Negotiations
Moderator’s Note: Nathan’s contribution is in response to the following statement from Carla Johnson’s contribution on Monday, 4/17/06:
We need to create an operating climate in our organizations in which it is possible for everyone to prosper as we provide music to the community.
I believe we should ponder this hard truth and consider how we can all participate in making our businesses as “profitable” as possible. We are an industry filled with creative people; we can come up with new ideas to make this happen.
Dear Carla et al,
I could not agree more with your foregoing first sentence, and I definitely applaud you for saying so. The problem is that in too many orchestras it seems that it is the musicians who are the last (if ever) to share in the prosperity.
How many time have we as musicians heard that we must sacrifice “for the good of the orchestra?” What musicians don’t want to see their orchestra prosper with quality ticket sales, development, marketing, etc., if there is a clear light and the end of the tunnel for the musicians? Unfortunately, we in AFM have seen far too many repeated scenarios where orchestras wastefully spend fortunes on state of the art computer systems, excessive office staff and salaries, rip-off arts consultants and facilitators, and at the end of the day the musicians are told that they must yet again “sacrifice.” In too many cases Boards and communities seems to be ready to fork over big dollars for new concert halls, offices, high priced consultants, but not for the reason all of the foregoing exists…the musicians and the musical product.
Henry Fogel used to say in his seminars that no one every came to a concert to see an Executive Director or a symphony office. Is anyone listening to that out there? Where do musicians rank in the priority list of orchestra prosperity??
No comments yet.
Add your comment