San Francisco says it can’t afford Esa-Pekka’s ambitions
OrchestrasThe SanFran Symphony wishes, it says, ‘ to communicate additional context around some difficult decisions with the many members of our organization and community who care deeply about this institution and its future.’
The bottom line is a $116 million loss.
Here’s some of the heavily massaged message that they have uploaded on the website:
For many years, the Symphony’s expenses have exceeded its revenue, and in recent years that gap has been growing. In several of the most recent seasons, including 2022–23, the Symphony received extraordinary one-time gifts or pandemic-related federal aid that have helped to reduce, but have been insufficient to consistently close, the gap between revenue and expense.
For reference, in 2022–23, the Symphony’s operating expenses totaled $78.6 million, while operating revenues, exclusive of extraordinary one-time contributions, totaled just $67.4 million. Revenues to support expenditures come predominantly from three areas: earned revenue (primarily ticket sales and performance fees; $26.9 million in 2022–23), contributed revenue (primarily individual donations, corporate, foundation, and government support, and fundraising events; $25.3 million in 2022–23), and the endowment draw ($15.2 million in 2022–23).
Factoring out investment gains/losses, which do not provide direct cash to support operations, the Symphony has incurred a cumulative operating deficit of $116 million over the last 10 years. Those losses have been funded primarily through non-repeatable sources including federal COVID relief and drawing down the Symphony’s operating reserves. Without immediate action or extraordinary new funding, we anticipate that our cumulative cash losses could grow by an additional $80 million over the next five years, far beyond any means of funding such losses. It is in the face of that unsustainable future that we have begun to make some difficult choices… with the goal of emerging as a stronger, more innovative, and more community-oriented institution than ever before.
Temporary near-term actions
To this end, we have implemented a series of temporary reductions to some programs to better scale our activities to fit within available resources. Near-term actions include reducing the frequency of SoundBox programs, semi-staged productions, and commissions of new
compositions so that these activities can be sustained by existing restricted endowment support and/or dedicated funding. Practically speaking, this means that we will retain two SoundBox programs per season, one semi-staged production every two to three seasons, and approximately four to six new commissions per season.
We have also paused future touring activity because we do not have the necessary funding to support it at this time. The Concerts for Kids program continues to be on hiatus due to a lack of dedicated funding while we continue to focus our efforts on other education initiatives, including Adventures in Music (AIM) and Music and Mentors, part of our longstanding partnership with SFUSD; Music for Families; and our tuitionfree Youth Orchestra.
It is important to note that the reductions we have made are not intended to be permanent, and do not signify a lack of commitment to these important areas of the Symphony’s artistic output. Even in the near term, we remain committed to maximizing our impact in each of these areas to the greatest extent possible within the level of funding currently available. Moreover, we will continue to seek new funding that we hope will enable us to restore these important initiatives in the future.
More here.
The bottom line: The Board seems to be thinking in practical terms and doing what is necessary for the orchestra to survive. It’s unfortunate that EPS is not working as a team player here when he could be choosing to be part of the solution. In the absence of that however, it seems to be the board is making the right calls here, as unpopular as it may be to say that to EPS fans.
Further, this also puts to rest the above-it-all claims of those music critics at the NY Times and elsewhere (and yes, that means you ZW) who frequently proclaim that the approach EPS has been following is the magical formula to reviving the fortunes of orchestras nationwide. Obviously that’s not happening in SF, and replicating that approach elsewhere would be a similar financial disaster.
The musicians dispute this financial analysis and EPS is very much working as a team player. Don’t speak of what you do not know. EPS concerts are popular in SF and trending up. There are some financial problems that precede him and are not the result of his programming. Not even the board makes this claim. A slash and burn strategy is not necessary or helpful for the orchestra’s survival.
The current operating expenses far exceed revenues. How is EPS not responsible for the deficits under his leadership? He had 5 years to turn it around.
Wouldn’t that responsibility fall to Matthew Spivey? Certainly Salonen has a huge part in the budgeting process by way of programming, but the line should be held by Spivey and enforced by the board.
