# How should we fund American orchestras?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

American municipal orchestras are in increasing financial trouble. Strikes and lockouts are becoming more common. Even where a settlement is reached, the players always suffer:

- Pay is cut, often dramatically. In some cities, players are now in food stamp territory.
- Benefits, primarily health and retirement, are reduced.
- The number of permanent positions is cut.
- Players may no longer be "full time" and may be paid piecework, by the rehearsal or performance.
- Players may lose employee status entirely and become on-call contractors.

Some cities have problems due to new and expensive concert halls, committed to in better times. But in all cases, it boils down to insufficient revenues to cover costs. A typical ratio for orchestral revenue is 40% ticket sales, 60% donations. Both are shrinking in many cities, a double whammy.

In all this it's worth noting that revenue from federal or local governments is almost nil in most places. This seems to be a peculiarly American situation, very unlike (say) Australia or most of Europe.

So my question is: Should government in the USA subsidize our municipal orchestras? Or, in our times, do we really need all these orchestras to begin with?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

(We should invent a machine that turns the outrage on classical music message boards into money.) 

In this political environment, I don't think orchestras should be subsidized by the state. I realize that would be the death of a lot of orchestras, but frankly our political problems are so much bigger.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I thank KenOC for making this thread. I've been thinking of doing a similar thread for a while now, I've been reading things about this issue.

I think there should be funding to orchestras in the USA, but financial management of them has to be good. The problem with finances is that orchestras are using funds they get today (eg. from subscriptions) to pay debts of 5 years ago. This was certainly the case before the Global Financial Crisis, and I'd imagine that now things are being done with funding models to address this unsustainable situation. Here, I'm actually talking not of municipal orchestras in the USA but big name ones, the ones in big cities. That's what I've read about, but I would imagine the issues at the city do apply to those at the regional or municipal level.

The background to all this, the wider context is that unfortunately, this whole system we've got (which is the American model) of over-borrowing is now very common across the Western world. Common across the board I mean, not just to do with orchestras. Here, there's so many young people going bankrupt, its not funny. But the Australian government did deregulation in a 'smarter' way I think than some other countries, which threw out the baby with the bathwater (eg. deregulation was taken to mean no regulation, or virtually none, of the big lending institutions, the big banks). With what you did in the USA, the subprime collapse was bound to happen, and thus we got things like cuts in arts funding flowing on from this disaster.

Re the Australian situation, its not as bad by far as things have panned out in the USA, here is a recent article touching on the issue of arts funding here in the aftermath of the GFC:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...cultured-society/story-e6frgd0x-1226442485746

Just this week, the Australian federal government discovered a huge 'black hole' in our budget which its now addressing with funding cuts across various sectors. A bit grim but there you go. Nobody is immune from poor or misguided financial management.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

I think they should get together and form a national performing arts broadcasting network, which pays them to perform, and people can enjoy it from the comfort of their homes. That may be the only way to increase public interest in the orchestras. There seem to be such channels Europe.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mud said:


> I think they should get together and form a national performing arts broadcasting network, which pays them to perform, and people can enjoy it from the comfort of their homes. That may be the only way to increase public interest in the orchestras. There seem to be such channels Europe.


I need to ask where the money would come from for that venture and for its running costs and for their salaries. Advertising? Some other source?


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Yeah, as many sources as they can find. People seem to watch anything that is on TV, so getting it on there would be a good start.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I think any regular business that is not generating enough money to sustain itself is severly flawed.

Now the question might be: is an orchestra a regular business? Or is it a cultural and social institution that deserves public financing?

One could probably make a convincing case either way.

Strictly speaking, there in no need for orchestras (anymore). If you want to listen to a specific piece of music, you can buy the CD. Or take it out at the library. Or look it up on YouTube. So, strictly speaking, there is no need to provide people with an opportunity to hear classical music, because they already have plenty of opportunities, most of them cheaper and easier than an actual visit to the concert hall.

On the other hand, it might be that a healthy number of diverse orchestras is required to keep the entire classical music system - concerts, recordings, competitions, tours - up and running. And to ensure a steady flow of creative impulses and a variety of ideas and approaches.

Regardless of that, though, I think orchestras generally need to make some radical changes. I'm sure there are many great new ideas out there, but for the most part, many orchestras still operate the way they did in the 19th century. Back then, the choice for cultural evening entertainment was: theatre, opera or concert? Today, with radio, television, DVD, and the internet, the question is: do we even want to _leave the house_?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> - Pay is cut, often dramatically. In some cities, players are now in food stamp territory.


Just a bone to pick with this one:



> Symphony Orchestra
> 
> There is a great range of salaries for orchestras around the world. Positions, at least in union orchestras, are typically full-time with benefits. The lowest paying orchestras start their members at around $22,000 a year, and the highest paid orchestras starting at $143,000 (The Los Angeles Philharmonic). A full list of orchestra salaries is posted at www.icsom.org, but here are some examples of base salaries around the U.S. (all examples are from the 2011 season and available at icsom.org):
> 
> ...


$22000 a year for the _lowest_ paid isn't exactly food stamp territory for doing what you love. Most authors don't earn that much.

For a much more detailed analysis see THIS LINK.

The US also seems to have a larger pay divide than most countries, but this is not something that I wish to tackle here. I personally think that orchestral musicians get paid well enough. Conductors often get paid a lot more. Some conductors, though I can't recall who, have taken pay cuts voluntarily.

Back to the topic at hand, I think subsidies would be a great idea. After all, tens of) millions is a small number when compared to the overall US budget. On the other hand, I have seen it posted elsewhere that the US boosted the number of orchestras it had in the 1950s to what might be an unsustainable level. Its a touch choice between either keeping orchestras so that there is more access and paying the musicians less or getting rid of orchestras altogether. It has also been stated by others, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the closure of orchestras in the past has been largely to do with gross financial mismanagement.

EDIT: This article puts things in perspective with the rest of the world and also indicates that most get well above the minimum suggested above. I'd also add that the non-musical executives running the orchestras get paid ludicrous sums.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Orchestras are yet another thing we could use tax money on instead of the bloated military. But alot of Americans don't think the arts are worth anything. They expect artists to just provide their services out of a love for the art, and they don't care how the artists are supposed to survive.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

It's not easy to separate diseases from symptoms when treading upon this territory.

