on as they are...

The average person looks at the cost of going to one concert and says it's not worth it and watches a movie at home for free. I'd be surprised if most of them make it.

Ticket prices are expensive - ridiculously so in some cases. I'm not going to spend $120 to hear Dudamel and LA doing Mahler 3, not when there's a superb cd with Bernstein and NY. But ticket sales only cover a portion, maybe less than 50%, of the cost of concerts. The problem is that musician salaries are all out of whack. If people were storming the doors to hear the symphony like they do Justin Bieber those salaries might be justified. But not now. As audiences have been dumbed down a dwindled, the situation is going to get very bleak indeed.

By coincidence, in the past week two orchestras I play with have sent out urgent emails explaining difficult financial situations and begging players to donate one or two services for the next concert (usually each concert takes 4 or 5 services). The pay isn't that great anyway, and no one depends on it for their subsistence, but the fees are a nice exchange for the time given up to practicing, driving to rehearsals and concerts, etc. I doubt that either of them will be in existence for another year. We had a Christmas concert with another semi-pro group on Saturday. In a city of 250,000 only 500 bothered to show up. And it was a very good, well played, joyous concert. But you're right: it's easier to stay home and watch TV. And it was the last night of the National Finals Rodeo from Las Vegas!

... Anyone in Cleveland (that wouldn't be me, unfortunately) want to show support for the Cleveland Orchestra's willingness to program a Berwald symphony this coming February, though? (Then there's a concert in Buffalo  in March (& another in June) with an overture and symphonic poem by Novák. I wonder, too, what the American Symphony Orch. is doing this year; Botstein's recording of Fuchs' 3rd symphony was rather better than Mussauer's...)
Ah, according to Bachtrack, this is Botstein's program two days from now (Thursday)--

Krein, The Rose and the Cross, Op.26
Rubinstein, Cello Concerto no. 2 in D minor, op.96
Gnessin, From Shelley, for musical declamation and piano, Op.18
Steinberg, Symphony no.1 in D major, Op.3

Can't disagree with the overall picture drawn of the US orchestral scene, but "do not go gentle" and &c...

Today's worldwide ciritical financial situation of orchestras is due to an oversaturation of repertoire music (in concert and and on CD). Then comes the star cult and the manager's mafia (and their control of artist's fees). Then the CDs and other media: why, for example, should one buy an expensive ticket when he can get excellent audio and vision on a big TV screen at cheaper prize? And this broadcasted from no matter which city in the world? Finally, when all this started, nobody objected against it, so it's our own fault if we enjoy also this alternative.
Frankly, I generally never watch operas on TV, but I often prefer "watching" a concert on TV instead of having to sit in an unconfortable chair amongst a choughing and unconcentrated audience, and so close to unknown people not always sending the best radiance, or smelling bad! That's why I also avoid cinemas and restaurants - unless they offer more space and non-stress ambiance. Or I chose to sit in places situated in extreme corners or rows. To travel in crouded trains and planes is another horror for me.
I am astonished that this oversaturation was not perceived already during the stereo LP era, when big conductors were allowed to record the same pieces more than just once in their career, or labels used to publish the same symphonies done by dozens of different conductors within a few years. It's certainly good that music has been commercialised, but now it's simply too much (because of these diffrerent media). Music, unfortunately, still remains di per sé a very expensive thing to do; a score needs a lot of money before it becomes hearable and appreciable. The exaggeration of producing repertoire music has become a real problem. Professional musicians do a lot of good work, but they have to get paid, no matter if they play Beethoven's Fifth 4 times a month or a Symphony by Raff once in 5 years. They do a really hard work. Concert managers, impresarios should be pilloried - and some of their greedy stars, who should be boycotted!

If the political situation worsens (see Trump, Cruz et al.) you can expect the United States to dry up culturally and disappear.  Reality TV, internet, Fox News, invective and nationalism will produce the inevitable result of a dumbed-downed public and an end to great culture.  Thank God for Britain, Finland, and several smaller states that will try to maintain Western culture for a few more decades.  But do not count on the United States for that.

I wouldn't count on us in the UK. We're already well on the way to an unthinking, dumbed-down, keep'em-entertained-at-all-costs culture here. It's been going on for years.

Recorded music is my refuge - apart from a few summer-season productions at Opera Holland Park, London where my daughter handles the marketing and advertising. Next summer they're putting on Mascagni's Iris - verismo is their speciality, having triumphed with Francesca da Rimini, L'Amore dei tre re and I Gioielli della Madonna. So there is room for adventure: perhaps someone had better ask how they've managed to do what others can't...

Two things:  Several people complain about the availability of recorded music: they say it keeps people away from the cnoncert halls.  This may be true, but for me at least recorded music is never as deep and engaging an experience as a live performance--for two reasons I think.  First because there is risk taken every time something is performed live.  And second because of the ritual surrounding the performance that makes me (not only me I suspect) more receptive:  One gets dressed up, goes to the concert hall, buys tickets and a program, hands one's coat to the coat lady, looks for the seats, reads the wisdom somebody wrote for the program while waiting for the music to begin, applauds before and after... (not saying there wouldn't be more people without recordings, though maybe some people only have a chance to learn about classical music through recordings and would not enter a concert hall if it weren't for the recordings).
BTW in my experience bad smelling people are rather rare among symphony goers (and I doubt Beethoven smelled nice all the time).

Secondly there are some expressions of cultural pessimism in this thread that seem to me to be over the top.  Reminds me of old folks complaining about today's young.  There have been such complainers in every generation and if they all had been right over the centuries we must be really despicable all of us by now. 

1) By bad smelling people I principally mean those with horribly strong perfumes :-) The ones wearing sweat-smelling synthetic shirts come afterwards...
2) A recording can be as interesting as a concert, if properly recorded and not over-edited. I can confirm this, based on own experiences. That's why I also like live recordings. You can learn a lot from them.
3) Without all the recordings which were already available in the 60s, I would have never learnt so much about music and interpretation. And at that time, Radio was, actually, much more cultural and experimental as far as msuic is concerned (unfortunately no more today). Already in my younger years I was sick and tired of all those same Mozart-Beethoven programs. These composers were also dominating the musical teaching, and imagine the day I came up with playing pieces by Satie and Pulenc - or doing a slideshow on Tchaikovsky, or playing the LP of Charles Ives' Fourth recorded by Stokowski! That's why I refused to continue studying at the (at that time very old-fashioned Zurich) Conservatory. Today, this situation has improved, fortunately.
4) The "live" element of music is certainly the most authentic one, but I dont'really feel in a mood to be continuously faced with similar repertoire programs just because a perverse majority of concert-goers (the ones you help to get back into their coats) wants and pays for it  - refusing to accept more unusual repertoire. Those people attend concerts mostly to show themselves and to feel happy that they are going to hear the tunes they already know. Over here, the average (and richer) subscription concert-goer's age is between 45 and 90. Afterwards the "younger" ones among them go to an expensive restaurant to discuss and compare the pieces they know and have heard again with the recordings they have at home - they would never be in condition to supply more individual and creative judgements. So you can eventually hear: "my recording with Karajan ist still the better one, he always has the right tempi" etc.
Our Tonhalle Orchestra and Opera are also trying (as everywhere in the world) to save their financial situation by gaining new and younger audiences; but these are not rich enough and have not (yet?) the right understanding for musical interptretation or how to "believe" in classical music. In the past I used to lecture younger people, triying to "win" them for the classics: it was a very difficult task... The last time I did this (a couple of years ago), the listeners concentrated mainly on their mobile phones. Lecturing on film music was a bit easier: at least there were images shown together with the music.
5) That is why, as a conductor myself, I would even have a bad conscience mounting the podium for a Mozart or Beethoven Symphony. Anyway, since agents refused to take me because of my different ideas about concert programs, I have agreed to do recordings - but only the projects I wanted. Otherwise, my possible "live" audiences would start comparing me with the stars of their recordings after the piece's first bars - and not enjoy music anew, as it should be really done. And, as a very rare concert-goer myself, that's just why I prefer listening to music at home alone or just with a couple of friends.
Cultural pessimism: this quite adequate, seeing the turn the world is taking since already quite a few years.

I agree that recordings can be interesting.  And you can learn--I'd argue--more from recordings than from live performances because you can go back and re-listen, confirm or contradict your first impressions etc.

What I mean is this:  Music is interesting certainly, but it is more than interesting.  And of this "more" I get more from a concert than from an electronic device. 

I'd have to add that I have almost stopped going to orchestral concerts as I prefer chamber music, not only because it is friendlier to my limited budget.  And I believe the problem with the ossified repertoire is less acute in chamber music than in the symphony hall.

I'd also speculate that the problem would not exist without recordings which contribute massively to the repetition of always the same music, say in the radio.  If we only had live music there would not be many people who have heard all the pieces in the standard repertoire--it isn't that enormously small either.