The deficits did not start with EPS, but rather are symptoms of long-term poor leadership. They continued under Salonen, exacerbated by the pandemic, which slammed all arts organizations. To blame him for the SFS’s financial woes is to broadcast that you have no idea of how an orchestra is run nor the responsibilities of its components.
I’m not suggesting that raising money is easy, because it certainly is not, but that is the primary responsibility of a board. The current board has proven it is not up to the task, and is doing what all poor-performing boards have historically done; shifted the solution to the backs of the musicians, because it is far easier to cut than build. Look at the organizations that have been managed this way – they are all shells of their former selves. Nobody wants to invest in a losing team, and the SFS is shouting from the highest rooftops that the ship is indeed taking on vast quantities of water. Its future is in real danger.
Ditto to what you said. It is the job of management and the board to find ways to make a case for funding the artistic mission of an orchestra to audiences and donors. Amazing how quickly they blame their shortcomings and failures on the vision and contributions of the artistic side of the equation.
Are you on staff? Or just working off hearsay?
Hard to dispute that Salonen, like Michael Tilson Thomas before him, is one of the industry’s visionaries. They both developed programs that inspired other orchestras to adapt in similar ways – I’m thinking of the SFS SoundBox experimental new music series in a club environment, and especially the Collaborative Partners program that brought in young creative artists from closely related disciplines to develop their own projects with the orchestra. As a guest conductor in Chicago, Salonen has always brought cool programs. If the SF board and Salonen have exhausted each other in these attempts, it’s probably brought on by the Covid disruption as much as anything. Sorry to see that Salonen is leaving. And to be fair, the SFS board has been more open to experiment than most.
Good Lord this is a whiny bunch. Y’all were just crowing about your “third of a billion dollar” endowment, weren’t you? Either find a way to raise revenue, cut expenses, or…
“Learn to code”
– Joe Biden
Whatever your answer, quit complaining about it to your audiences and the media – grow up and learn to deal with your finances privately.
Get an education and learn how endowment works. It’s not free money to do whatever you or some entitled music director desires.
Sadly, such ignorance is why many people don’t understand their personal savings and retirement accounts and end up impoverished in old age. In the end, it’s all about responsibility.
If you and your orchestras are so adept at financial management, why are y’all constantly begging for cash like a bunch of sidewalk panhandlers? It’s certainly been an intriguing career for me watching so many musicians proclaim their moral and intellectual superiority only to watch them completely suck at life. Your results speak for themselves.
Calling people a “whiny bunch” while, in the same message throwing in a jab at Biden (who is related to this how, exactly?) is absolute (though unintentional) hilarity.
And exactly how much of a $140 million-plus budget do you think the interest income from a ““third of a billion dollar” endowment covers?
Some organizations (I’m looking specifically at you, Peter Gelb) ignore long-term finances and invade endowments as if they were ATMs. Irresponsible boards (I’m looking at you, Met Board) rubber stamp irresponsible and short-sighted decisions. After all, they’ll be dead by the time the sh*t hits the fan.
As for dealing with these issues privately, as long as these organizations enjoy a nonprofit status and accept public funds, they have a responsibility to be open and honest, for better or worse.
The board of the SF Symphony is seemingly paying attention to the overall health of their city’s orchestra, not the out of touch personal demands of one, albeit talented, gentleman.
It’s called being responsible.
I’m sorry, but how is that “heavily massaged”?
‘Factoring out investment gains/loss’
These are prudent steps to stabilize the finances and prepare for the future.
Expect to see other US orchestras in similar positions in coming years, as non-recurring pandemic funding is extinguished while inflation outpaces revenue growth.
Orchestras are businesses.
A slash and burn strategy is never prudent.
If they were businesses they would have been gone long ago.
This paints a very different picture to the one we have been told in the media and also by those involved other than the board. Artistic Directors must operate within the appropriate budget and not throw a tantrum when their (admirable in this case) ambitions will bankrupt the orchestra over time. The board seems to be taking the appropriate action in this case and it is curious that EPS was unwilling to cut the artistic cloth according to its measure.
