U.S. Symphony Orchestras

The last two posts just confirm my fear that American symphony Orchestras are destined to become a Megalopolis phenomenon. Playing to the same crowd. They will fade from the conscious of the other 99%. Professional sports used to be the same in this country, all concentrated in the Northeast, now they are everywhere and trying to gain footholds abroad. When I was in the Army the guys that advised American busniess on being better managers, would also come and teach Army Officers. The thing I most remember was this: The First Step In Problem Solving, Is To STATE the problem. Being careful not to confuse the symptoms with the problem. It's a business, you are trying to SELL a product. Act like a business.

HI Rok2id - I understand where you are coming from in your last post - many orchestra boards or management teams have a hard time stating problems, and many musicians don't help matters either. However, "acting like a business" is not always the answer. Some boards think they can run an orchestra like they run their for-profit corporations, and those with that attitude usually fail spectacularly. Arts organizations are very different animals from the for-profit corporate world. Producing great art must be first and foremost - otherwise no one is going to support the organization. Far too many orchestras (and other arts organizations) are cutting the product (meaning not just in dollars but in quality) and paying the price for it.

Another weird thing is that many arts organizations do not like to advertise that they are beginning to have financial trouble, claiming that no one wants to give to an organization in trouble. So they wait until it is far too late, often drastically cutting back the product the while. That trick never works.

Hi Brownsfan - thanks for the comments. Regarding the governance structure of orchestras, these can be quite a bit different from group to group, and then as far as fund-raising goes, there are always big arts donor politics, which are different in each locale and can be very tricky (fortunately, the musicians have nothing to do with any of that, though it does greatly effect management). The executive board is ultimately the responsible party, though, you are correct there. The management team runs the organization for them. Often the vast majority of the full board members have no idea what is going on, and don't want to know - they just blindly trust the executive board. But every organization is different, and it is hard to make generalizations. The size of orchestra boards vary greatly, as well, as do the size of the management teams.

You mentioned endowments - one fascinating aspect of these that many people have no understanding of is that sometimes they are actually not much help at all as far as operating expenses go. It depends on whether the contributions are "donor-restricted" or not. The donors can put all kinds of stupid restrictions if they want, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do about it, rendering the contribution essentially untouchable and useless. So some orchestras that may have what looks like a sizeable endowment can't actually put it to any constructive use whatsoever, even if everyone involved wants to do so, unless they can convince the donor to remove the restriction. You would be shocked at some of the stories I have heard about donor-restrictions in various orchestras around the country.

it seems rather odd that the BSO,which is probably the most financially endowed orchestra in the world,isn't in the top 10.i realize that these ratings are subjective,but you have to wonder why their standing isn't little higher.does anyone have any ideas?

It's a British / European Publication??