| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tmensch
Regular Member
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Location: Chicago - North Suburbs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mhenrikse
Veteran Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 162
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dbacon wrote: | | The discerning, educated audience that would know the difference between a singular ensemble like the CSO and a group of competent players that rehearse a couple of times a week, play some Bruckner and a Star Wars Medley, is getting smaller each year. Older and much smaller... |
This was shown to be false in a massive study by the American Symphony Orchestra League years ago. The CSO is not having financial troubles. This is simply a negotiation in which each side wants to get the best deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbacon
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 8592
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DB
Last edited by dbacon on Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbacon
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 8592
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DB
Last edited by dbacon on Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FTee
Veteran Member
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 455
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Athos wrote: | | JoseLindE4 wrote: | | The audience has been old since the current old audience was young. Old people like the symphony, but young people tend to get old. The audience is there - some of the articles have mentioned record sales in recent years by the CSO. |
Time magazine was beating the drum about this in 1969. The industry needs constant TLC and revitalization, but dumbing it down and displacing quality in favor of cheapness isn't going to get the job done. Not everyone appreciates the finer things, but those who do will value them highly, and many will know when they become less fine. |
This is a very interesting discussion. I suspect that the "I'll go to the symphony when I have time, money, and am not chasing toddlers/going to kids events/playing Uber driver/working my butt off to pay for college" syndrome accounts for the fact that the "old" audience of 1969 appears to have been frozen in time. For example, I don't go to the symphony much now because I'm in the Uber driver stage of life, and I work too much to feel super-motivated to go to Orchestra Hall or the Civic Opera Building all that frequently, no matter how much I love it. I do expect to do so in about 5 years if all goes as I hope it does. One thing that I know for sure is that having CSO program more kitschy crap like a screening of Green Acres with symphonic accompaniment is not going to make me attend the symphony more frequently. What did entice me to get off my couch and head downtown was when they performed Babi Yar last September. Now that was something worth hearing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetmandan
Regular Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2018
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As musicians, I don't think it helps our cause to be dismissive of the audience. I just don't buy that the average concert-goer is oblivious to the difference between a mediocre performance and a truly world class performance.
It's easy to assume that an audience of non-musicians "can't tell the difference" - after all, we're the ones who put in years of practice and study, not them. I'm guilty of making this assumption many times myself. However this mindset, IMO, is a bit arrogant on our part. Not trying to be inflammatory here, no offense to anyone intended.
More times than I can count I've been talking with an audience member after a gig and have been surprised to hear him/her make some insightful comment about some musical detail that I never would've expected a non-musician to notice. I've had enough of these conversations so that they no longer surprise me. Of course, this is just my personal experience, nothing more. I'd be interested to read the study mentioned by a previous poster.
As musicians, are we likely to have more discerning ears? Of course. But it doesn't take a music degree to know the difference between the CSO and the Podunk Sinfionetta. Just my $.02 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JRoyal
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 770
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Post redacted in response to TH moderators removing a factual statement from my prior post without notification.
Last edited by JRoyal on Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:01 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hup_d_dup
Veteran Member
Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Location: Tewksbury, NJ
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JRoyal wrote: | | I would submit that Baumol’s effect would be a more applicable explanation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease) .. |
I believe this argument is based on a fallacy.
From the article: "Baumol and Bowen pointed out that the same number of musicians is needed to play a Beethoven string quartet today as was needed in the 19th century; the productivity of classical music performance has not increased."
The value to a listener is not the production of a string quartet, but the feeling that the listener experiences when listening to the quartet. This value will likely be greater if the quartet is performed skillfully and the listeners have greater funds available. The aggregate of funds available is greater today than in the 19th century. If fewer people prefer to listen to string quartets it isn't because of productivity.
Of course productivity could be increased if the quartet were to be played faster, or were to be performed by three rather than four players, but perhaps the listening experience would be compromised.