Here in America, I remember (barely) when two of the "Big-3" networks considered it a point of pride to have their own broadcast orchestras. I've read statistics that at the onset of the LP age, one in every four LPs sold was a Classical work. For decades, Texaco sponsored Metropolitan Opera broadcasts (and, to my mind, did wonderful service, while it lasted). Now, it's Toll Brothers ("America's Luxury Home Builder," so they say). Guess who had/has the deeper pockets, relative to the era?!

Now, items like this bid fair to fill me with Lebrechtian despair- but not all is lost- I think...

Music education in the US (as well as _much_ of education in the US) is in a dreadful state-- but that's a soluble problem.
America's population is aging- and as people age, many evolve a different perpective on musical aesthetics. Folks like André Rieu have mined this turf for considerable profit. Can anything be built from _that?_
Vibrant philanthropy has as a near-precondition a vibrant economy. Without getting into the politics of what can improve a domestic economy, can most of us at least agree that (in _America_, for goodness sakes), this, too, is a soluble problem?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Without getting into the politics of what can improve a domestic economy, can most of us at least agree that (in _America_, for goodness sakes), this, too, is a soluble problem?


Well, I'd have to ask if it's even a problem worth solving. You mention the "golden age" of recorded music, when one in four LPs sold were classical. Today, classical sales are in the neighborhood of 3% of the CD market. Classical music's mindshare has not just been reduced, it's been minitiaturized!

So we here may see the survival of orchestras as a "problem," but does anybody else? Are orchestras worth spending money on when there seem to be so many other needs, some bearing directly on human lives or suffering?

I'll add that the availability of reasonable alternatives to live orchestral performances has greatly reduced the value of the concert experience to many, as evidenced by ever-shrinking audiences. In our age, how many orchestras do we really need?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> $22000 a year for the _lowest_ paid isn't exactly food stamp territory for doing what you love. Most authors don't earn that much.


Most authors don't need to make the same large investments in education, training, and time to practice their craft. And for that matter, most instrumentalists don't qualify to play as professionals in orchestras. I'm not sure your comparison here is valid.

Thanks for the "base pay" numbers. A few orchestras are, indeed, doing well -- the NYPO (which you mentioned), Boston, and LA seem to have few economic problems. But even the beloved Philadelphia PO, now recovering from bankruptcy, has had to reduce player salaries significantly. In "troubled" orchestras, pay reductions have often been in the neighborhood of 25-40%!

Now imagine that you are a middle-aged, seasoned professional player. You have three kids approachng college age. You have a home but no equity (or maybe it's upside down). You are making, say, $80K a year with good health insurance and a decent retirement plan. Not a princely living, but a decent one,.

Suddenly your income is reduced to $56K and your health insurance costs increased. This is pretty severe and demoralizing, especially if you are accustomed to living the way you do (as most people are) and have major upcoming expenses or significant debts to pay. And this kind of an economic future certainly isn't going to attract very many people to the world of music performance.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Most authors don't need to make the same large investments in education, training, and time to practice their craft. And for that matter, most instrumentalists don't qualify to play as professionals in orchestras. I'm not sure your comparison here is valid.


Well, people should be paid for the work they do and the success of that work. Many people in the arts don't get a steady salary, so in that way orchestral players are extremely fortunate. Paying for necessary education and training shouldn't be part of it. They are already awarded the wages of a skilled professional.

As far as instrumentalists go, I didn't think this was relevant to the OP. There is more info on wages in the PDF link in my above post.



> Thanks for the "base pay" numbers. A few orchestras are, indeed, doing well -- the NYPO (which you mentioned), Boston, and LA seem to have few economic problems. But even the beloved Philadelphia PO, now recovering from bankruptcy, has had to reduce player salaries significantly. In "troubled" orchestras, pay reductions have often been in the neighborhood of 25-40%!


My main objection was the "food stamps" suggestion, implying that many members of orchestras are forced into penury. Do you have any further info on actual wage cuts rather than pay freezes?



> Now imagine that you are a middle-aged, seasoned professional player. You have three kids approachng college age. You have a home but no equity (or maybe it's upside down). You are making, say, $80K a year with good health insurance and a decent retirement plan. Not a princely living, but a decent one,.
> 
> Suddenly your income is reduced to $56K and your health insurance costs increased. This is pretty severe and demoralizing, especially if you are accustomed to living the way you do (as most people are) and have major upcoming expenses or significant debts to pay. And this kind of an economic future certainly isn't going to attract very many people to the world of music performance.


I would say that $56k is still an incredible wage. It may be demoralising and unfortunate, but no more than that, and certainly better than no job at all. It is a reality of the times that must be faced. I, personally, would look towards the management executive who are taking home six figure sums and not producing the goods. It seems like double standards.

There are many people waiting to fill the shoes of orchestra members. Most, if not all, of them would be happy with the starting wage of nearly all the orchestras operating today.

I do have sympathy with anyone who is facing financial straits, but IMO orchestral players are still doing pretty OK. Jobs in the rest of the economy have been hit much harder. As the saying goes: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re broadcast orchestras, that's what our capital city (big) orchestras in Australia used to be. All under the umbrella of the ABC (AUstralian Broadcasting Commission - now Corporation). But in the 1990's, the orchestras where taken out from under that banner and made into separate entities/businesses. I don't have any firm opinions on that, I don't know enough about it. But some people I know say it was not a positive step. Certainly, programming seems to have become more conservative and 'bums on seats.' But maybe that's another issue. Or is it? The orchestras need to do that, get customers in the door, to survive. The irony is that the Prime Minister who did the splitting up was Paul Keating, from the left (Labor Party) and a big fan of classical music!

But anyway, I've mentioned this before. Our Australian Chamber Orchestra is considered 'world's best practice' in terms of funding. They get less government funding than corporate sponsorship/donations. They more than break even, they have consistently made a profit, year in year out. They are effectively our national orchestra. Maybe our friends in America can learn a few lessons from what's being done with the ACO down under???


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would say that $56k is still an incredible wage.