As frightening as it may seem to some, it may well be the semi-professional orchestras (or whatever you choose to call them) that will keep our music alive.  Since moving from Minnesota to Wisconsin, we're now 3 and 5 hours from a major symphony orchestra.  But, Southwest Wisconsin is not a cultural wasteland.  It's 35 miles to Dubuque, Iowa.   What could possibly be in Dubuque, Iowa?   Well, for starters, they have a very good symphony orchestra.  Two lovely venues - a restored 1910 theater and an 1890 Grand Opera House, also restored!   The Dubuque Youth Symphony where my granddaughter is co-principal flute, is currently being considered as one of the top five youth orchestras, if not in the world, at least the United States.  There's an excellent ballet company and a very active chorale.  No, they don't perform every week, but when they do, they're very good.  And they draw many of their principals from places like UW-Platteville (WI) and colleges and universitys in and around Dubuque.   And while their venues are not large, they do fill them.  And at an affordable price. 

I guess what encourages me is that there are young people who still take an interest in something other than hiphop and rock.   If you've never seen or watched a college christmas concert, go on line and Google St. Olaf Christmas Concert from Northfield, Minnesota, or one from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.  Neither of these are music schools per se.  Both have HUGE choir programs and both have very talented symphony orchestras.  I'm sure there are many others around the USA.   Perhaps Europe and elsewhere, too.  And they are GOOD.

I ramble.  Sorry.    The plight of the majors is sad and very serious.  We saw it happen in Minneapolis and we have not been in a position to attend a concert there since they re-organized.  We were season ticket holders for 57 years.......

Jerry

It does get down to being all about money. I recently got from Reference Recordings their latest release for possible review which was nominated for a Grammy. It was a recording of Beethoven's 5th and 7th symphonies both wonderful works but frankly I'm sick of hearing them. This was a live recording featuring the Pittsburgh Symphony so we know what they are offering which is very typical. I've progressed to where I want to listen to other things and with downloads and CD's I can and do.
Tom

I am in complete agreement with Hadrianus.

Many good opinions voiced. Here's my take:

All professional musicians have a right to be compensated adequately for their talent and hard work. Getting a PhD in music is similar to a physician putting in 10 years for an MD, but like music physicians can charge only so much and people stop going to see them. Same with dentists. One dentist quoted me $1500 for a porcelain crown. I simply cannot afford it. An average concert goer cannot afford $50 for a back-row seat at the Disney Hall. To make matters worse there are so many live performances of all the major works on YouTube (some multiple--Bernstein and von Karajan for Tchaikovsky 5th for example) that most people can blow it up on their big screen and listen in HDef for free. Quite simply, we just don't need big concert halls anymore with media technology.

Another problem: it's the same repertoire over and over with an occasional post-modern extremely dissonant premiere thrown in and tepid applause afterwards, almost vanity premieres. Only the rich bigwigs and friends of the composer and high-society types turn out for these.

Not meaning to derail, but I was reading about Colburn School downton LA. They are privately endowed by somebody(ies) with deep pockets. They don't charge a dime for their classes. All free. They are going after the best teachers they can get their hands on. Symphony orchestras are gong to need private endowments to stay afloat. The money will never come from ticket sales or small donations. Failing that, I see orchestras falling one by one with only a few surviving and even then eventually they will fail to as training in music begins a serious decline. In the end all classical music entertainment will come from media sources like YouTube, deMedici, Arhaus, and other distributors. Lang Lang will give more recitals and orchestras will cut back until they are chamber ensembles.

A pro musician in the LA Phil makes about 100K and then they give private lessons on top of that and maybe teach PT at university. They make a darn good living, but when the orchestras begin to fail their standard of living will fall too. I read in the article that the Philadelphia came out of bankruptcy only because they players were willing to take a 10% cut in pay, I think it was. That will become the norm for dealing with this crisis: pay cuts or go out of business.

Serious times for musicians. Something to think about whether to go into music as a career, especially as an avant-garde composer.

The days of live performances of Mahler's Symphony of a Thousand are gone forever. Maybe "Symphony of a Hundred".

Well, maybe I should have put more effort toward going to the UK and specifically London a few years ago for the Gothic after all (yes, not USA, but as others said, the world seems to enjoy(!) following in the USA's footsteps (where are we going and why are we in this handbasket), just more slowly...)

Kuula: why did you have to bring politics into this? And then make the mistake of blaming conservatives? And what does Fox News have to do with the demise of western culture? As a conservative myself, I find it quite humorous and somewhat irritating that the arts crowd, which is largely liberal, always has their hand out for money to keep their projects going. And who do they hit up? Conservatives! That's where they money is, they think. And yes, many conservatives DO support the arts - and churches, hospitals, veterans, etc.

But maybe you were referring to public funding of arts? Yes, in the US the attitude among a lot of conservatives is that these should be privately funded - it's been that way for a long time. There are some towns that do support municipal orchestras and bands. Not remotely like Germany does. Most cities build concert halls for the performing arts as well as sports arenas. You might also be surprised at the large number of school/university orchestras funded by the taxpayers.

But I still don't see what Fox News has to do with any of this. From my point of view, the liberal media has done more to ruin western civ than one single network. We have many liberal "news" outlets. Only one conservative.

Let's leave politics out of this, please.

As someone who has been a professional manager of orchestras and artists in the UK for more than 30 years, I have observed the trends here with some despair. Firstly, though, one needs to remember that the orchestral scene in the USA is, to my knowledge, unique in the world inasmuch as orchestras rely on private sponsorship and donations to boost their concert income for more than anywhere else in the world. As society has become dumbed down and first-class music become available to just about everyone through recorded media and the internet, the effort of hauling oneself out of the house, travelling to a venue and then getting oneself back home again afterwards can seem too much for many. I have seen the age-old accusation here of tickets being too expensive for concerts, but people are very happy to pay far more to watch football (and 'soccer'), baseball, rugby and cricket matches, just as they will pay massive prices for rock and pop concerts. Going to a classical concert does NOT need to be expensive - even the opera (where here one can get very cheap 'standby' tickets for nearly every performance).

High culture has always needed subsidy; in times gone by it was royal courts and monied aristocrats who 'owned' artists and their music. Current-day USA is still very close to this. In Europe, state subsidy is prevalent (to a greater [eg Germany] or lesser [eg the UK] extent). Culture is what defines us as a society and civilisation; we have to invest in it if we want these traditions to continue. Without it, what would we become?

I saw a post that suggested that musicians' fees are "out of whack". Out of whack with what, exactly? Musicians spend years and years studying, investing in expensive sheet music, VERY expensive instruments, lessons and, even when a professional, HOURS of practice. Their study and skills compare to other professionals like doctors, dentists and (dare I say) plumbers, all of whom earn far more than their musician counterparts. I have yet to fathom the mindset that thinks that musicians shouldn't be paid a fare wage commensurate with the skills they have honed and the pleasure they give (which is somewhat more than that derived from the average visit to the physician's surgery or the dentist's chair). Maybe someone can explain that to me.

The malaise described in this thread is largely a disease of the English-speaking world. Go to France, Germany, Italy and the 'arts' in general receive far more subsidy, sell more tickets to a greater cross-section of society (you see FAMILIES going to concerts together) and engender a pride among the general population almost unheard of in English-speaking countries (even if they don't attend the events themselves).

Until we as a society wake up and truly value and invest in our cultures, we could very well lose them forever.

Sadly, Alan, in the United States, public funding of the arts, virtually ANY arts, is a serious political issue.  In general, one party favors generous funding of the arts and the other would stop all subsidies to organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting and telecasting and so forth.   I won't get in to politics, but when I lived in Minnesota and was Chair of our Regional Arts Council, we went to St. Paul to lobby for funding and I saw this firsthand.  It was so black and white, at least at that time (80s) that it made me re-examine who I was politically.   Minnesota has been a generous funder of local arts, artists, performer, etc.
Unfortunately not many states can make that claim.

Jerry

Quote from: Delicious Manager on Thursday 17 December 2015, 11:17
I saw a post that suggested that musicians' fees are "out of whack". Out of whack with what, exactly? Musicians spend years and years studying, investing in expensive sheet music, VERY expensive instruments, lessons and, even when a professional, HOURS of practice. Their study and skills compare to other professionals like doctors, dentists and (dare I say) plumbers, all of whom earn far more than their musician counterparts.

A few comments on that;

- I believe the poster you respond to had in mind the inequality (to use the term presently en vogue) inside the profession:  If you have  job at the San Francisco Symphony (which depends as much on luck as on skill) you are fine.  You have even a union that will organize a strike and get you a raise.  The rest of musicians have meager pay indeed.