Hup
Last edited by hup_d_dup on Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teds87
Regular Member
Joined: 20 Mar 2019
Posts: 12
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FTee wrote: |
This is a very interesting discussion. I suspect that the "I'll go to the symphony when I have time, money, and am not chasing toddlers/going to kids events/playing Uber driver/working my butt off to pay for college" syndrome accounts for the fact that the "old" audience of 1969 appears to have been frozen in time. |
That's how it is for me. I live about an hour from the CSO, and would love to go more often, but at $50/ticket for gallery seating I can't afford to go too often. Due to work schedules the only time my wife and I can get there is on a Saturday night, and with the time it takes to get out of the parking garage and back to I-94, that means I need to find a babysitter willing forego Saturday night plans to stay with my kid until midnight.
| Quote: | | One thing that I know for sure is that having CSO program more kitschy crap like a screening of Green Acres with symphonic accompaniment is not going to make me attend the symphony more frequently. What did entice me to get off my couch and head downtown was when they performed Babi Yar last September. Now that was something worth hearing. |
I think this is spot on. I took my in-laws (not normal symphony attendees) to a Christmas performance at the CSO several years ago. The big advertisement was that they would play the Messiah, and my in-laws were pretty excited about that. They played the Hallelujah chorus and then the rest of the performance was focused on some knockoff Grinch-like character running around the stage, and the finale of the whole performance was "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" because the White Sox had won the World Series that year. It was terrible. My in-laws said they would never go back to the CSO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2581
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, so ticket sales provide only about 31% of the funding. That means 69% comes from other sources. That means that, on average, management is somehow raising almost $1,000,000 per week from non-ticket sources. That's mind boggling.
There's been commentary here that we should not be dismissive to the artistic discernment of the audience, that the average concert-goer is not oblivious to the difference between a mediocre performance and a truly world class performance. Most of the commentary on this point contrasts world class performances with mediocre performances, as if there is nothing in between.
It's obvious that with a $74 million annual budget the CSO can afford great musicians whether they are the current musicians or new members of the CSO. So, the idea that the performances suddenly become mediocre if new members are hired is pretty far fetched. A more relevant question is "Can the average concert-goer tell the difference between a great performance and a really good performance?" I doubt it. I've lost count of how many full house standing ovations I've seen for extremely ordinary performances in all areas of the arts, and even for mediocre performances.
This illustrates a point made by another poster. One of the most important reasons the audience attends is because of the experience of attending, independent of the quality of the performance. So, a lot of motivation comes from things like civic pride, a belief that attending a performance is consistent with the person's impression of their social status, a belief that exposure to live arts performances makes them more educated and/or happier and/or better people, that their lives are enriched by the overall experience rather than the details of the performance itself.
Keep in mind that if people just want to hear world class orchestral performances they can go buy CD's and DVD's and run them through home sound systems which create a virtual "symphony hall" reality. They can get 100% of the music through that method. What they can't get through that method is the experience of actually attending. I submit that the experience of actually attending is far more important to the average concert-goer than the quality of the performance as long as they feel that the quality of the performance is good enough. "Good enough" is not mediocre but, based on all those undeserved standing ovations, it is clearly a significant level below "world class" for the average concert-goer.
_________________
HERMOKIWI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mhenrikse
Veteran Member
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dbacon wrote: | | mhenrikse wrote: | | dbacon wrote: | | The discerning, educated audience that would know the difference between a singular ensemble like the CSO and a group of competent players that rehearse a couple of times a week, play some Bruckner and a Star Wars Medley, is getting smaller each year. Older and much smaller... |
This was shown to be false in a massive study by the American Symphony Orchestra League years ago. The CSO is not having financial troubles. This is simply a negotiation in which each side wants to get the best deal. |
I looked at some studies, could you post a link to that one? Love to see it! |
It might be the 1992 NEA study I was thinking of but I found this newer one.
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/2012-sppa-jan2015-rev.pdf
Many of these studies talk about percentage of a demographic but that is irrelevant. During my lifetime, the population of the US has gone from 160 - 327 million (doubled). The seating capacity of Symphony hall has remained the same, 2,625. So, the rate of attendance could have gone down by 50% and you could still sell out symphony hall. So, rate is irrelevant.
What I was saying above is backed up by these two quotes:
"...the highest rate of attendance was among older
Americans—those in the 65 to 74 age group. Indeed,
across all types of performing arts for which comparisons
can be made, one of the few demographic subgroups
whose 2012 rate of attendance exceeded its 2002 rate is
older adults, with respect to classical music performances
in particular" - from the above publication
AND
" Today, roughly one in eight Americans are older, up from roughly one in 10 in the 1950s. By 2030, age 65 and older people are expected to include almost one in five people."