Why should he be willing? He didn’t and doesn’t need this or any other MD job. They recruited him specifically to do the things they’re now cutting. The cuts may or may not be avoidable (I take no position on that), but in either case it’s no longer the job he signed up for and there’s no reason to be surprised that he isn’t interested in extending his contract.
EPS does not throw tantrums. The board hired him knowing his ambitions and are now pulling out due to their own capriciousness not due to his results.
Likely — yes regarding Salonen’s decision to leave the San Francisco Symphony.
But his ambitions (or expectations?) exceed some aspects of the revised annual budgets.
The decisions by the board and management are not capricious.
Very well said!
Funds are decreasing rapidly for all legacy arts organizations and orchestras are not immune. What is happening in SF will spread east to most of them.
Cleveland has had five straight years of balanced budgets while growing its endowment.
The social, political, financial, and cultural environs of Cleveland are vastly different from San Francisco. Vastly.
I agree- techbros don’t care about classical music. But read the comment I was replying to, which purports to make the opposite point.
Cleveland has a lot more class!
The commenter said most, not all.
I am a big fan of EPS (at least as a conductor). But I am not a big fan of debt. And if an operation becomes unsustainable, you have to stop it. No orchestra can expect a bailout if the endowment is spent—even less so if there is no strategy of turning the operation around and make it profitable. Classical music heroes cannot compete with their popular counterparts—the demand is just not there—and should be satisfied with less.
San Francisco Symphony’s budget is developing perfectly in line with the budget of the US as a whole, so I can’t see where there could possibly be any problem.
/sarc off
I suspect the bodies lie buried here: “Factoring out investment gains/losses, which do not provide direct cash to support operations……”
I find it hard to believe that the board let this go on for 10 years. The problem is the board.
Priscilla Geeslin has been on the SFS board since 1998. Why did she stand silent by deficits in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and only now cry foul? Perhaps the culprit is playing the hero.
management’s own arguments prove it is time for someone new in charge.
Finally, financial facts over Finncompoopery.
the us empire certainly has lots and lots of taxpayer monies for endless war mongering, but arts ? Crickets and tumble bees
Keeping wars overseas is what allows symphony concerts and cultural life to continue here without disturbance. Enjoy!
The Illusion of Grandeur in Classical Music Institutions
Classical music institutions have long been revered as bastions of cultural excellence, often proclaiming themselves as the “best” in the land. However, this self-proclaimed status is frequently rooted in historical prestige rather than current innovation or relevance. The reliance on the laurels of the past—performing standard repertoires that have been celebrated for over half a century—has led to a stagnation in the evolution of the musical arts.
The Cost of Modern Composers’ Stardom
The contemporary era has seen a shift towards creating “superstars” out of modern composers, often at exorbitant costs. These financial demands place a heavy burden on institutions that are already grappling with fiscal deficits. It begs the question: where does the line between artistic pursuit and financial reality blur?
A Call for Altruism in the Arts
Why should the financial onus rest solely on the institutions? There is a case to be made for composers and conductors to occasionally donate their work and talents, paying homage to the very platforms that elevate their creations. Such acts of generosity could alleviate the financial strain on these institutions and allow for a broader range of artistic expression.
**The Unheard Voices of the Music World**
The classical music scene is changing, and the upcoming generation is at the forefront of this shift. They are no longer content with the status quo that elevates a select few to stardom while leaving a multitude of talented musicians and composers unheard. There is a growing recognition that many artists would willingly offer their work for free, seeking artistic fulfillment over material gain.
**A Plea for Inclusivity and Recognition**
It is time for the classical music community to awaken from its slumber of elitism and recognize the value of overlooked musicians and composers. These individuals deserve opportunities to showcase their talents and contribute to the rich tapestry of the arts. By embracing inclusivity and shedding the veneer of exclusivity, classical music can remain a vibrant and evolving form of expression that resonates with all walks of life.
