As clichéd as it sounds, it is true that challenges can be seen as opportunities. Such is the case with the arts and music in particular. Many symphony orchestras and some opera houses continue to struggle to pay the bills. Their personnel and operating costs are greater than their revenue, forcing them to rely solely on sponsorships and donations to stay solvent. While businesses and donors have traditionally given to the arts, they are beginning to be suspicious of the inherent value and even future of the symphony orchestra. Nobody wants to support a sinking ship, and until orchestras find ways to bring in revenues through ticket sales, they will likely remain on life support.
Let us play the blame game. It is possible that poor management of many orchestras has caused some of the problems. Good managers control costs and find ways to maximize profits, recognizing the value of a strong marketing mix, segmentation, careful accounting, and appealing products. Good managers have a working knowledge of cost accounting, budgeting, human resources, leadership, the future value of money, inventory, and pricing. Granted, the challenges of dealing with symphony orchestras are excessively complicated and require skills not normally needed in the corporate world, but the essence of good management must remain true in spite of the unusual structure of an orchestra.
But management is not the whole story of where the blame lies, in fact management is probably not the real story at all. A manager is essentially an employee of the board, and the board is the controlling and responsible entity of the orchestra. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the solvency of the organization, whether that is through donations, ticket sales, or sponsorships. The board, hopefully, is comprised of those who love music but also have enough business acumen to make wise decisions for the present and future of the ensemble. And herein lies the tension, the board as the responsible entity, must remain in control, at least to an extent, with the programming of the orchestra. This then means the conductor of the orchestra is an employee not an employer of the board of directors. Yikes!
A conductor of an orchestra has achieved his/her position through a combination of factors including great talent, tenacity, leadership, people skills, wisdom, and intellect. Their leadership abilities are a marriage of musical talent, confidence, and unswerving dedication to excellence in all things. Outstanding conductors, by virtue of their abilities, are often strong in opinions, relentless in effort, and goal-directed in their leadership. Asking a great conductor to bend to the will of a board is difficult at best. When all goals are the same--musical and financial--the results will be positive for all constituents, and the board will be able to pay the bills and enjoy great music. A wise board gives the conductor the latitude to make the musical decisions that are best for the orchestra, the community, and for the cause of music. But how much freedom should be allowed when revenues decline and the goals of presenting great music fly in the face of paying the bills? Conductor autonomy only works when boards, musicians, and community meet all the artistic and financial goals, and when all constituents work congruently for those same goals.
But this rarely happens in today's eclectic world of changing tastes, digital transmission, and unpredictable behavior. What kind of live music will sell tickets and how should an orchestra (a medium with a long, prosperous, and highly respected heritage) respond to the need to generate revenue? Should we abandon the old in favor of the new? Should we give up on the canon of "classical" music that has stood the test of time and been highly valued for over a century? Isn't classical or art music the best kind of music with the greatest qualities? Without classical music, are we destined to become a society of popcorn and candy cane eaters without any artistic sense, living in a quagmire of artistic mediocrity totally devoid of depth and quality?
The philosophical tug-of-war between artistic elites, lovers of classical music, and those seeking a lighter more eclectic offering, although not new, is more pronounced today than ever before, with the result being a significant drop in revenues for most orchestras and operas. For the orchestra to survive, boards and conductors must work together to program concerts that will attract and interest audiences. The art form, regardless of whether it is a string quartet, concert band, symphony orchestra, ballet, solo piano, or opera must be able to support itself and demonstrate greater revenues than expenses.
To those holding onto an unsustainable model from the past, it is time to examine the role of music in today's culture and think beyond personal preference. It is time to embrace a global music perspective that amalgamates many genres from the past as well as the present, while retaining the congruence of the collective spirit. For those who despair that the demise of operas, orchestras, and "classical" music is a sign of the hopelessness of the modern world, I recommend living in a personal cave of recordings and videos while longing for the past to return. For the others, there is now an opportunity to discover new art forms, to try new ways of making music, to embrace eclecticism, to put aside differences and find common ground, to develop new audiences, and to recognize that music is alive and well today in many forms, from many lands, and in a multitude of styles.
No comments:
Post a Comment