- As to your comparison to physicians etc. you might be a tad off.  It takes more effort and a larger chunk of your life time to get a medical degree or a Ph.D. in science than to acquire the skills of a competent orchestra musician.  Trust me on this.  Also physicians in particular work many more hours than musicians in a symphony, personal practice included (that we would be better off with more, lower paid and less overworked doctors is a different topic...).  Orchestra musicians can easily have half a dozen students at the same time (and it is highly desirable that they do indeed teach).

On another note:  I believe you see the situation in the non-Anglosaxon part of Europe a bit too rosy--unfortunately:  The subsidies are under fire politically, mostly, but not only from the left (because "elitist").  Private sponsors are becoming more and more prominent with all the negative side effects like focus on big stars and standard repertoire--the stuff that the Grand Bourgeois thinks is "culture".

Just to respond to your points:

Quote
I believe the poster you respond to had in mind the inequality (to use the term presently en vogue) inside the profession:  If you have  job at the San Francisco Symphony (which depends as much on luck as on skill) you are fine.  You have even a union that will organize a strike and get you a raise.  The rest of musicians have meager pay indeed.

As to your comparison to physicians etc. you might be a tad off.  It takes more effort and a larger chunk of your life time to get a medical degree or a Ph.D. in science than to acquire the skills of a competent orchestra musician.  Trust me on this.  Also physicians in particular work many more hours than musicians in a symphony, personal practice included (that we would be better off with more, lower paid and less overworked doctors is a different topic...).  Orchestra musicians can easily have half a dozen students at the same time (and it is highly desirable that they do indeed teach).

Orchestral musicians in the USA have far more comfortable existences than those in the UK (where I am), both in terms of working conditions and pay. Freelancers (of which the UK probably has more per capita than anywhere in the world) can indeed earn very little or very much, depending on lots of factors.
Have a look at the schedule of one of the 'freelance' London orchestras (LSO, LPO, RPO, Philharmonia) and tell me they work less than some of those you mention.

Quote
Trust me on this.

You trust ME on this; I've been working in this environment for 35 years (and studied in it for 5 years before that).

Quote
On another note:  I believe you see the situation in the non-Anglosaxon part of Europe a bit too rosy--unfortunately:  The subsidies are under fire politically, mostly, but not only from the left (because "elitist").  Private sponsors are becoming more and more prominent with all the negative side effects like focus on big stars and standard repertoire--the stuff that the Grand Bourgeois thinks is "culture".

I'm fully aware of the cuts in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. They're still a lot better off than most comparable organisations in the UK.

An example from the "new look" efforts of the Zurich Tonhalle Orchestra (new chef: Lionel Bringuier):
This season's "Creative Chair" was focused on Esa Pekka-Salonen.
In 9 different concerts, works (orchestra, choral or chamber) by Salonen as a composer were performed or premiered, either conducted by himself or by others. In some concerts Salonen conducted Symphonies, tone poems or the Violin Concerto by Sibelius, in another a Symphony by Brahms, or works by Prokofiev and Berlioz - but always coupled with a work of his own.
Of course, Salonen is a good friend of our chief conductor Lionel Bringuier (who was Salonen's former assistant at the LAPO) and the orchestra manageress.
Bringuier is also allowed to conduct works by Salonen elsewhere (Paris Opera etc.).
I hink this is too one-sided - and "in-sided" in view of a "public service" task orchestras also should respect. In a way they almost desperately try to get away from traditionalistic programs, but this example is also no good solution. I heard that many subscriptions were not renewed.
So, will this bring in more money??
Season's 2015-16 "Creative Chair" will be dedicated to German composer Jörg Widmann.

Yes, no politics. I come here to escape that rubbish.

I know that different orchestras have different salaries in the US for musicians. I can also tell you that the US is obsessed with the National Football League. If a couple goes one can easily spend a $1000 or more for one game. Even the symphony now has seats for $200.00 and good luck on getting the standby tickets. Twice this year I've been turned away and even that is expensive as I've had to pay $20 for parking.

As has been suggested earlier, people will pay top dollar for sport or pop (low culture), but not for classical music (high culture). Why should we be surprised? Low culture is popular; high culture isn't. Low culture attracts the masses, high culture a certain elite.

Classical music has long relied upon wealthy patrons on the one hand or the long arm of the state on the other. By their very nature, the former come and go over time; and the latter are subject to the whims of electorates and the swings of the economy. 

In my school days forty-five years ago - at a very good grammar school (selective and high-achieving) - the assumption was that young men needed to be introduced to high culture (literature, art, music, etc.) by those who were themselves steeped in it because it represented the highest achievements of the human spirit (as did science, by the way) and because we would become better, more rounded people as a result. Nowadays, however, education has become thoroughly utilitarian in outlook. The principle is no longer 'this is good for the soul', but 'this is good for your job prospects'. Accordingly, everything has to be constantly measured and tested; but how do you measure being exposed to the final part of act 3 of Die Walküre (Solti) by the head of music in the school music room? No doubt the music students would analyse and explain the technicalities. But I was no music student; my abilities lay elsewhere. Yet that exposure did something for me which goes beyond measuring and testing...

I suspect that this is a battle which will never be won and will lurch from one crisis to the next - unless sympathetic patrons or governments decide to splash the cash. In the end, that's what it comes down to.

It is the dumbing down of Western culture. Today people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Like you, Alan, when I was at school we were given a rounded education and nobody asked what the use of a particular subject might be. It was studied for its own sake (I am very glad I was given the chance to learn Latin and classical Greek, as these subjects are hardly taught at all now, I believe - the Classics tutor at my old college in Oxford tells me they now have to run crash courses in basic Latin and Greek in the first year for those studying "Greats" because the standard is so poor at A level.) Our music master used to run trips to the Welsh National Opera in Cardiff - a minibus, driven by the Classics master - they were always oversubscribed! Sic transit gloria mundi. It is all very depressing.

When speaking with audiences and students I often juxtapose the training for careers in medicine and classical music. Indeed, the learning curve to become a professional classical musician is far longer than it is to become a medical doctor. Further, one absolutely must begin studies in youth, as the training is physical as well as intellectual. Without such an early start, achieving the minimal level required for professional performance is virtually hopeless. I could quit now and become a doctor in ten years; if I were a doctor it would be impossible to quit and become a fully professional classical musician in the same amount of time. Really, there isn't a comparison; that is not denigrating medical skills and training at all, but merely a recognition of the difference in the time needed to manifest skills requisite for minimal achievement. Unfortunately societies tend to support that which they feel is valuable; the perceived value of classical music has precipitously declined (at least in America), not coincidentally as the general requirements for a basic education have fallen to all-time lows.

The general public has absolutely no idea what it takes to practice this discipline. It doesn't help that when we get good at, it we make it look easy.

I think I do understand. You devote your life to it.

It's not that one devotes a life to it; it simply takes much, much longer to learn, and in order to become sufficiently professional, it becomes not a job, but a lifestyle.

Huh...  :o
Here in Moscow, we now have nine (!) big orchestras (thus excluding all radio, television and theater orchestras as well as all chamber orchestras), of which four I consider as first rate and the other five are good as well, just somewhat inconsistent in their performances. All orchestras as far as I know are state funded, although some probably receiving additional funds from private sponsors as well. The symphonic concerts (not counting all solo and chamber music concerts) are going practically every day and usually there are two or sometimes even three concerts a day. The tickets for good seats cost from as low as 5$ to about 30$ - it depends mostly on venue and soloist. Only Bolshoy Theater charges more than that. The attendance is about 80-90% for most of the concerts.
For once I am actually glad to live in Moscow...

Very encouraging indeed. That is good to hear. Russia has resisted the Western rot!

But would you want to live under Putin, sucking up to him as a member of the artistic elite? That's a pretty high price to pay for the maintenance of high culture, especially Russian high culture in whose reflected glory Putin likes to bask. Under Putin high culture is an arm of his far-reaching propaganda machine...

Oh yes, I agree entirely, Alan. But I suspect the Russian mentality is essentially different, Putin or no Putin. Though whether under a more liberal regime they would succumb to the forces which in the West have worked to produce the decline in "high culture" is moot.

I think we all should read Buddenbrooks again, specifically the chapters towards the end with the satirical teacher portraits.  And then we should do what we can to avoid looking like those portraits.  Lets face it, Thomas Mann was questioning the very value of those Greek and Latin lessons that none of Gareth's school mates appears to have questioned.  (What sort of teenagers were you anyway?  We all questioned the value of learning Latin [I still question it*] when we were learning it as well as the value of reading Shakespeare or Simplicissimus, studying calculus, listening to Beethoven, discussing impressionistic painting or anything they tried to teach us, partly genuinely and partly just to provoke.)

I really do think that this sort of cultural pessimism is not achieving anything and overstates the case it is making by a mile anyway.