I wouldn't think that $56K is an incredible wage for someone who has risen to the top levels in his or her field. How many pro-athletes make only $56K? How many make only $56K every game?

There are many people waiting to fill the shoes of orchestra members. Most, if not all, of them would be happy with the starting wage of nearly all the orchestras operating today.

This is part of the mentality that is destroying all that the middle class... the nurses, firemen, teachers, police officers, etc... have worked and struggled for for years. There is this attitude that all these individuals are somehow overpaid... not the CEOs or the bankers who caused the current financial mess... and they can all be easily replaced with kids just out of college for half of the wage they were working for. So bend over and smile.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> Do you have any further info on actual wage cuts rather than pay freezes?


I haven't seen any pay freezes (or increases for that matter). Here's what I have just from the past six weeks. These numbers don't include benefit cuts or reductions in positions, which are both common. They are from news articles that are often carelessly written or hard to interpret, but it appears to be an accurate picture overall.

- Atlanta, ~30% cut in pay, agreed after one-month lockout.
- Indianapolis, 32% cut in pay, agreed.
- Jacksonville FL, 20% cut in pay, status unknown.
- Minnesota, 34% cut in pay, musicians are locked out.
- Seattle, 15% cut in pay, pending with expired contract.
- St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, 15% cut in pay, musicians are locked out.

There are plenty of more before early September. This has been going on for a longtime. Some orchestras, like Seattle, are coming up on their second round of givebacks.

I'm told that in the 1950s the US had 50 year-round professional classical orchestras. Now, with the reduction in Indianapolis's season, there are 17. During the same period, the US population has almost doubled. Is there a trend here?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Orchestras are yet another thing we could use tax money on instead of the bloated military. But alot of Americans don't think the arts are worth anything. They expect artists to just provide their services out of a love for the art, and they don't care how the artists are supposed to survive.

I certainly agree that there are many ways we might better spend our tax dollars on than the bloated military. The argument that some would make... and it seems a legitimate question... is why we should spend public money in supporting musical institutions for a rather minuscule audience that is often among the most educated and/or wealthy? Where is the public tax support for blues or blugrass or jazz? "I am an artist! Do you not recognize my genius and my value to society as a whole? I should be coddled and well-fed." What about poets and playwrights and novelists and painters and sculptors? Or perhaps the artist needs to create with the audience in mind... or get a day job. Of course I'm playing the devil's advocate here... but I think there is some validity to questioning just how we go about spending tax dollars... others people's money... on supporting art forms for an elite audience. I think such money might be best invested in arts education... in developing an understanding and appreciation for art... and perhaps developing future generations of patrons and supporters and a paying audience.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

> I wouldn't think that $56K is an incredible wage for someone who has risen to the top levels in his or her field. How many pro-athletes make only $56K? How many make only $56K every game?


That was an example though. If you look at the figures in my original reply, then you'll see that there are wages much higher than this. Some orchestras have a higher salary than this as their _starting_ salary without counting the additional incomes and benefits. And I wouldn't use sportspeople as the benchmark!



> This is part of the mentality that is destroying all that the middle class... the nurses, firemen, teachers, police officers, etc... have worked and struggled for for years. There is this attitude that all these individuals are somehow overpaid... not the CEOs or the bankers who caused the current financial mess... and they can all be easily replaced with kids just out of college for half of the wage they were working for. So bend over and smile.


Of course I agree that it is the CEOs, bankers and executives that are taking more that their fair share out of greed. Pure greed. The gap between a CEO and the average employee is widening and it is this that is driving the lowest paid people into poverty. The middle class is less unaffected, though their salaries have seen a squeeze too. They have enough money to live comfortably with a good level of luxuries. Or should do anyway. It is the credit card culture and the need to spend more and more that has people struggling. What also happens when the highest paid people's wages increase is that the next level down also gets a pay increase. The pay increase relative to the value of work done is increasing all across the board. How can this be a good thing? The CEO pay increase is only the inevitable result of a culture of overvaluation and greed. The gap between the poor and the rich, or even the middle classes, in the US is jawdropping.

But this is way too political/philosophical and off the subject. I recognise that I am particularly odd in this regard and I'd rather not continue this part of the debate. As I said, my main objection was the suggestion that orchestral musicians are poor enough that they must resort to food stamps.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> As I said, my main objection was the suggestion that orchestral musicians are poor enough that they must resort to food stamps.


I looked it up. In the continental US, a family with three children is eligible for food stamps if it has a gross income of $34,032 or lower. I'm not sure I want to withdraw or moderate my initial statement.

In April, Louisville musicians settled for a new contract with a base pay of $27,750. Of course, not all musicians (or even many) are at base pay, and unemployment benefits *may* be available in the now-expanded off season, but I think the point is pretty clear.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I haven't seen any pay freezes (or increases for that matter). Here's what I have just from the past six weeks. These numbers don't include benefit cuts or reductions in positions, which are both common. They are from news articles that are often carelessly written or hard to interpret, but it appears to be an accurate picture overall.
> 
> I'm told that in the 1950s the US had 50 year-round professional classical orchestras. Now, with the reduction in Indianapolis's season, there are 17. During the same period, the US population has almost doubled. Is there a trend here?


Thanks for the info.  I think the obvious trend is that people aren't interested in classical music as much as they were 50-60 years ago. Of course, this is well known by orchestras. What is interesting, however, is what has changed in the last 10 years. Classical music has been 'out of fashion' for a long time and I can't see the deaths of aging fans alone as affecting such a dramatic change. Perhaps, in the multimedia age of the iPod, people just don't value live performances as they once did.

I did find THIS article, which may be of interest. Apologies if you have read it before, but some illuminating excepts.
_
Not long ago, I found myself explaining to my tween son why certain things he covets - a trendy brand of ear phones, in this case - command a high price, and why price tags are often divorced from justice and logic. It has always been true and always will be: Nothing has intrinsic value; something fetches only what someone is willing to pay for it._
_
After 1963, other orchestras aspired to year-round employment. These contracts lured top talent, but also meant finding more concerts and venues to fill out players' schedules. Bigger budgets required larger staffs - marketers, fund-raisers, administrators to ensure that management was complying with complex work rules. Orchestras grew.