$78.6 Million for ONE YEAR? What do they spend it on? Even if you paid 100 musicians $200,000 a year (and they don’t) that would account for “only” $20 million. What the heck do they spend all that other nearly $60 million on? US orchestras by and large have budgets that are insane. It’s not like they’re the SF Giants or Taylor Swift; you know, entertainents the masses want.
Here’s their 2021-22 IRS Form 990, when expenses were $71 million+ scroll down to page 10 too see their expenses
file:///C:/Users/larry/AppData/Local/Temp/2022-941156284-202332849349302313-9.pdf
You clearly don’t understand how much musicians’ fringe benefits cost – insurance, pension, unemployment. Then there’s the MD’s ridiculous salary, building maintenance, staff salaries and benefits (sorry, they do NEED a staff) and that’s all before guest artists, music rentals, insurance, ushers, cleaners, utilities. And on and on.
I know that everyone always wants to hate management, but this time it sure looks like they’re in the right.
The orchestra has been running a deficit. Many nonprofit arts organizations are running deficits because of declining donations.
None of the cuts sound draconian. Musicians aren’t being sacked and replaced with free lancers. Subscription concerts aren’t being cut.
And subscription concerts in their local city/county/region are at the heart of any major US orchestra’s mission.
International tours to Europe and Asia should not be part of their missions.
There is no such thing as maintaining the status of a major orchestra without touring. It also benefits the reputation of the city, though that is more important in the case of a city like Cleveland that is all too easy for the uninformed to look down on and that is known in much of the world precisely because of the Cleveland Orchestra. And tours are sponsored by corporations and wealthy individuals- the expenses do not just come out of the regular operating budget. What is going on in San Francisco is a failure to attract donations sufficient to maintain the orchestra’s quality and reputation. We can go back and forth all day as to why that is so- personally I suspect there are issues with both the board and the kind of people who have big money in San Francisco. Regardless, your comments indicate a complete lack of understanding of the world of major orchestras.
I understand the relevant information and scenarios far more than you might imagine. Why did you include your last line in any case — it is totally gratuitous and inaccurate.
You state the following:
“And tours are sponsored by corporations and wealthy individuals- the expenses do not just come out of the regular operating budget.”
Thank you for pointing out something that I already know. And notice that I said the following in my previous comment:
“International tours to Europe and Asia should not be part of their missions.” I said nothing about the standard funding mechanisms for such tours.
And then there is this part of one of your comments:
“…that is known in much of the world precisely because of the Cleveland Orchestra.” I submit that nowadays this is an inaccurate observation. It is only accurate if you change the words “… known in much of the world” to the words “known in much of the world only by those who follow the world of classical music and orchestral performances attentively and extensively.” Your average person in the world nowadays knows nothing of The Cleveland Orchestra or any other “major” US or North American orchestra.
Your statement:
“What is going on in San Francisco is a failure to attract donations sufficient to maintain the orchestra’s quality and reputation.” The part about “….sufficient to maintain the orchestra’s quality…” is, I submit, inaccurate. There are more than enough superb music school graduates across the US (and Europe and Asia) to maintain the San Francisco Symphony’s “quality” irrespective of any departures because of the supposed turmoil at the organization. Most musicians will end up remaining with the orchestra, because while it may be relatively easy for some of them to get on the rosters of other “major” US orchestras as an extra and substitute musician, winning an actual position via auditions will be no easy feat for the very small number of musicians who may decide to leave the orchestra.
Your statement:
“There is no such thing as maintaining the status of a major orchestra without touring.” I totally disagree. As an example, there is the Utah Symphony. It is one of only about 16 year-round (52 weeks) orchestras in the US, which obviously includes The Cleveland Orchestra. The Utah Symphony is a “major” orchestra in that sense.
When did the Utah Symphony last tour to Europe: April 2005. When did it last tour to Carnegie Hall: April 2016. When did it last tour outside of Utah: early February 2020 (just before the COVID insanity), for one evening concert, in Palm Desert, California.