*We started Latin when we were 13 at eight lessons a week for two years, than 5 and later 4 a week for another 4 1/2 years and all we could do after that was translate it into German one sentence at a time by painstakingly and pedantically analyzing the syntax, maybe a paragraph or two per hour if it was of any difficulty (say Cicero or Vergil).  So really, what is the point?  Thank God I decided (without knowing anything about this yet) not to learn Greek to the same level (or even lower).

Fronder, don't forget that most official Moscow Orchestras are sposnsored by the mafia (in collaboration with Putin, his "family" and Maestro Gergiev) or by some oligarchs.

QuoteWe all questioned the value of learning Latin [I still question it*] when we were learning it

Really? I found it hard, but extremely profitable...

QuoteSo really, what is the point? 

The point for me was to give me a thorough grounding in the way Indo-European languages work, enabling me (for example) to master German much more quickly than otherwise would have been the case. It also enabled me to understand the workings of language in general so that I could write properly in English. Frankly, one only has to look at the generally poor standard of written English in schools and universities to realise how much has been lost because subjects like Latin have disappeared.

Quote from: Gareth Vaughan on Friday 18 December 2015, 21:36
Very encouraging indeed. That is good to hear. Russia has resisted the Western rot!

The problem here is that classical music is the only form of art that did not significantly deteriorate since the dissolution of the Union. The cinema is dead, the literature is no more, the theaters, although all are up and running (there are AFAIK more than 20 theaters in Moscow alone), are all in my opinion giving rather mediocre performances with bad acting and bad production etc., etc. So, the fairly good state of classical music is, I think, more to the credit of musicians then to anybody else.

And, gentlemen, I think you are highly exaggerating the involvement of russian government into the culture affairs. They do get involved into the affairs of Bolshoy and Mariinsky Theaters, but thats pretty much it. After all, the cost of maintenance of all the orchestras, theaters, museums etc. is nothing but a fraction of state's expenditure (it's like a 0,01% of a yearly budget), so I am actually surprised that it is not a common practice worldwide.

Something also must be said about the Russian people who obviously love and nurture their immense musical heritage. I recall reading that at the premiere of the Shostakovich 5th there were audience members in tears during the third movement. The composer was sending a message in music and the audience received it and reacted emotionally. I can't ever imagine anything like that happening in the US. Most people would be bored wanting to get to the noisy, exciting finale. I would like to think that citizens of many countries take pride in their compatriot composers. But that's probably wishful thinking. The average English teenager likely knows no more of Elgar than a typical American teen knows of Copland. Or a Russian teen of Tchaikovsky.

@Fronder: there are, for example, also the Russian National and (Fedoseyev's) Radio Orchestra - many insiders know that they are supported by the mafia. I don't think the musicians, who told me this, were liars. And I was there; I regularly visited Moscow during over 20 years to work with (splendid) Russian musicians, so I could follow some developments quite closely.

@MartinH: music can also have non-Russian audiences burst into tears :-) But I know that the Russians are more easier weepers (like the Italians) - and that is why I like them both - and that they do not necessarily need something like Shostakovich's Largo.
As far as "messages in music" are concerned, DSCH's 5th Symphony is, anyway, a rather ambivalent affair; that's why the heroic outer movements did not impress (they were mistaken for propaganda music) and that the Scherzo was found by specialists a ridiculous imitation of Mahler.
"Messages in music" would deserve a separate thread in UC!

... well, anecdotally, I remember a few instances speaking briefly with people (now) here from Russia and elsewhere in what used to be the Soviet Union, who I at least don't know to be music experts, to whom mention of Nikolai Myaskovsky or Evgeny Kirillovich Golubev turned up expressions of recognition (also, information; I seem to recall that's how I learned that the latter died in 1988...)

(It -is- possible that my mention of "Myaskovsky" was misheard as "Mayakovsky", the poet, of course- it was awhile ago and I'm not positive at this point.)

I'm confident in saying that the Mafia has little to do with classical music in the US. I can only hope that there will be a turn around one day.
Tom

All the orchestras, and that includes major European ones, used to have their own identifiable sounds. I remember hearing Chicago in Solti and being totally blown away by the sound of the orchestra and then New York under Bernstein and being amazed by the polish and shine and then Berlin under Karajan etc etc....in the UK the LSO under Previn had a shiny brilliant sound that was different from the LPO and the RPO and especially the Philharmonia under Muti which was brilliant and burnished. Now they all sound the same. Is it because the orchestras are now populated by brilliant players from all over the world more than they used to be? Is it because the music directors do not spend more time than about 8 weeks a year with their orchestras....and then they have several other orchestras as well? is it also that a whole new breed of people have invented themselves called orchestral management? Many of them born not out of music or sometimes even the arts, but they did go to college or university to gain a degree in arts management. Doesn't give them imagination though, and couple that with the other points I made above and you are on a rocky road to making everything the same from one city to the next. Interestingly I was in the Swedish city of Gothenberg a few years ago and their newspaper ran an article, the nub of which was that as many people knew about their symphony orchestra as they did about their football teams. One of the things mentioned with that was the publication affection for Neeme Jarvi. His commitment to the orchestra and his work for over 20 years was admired by the public, who felt they knew him and were in turn loyal, even when he scheduled music that many other orchestras didn't.
I believe that the local orchestra should start by being responsible to the community that they are in and stop looking out to be better or as good as another famous orchestra.
In Bournemouth the orchestra is for the south east. They will never really compete with Berlin, New York, London et al and neither should they need to. In the UK conductors like John Pritchard, Charles Groves and Alexander Gibson knew this. Forget hiring some averagely good conductor because if you don't get him someone else will. The public respond to good and imaginative programming given by their orchestra for the locals. In my opinion that is where we should start. If we don't the audiences interest will continue to fade away and then so will the orchestras.

QuoteAll the orchestras, and that includes major European ones, used to have their own identifiable sounds. I remember hearing Chicago in Solti and being totally blown away by the sound of the orchestra and then New York under Bernstein and being amazed by the polish and shine and then Berlin under Karajan etc etc....in the UK the LSO under Previn had a shiny brilliant sound that was different from the LPO and the RPO and especially the Philharmonia under Muti which was brilliant and burnished. Now they all sound the same.

I have long thought the same. And I do so agree with everything else you have written in your post. Spot on - build local community support and you will have a good chance of survival (and of retaining a distinctive sound, perhaps).

I agree that distinctive sounds have largely gone. International players, conductors, teaching methods, etc. I do miss that special sound of french bassoons and horns. The Russian horns with their vibrato. But there is one American orchestra that I think still has a distinctive sound - maybe I'm wrong and it's wishful thinking. It's Pittsburgh - that brass section! Just fabulous. And deep, rich strings. Their recent released on Reference Recordings (a superb Beethoven 5/7 for example) and some of the finest Mahler available (on Exton) are thrilling and remind you of just how great that orchestra is. They made many dazzling recordings with Previn and Maazel, too. Cincinnati is another orchestra that has a remarkably different, old-world sound.

I for one don't miss the weedy sound of French bassoons and horns; nor do I regret the disappearance of braying Russian horns and piercing Russian trumpets. Never did like any of them...

Quote from: Alan Howe on Tuesday 22 December 2015, 08:06
I for one don't miss the weedy sound of French bassoons and horns; nor do I regret the disappearance of braying Russian horns and piercing Russian trumpets. Never did like any of them...

I don't know about national differences in sound, but I agree in principle:  "Sound" is overvalued; the important stuff happens below the surface.  And if anything I'd like the sound to reflect the music being played rather than some idiosyncrasy of an orchestra (or chamber music ensemble).  I'd like contrapuntal sections to sound transparent and chordal sections full and warm, Onslow rather like water color and a late romantic more like oil paint.

I don't know how to do this myself but I have heard it done.  (Of course the composer makes a start with his instrumentation.)

...having said which, I prefer Sibelius not to sound too plush (as in Berlin - Lahti makes more sense), Wagner with Vienna Philharmonic horns, and Dvorak with ever-so-piquant-sounding Czech Philharmonic woodwind. So some orchestral distinctives are better than others...

But I'll take Rufinatscha played well by anyone. And didn't the Siberian SO do a marvellous job with Bargiel on Toccata?

Always looking for the next new thing, I have in recent years picked up a lot of recordings that use supposedly the same type of instruments some music was originally written for, or at least the type the composer would have had in mind. Hearing Ravel with real French bassons, a real Sarrusophone, and such is ear-opening, to say the least. Tchaikovsky and Elgar wrote for orchestras which at the time would have used the French system. I haven't heard the Elgar symphonies on historical instruments, but it's likely someone will tackle it.

I know what you mean about the "plush" sounds of orchestras. That Vienna, Philadelphia sound. I've really enjoyed smaller orchestras taking on big repertoire. The Mackerras sets of Brahms and Beethoven are, to my ears, an ideal balance between the over-sized orchestra and the HIP versions.