Audiences grew, too. Until they didn't._
_
What will it say about a country of 313 million if it can't find a way for a little more than 2,000 musicians to make enough money to exist without moonlighting? The free-market system may or may not be wise, but it is so far deaf to this question._

The last excerpt is especially interesting. Why CAN'T enough public funding exist to give a reasonable subsidy to orchestras in the US? How far would $313 million dollars stretch, just $1 per citizen? But I guess things just aren't done like that in the US. Come to that, what is the comparative state of European and other orchestras around the world when compared to US ones?

Does this article hold any merit?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I looked it up. In the continental US, a family with three children is eligible for food stamps if it has a gross income of $34,032 or lower. I'm not sure I want to withdraw or moderate my initial statement.
> 
> In April, Louisville musicians settled for a new contract with a base pay of $27,750. Of course, not all musicians (or even many) are at base pay, and unemployment benefits *may* be available in the now-expanded off season, but I think the point is pretty clear.


Of course, for your scenario to have merit then the person in question would have to be a single parent or only working partner, perform at the starting salary for the lowest paid orchestra with no additional benefits or income and have at least three children. Out of the 2000 musicians employed by the main orchestras, how many might this apply to? The stats are hard to get an accurate picture of, but the bigger picture suggests, to me, that most people are earning well in excess of $50k with many in excess of $100k.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I certainly agree that there are many ways we might better spend our tax dollars on than the bloated military. The argument that some would make... and it seems a legitimate question... is why we should spend public money in supporting musical institutions for a rather minuscule audience that is often among the most educated and/or wealthy? Where is the public tax support for blues or blugrass or jazz? "I am an artist! Do you not recognize my genius and my value to society as a whole? I should be coddled and well-fed." What about poets and playwrights and novelists and painters and sculptors? Or perhaps the artist needs to create with the audience in mind... or get a day job. Of course I'm playing the devil's advocate here... but I think there is some validity to questioning just how we go about spending tax dollars... others people's money... on supporting art forms for an elite audience. I think such money might be best invested in arts education... in developing an understanding and appreciation for art... and perhaps developing future generations of patrons and supporters and a paying audience.




I would support subsidising artists all over, as is done in many other places through government grants etc. When you look at the levels of money involved, the contribution of each individual is miniscule. 312 million people giving $10 a year to public funding of the arts is $3 120 000 000. Compared to the average tax paid by an individual over the course of a year, what's $10?

EDIT: This amounts to around 0.3% of the military budget, if I have my calculations correct.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> Thanks for the info.  I think the obvious trend is that people aren't interested in classical music as much as they were 50-60 years ago.


That may be the case, indeed. But maybe more importantly, the municipal orchestra is no longer the preferred delivery system for classical music. I think that's pretty obvious (well, it is to me!) The quality and selection of recorded music have inreased dramatically while the prices have plummeted. E.g., a stereo classical LP in 1963 cost $48 in today's dollars! However, the all-in cost of going to a concert downtown has risen. And a DVD gives me a better view as well.

And thanks for the link to the Lebrecht article. I agree with it. The conductor is now just another player in a rather grim game of industrial relations. This must be very frustrating -- a few days ago, the conductor of a San Diego chamber symphony quit because he couldn't get rid of players he considered inferior. Toscanini would have just shot them, and nobody would have said a word!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

There's more than enough money on the scale of the nation(s). It's just not popular enough; even if it gets through the legislation come round election time politicians will compete with each other to see who can pile scorn on these "elitist", "wasteful" programs that "no one" likes.

There are no pragmatic solutions; pay-cuts will only drive talent away, it already has. Efficient management will only go so far; squeeze every last drop of juice from an apple and it's still only one apple.

Europe had an aristocratic tradition of state funded orchestras and they survived by sheer inertia and going under the radar. It's now suffering too.

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippedd...as-apply-brutal-pinch-to-young-musicians.html

We live in democracies, democracies are ruled by the people, and the people have spoken. This isn't a condescending, elitist remark; people don't even have sympathy for pop music; the RIAA gets no respect, government funding of pop music would never get through.

The only hope is billionaires who are keen on funding parochial orchestras.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> That may be the case, indeed. But maybe more importantly, the municipal orchestra is no longer the preferred delivery system for classical music. I think that's pretty obvious (well, it is to me!) The quality and selection of recorded music have inreased dramatically while the prices have plummeted. E.g., a stereo classical LP in 1963 cost $48 in today's dollars! However, the all-in cost of going to a concert downtown has risen. And a DVD gives me a better view as well.
> 
> And thanks for the link to the Lebrecht article. I agree with it. The conductor is now just another player in a rather grim game of industrial relations. This must be very frustrating -- a few days ago, the conductor of a San Diego chamber symphony quit because he couldn't get rid of players he considered inferior. Toscanini would have just shot them, and nobody would have said a word!


That last phrase is rich.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Orchestras are yet another thing we could use tax money on instead of the bloated military...





StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...I certainly agree that there are many ways we might better spend our tax dollars on than the bloated military. ...


Commenting on the Australian situation only (re military spending), I think that it has been proven here that when you decrease spending on defence, it will have reprecussions on future governments/budgets. Can make it worse in future. For example, after the end of the Cold War (early 1990's), the Australian Federal government decreased defence spending. In the meantime, it has been increased, but we're now behind some of our Asian neighbours in terms of military technology. We're obsolete compared to them in some ways. So what I'm saying is if you do that, future generations will have to redress (eg. pay for) the imbalance you create.

I'm not wading into the arts funding issue in relation to cutting other areas of the budget, nor derail this thread into discussion of spending on defence. Just making what I think is a valid point, given some current Australian developments.

But they're tricky things, these budgets. Guess who would not like to be in the Federel treasurer's shoes?


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

> Owners of teams in the "big four" sports leagues - the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL - have reaped nearly $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies for new homes since 1990. And for just as long, fans, urban planners and economists have argued that building facilities for private sports teams is a massive waste of public money. As University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson memorably put it, "If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest it in a new ballpark."


Just sayin...