What is a “major” orchestra in your equation? I guess only those with something like an annual budget of over $40 million: that means that you may think that only the following orchestras in the US are “major” orchestras: the Atlanta Symphony, Boston Symphony, Chicago Symphony, The Cleveland Orchestra, the Los Angeles Philharmonic, the New York Philharmonic, the Philadelphia Orchestra, and perhaps the San Francisco Symphony.
And, of course, that “holy grail,” touring, is a key part of how you are likely assessing whether a US orchestra is a “major” one, let alone maintaining its status as such. And I think you almost certainly mean international touring (especially to the Musikverein in Vienna, as an example) rather than The Cleveland Orchestra’s more recent history of sojourns to Carnegie Hall or to Florida for a week or two in the mid-winter.
What you really likely want to say is something that harkens back to the “good old days” of the so-called “Big Five” US orchestras, with the LA Phil and the SFS added for “good measure.” In your hierarchy, I suspect that the Atlanta Symphony would barely qualify as a “major” one in the “world of major orchestras,” since it has not toured to Europe in the last two decades on any sort of a regular basis whatsoever.
That is, you are by default dismissing the substantial orchestra “ecosystem” in the US, to include the world of “major” orchestras.
And, by the way, I submit for debate that all of the music directors of these “major” US orchestras are overrated to some degree:
Nathalie Stutzmann, Andris Nelsons, Riccardo Muti (Music Director Emeritus for life of the Chicago Symphony), Franz Welser-Möst, Gustavo Dudamel, Jaap van Zweden (very soon to no longer be music director of the NY Phil), Yannick Nézet-Séguin, and one of the focuses of this comment thread, Esa-Pekka Salonen.
This is a damning indictment of Silicon Valley.
Whereas elites of old patronized the arts, the small minded titans of tech spend money on properties in New Zealand that they think will allow them to escape a future apocalypse that they themselves will have helped to create.
Agree. The arts have been debased over the past half century, promoting new junk that the public in general don’t want. Today’s super rich are not interested in support unless it’s some gimmick that gives them publicity. However, orchestras in Europe manage to survive with overall a fraction of financial support of their U.S. counterparts. Go figure.
I have great respect for ESP as an artist but if true, this does not reflect well on him. As other posters have said, even distinguished conductors need to be team players – when livelihoods and the future of an organisation are at stake, no artist, however eminent, has an absolute right to treat an orchestra like their personal toybox.
Sadly many senior maestros seem to think this way after they’ve reached a particular level of eminence / financial security: the fact that they feel ready to indulge themselves does not mean that their orchestra is in a position to do so. Again, as other posters have said, ESP could be a formidable part of the solution here, but instead he has chosen to become part of the problem.
Bravo! Well said.
Stop calling it “SanFran” it’s San Francisco.
Is “Frisco” o.k.?
No. The locals really hate that, too. “The City” is ok.
So a trigger warning before Frisco?
I call it Frisco. Arts poor Frisco.
Yes, running an orchestra is expensive. But an ambitious orchestra like San Francisco usually tries to find a way to make it work, usually with a board of heavy hitters who can raise money.
There is a lot of money in San Francisco, home to more billionaires than any U.S. city but New York, and to several of the most valuable companies in the world.
Doesn’t the SFSO board have some big-money types from Apple, Facebook, and Google for whom the Symphony’s $80 million budget is pocket change? Shouldn’t it at this point have closer to a billion-dollar endowment?
EPS is being an entitled brat here, pouting and quitting because they didn’t give him what he wanted (including premiering his own stupid concerto). I say Good Riddance. Go back to Finland and start your own ‘experimental band’ with your own money.
The part about Salonen’s horn concerto not getting a premiere on the shores of Lake Lucerne in its stylish concert hall is indeed a bit on the hilarious side for apparently being part of the equation for his departure. Can’t it just be premiered in San Francisco?
The festival in Lucerne is the entity that commissioned the concerto so, no. It can’t “just be premiered in San Francisco”.
Maybe if the SFS Board had been a part of co-commissioning the piece. But then again, they clearly don’t like spending money.
