Who needs these overpriced soloists?

Marie Lamb says:

Although some people making the decisions must think that the expensive soloists are necessary, I think that the PSO is fine without them, and that people would attend the concerts even without the added star power. WCNY-FM carries their weekly broadcasts, and there is plenty of interest in them because of their quality. Our PD is very impressed with the high performance standards and with the well-produced shows, and I agree that they’re doing a fine job with Honeck at the helm. While some listeners e-mail me to request Pittsburgh’s broadcast schedules, the interest is in what the orchestra will be playing; nobody asks us who the soloists will be. In times like these, an orchestra that is already one of the finest in North America doesn’t need such artificial respiration to fill the seats on an already expensive tour. Nothing against the ladies, but IMHO, the money could be put to better use toward the orchestra’s future. This is a subject that concerns me, since in Syracuse our symphony orchestra must raise $375,000 by the end of this week to finish its 50th season, and a total of $1.75 million by August to stay in business for next season and beyond. And this is *after* they cut the length of the season and abandoned a performance of the Mahler 5th due to lack of funds! While Pittsburgh has deeper pockets than the SSO, it seems to me that all orchestras need to think down the road in a time when money is so tight.

Brian Wise says:

There was a study out last year that found that classical audiences make their ticket-buying decisions based much more on repertoire than star soloists. I can’t remember the source of the study offhand but it suggested that seeing “Beethoven’s 5th” on a brochure or web site means more than X soloist or Y conductor.
Pittsburgh may be concerned that they don’t have the name recognition on their own to fill European halls, thus the decision to hire high-priced soloists.

William H. says:

The current “star” system may have always been thus, but in these times it just seems ludicrous for the big name soloists to keep on reaping $30k fees and the like, admittedly much of which goes to management agencies, when the orchestras are in such financially shaky straits. Can’t they lower their fees to reflect these less than flush times for the arts that they purport to represent, and thus leave their colleagues a little more coin for their efforts. Or for that matter, to allow a little break to some audience members who are less able to afford the tickets to concerts in their economic situations.
I don’t question the desire to program works like major concerti, but whatever became of the idea of using younger, up and coming young talent that haven’t been hyper-hyped with obligatory breathless media interviews and fancy photo-shoots? Why not give these younger artists a chance to show themselves, and at much more reasonable fees to the orchestra they perform with? It may be naive, but wouldn’t it be great for some of us in the audience to say we saw so-and-so BEFORE they became such huge superstars?
And for that matter, what about the idea of letting the orchestra personnel (Concertmasters or the Principals, pianists excepted) perform in concerti with their own colleagues? Many of these artists are fully capable of performing at such levels, and the orchestras might be very proud to show them off.

Carl Bly says:

I am a musician and I choose which concerts I attend in Washington DC by what the literature is, not the soloist. There are so many great works that need to be heard and are not regularly performed you do not have to have a concerto on the program!