The blog _The Urbanophile_ reports on Indianapolis's situation:
Indianapolis has made a choice, and has put its marker on sports. The orchestra, despite its high quality, doesn't generate the same branding benefits.

_A couple years back the orchestra launched a fundraising campaign designed to boost the endowment by $100 million. The local papers reported that this was being co-led by Jim Irsay (owner of the Colts) and Herb Simon (owner of the Pacers), the two richest men in town, who were called "Indy's billionaires."

Yet according to the IBJ the fundraising campaign fizzled after garnering only $12 million in pledges. You have two billionaires leading your campaign, either of whom could afford to write a $12 million check each and not miss the money, and that's all you get?

This is bound to stir quite a bit of conversation, as both of those billionaires have been the recipients of enormous public subsidies. It was the taxpayers of metro Indy who literally made Irsay a billionaire by building him a fabulous $750 million stadium with arguably a more lucrative lease than any team other than the Bengals. Simon's Pacers recently started pulling in about $10 million a year in special city support (beyond what they already received) after they threatened to leave town if their deal wasn't renegotiated.

Even at $12 million apiece for the ISO, Irsay and Simon would have been far ahead financially, as far as their dealings with their home town go.

Former Mayor Bill Hudnut wrote in his memoirs of the time in the 1980s when the Pacers were going to fold or leave town. He begged the Simon brothers to save the team by buying it, and reported that Melvin Simon's response was, "Well, I've got to do it, don't I?'"

How times change. Not just in Indianapolis, but across America. It used to be - and I'm talking as recently as the early 1990s here, not ancient history - that the local business and community elite could be counted on, when it mattered, to put money into their cities. Today, they are much more likely to be taking it out._
http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/09/02/indianapolis-to-downsize-downgrade-orchestra/

Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra is the closest full-time orchestra to me, and they are solvent because of a huge ($85 million) 2009 gift from philanthropist Louise Nippert.

My local ROPA orchestra is solvent also because of some recent large gifts from our community, and their willingness to come up with a new business model. Because I like having a civic orchestra and I am financially able to do so, I support my orchestra through donation and attendance. Our orchestra also gets some support from the Ohio Arts Council and this year is the recipient of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Our orchestra pays $124.12 per service. A current opening for section viola with 140 guaranteed services will pay $17,337. An opening for assistant principal 2nd violin with 171 services @ 138.08 will pay $23,612. There aren't enough musician openings at either the ICSOM or ROPA level to absorb the music performance graduates from US conservatories and music colleges. I can't imagine repeatedly going through the audition process for a $20,000/yr job as physically and mentally demanding as being an orchestra musician.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

A simple and very small tax on all pop music venues, recordings, printed music, would readily subsidize a lot of art music and ensembles.... collectively, money made / generated by pop music rivals the world's richest and most profitable corporations.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2012)

Ok, so we can spend $10.5 billion on one more aircraft carrier that we don't need (and that can probably be sunk by missiles costing 1/1000th of that sum), but we can't afford to subsidize cultural activities.

We reap what we sow.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Average salary for for a Chicago Symphony Orchestra musician is over $170K. Support for the CSO is pretty good, but there is a looming problem for the CSO (as with many other orchestras) of not collecting middle-aged newcomers in classical music. Many middle-aged people I know are listening to the same music as their teenage kids...people who know their modern art, modern architects, modern writers -- but can't seem to pay attention to classical music new and old. Two possible ways to improve funding:

1) Make the conductor a house-hold name within the community. Riccardo Mutti is world-famous...but only to those who pay at least some attention to the classical music scene. My in-laws probably can't name the conductor, nor can any of their friends. Better advertising can help with this.

2) The format probably needs to be updated in a world that is accustomed to rapid visual stimulation. Just as clapping in between movements was eliminated several decades ago, a newer and lighter and fresher format (and I'm not sure what this can be) may need to be adopted to draw the next generation of donors. Baby steps...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

IBMchicago said:


> Average salary for for a Chicago Symphony Orchestra musician is over $170K.


Pop musicians of equivalent talent make a lot more. Salaries are too low, not too high.

"Before we get too bent out of shape looking at Barenboim and Maazel's salaries, maybe we should look at what the top paid members of other professions make. How would their salary compare to the top lawyer, banker, real estate broker, basketball player, football coach, college football coach, stock broker, Enron execuctive, etc? Before we say that those comparisons aren't valid because orchestras are non-profit, remember that most business and all athletic endeavors receive their own forms of government subsidy and tax exemption as well. Most professional sports teams play in multi-hundred million dollar stadiums financed by tax payers, and most big corporations receive huge tax breaks from state and federal governments to encourage them to locate in the communities where they are based.I've often said that money is the most important and tangible way in which our modern society measures value, whether we like it or not. Right now, as a society we think that bench warmer or a basketball team is worth at least five times what the best paid orchestra musician in the country is. We've decided that an exotic dancer is worth more than a public school teacher, and that a lawyer for a tobacco company is worth more than a Nobel laureate at a major research university. I think we can make a good case that conductors should be paid a hell of a lot more.

I also think orchestra musicians should be paid a hell of a lot more, not because they are being treated unfairly relative to conductors and administrators, but because their contribution to society is worth more. If you look at the difference in salary between a music director and a section player and compare that with the difference between a corporate executive and a front line employee in almost any other field, you'll see that in music the gap is very, very small (this is not a moral point- I believe that it would be better that all business reduced that range, but in our society, the large gap is the norm, and failing to reflect that norm infers that our leaders are worth less than those in other fields). Especially when you take NY and Chicago out of the equation, American MDs look almost suspiciously generous. Poor Robert Spano, making only five times ASO base pay! Can you imagine that happening at GE or Ford????????

Of course, orchestras could move away from their current rather corporate structures and instead move to a model more like a sports team- after all, in professional sports leagues, players often earn more than their coaches. On the other hand, they have no long-term job security, and have to negotiate their contracts as free agents. Do musicians want that level of permanent insecurity? If musicians want to make the case for a new model to the business leaders who make up boards, we'd need to really present it as a whole different way of doing business, because most board members have spent their professional lives working in traditional, hierarchical organizations

No, I would contend that society ought to pay us all, players and conductors, even critics, a lot more, but that realistically we ought to be in line way behind teachers, nurses, medical technicians, university professors, agricultural workers and the people who clean and maintain our workplaces.