Of course they can premiere it in SF. That was just a detail, the major point being that the ambitious SFSO board showed great ambition in pursuing and signing a conductor that any orchestra in the world would be glad to have – and to show they mean business they would do tours, innovative (and expensive) projects, etc.. And now they’re cutting back. Perhaps prudently, but it probably wasn’t what they were proposing when they signed him. So he’s saying he loves the orchestra and the musicians, and will come back to conduct, but he’s not the leader they need given how they have scaled back their ambitions.
Truly spoken like someone who has never been in the same room as EPS.
I was, in fact, in the same room as EPS one time during a L.A. Phil invitation-only donors dinner (as a guest of a donor friend). I did not chat with EPS but my friend did. According him, EPS was “a cold fish” and not very personable.
Why couldn’t they just dump Claire Chase and rest of the boring “artistic partners”? Seriously, who gives a crap about Claire Chase? Gets a huge dump of free money from Macarthur grant and just commissions like a hundred solo flute pieces to torture us for decades? The height of musical megalomania.
Agree. Literally nobody I know listens to her or cares about her fringe activities, but somehow she’s become a very prominent name in classical music.
The picture painted by the press, and the vitriol that has been stirred up against the board is outrageous. All boards of large arts organizations have insane challenges in front of them at the moment, and board members have a legal responsibility to ensure the organization’s solvency. It’s not a light responsibility, it’s the law. The statement on the website makes it pretty clear that these problems have been going on for years, so one wonders how it has been allowed to go on for so long. But at a certain point the board simply has to say “enough is enough” and we can’t continue like this. It appears that this is what has happened here. Yes, for sure it’s a bad moment for them to lose EPS, but journalists should know better than to make commentary based on no information accusing the board of not caring about the art. That is not a balanced story. I have never met an arts board that didn’t care deeply about the art and artists, even as they have make unwelcome decisions. And I have worked with many.
What is missing from this breakdown is the admin salaries … we’ve seen the costs, salaries of musicians and conductor … who’s getting paid behind the scenes? Because as we’ve all recently seen, glorified middle men seem to get ridiculous salaries complimented with ridiculous bonuses and severance packages.
If they want us to understand, then give us the full transparency.
An interesting line of inquiry, but as for board members — distinct form the administration — they usually get paid nothing at all.
scroll down here to page 10 to see 2021-22 expenses
file:///C:/Users/larry/AppData/Local/Temp/2022-941156284-202332849349302313-9.pdf
I do appreciate the effort but the link doesn’t work for other readers. The page where this stuff is kept is here: https://www.sfsymphony.org/About-SFS/Impact-Financials But as somebody who doesn’t often read Form 990s I found it a bit opaque.
The specifics of the SFS’s budget/funding regrettably confirm my earlier suspicions. Also, the politics of all the parties involved, from EPS to the SFS’s board, from high-tech to the general community of the SF Bay Area, are pretty much on the same page. However, the SFS did say their attendance figures are not much less than they were in 2019. So the after-affects of Covid and even bad PR about street-sidewalk conditions may be negligible.
When expenses totaled $78.6 million n earned revenue (primarily ticket sales and performance fees) is $26.9 million in 2022–23, you don’t have an ongoing concern. A real business would have shut down immediately if not sooner.
But the board still has to engage in delusional happy talk: “It is important to note that the reductions we have made are not intended to be permanent, and do not signify a lack of commitment to these important areas of the Symphony’s artistic output.” What’s going to change to make up the structural gap? Wishing just one of the tech bro billionaires give $500 million?
Yes, well that would be nice. $500 Million would definitely be a great help!
Revenue covering about one-third of expenses is pretty standard for an American orchestra. You can only generate so much money with 100 people on stage and 2500 in the audience. Thus the dependence on endowment and donations.
As disappointed as I am in the loss of EPS, this letter sounds reasonable. I like that paint it as temporary, and that they are still commissioning more new works than many other orchestras. It’s not a total retreat.