In some sense those composers were writing for different balances and even instruments (even when the names were the same) so that makes sense.

Shouldn't these comments be in a different thread or how does this tie in to the demise of the American Orchestra?

We've been ranging far and wide for some time now, so let's just see where thread goes...

What I said was partly in jest, just adding a bit of humor :)

Quote from: sdtom on Wednesday 23 December 2015, 00:09
Shouldn't these comments be in a different thread or how does this tie in to the demise of the American Orchestra?

Here is how it ties in:  It was suggested that the loss of individual orchestra "sounds" is part of the decline of the orchestra in the US (and, I may be allowed to add, elsewhere).  I tried to point out that this sound problem--if it is important--is the last thing to worry about in the context of the thread.

It does make sense to me now

Part of the reason for the decline in the American orchestras, is that they were over unionised and very greedy. If say the conductor wanted an extra ten minutes to rehearse, the union would demand overtime and for the full hour, multiply that by 90 and the cost becomes astronomical.  Similarly for the actual performance, the length of the concert = how much the performers had to be paid.  It is also the case that poor performers are very difficult to get rid of in the US.

Is this a quote, is it based on research you have done, have you been there first-hand, Mr. Enders? It sounds rather certain, and I can say it is not quite so certain. (Actually, I could say more, but then I will be told to keep politics out of this, reasonably enough. Carry on then, I suppose, as you may continue and I may not.)

Mr Enders is correct. I have been in rehearsals where the orchestra manager sits with a clock. When 2 1/2 hours are reached he signals the conductor that time's up. Rehearsal stops mid-measure and people pack up. I've seen conductors plead with the orchestra to just give 5 minutes to finish the movement - but it won't happen unless the overtime fees are agreed to and managers aren't about to do that. Sometime ago I was at a supposedly "complete" Tchaikovsky Sleeping Beauty - but it was savagely cut to fit in the union-required time frame - can't go one minute over or overtime is due. I remember one performance where a horn player was stuck in traffic and the conductor refused to start until he was there - all the while people were watching the clock because if he didn't arrive by a certain time the concert would run overtime. He barely made it.

As to removing weak players there is a formal process that the AFM demands orchestras follow. When you get the written letter explaining your deficiencies it has become serious and you had better pay attention. And it depends on how strong your local union is in whether you can expect their help. If you play in a right-to-work state or your orchestra doesn't have a union rep, you're at the mercy of the music director or manager and I've seen many, many people let go from groups for all kinds of reasons.

I have mixed feelings about unions in music. Unfortunately, the restrictive rules all but destroyed the classical recording business. 50 years ago it seemed the great orchestras in Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston turned out a dozen records a month. That stopped 20-30 years ago: it cost too much. Cheaper to go to east Europe. Now some of them are trying to sell recordings on their own, but it's too little, too late, I fear.

I believe we can all agree that unions are at most a minor contributor to the malaise that is the topic of this thread and get back to more important aspects.

In reply to eschis,  I know of a number of soloist musicians who have had trouble with rehearsals in the US because of union restrictions on time, I have also attended a concert in LA where were the interval was cut short so that the performing time would not over run and the audience were invited to stay afterwards and continue with their wine.   No recording company can afford to use US orchestras because of cost and union restrictions. The sad fact is, that US sponsors would rather put their money elsewhere.  As anywhere, people will attend concerts, opera and ballet if the price is right and the music is something they want to hear.  If you price people out, then they lose the drive that makes them want to be part of the music ritual and other interests fill the void in their lives.

This sort of thing just always makes me skeptical as unions have been the convenient scapegoats and whipping boys for anything that goes wrong in all sorts of areas.

Look:  I don't doubt that your stories are true or at least near the truth (you seem to have at least some of them second hand:  Your sources probably exaggerated a little for effect).  But they are anecdotes, not data.  There is not math that shows that the cost of this sort of thing is more than marginal. 

If you can demonstrate with sound figures that this sort of thing raises ticket prices significantly we can all start deploring the union caused decay of Western culture.

Oh, we agree about the first tendency (even if here I am not aware of many orchestras or ensembles in the US, unionized or not, that really have a good record where cuts, timings, the first half of things mentioned, are involved, and am inclined to find the main sources elsewhere. As to the second part, I'm not sure what the problem is exactly with a formal process is to get rid of musicians merely accused of insufficiently bad behavior, in orchestras (or in teaching in the U.S., either, where this issue comes up too).

OK, we're not getting terribly far without chapter and verse on the matter of unions, so let's move on, please.

A lot of the problem lies with us music lovers who are too old, too lazy, too broke, or whatever to get off our duffs and go support the local orchestra. Like tonight. There's a New Year's concert by the local pro orchestra. I'm sure it's very nice, they'll play plenty of Strauss (Johann Jr & Sr), some Gershwin (tired of it), some Rogers and Hammerstein. They'll serve champagne during the intermission. But it's a drive. Tickets are NOT cheap and parking is expensive, too. It's easier to stay home comfortably in jeans, open my own bottle of bubbly and watch the Vienna Philharmonic bring in the New Year. I'm sure that the hall will be packed with the 1% and I won't be missed.

I compare the situation and programming of the radio-funded German and British (and Danish and Swedish and and ...) orchestras (which actually cofund cpo recordings) for instance (or even the more typical orchestras in those nations), compared to that of the typical US orchestra, and ... ...

There's a lot of very very complicated background behind that comparison, of course, or so I gather...

(And yes, I know, that's the dismal -present-, not the dismal future, a subject on which I am not qualified to speak.)

One last word and I will shut up.  I would not agree that unions are a minor part of the problem.  What I would stipulate to is that the managing boards of some orchestras share the guilt.  They let the situation get out of hand.  In the case of Minnesota, they raised $50M to renovate the LOBBY of Orchestra Hall and then locked out the musicians because they didn't have enough money.  Who the h....  is dumb enough to set priorities like THAT??   Little wonder the professional musicians were PO'd.

Jerry

Also being in Minnesota I can second what Jerry has stated above. What I would like to know is where the funding came for the lobby and if it had to be earmarked for that particular enrichment.

well, I can't speak to that directly, Tom,  but from my limited experience in fund raising, if you do a Capital Campaign, which i'd bet the lobby thing was, you would be in big trouble if you decided after receiving the funds, that you were going to direct it to another type of project.  Not a good idea.

Jerry

OK - my tuppence worth!

The dismal prospect for US orchestras was discussed in the article by Philip Kennicott in New Republic, cited in the post that set this thread in motion. It drew attention to some opinions within the higher echelons of the American classical music establishment that I find truly shocking and hardly credible (what I'd call "gobsmacking"). For example:

- (the) category—serious listeners—is an uncomfortable one for almost all orchestra leaders.
- (re traditional audience behaviour) To participate obediently is to act as a slave. It is counter to our culture. And it is not, I am certain, what composers would have wanted. (not Kennicott's own view)
- Orchestras were encouraged—some would say strong-armed—to think about their community's needs, not their traditional role as custodians of a musical tradition.
- The League of American Orchestras ... thinks at the level of an airline magazine.

If these observations are true, then there is, indeed, a dismal future for American orchestras regardless of unions or musicians' fees. They are views that should shock all lovers of classical music.

I have never believed that orchestras should be hostage to the great composers or to a narrow definition of their musical agenda, but the idea that through diversification they can be all things to all people is patently ludicrous. This view has been stated many times in threads on UC referring to the downward drift of classical music radio stations, which have likewise sought to increase their ratings by misguided forays into cultural diversity, cross-over, and so on. The net result is that nobody is happy, and public support - including funding - declines. So often, I turn off ABC classical radio because they are playing improvised jazz, Asian indigenous music, pop opera, Irish folk songs, or Arabic music, for example, and I wonder how many other listeners are equally annoyed. I am convinced that people who tune in to a classical music programme - or go to a classical music concert - want precisely that - classical music, and nothing else. The rest is - or should be - peripheral to the orchestras' or radio stations' raison d'etre.

Inspired by this post I went back and read the article in the New Republic.  And the author certainly has a point.  But then he ought to write better himself.  He seems to take Mark Twain's account of a concert at face value.  He compares the campaigns to make orchestras more popular to the second Vatican Council--very ludicrous and also incorrect.  And he is the criminal responsible for the following sentence (the "rowdy audience" a reference to Mark Twain):

"Beethoven may have written with the rowdy audience in mind, but the music of Debussy and Mahler assumed new conditions of listening, and pushed music to new extremes of intellectual concentration, sonic elaboration, and dynamic scale."

Such a sentence should get the writer a lifelong ban from writing (or rather publishing) on classical music ever again.
Whatever is right in the article it comes from a somewhat poisoned well.

I did find out that the Minnesota Orchestra took the 50 million dollars out of their general donation fund to pay for the lobby. When the orchestra went on strike the union was pointed out as the blame. They could have taken the same money and paid the orchestra.