At least top US orchestra musicians can take comfort in being paid almost twice what many British musicians make for about half the work. Hopefully instead of fighting among ourselves, we can be more effective in convincing people to think about how the ways in which they spend their money expresses society's values, and that we need them to vote for he importance of music and culture."

http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2006/08/11/conductor-and-musician-salaries-show-we-the-money/

Again, the problem is so simple, and thus so impossible; it's a problem of political willpower.



> 1) Make the conductor a house-hold name within the community. Riccardo Mutti is world-famous...but only to those who pay at least some attention to the classical music scene. My in-laws probably can't name the conductor, nor can any of their friends. Better advertising can help with this.
> 
> 2) The format probably needs to be updated in a world that is accustomed to rapid visual stimulation. Just as clapping in between movements was eliminated several decades ago, a newer and lighter and fresher format (and I'm not sure what this can be) may need to be adopted to draw the next generation of donors. Baby steps...


I don't think that there's anything that we can think of that program managers haven't thought of already. Attempts to do this haven't succeeded. Not everyone has the charisma of a Bernstein.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

IBMchicago said:


> Average salary for for a Chicago Symphony Orchestra musician is over $170K. Support for the CSO is pretty good...


The Chicago SO musicians held a short strike about a month ago to protest a new contract that rolled pay back to where it was five years ago (there had since been annual increases). And last Saturday: "More than 100 Chicago Symphony Orchestra musicians went on strike Saturday, infuriating patrons who came to Orchestra Hall expecting a show and upsetting world-renowned conductor Riccardo Muti. The CSO canceled the 8 p.m. concert less than two hours before the scheduled start. It was the first Saturday night show of the 2012-2013 season."

Not all are happy there. "I think it's despicable," said subscriber Alvin Beatty, who came with his wife and a cousin who flew in from Florida. "...They are thumbing their noses at the people who pay them." Beatty, 80, of Evanston, said he was reconsidering his donations to the famed orchestra: "The CSO is the beneficiary of half of my estate. I'm going to tell you I'm going to rethink it."


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

back on topic for funding:

Quoted from Christopher Blair on Adaptistration (because I can't say it better):
_The health of performing arts funding in this country has been historically connected to the economic health of the private sector,and in particular to *those with the interest and financial means to donate*(bold is mine). A stagnating economy, business contraction, and the potential of ever higher taxes on this group will inevitably reduce the flow of contributed money to the arts. The deficiency will never be made up by government funding here as the advocating constituency is politically puny compared to other societal needs and popular desires._

If a tax credit for donations to non-profits goes away, so will the money.

Please forgive my promotion for interesting article on this topic I posted elsewhere on the forum.
http://www.talkclassical.com/21968-view-forest.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lunasong said:


> If a tax credit for donations to non-profits goes away, so will the money.


A clarification: There is no tax credit for charitable donations. Such donations are deductible from taxable income, a different thing. One of the odd effects of this is to make donations more attractive at higher tax rates.

For example, if you are in a 20% marginal tax bracket, the net cost of a $1,000 donation is $800 ($1,000 less the $200 reduction in your taxes). If you are in a hypothetical 40% bracket, the net cost is only $600. So higher taxes on those with higher incomes may actually encourage donations to (for example) orchestras!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Lunasong said:


> back on topic for funding:
> 
> Quoted from Christopher Blair on Adaptistration (because I can't say it better):
> _The health of performing arts funding in this country has been historically connected to the economic health of the private sector,and in particular to *those with the interest and financial means to donate*(bold is mine). A stagnating economy, business contraction, and the potential of ever higher taxes on this group will inevitably reduce the flow of contributed money to the arts. The deficiency will never be made up by government funding here as the advocating constituency is politically puny compared to other societal needs and popular desires._
> ...


Great post.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

KenOC said:


> For example, if you are in a 20% marginal tax bracket, the net cost of a $1,000 donation is $800 ($1,000 less the $200 reduction in your taxes). If you are in a hypothetical 40% bracket, the net cost is only $600. So higher taxes on those with higher incomes may actually encourage donations to (for example) orchestras!


Well, _that_'s an interesting perspective. Lets see how it holds up when we run the numbers.

Let's say that (improbably), my household has a taxable income of $200000/year- and that (equally improbably) I "tithe" the arts to the tune of 10% of my income, making the Wagner Society of New York, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Metropolitan Opera very happy... [Well, maybe not the Metropolitan Opera, since no matter how much one donates there, one is subject to incessant importunings to donate more-- but I digress]. Okay, now I have $180000 in taxable income. If that sum is taxed at 20%, I have $144000 remaining.

Now, in come the progressives, dedicated to making me pay "my fair share," and instituting a 40% tax rate for my earnings-level. I start with the same $200000, then make an effort to renew my "tithe," again leaving the household with $180000. That $180000 taxed at 40% now leaves me with $108000, $36000 less than in the prior example. If I were to absurdly try to increase my giving level, my bottom-line would be lessened further.

No- in the real-world, higher tax rates tend to suppress charitable giving. People who have more of their income taxed will economize where they can-- and one of the simplest areas to economize is in their levels of donations. Also (on a psychological level), people in this category have the feeling that they very literally "gave at the office," and will be disinclined to donate further.

There _are_ studies that verify the negative impact of high taxation on donation activity...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> There _are_ studies that verify the negative impact of high taxation on donation activity...


That may well be the case, and probably is. Nonetheless, it is correct to say that the net cost of a donation to a person in a high tax bracket is less than the net cost to a person in a lower bracket. If Herman Caine's proposal to eliminate deductibility of donations entirely became fact, do you think that the rich would donate more? [Added: Yes, that's something of a non sequitur, but maybe an interesting one!]