My point is that the audiences are old and this is the fastest growing age group. Its not like the audience dies off. The study shows the "old" segment
is increasing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
S Koons
Veteran Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 125
Location: Redwood City, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HERMOKIWI wrote: | | Keep in mind that if people just want to hear world class orchestral performances they can go buy CD's and DVD's and run them through home sound systems which create a virtual "symphony hall" reality. They can get 100% of the music through that method. What they can't get through that method is the experience of actually attending. I submit that the experience of actually attending is far more important to the average concert-goer than the quality of the performance as long as they feel that the quality of the performance is good enough. "Good enough" is not mediocre but, based on all those undeserved standing ovations, it is clearly a significant level below "world class" for the average concert-goer. |
"They can get 100% of the music through that method." Are you saying that listening to a recording is musically equivalent to a live performance? For me, it isn't. Mainly, the sound isn't the same, even with a well above average audio system. Visual cues and better concentration in a live performance also lead to a more complete musical experience.
-SK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2581
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| S Koons wrote: | | HERMOKIWI wrote: | | Keep in mind that if people just want to hear world class orchestral performances they can go buy CD's and DVD's and run them through home sound systems which create a virtual "symphony hall" reality. They can get 100% of the music through that method. What they can't get through that method is the experience of actually attending. I submit that the experience of actually attending is far more important to the average concert-goer than the quality of the performance as long as they feel that the quality of the performance is good enough. "Good enough" is not mediocre but, based on all those undeserved standing ovations, it is clearly a significant level below "world class" for the average concert-goer. |
"They can get 100% of the music through that method." Are you saying that listening to a recording is musically equivalent to a live performance? For me, it isn't. Mainly, the sound isn't the same, even with a well above average audio system. Visual cues and better concentration in a live performance also lead to a more complete musical experience.
-SK |
Recordings are often better musically than what you hear at a live performance because recordings can be engineered after the fact to improve balance, enhance the quality of the sound, etc. Additionally, recordings are typically made from the best possible acoustic position in the hall, a position which may be acoustically superior to any seat in the hall. So, yes, I'm saying that musically, strictly musically, a recording can be the equivalent of or even superior to the live performance.
I acknowledge your statement that "For me, it isn't." However, I also note that the reasons you give relate to the differences in overall experience between attending a live performance compared to the overall experience of listening to a recording. Which is exactly my point.
Symphonies sell and patrons purchase more than music in a live performance. What is sold and purchased is an entire overall experience. That entire experience cannot be reproduced by a recording but the music part of the experience can be equaled and even enhanced by a recording.
Sound engineers, digital equipment and sound technology can do amazing things. Pop music, in particular, is heavily populated with average talent enhanced by engineering to the point that sometimes what you hear on the recording has little resemblance to what you would have heard live at the same recording session.
_________________
HERMOKIWI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
S Koons
Veteran Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 125
Location: Redwood City, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HERMOKIWI wrote: | | One of the most important reasons the audience attends is because of the experience of attending, independent of the quality of the performance. So, a lot of motivation comes from things like civic pride, a belief that attending a performance is consistent with the person's impression of their social status, a belief that exposure to live arts performances makes them more educated and/or happier and/or better people, that their lives are enriched by the overall experience rather than the details of the performance itself. |
Hermokiwi,
I thought your examples of the concert "experience" were completely independent of the music. Mine were not. The more complex the composition, the less a recording can deliver of its music. For me, I never appreciated the Mahler 8 until I attended a performance. There, it was a coherent, inspiring symphony. At home it was just sound. For chamber music, or even for chamber orchestras, the gap between live performance and recordings is much reduced.
The job of the CSO or any other ensemble is to draw the audience into the music. A better orchestra does this more reliably than a lesser one. That's all. Substituting less accomplished players decreases the frequency of inspiring performances. In my view recordings are not an adequate substitute. Over a season, I think the Chicago audience would hear this difference, and I don't think they would be pleased.
- SK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Athos
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 805
Location: St Louis
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Plenty of people listen to great music on recorded media, and that's great. It is not like attending a live concert, where you hear an actual performance in a specific acoustic space in real time. Those who value that experience will pay for it. I suggest that if one cannot see the value in that experience, or believes that a recording is somehow superior to it, one should stay home and listen to one's stereo.
I would also submit that, if one cannot discern the difference between a great orchestra and a group of replacements brought in to play the same music, one will not be willing to pay the cost of hearing the great orchestra.
There are plenty of university orchestras and community orchestras which play great music for cheap, or for free. If the difference becomes discernible, one might then be willing to pay to hear the great orchestra instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetchops
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 2644
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like to see a football game on TV. I would much rather be at the game. I don't think I would watch a recorded game. Not knowing what's next is a big part of it. It's not just live, it's alive and changing as we listen.
Going to a live performance and thinking, wow, I never thought of it that way, does it for me. The chances of getting that from a replacement band are small.