I can tell you that the single biggest reason more recording doesn't happen in America is the union. The extant contracts make it far too expensive to record here, hence American Classics are generated overseas with much more frequency. At this point they seem unlikely to change a loosing game.

And yet Germany has stronger unions, as do several others of those countries where recordings happen with more frequency.  Eh. ... Whatever...

Germany has a well established network of radio orchestras; an American corollary has not existed here in many decades. That's how they are able to create so many recordings, that along with union contracts that don't get in the way. Over here it is quite the opposite.

I can't think why Germany has to be brought into this but since it has, the Germans as a nation are much more inclined to the arts than the average US citizen.  As has been pointed out, there are many regional radio orchestras in Germany and they have reasonable audiences.  It is true that the German orchestras are unionised as are most orchestras but they are not petty in their behaviour like those of the US. 

I used to point out to my trustees when I ran concerts, it is a circular argument.  Firstly the audience has to be able to afford the concerts or recordings, secondly one has to build up trust and not foist vacuous modern works on them or as frequently happens in opera and ballet productions which are so altered they alienate a large percentage of the audience (London Coliseum is an example).  Once one has built up trust and one has a regular audience one can then try out less known works or new works.  If there is to be any form of subsidy, it needs to be at the box office. I recognise that musicians need a living wage but as a quid pro quo, they must put in long hours.  Most of the established musicians that I am acquainted with put in many hours of practice for which they don't get paid. 

I don't think we are going to get very far with this thread except to say that if you want excellent recordings, there are a number of first rate orchestras in the world and we do live in a global village. 

I tend to agree with Giles that this thread may be nearing its natural end. Let's see, but unless someone has something fresh to say, it may be time to call it a day.

I argue that musicians are paid not only for practice, but for the years they previously labored to again the requisite skills by the generous packages offered at the top level organizations. It should be so several rings down the ladder, but it's not simply due to supply and demand.

That will change.

You bet it will change. I don't see how these major orchestras can keep paying such high salaries when the public demand just isn't there. The principal bassoon in LA makes over $300,000 a year. That salary alone is more than the entire budget of many small orchestras. I think it's unsustainable. Maybe they have endowments and donors so they don't worry about it. But I would.

QuoteThe principal bassoon in LA makes over $300,000 a year

That is totally unsustainable. The principal bassoon of the Hallé over here earns £41,470 ($60,507) - which is sustainable, but much too low.

When you play like the principal in LA, you deserve $300,000, particularly because it is in LA; remember that their salaries reflect the cost of living in Los Angeles, and the COL in that area is significantly higher than in most places in the USA. Really, California is just crazy, and not just politically. I would bet that it's much higher than the location of the bassoon player you mentioned in the UK.

Q: What is someone's skill worth?
A: What someone else will pay for it!

However unjust it may seem, this is an inescapable fact. The bassoonist's expertise is simply not worth $300k to the paying public, and if he/she insists that it is, they and/or orchestra will not survive.

Getting back to UC's remit... if it is the 'second tier' orchestras that are in trouble, this might be a concern for us because, as someone pointed out, they are perhaps more likely to venture into the territory of the UCs. However, although I don't know about live concerts, this isn't borne out when it comes to recording.

The American series in the Naxos range is either familiar material or (what I would regard as) avant garde, and not a lot in the romantic or neo-romantic genres. Albany comes to the rescue of some American UCs but, as we've noted before, they use European orchestras as much as American. So, in terms of recordings maybe the difficulties that US orchestras are in isn't an issue specifically relevant to UCs. In any case, although fewer mid-range orchestras means fewer concerts in total, it also means greater competition for membership and perhaps higher standards. Surviving orchestras will be able to sustain an active concert programme, and provide plenty of opportunity for their members to gain the expertise that comes with regular 'live' concerts.

This in no way alters my abhorrence at the attitudes and claims that popped up in the article by Kennicott. Goodness knows what music they will perform!  ???

semloh, I'm a little confused; it should be even easier to find out what these orchestras are performing than what they are recording, since they usually post their yearly schedules on the web... it rather helps them get customers and subscribers and that and etc. Or I don't know what I'm talking about, which is, I confess, usually the case.

Hrrrm. Later this month (1/19/16) I see that Jeremy Denk is joining the part of the San Diego (California, US) Symphony for a familiar and avant-garde work, namely Janacek's Capriccio for Piano (left-hand) and Winds. Intriguing, though since I have Firkusny's fine recording (with Kubelik) and haven't enough money for a plane flight anyway, for myself I'll just have to note it...

(Hrm. Both the American Symphony and the Jupiter Chamber Players, both based in New York City, are featuring, or have featured, works by Adolf Busch recently- the former will do so on March 17 2016; the latter did so a few months ago, trying to remember- concert also had Meyerbeer, Schulhoff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, theme was "Against Tyranny"; was quite good in my honest if not likely to be shared -here- opinion...) . Anyway, neat.)

Heard many concerts from the San Diego Symphony when I lived there.

Semloh, LAPhil clearly believes their principal bassoon is worth it, and one can infer from the orchestra's lack of financial distress that their supporters and community are in agreement. This varies from place to place, as it should. Perhaps you would be unwilling to pay him what he's worth, but there isn't an established standard for necessarily subjective judgements.

One can not infer from the healthy state of the LAPhil's finances that the bassoonist is actually worth $300k - simply that they can afford to pay it. However, since the LAPhil is willing to pay that much and, as I said, the value of anything is what people will pay for it, he has every right to claim that he is worth it. Whether the average music lover in LA agrees is a quite different matter, of course.

I don't think any of this really matters for UC though, so perhaps this is the time to draw the thread to a close?

Agreed...

I wanted to chime in on MartinH's post of December 30th, specifically on the issue he raises of greed. If I may here is a response to a question I posted elsewhere: "What is the going rate to give a premiere of a half-hour-long major work for piano and orchestra with a top pianist and top orchestra?" I asked in reference to my piano concerto no 2 in c minor which I have commented on in earlier posts. It is a half hour, for full Romantic period orchestra and here is a reply from someone who plays in an orchestra:

Quote


You're going to be looking at a big number.

To start with, it's a premiere... nobody in the orchestra has played it before.  If you wanted to hire an orchestra to do a "warhorse" like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, you have the advantage of familiarity: because the musicians will all have played the piece, they can get by with just a few rehearsals.  For a new work of significant length, you're probably looking at a minimum of 2-3 rehearsals with the soloist, and maybe another 2-3 with the orchestra and a rehearsal pianist.  On top of that, you'll have some sectional rehearsals.  So each orchestra member will have maybe 9 days of work prior to the performance, plus the performance itself.

Orchestra cost

Since you're talking about hiring the orchestra, this will be an "extra" performance, not part of their regular season.  That may mean your orchestra might not be the one you think you're hiring - because top orchestra members often have commitments for teaching, master classes, or solo work of their own, you'll end up with some substitutes.  Because of that, let's say you get the musicians at "scale", the union rate.  Union rates vary by the union local; I'm going to use the local 802 (New York) rates.

Each rehearsal will cost you a fixed rate for the first 2-1/2 hours, and an hourly rate after that.  Since your piece is a half hour, let's say it's rehearsed in the minimum.  Remember, it's six rehearsals plus three sectionals per musician - each one is going to cost you $137.50.  But the principal in each section gets more... they get $165.  You've got principals in each section - four for strings, four for brass, four for woodwinds, and one in percussion.  (If your orchestration isn't standard, you might end up with more in woodwinds and/or percussion).

Oh, and the concertmaster (usually the principal violinist) will get double scale - that's $275.

Orchestra sizes vary.  Your orchestration will determine the number of players needed; on the low end, let's say it's 70, and on the high end, 100.  So your per rehearsal cost is 1 concertmaster ($275), 12 other principals ($165 each), and 57-87 others at $137.50.  This gives you a per rehearsal musician cost of $10,092.50 to $14,217.50. 

Times six rehearsals and three sectionals each.  Assuming none of your rehearsals run into overtime, you're now in the $91-85K range, and you haven't counted the performance.  Scale for the performance is higher: $274 for each musician, $328.80 for each principal, and $548 for the concertmaster.  So the performance itself adds another $20,111.60 to $28,311.60.

So you've got the orchestra payroll covered with your first $111-156K or so.  Let's move on to

The soloist

I'll assume you're not looking to engage Lang Lang, and you'll settle for any old pianist who has won an international competition or two.  The ones I know get a performance fee of $5-10K, plus expenses.  You'll probably be flying them in, and you'll be putting them up in a hotel, feeding them, and getting them from airport to hotel to rehearsals.  Another 2-5 thousand should cover that stuff.