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Well, _that_'s an interesting perspective. Lets see how it holds up when we run the numbers.
> 
> Let's say that (improbably), my household has a taxable income of $200000/year- and that (equally improbably) I "tithe" the arts to the tune of 10% of my income, making the Wagner Society of New York, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Metropolitan Opera very happy... [Well, maybe not the Metropolitan Opera, since no matter how much one donates there, one is subject to incessant importunings to donate more-- but I digress]. Okay, now I have $180000 in taxable income. If that sum is taxed at 20%, I have $144000 remaining.
> 
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 40% would only be applied after a certain threshhold, so your figures are incorrect. The change in income after tax is likely to much lower than in the example, nor are people likely to give away as much as 10% of their income. 1% per year is still a large sum, IMO. I know you said 'improbable', but realistic figures would be a better example.

As for the conclusion that people have less money to give as donations at higher tax levels, well that's pretty obvious, but donating to the Wagner society should probably be a lot lower down on the list of priorities than public spending to help real people. The majority of funding (asides from ticket sales) is also, I believe, donated by people who have a lot higher income than $200k, who have oodles of cash lying around. Or people who are now dead. But depending on this sort of money seems to be a highly erratic way to do business. I'm sure that I also read somewhere that a large amount of money is donated by corporations and not individuals.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 40% would only be applied after a certain threshhold, so your figures are incorrect. The change in income after tax is likely to much lower than in the example, nor are people likely to give away as much as 10% of their income. 1% per year is still a large sum, IMO. I know you said 'improbable', but realistic figures would be a better example.
> 
> As for the conclusion that people have less money to give as donations at higher tax levels, well that's pretty obvious, but donating to the Wagner society should probably be a lot lower down on the list of priorities than public spending to help real people. The majority of funding (asides from ticket sales) is also, I believe, donated by people who have a lot higher income than $200k, who have oodles of cash lying around. Or people who are now dead. But depending on this sort of money seems to be a highly erratic way to do business. I'm sure that I also read somewhere that a large amount of money is donated by corporations and not individuals.


In the United States one can make a deduction to his taxable income for contributions made to performing organizations when they prepare their income tax returns. These deductions then reduce an individuals tax liability. Is their a similar system in Europe?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 40% would only be applied after a certain threshhold...


Correct, which is why the OP on this topic specified "marginal tax rate." Chi_townPhilly's post is still conceptually correct however, since a person whose *average* tax rate is higher will have less after-tax income to donate. Regardless of how "cheap" a donation is, it still has a positive net cost.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> In the United States one can make a deduction to his taxable income for contributions made to performing organizations when they prepare their income tax returns. These deductions then reduce an individuals tax liability. Is their a similar system in Europe?


One can make a deduction to taxable income for donations to charity organisations. I'm not sure whether or not 'performing organisations' qualify as charities, however.

EDIT: They do, or at least the London Philharmonic has a registered charity number.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> One can make a deduction to taxable income for donations to charity organisations. I'm not sure whether or not 'performing organisations' qualify as charities, however.
> 
> EDIT: They do, or at least the London Philharmonic has a registered charity number.


In the US we have a similar system. We call them "501(c)3 Tax Exempt Organizations". Orchestras can apply to the Internal Revenue Service and qualify as a Tax Exempt Organizations.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just an update, and maybe back to the food stamps discussion: "The Spokane Symphony and its musicians appear to be at an impasse over contract negotiations. Despite a balanced budget last year, the Symphony is looking to pay its musicians less, according to a press release from the musicians' union. In recent contract negotiations, the symphony proposed $15,132 salaries, down from $17,460."

When should a city say, "Let's just buy CDs instead"?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> As for the conclusion that people have less money to give as donations at higher tax levels, well that's pretty obvious, but donating to the Wagner society should probably be a lot lower down on the list of priorities than public spending to help real people. The majority of funding (asides from ticket sales) is also, I believe, donated by people who have a lot higher income than $200k, who have oodles of cash lying around.


That's exactly what's happening; in Italy opera is degenerating slowly due to cuts in state funding.



BurningDesire said:


> Orchestras are yet another thing we could use tax money on instead of the bloated military. But alot of Americans don't think the arts are worth anything. They expect artists to just provide their services out of a love for the art, and they don't care how the artists are supposed to survive.


Most people care more about the military than orchestras; you don't know that it's bloated; sure, military spending dwarfs spending in the arts, but this is true everywhere.



PetrB said:


> A simple and very small tax on all pop music venues, recordings, printed music, would readily subsidize a lot of art music and ensembles.... collectively, money made / generated by pop music rivals the world's richest and most profitable corporations.


Politically unfeasible.



crmoorhead said:


> *Of course I agree that it is the CEOs, bankers and executives that are taking more that their fair share out of greed.* Pure greed. The gap between a CEO and the average employee is widening and it is this that is driving the lowest paid people into poverty. The middle class is less unaffected, though their salaries have seen a squeeze too. They have enough money to live comfortably with a good level of luxuries. Or should do anyway. It is the credit card culture and the need to spend more and more that has people struggling. What also happens when the highest paid people's wages increase is that the next level down also gets a pay increase. The pay increase relative to the value of work done is increasing all across the board. How can this be a good thing? The CEO pay increase is only the inevitable result of a culture of overvaluation and greed. The gap between the poor and the rich, or even the middle classes, in the US is jawdropping.


Assuming this was true, and that's a fraught assumption but for the sake of conversation; even if those things disappeared, the funding of the arts would probably suffer because for every dollar that these "greedy" CEOs and bankers are taxed the priority of funding classical music is so low to nonexistent on the minds of voters that you'll never see a single cent go towards orchestras. Donations will dry up, naturally. Rich people can afford to fly to continental Europe and hear orchestras there if necessary. Donations to local orchestras and the art is more of a sentimental gesture than anything else, and sentimental gestures the easiest thing in the world to discard.

Let's not forget how Beethoven made a living; off the commissions of rich aristocrats who, according to modern theories, "exploited" the peasants and whatnot.

You can't squeeze a river out of a cactus. Trimming wages won't do anything apart from inciting protests and deterring the next generation of musicians from becoming orchestral musicians.



crmoorhead said:


> The last excerpt is especially interesting. Why CAN'T enough public funding exist to give a reasonable subsidy to orchestras in the US? How far would $313 million dollars stretch, just $1 per citizen? But I guess things just aren't done like that in the US. Come to that, what is the comparative state of European and other orchestras around the world when compared to US ones?
> 
> Does this article hold any merit?