_________________
Joe Spitzer
Monroe Ct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hup_d_dup
Veteran Member
Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Location: Tewksbury, NJ
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HERMOKIWI wrote: |
OK, so ticket sales provide only about 31% of the funding. That means 69% comes from other sources. That means that, on average, management is somehow raising almost $1,000,000 per week from non-ticket sources. That's mind boggling.
|
There is a reason that funds come from "other sources." That's where the money is. The US real GDP has doubled since 1991. Where is that "mind-boggling" increase in wealth? It certainly wasn't used to pay for pensions.
Most people are aware that there is a continuing concentration of wealth in the US. You can read about it most any day. For instance, in today's NY Times we learn that there are now 5,400 properties worth more than $5 million that are owned as second (or third or fourth or fifth) residences in NYC. Two months ago the hedge fund magnate Kenneth Griffin paid $238 million (approximately 3 times the annual budget of the Chicago Symphony) for a penthouse in Manhattan, although he is from, yes, Chicago.
Hup |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2581
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hup_d_dup wrote: | | HERMOKIWI wrote: |
OK, so ticket sales provide only about 31% of the funding. That means 69% comes from other sources. That means that, on average, management is somehow raising almost $1,000,000 per week from non-ticket sources. That's mind boggling.
|
There is a reason that funds come from "other sources." That's where the money is. The US real GDP has doubled since 1991. Where is that "mind-boggling" increase in wealth? It certainly wasn't used to pay for pensions.
Most people are aware that there is a continuing concentration of wealth in the US. You can read about it most any day. For instance, in today's NY Times we learn that there are now 5,400 properties worth more than $5 million that are owned as second (or third or fourth or fifth) residences in NYC. Two months ago the hedge fund magnate Kenneth Griffin paid $238 million (approximately 3 times the annual budget of the Chicago Symphony) for a penthouse in Manhattan, although he is from, yes, Chicago.
Hup |
An enormous part of the increase in wealth is the result of appreciation over time in the value of assets such as real estate, stocks, etc. These assets don't become cash until they're sold and they can be held for decades with the appreciation just being on paper.
An enormous part of the funding of pensions since 1991 has been the result of the increase in GDP.
Kenneth Griffin has no obligation to support the CSO. For all we know he generously supports charities and non-profits and one of those may be the CSO. Why assume otherwise? If he wants to pay $238 million for a penthouse in NYC that's his business, not ours. Who has the right to begrudge him the privilege of doing with his money whatever it pleases him to do? And who's to say that his success hasn't been enormously beneficial to his employees as well?
There are obviously a lot of extremely wealthy people who are providing tremendous financial support to the CSO. Be thankful for them instead of asking them, "Where's the rest of it?"
_________________
HERMOKIWI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gstump
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 934
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Every time an orchestra "acts out" by engaging in a legal concerted union activity we get these not so subtle comments masking free market verses leveraged wages discussions.
Most orchestras receive little to no government subsidies so I have no idea why their salaries are such public knowledge. Their salaries are very low compared to others who are top in their field internationally.
I get grouchy reading this dribble and my doing so is completely my fault as well as my comments. 
Cheers,
Gordon Stump
_________________
Schilke B5
Couesnon Flug (1967)
Funk Brothers Horn Section/Caruso Student |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Athos
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 805
Location: St Louis
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gstump wrote: | Every time an orchestra "acts out" by engaging in a legal concerted union activity we get these not so subtle comments masking free market verses leveraged wages discussions.
Most orchestras receive little to no government subsidies so I have no idea why their salaries are such public knowledge. Their salaries are very low compared to others who are top in their field internationally.
I get grouchy reading this dribble and my doing so is completely my fault as well as my comments.
Cheers,
Gordon Stump |
I agree with your assessment, and I doubt there's a management-side approach I haven't observed by this point. Obviously, we are grateful to our donors for their generosity, as are, I'm certain, the CSO. There is no professional orchestra in the U.S. which doesn't require supplemental income through donations and interest from donated endowment funds to continue to pay its musicians, and its managers, and its utility bills for that matter.
The reason musicians' salaries are public knowledge is that, like professional ballplayers, our union negotiates a base scale for each orchestra, which is publicly available. Also public knowledge is compensation for top employees, which frequently includes some musicians, along with Music Director, CEO, and other top managers; these are made public because of laws governing not-for-profits.
Like every orchestra, the CSO is engaged in a battle to attract and retain top talent. I'm certain the CSO musicians want the best working conditions and compensation for themselves, but also for attraction and retention. They are competing for this talent, and their contract will make a difference in who comes seeking employment with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