But it's a premiere.  So they're going to spend significant time learning the piece - you don't see soloists with sheet music in front of them.  That's going to cost you.  If they love the work, the premium for that might be a few thousand - or it might be tens of thousands.  With so many variables, let's budget between 30 and 50 thousand for the soloist, and we're now up to $141-206K.  But let's not forget

The conductor

Top conductors command about $2 million a year in salaries, give or take a million.  And that's for a season of about a hundred performances.  So you could say it's $20K.

But it won't be.

Because it's a new work, it demands a lot more of the conductor's time.  First is the score study, with marking up how they envision the work will be performed.  Then there's the rehearsals - remember all those sectionals?  The conductor will lead all of them.  The percussion section might not need any (it depends on your score), but another section might take up the slack.  So four sections (strings, brass, winds, percussion) times three each is twelve sectionals, plus six rehearsals, plus the performance.

The conductor is probably going to want 100-250K, maybe more.  Now you're up to $241-456K.

But we're not done yet.  Because you need a place for the musicians to rehearse.

Space costs

You could rehearse the orchestra in any space that can hold them, but they're going to be more comfortable in their usual environment.  And that environment has a small advantage to you too, because you won't be paying cartage for the tympani and piano, or needing extra piano tunings because it's being moved.

The cost will vary with the venue, but $6K per day is typical.  Twelve sectionals, plus six rehearsals and the performance means 19 days, or another $114K.

Now we're up to $355,000 on the low end, and $570,000 plus on the other.  And I haven't even considered the other costs, because they're quite low in comparison.  For just one example, you'll need an orchestra librarian - that's the person who takes direction from the concertmaster and conductor for the bowing in the strings, and marks the bowing instructions on each player's copy of the score.  (Haven't you ever wondered how they all know how to bow in the same direction at the same time?) 

I'd say this is in keeping with what others have told me, but never to this detail. It's no wonder very few works for larger ensembles get premiered these days. 600K for a half-hour work is bonkers and needless to say I will not be paying this amount anytime soon. But I think this points to the issue of greed in a major way. Funny enough, nobody addresses the revenue from ticket sales, concessions and alcohol to offset part of this cost. I doubt I would see a dime of that revenue if I actually paid the 600K to premiere my concerto.

Bonkers isn't even close.

Indeed, well away with the fairies. Fortunately top orchestras just don't work like that - they aren't simply guns for hire who will do anything if the price is right. In practice, if you're a composer with no track record who wants to sponsor a vanity project you could offer it to a decent amateur orchestra who might put it on (provided it isn't complete rubbish) for a donation of 5 grand. As for the players each devoting 9 days of work to it, dream on!

Isn't six full rehearsals of 2.5h each plus sectionals a little much for top level pros--even for a piece nobody knows?  From my days in the Academic Orchestra in Zurich--they are amateurs--I remember it like this:  We had weekly rehearsals plus a rehearsal weekend per semester (maybe worth four of five rehearsals) making up a total of at most 20 rehearsals (of 2h not 2.5) per program.  The programs were maybe 90 - 120 min of music, i.e. 3 to 4 times the half hour here discussed.  And the music was almost always chosen from unsung repertoire, i.e. every piece was new to everyone.  Or have you ever played the overture of "Hunyady Laszlo" by Ferenc Erkel?^*)  Or the sinfonietta by Rimsky Korsakow?  Or the "Indianische Phantasie" by Busoni?

So in fact we--the amateurs with a less than ideal schedule (a week between rehearsals is enough time to forget some of the progress made)--had to make do with not much more than 6 rehearsals per half hour, sectionals included.  I would have expected good professionals to come prepared and to be able to get by with 3 rehearsals even for 20th century levels of difficulty.

^*)BTW more than 30 years ago I saw a performance of "Hunyady Laszlo" in the opera in Budapest.  Here is an opera--sung in Hungary, but unsung everywhere else--which merits some attention (Hunyady is a national hero in Hungary).  Nice verbunkos style Hungarian/Gipsy music, a good story with battles and people jailed unjustly etc. well told.

QuoteFortunately top orchestras just don't work like that - they aren't simply guns for hire who will do anything if the price is right. In practice, if you're a composer with no track record who wants to sponsor a vanity project you could offer it to a decent amateur orchestra who might put it on (provided it isn't complete rubbish) for a donation of 5 grand. As for the players each devoting 9 days of work to it, dream on!

I've gotten dozens of very nice comments on it on YouTube so I think it's appealing. But amateur orchestras have miserable brass sections that can't even play a simple brass triad flush (together). This piece is brass-heavy. Plus sour strings. Here's  the best I could hope for

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHsnVXMGn2I   (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHsnVXMGn2I)

QuoteBut amateur orchestras have miserable brass sections that can't even play a simple brass triad flush (together)

Now there's a generalization for you!   I'm not sure exactly how one would define an "amateur" orchestra, but I've personally heard several that were really quite good.   Often, they draw numerous musicians from the faculties of local college and universitys.   I expect if they weren't dedicated teaching professionals, theyd be competing for first chairs in some professional orchestra. 

J

Yes, a few are good but most are bad. It's the luck of the draw depending on if you're fortunate to be in an area where a good amateur orchestra is.

Actually, professional orchestras are "guns for hire" if the price is right. After all, they have to make money to stay in business. The London Symphony - one of the very best in the world - does it's share of recordings that would seem at odds with their training and background.  And they sight read so well that I imagine there are concerts and recordings they make with one run-through then record.

The range of abilities of amateur orchestra brass sections is all over the place. From terrible to dazzling. Same with the winds. Strings tend to be weaker - intonation is the big problem. Having a top-notch percussion section is a real treat for amateurs. The problem is playing enough repertoire with really good drum parts that keep players excited and interested enough to keep showing up. But the music that does that is often not the kind of stuff that the amateur wind and strings can handle.

There are some amateur groups that I have played with that play brilliantly. The "secret" lies with the music director: don't let just anyone into the ensemble; they must play at a high level. Intonation, rhythm, style, bowing, vibrato - all those basic musicianship things matter. When you have high-caliber players it makes playing more enjoyable for everyone and you can get a lot more done. But let one lousy player in, and stay in, someone who can't play in tune, can't count, can balance volume and it is very upsetting to better players who will eventually quit rather than put up with it. And that takes a strong music director, board of directors, and section. As I tell people who have been criticized, or let go, if you want to be in the music business, you'd better have a really thick skin.

There is that--he politics of keeping a bad player in because he's the brother-in=-law of a board member and needs a paycheck, no matter how meager. Another aspect is the flood of musicians graduating higher learning institutions who have to find jobs. Watch some YouTube videos. These freelance players are excellent; they'd give most professional members of orchestras a run for their money and would be thrilled to work for half the salary. Here is where the unions become poison; someone sitting there with a stopwatch is about the craziest thing I've ever heard. Only 300K for a (b) ass-oon player is crazier. And the funny thing is if the LA Phil is fully funded then that means they get their money from wealthy patrons and as long as there are enough wealthy patrons to fill 3000 seats or whatever Disney Hall holds LA Phil will never have to worry. Like Pharmaceuticals, Health Care Ins. and oil co's all orchestras will be whittled down to a few survivors who can charge whatever they want and hire the cream and all these other musicians graduating will be flipping burgers and just picking up sporadic gigs wherever they can. There'll be no coherent pattern of employment to all this; each musician will have to jimmy-rig their work schedules as best they can with whatever scraps are lying around.

I haven't been to the LA Phil in 30 years but the seats at Dorothy Chandler were only half filled then after intermission because the tickets were so high. Wonder what it's like now.

LA concerts are generally 90-95% filled up. First, there's the undeniable allure of The Dude. Whether he's really great or not doesn't matter. People go to see and hear him. And then, because of the budget they have, the list of guest conductors is top-drawer. Their soloists are world-class, too. They play a wide range of music but excel in the big things. And they play superbly. Their hall is wonderful - one of the best. And there's a lot of wealth in LA, and for most of the concert goers, dropping $250 for a pair of tickets is nothing. That's what's sad. Many music lovers have simply been priced out of attending. The LA area is blessed with several other orchestras that are extremely fine and offer great concerts at reasonable prices. But they are struggling. The players are on a per-service contract, unlike LA Phil. I wonder how many more years they can hang on? The high rollers who spend so much for LA Phil concerts will not be traveling to Glendale, Pasadena, or Orange County for symphony concerts, which is their loss.

You mention the numerous music graduates: one group I play in has mostly amateurs, many of whom took lessons and really worked hard. But they made their career as engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc. But there are five players who actually were performance majors on flute, bassoon, horn, violin, and trombone. They are excellent and play principal in their sections. And they are quite sad, angry, frustrated that as good as they are there just aren't many openings for professionals and the competition is fierce. So now they take jobs beneath their wishes and suffer in amateur orchestras just to keep their fingers and chops in shape. It must be so demoralizing. What must it be like to have a masters degree from Julliard, have subbed with NY and Philadelphia, and now work at Starbucks by day, play with us rookies at night?