Because one 300 million here, one 300 million there, and soon it adds up to billions and billions to trillions. "313 million" sounds like a really big number. Orchestral pork isn't popular with most voters, and it's the majority of voters within a given geographic vicinity that matters, so it has virtually no representation democratically. Politicians cut the arts for the same reason that people consider trimming conductor salaries; it's a popular gesture.

I suggest that anyone who thinks that, on average, orchestral musicians have a nice life should read this article: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/06/boston-symphony-orchestra-audition/

At 33, Tetreault was putting in 100-hour weeks on a patchwork of gigs he'd pieced together - simultaneously serving as the music director at the Galilee Baptist Church in Denver; teaching at the University of Colorado; and working various gigs with the Boulder Philharmonic, the Fort Collins Symphony, the Colorado Ballet, the Colorado Symphony, and Opera Colorado. Yes, he was doing what he loved for a living, but when he added it all up, it was barely a living at all. He'd made $55,000 the previous year, pretty good - until you factored in all the hours, and the fact that the salary had to support two since his wife, Rachel, had been laid off in 2010 from a communications job with the Colorado Symphony.* The couple was living in a 625-square-foot one-bedroom apartment.*

Waiting for his practice room in Symphony Hall, Tetreault reminds himself that if he can win a spot with the BSO, his very existence will be transformed. He's aware of the challenges - the selection process is brutal, and even if he lands a job, there's no guarantee he'll keep it (as his former schoolmate learned). But the orchestra is a godsend for the very few who make it. The positions pay more than $100,000 a year. You get health benefits._* You get vacation. You get to lead a normal life. *_Which is why the BSO is one of the handful of orchestras for which musicians the world over will drop everything to scramble for a job. Like Tetreault, they'll practice endlessly for months, sacrificing family and personal time. They have to.

Mike Tetreault was one of* 294 percussionists *who sent a résumé to the BSO in the fall of 2011 for the two openings. Rumors circulated that the applicant pool included a number of heavy hitters, including two candidates from Big Five orchestras, former players from Chicago and Cleveland.



The truth is that orchestral music isn't economical; it never was; a pop musician and a few, replaceable backups sings to a crowded stadium; the learning curve for pop music is low, pop stars are easily replaced, easily manufactured, easy to find. A talented orchestral musician takes decades of training and it takes a whole room of them together to play a symphony.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/01/concerted_effort.html

But in an industry busy having its foundations rocked, in a matter of speaking, it hardly matters. Analysts and executives have long lamented that the music industry is dying. That is not quite true-it is the _record _business that is clearly done for, and in its place, touring stands as the top moneymaker for many industry participants. DMB lives to tour, making them not just popular, but very, very profitable.

When I say DMB lives to tour, I do not jest: Every summer for the past two decades, the band has hit the road. In 2010, that meant playing 62 shows in 50 cities to 1,270,477 fans-more than any other artist touring in North America. The group also took trips to Europe and South America, and there was a Dave Matthews and guitarist Tim Reynolds mini-tour. And the year was hardly unusual. Since 1992, Dave Matthews Band in its various iterations has played a whopping 1,692 shows.

So the_ precipitous decline in record sales_ in the past decade has hardly hurt DMB's profitability: The band makes the bulk of its money touring anyway. And it makes a lot of money doing it. According to Billboard Boxscore, between 2000 and 2009, DMB sold more tickets to its shows than any other band on the planet, moving a staggering 11,230,696 tickets. (No other band sold more than 10 million tickets in the same time period.) *In the aughts, DMB grossed more than $500 million from touring alone.*

Part of DMB's success undoubtedly comes from managing its tour so well-because gross ticket sales do not always translate into profitability. Lady Gaga, for instance, was also in the Top 10 for *2010, grossing $51 million in North America, charging legions of fans about $100 a pop. *But the shows proved enormously expensive to put on*, what with the army of scantily clad backup dancers and dozens of fancy costumes-including a bra that shoots sparks, a feathered bird get-up, and an enormous wearable gyroscope nicknamed "the Orbit." Add in the fountain of fake blood and the price of flying such nonsense around the world, and extravagance cut into the bottom line. The tour actually lost money at first.

*In contrast, DMB's tour seems downright humble*. There is food. There is merchandise. There are video portions. But mostly, there are just the jams and the fans-and that's how DMB obsessives like it. Indeed, the band cultivates enthusiasts particularly well, a main secret of its success. It keeps ticket prices low in comparison with other big shows, an average of $58.79 compared with, say, $91.56 for arena-rockers Aerosmith. It offers a high proportion of plum tickets to fan-club members and offers them tons of freebies and special deals online. It also plays a stable roster of songs, but jams or improvises at each gig-meaning DMB fans tend to hit up the tour every year, often more than once. Thus, while even the biggest-selling artists front the occasional flopped tour, DMB never does.

The history of orchestras is that of bored rich people with too much money on their hands, Thomas Beecham being an exemplary case. The "decline" we're seeing now is just that momentum wearing off.

From 1910,_* subsidised by his father,*_ Beecham realised his ambition to mount opera seasons at Covent Garden and other houses. In the Edwardian opera house, the star singers were regarded as all-important, and conductors were seen as ancillary.[28] Between 1910 and 1939 Beecham did much to change the balance of power.[28]

In 1910, Beecham either conducted or was responsible as impresario for 190 performances at Covent Garden and His Majesty's Theatre. His assistant conductors were Bruno Walter and Percy Pitt.[29] During the year, he mounted 34 different operas, most of them either new to London or almost unknown there.[30] Beecham later acknowledged that in his early years the operas he chose to present were too obscure to attract the public.[31] During his 1910 season at His Majesty's, the rival Grand Opera Syndicate put on a concurrent season of its own at Covent Garden; London's total opera performances for the year amounted to 273 performances, far more than the box-office demand could support.[32] *Of the 34 operas that Beecham staged in 1910, only four made money:* Richard Strauss's new operas Elektra and Salome, receiving their first, and highly publicised, performances in Britain, and The Tales of Hoffmann and Die Fledermaus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beecham#1910.E2.80.931920


----------

