Why Media?

I’m going to take advantage of the moderator’s privilege to ask some additional questions of the participants.

Laura Brownell wrote:

“Orchestras such as San Francisco, Cincinnati, and Nashville have found ways to achieve all of the above-mentioned benefits, despite the change in the economic environment that is described in the VPD Introduction, because they know it is important. They have made it an institutional priority. Other orchestras, however, stopped engaging in electronic media activity because they were unwilling to shoulder the labor costs associated with traditional agreements. For those orchestras, the silence became deafening.”

If San Francisco, Cincinnati, and Nashville (which are very different kinds of orchestras) “know it is important” and “…have made [media] an institutional priority,” they must have felt that the investment was going to yield some corresponding benefits. Other orchestras, as demonstrated by their failure to “shoulder the labor costs associated with traditional agreements,” evidently disagree. Is there any reason to believe that either point of view is correct?

Brad Buckley wrote:

“In 1996 the SLSO had several offers from recording companies that were interested in recording the orchestra with our then-new music director Hans Vonk, provided that the SLSO paid the labor costs for the recordings. The Board of the SLSO made a policy decision that the SLSO would not underwrite recording activity. The decision to self-produce recordings was driven by that Board decision, rather than being an attempt to “beat the major labels at their own game”.”

It does appear that self-producing recordings was not viewed as a success within the SLSO, given that it was not continued. Given that the recordings were musically and technically of very high quality (at judging by the ones I’ve heard), what lessons can be learned from that lack of success?

Paul Frankenfeld wrote:

“The benefits to the institution of these media projects are threefold”

Is the Cincinnati model one that could be used by other orchestras, or is the situation unique due to the relationship with Telarc and the fact that half of the releases are Pops programming, which probably can’t support multiple versions of the same repertoire in the same way that the market for classical recordings can? In short, has Cincinnati cornered the market for much of what it’s done, and does that account for the benefits to the orchestra?

John Kieser wrote:

… the goals of recording are:…”To attract, entertain and engage the widest possible audience for classical music thereby promoting the live concert experience; To establish a particular orchestra as providers of an exceptional classical music experience of a particular period of music or a composer; To bring local or national or international recognition or all three to an orchestra.”

Is it possible to measure the effect of “engaging the widest possible audience” on ticket sales in San Francisco, given that MTT was always a popular music director? Have ticket sales increased as a result of the media projects? Have the projects established the SFS as “providers of an exceptional classical music experience of a particular period of music or a composer,” or just established MTT as a Mahler specialist? Will the recognition that the projects have brought to the SFS outlast MTT’s tenure?

Steve Lester wrote:

“Media has been the one of the basic corner stones of not only the orchestra’s success, but also of musician compensation. Therefore, it is all the more tragic when management let both the recording and broadcasting disappear in the last few years. ..The CSO has been able to very easily measure the value of media…”

It would appear that CSO management doesn’t agree that media “has been the one of the basic corner stones of… the orchestra’s success” and/or that the value of media is significant or measurable. Why?

Fiona Simon wrote:

“Recording and broadcasting our product is part of our ongoing search for artistic excellence.”

How does this work in practice?

David Stearns wrote:

“No matter how much or how little the recordings sell, the fact that the Philadelphia Orchestra can say it is in the recording again (aided by the promotion and distribution of the Finland-based Ondine label) saves face, at the very least, for an organization that’s traditionally been in the vanguard of the electronic industry. The fact that the discs come in shiny, posh, silver-foil packages … make a statement about the state of the orchestra that, alone, may justify the time trouble and expense of the recording…. Recordings can only improve the morale of the musicians, and that’s important.”

Saving face and musician morale are important, but are they the only return to the institution for the significant investment in resources (admittedly more staff time than money)? If is enough to justify the investment? And why do recordings “improve the morale of the musicians?”