Yes, MartinH, you said precisely what I wasn't able to find the words to say: LA is a money mecca and by just sheer numbers the LA Phil can find enough subscribers/patrons out of roughly 20 million people in the Southland to support them. It has to do with climate, the cosmopolitan, demographic--its location relative to Asia where most of the money comes in--and other things that draw so many people with money who want a cultural symbol for their families/children, etc With that kind of population here $250 a head is chump change to them, but the little guy gets priced out. More of us vs "them". If you're willing to drop a few hundred dollars you too can rub shoulders with the rich but not mingle with them. It's an exclusive club.

Even in the 70's when I was going to Cal State we had a bass player that was in a 2-year wait for his name to rise to the top of the list. As other base players died off he finally got that audition call and was hired. He stayed with them for decades. I only remember his first name, John. It's a job for life doing what you love to do. I'd sell my soul to do it all over. I'd drop piano like a hot potato and take up violin. If I could have achieved the virtuosity on violin I did on piano I'd still be working there, married one of the members, had kids---the whole nine yards.

Quote from: MartinH on Monday 01 February 2016, 17:20
The range of abilities of amateur orchestra brass sections is all over the place. From terrible to dazzling. Same with the winds. Strings tend to be weaker - intonation is the big problem.

Not true.  Intonation is at least as hard for wind and brass players (have you never heard bad intonation from French Horns?  If so you are a lucky person).  Strings--playing collectively--tend to somewhat cancel out individual intonation mishaps.

Interesting that nobody mentions conductors in this context.  The quality of amateur orchestras varies lately with the teaching ability of their conductors.  It takes skills a conductor of professionals doesn't necessarily need to rehearse amateurs (though they would probably help there too), most notably patience and also the ability to focus on the most important problems.  It helps if the conductor plays an important orchestra instrument.  And his language in the rehearsals should be less technical than for pros.

Also important is the programming:  If you want to premiere a difficult piece you must program "easy" music to combine with it, preferably even music you have performed before so you have a core of members who have already rehearsed those pieces.

Some very odd musings going on here - are they meant to be tongue in cheek? An orchestra is an entity whose strength lies in its ability to play in a homogeneous style, something that is only achievable by daily practice. Players [and I know, because I am one] have to mould their tones to match everyone else in the section and rely on an almost telepathic awareness of what others in the orchestra are doing. Amateurs, however skilled, coming together once a week cannot achieve this. If you read the writings of Dame Ethel Smyth, you will come across her views as a composer and conductor, on the difference between the orchestras who fully rehearse works and those [British especially] who do not. This forum exists in part due to the many great works that were let down at the first performance by an under-rehearsed airing.

If you'd like to hear the LA Philharmonic for $60 a ticket, you should get your name on the waiting list with the Palm Springs Friends of Philharmonic.  One of the 6 winter (Jan-Mar) concerts is I guess traditionally the LAP.  There are 1100 seats in the McCallum theater and the entire season is always a sellout.  Good stuff, too.  6 global orchestras annually.   This year, for example, the Royal Philharmonic - Zukerman conducting and playing and last week the St. Louis with a snappy reading of Mahler 3. 

Not sure how they can afford to get the LA here, but no one argues.......

Jerry
I know, off topic....

Also important is the programming:  If you want to premiere a difficult piece you must program "easy" music to combine with it, preferably even music you have performed before so you have a core of members who have already rehearsed those pieces.

That's a real problem. There are too many semi-conductors with huge egos, bad ears, and little understanding who over-program all the time. It's demoralizing to the orchestra. But worse, it turns off would-be supporters who know music but can't stand hearing it played poorly. And it's really bad for people whose first concert experience is a train wreck. They come out thinking, "No wonder no one likes classical music if it sounds that bad!"

One of those coming up soon: 4 rehearsals, mostly all amateurs, a weak conductor who can't get his head out of a score and Rosenkavalier Suite, Essay no. 1 by Barber, then Ravels' take on Pictures at an Exhibition. All very difficult and time consuming. One of those would be enough, but conductor's egos are hard to understand.

You could get it done overseas for around 20-40k US, not including airfare, hotel and soloist's fee.

Quote from: MartinH on Tuesday 02 February 2016, 19:27
There are too many semi-conductors with huge egos, bad ears, and little understanding who over-program all the time.

....

One of those coming up soon: 4 rehearsals, mostly all amateurs, a weak conductor who can't get his head out of a score and Rosenkavalier Suite, Essay no. 1 by Barber, then Ravels' take on Pictures at an Exhibition. All very difficult and time consuming. One of those would be enough, but conductor's egos are hard to understand.

Hear, hear!

I quit an orchestra about a year ago over the following program (with--if I remember correctly--8 rehearsals):  Stravinsky Firebird Suite; Tschaikowsky Capriccio Italient (the old error to think that "pop" is easy?); by Dvorak an unsung piece (truly unsung), Variations for Orchestra or some such title; a piece by John Corigliano (which turned out to be the least challenging of them all except for its modernist language).  The conductor was competent, somebody that is who can give readable upbeats and correct cues etc.  Not someone who spends hours in meditation over a score though.  And a just terrible rehearsing style:  Used the performance tempo right from the start, practically never tried to get something right below tempo first, no focus on any particular problem, no persistence in trying to solve a problem before moving on to the next.  He would give instructions, have the orchestra play the passage once and move on the next problem, almost regardless of how it sounded.  He also overlooked a place where Stravinsky put in "minim = crotchet" i.e. slow down by 50% and conducted right through in an absurd tempo.
After four rehearsals with hardly any progress at all I decided to quit (I am not generally a quitter).  They (the conductor and most members) were totally surprised at what I told them (as politely as I could).  They all seemed to feel that everything was completely ok.

I'm surprised to hear Dvorak's Symphonic Variations described as unsung. -Very- surprised. (Let's see- ok, I admit, Dvorak "Symphonic Variations" 1877 only turns up 10,200 Google hits, but...)

(BTW the folk-like theme of the set, composed by Dvorak and earlier in 1877 used as the theme of a work for chorus, is very similar to the theme of the variations of the (B-flat major) finale of one of Nikolay Myaskovsky's symphonies, no.11 in B-flat minor of 1931-2.)

Dvorak's Symphonic Variation are quite rare in American concert halls - from the professional to the amateurs. For amateur groups, about the only Dvorak they tackle is the last three symphonies, Slavonic Dances, maybe the violin concerto, the Carnival Overture -- and that's about it. I would love to play Noonday Witch, Water Goblin and some other music, but conductors by and large are far less knowledgeable about repertoire than people on this board. Ever tried to interest a conductor in Fibich?

btw, "Rusalka" (Dvorak's, I mean) is happening in Houston starting Saturday...

You are, on the whole, quite right. (I haven't the patience to try to interest anyone in anything, it should be fairly clear by now :D Unfortunately... and yes, I get your meaning, I'm just the wrong person to ask...)
I assume you meant to include the B minor cello concerto before the violin concerto in popularity :)
A few exceptions this year, besides Rusalka, include the "Othello" overture in Boston next Thursday, cello concerto in Pittsburgh next Friday (but see above), Vodnik/Water Goblin in NYC from Feb. 18-23, piano concerto in Cleveland in early March, scherzo capriccioso in Chicago Mar. 10/12/15, Polednice/Noon Witch in San Diego on April 1-3, American Suite in Washington DC April 28/30, Psalm 149 version 2 in Sacramento on May 14, Wood Dove in Cleveland May 19-22, etc.

As to the Symphonic Variations, the Prometheus Symphony in Oakland performed them on September 27, 2015, according to their homepage- or is this the performance we're both talking about, that you were in, and we've now come circle? :)

Yep, Cello Concerto. Arizona Opera has announced Rusalka for next season, which is a greatly welcomed treat.

Quote from: eschiss1 on Friday 05 February 2016, 03:51
As to the Symphonic Variations, the Prometheus Symphony in Oakland performed them on September 27, 2015, according to their homepage- or is this the performance we're both talking about, that you were in, and we've now come circle? :)

I deliberately did not name the orchestra in question (and I won't now), but it was not the Prometheus Symphony though geographically close enough for one program compiler to be copycat of the other...  (I suppose you could find it now; I count on it not being worth the effort).
As to my impression of the work:  I don't think the world is losing much by not hearing it (a characteristic it seems of Dvorak:  We once did a play through of all his quartets--spread over many evenings--and it is amazing how large the distance is between his sublime works and his weakest efforts, maybe larger than for any other composer of the 19th century, sung or unsung).

Maybe I should hesitate to ask where you place his last few quartets (nos. 9-11, 13, 14) but this is the wrong thread for that anyway :)