People and corporations are welcome to step up if they want to support tours and more commissions…
Commission fees are infinitesimally small, the majority of them 5 thousand dollars or less for a full orchestral work, and they are often split among other orchestras as well. So 4 commissions wouldn’t even pay a part-time concert hall usher’s salary.
https://newmusicusa.org/nmbx/composer-commission-pay-in-the-united-states/
Interesting. I have a friend who is a major academic composer. I never tried to commission him but understood his fee for a band work would be around $1000 per minute, and that was nearly 30 years ago. And not unreasonable, in my view.
But the economics are odd. How much is it worth to an orchestra to commission a new piece it might only play once? When they can play a Brahms symphony for nothing? And for a composer you would think the real money-earning opportunity is in royalties from repeat performances. If there are any, of course. But if an orchestra will pay a pianist, say, $30,000 for three concerts (and bigger names much more, I imagine), why shouldn’t they be willing to pay the same for a new piece, which involves a lot more work?
I imagine bigger names like John Adams or Philip Glass (or Esa-Pekka Salonen, for that matter) would command bigger fees.
Considering the dismal state of the city I’m surprised there is any orchestra left at all. No doubt the concert hall is being eyed as a space to use as no barrier shelter
So is the board abandoning the $100M+ capital campaign for Davies, or is that taking all the $? Seems like it would make more sense to put the hall “reduction” on hold (it decreases the seating), and creates a new small theater. If not, that seems to be taking the priority over the human capital of serving the audience, education, MD and musicians.
As they said in the release – if you read the whole thing on the link – it’s on hold/exploratory phase.
The idea of this (totally unnecessary, and even undesirable ) remodel of their excellent hall, complete with talk of hiring Frank Gehry to do it, has only been introduced in the last year, the very time the board is now trying to paint as one of financial crisis, leaving them pressed to meet operating expenses. Their story is not consistent or coherent.
Here’s to SFSO for laying it all out there – hopefully all of the musicians in ALL orchestras read this release and start to understand the complexities of managing an orchestra so that everyone can continue to come together for the better of the orchestra!
Don’t you see? The San Francisco musicians want to experience the Philadelphia Orchestra experience first hand: bankruptcy, shrunken orchestra, slow rebuild, and finally, their own Nézet-Séguin!
See? Every near death experience brings about a rebirth, a hot young fresh conductor at the end of the tunnel.
Except Yannick sucks and is completely self-absorbed and pretty much bankrupt artistically
It’s shameful that EPS clearly didn’t see himself as being a true steward of the organization. Getting mad and quitting because he couldn’t do exactly what he wanted is an insult to the organization, the city and the musicians. Those musicians should be upset with HIM, not with their Board. Yes, Boards can be narrow-minded and unimaginative but at least they’re trying to guarantee that they keep the organization afloat and pay the musicians’ salaries. Musicians and conductors better start understanding that things are changing rapidly.
The steward of the orchestra is the Board. The MD is the visionary. The Board hired Salonen because they WANTED his vision–and they have now abandoned that vision.The Board needs to find the funds, just like they have all along. They are just taking the easy way out.
Eminently reasonable.
The long picture: Recently I read Humphrey Burton’s life of Menuhin – slow reading but totally enthralling. This orchestra has weathered financial crisis before, including bankruptcy. Artistic highs and lows, too, but that’s another story.
Same old story. In times of economic growth musicians are barely aware how their fees are funded. Then as soon as the economy shrinks and belts tighten all over the world with job losses and reduced public funding everywhere, musicians come out protesting immunity and that any form of cut is artistic brutality.
The stock market is currently at an all time high. And unemployment overall is extremely low.
Crime is down, too.
Your point?
The city of San Francisco is a dumpster fire burning hotter and hotter every year. I literally stepped over human excrement the last time I was walking to Davies Hall. I find the lack of conversation about the significantly difficult civic context within which these business decisions are being made to be noteworthy. How can this current reality not impact how the Board is viewing the near term future, if not beyond?
Yes. For all those who doubt the veracity of concerns regarding the neighborhood around Davies: consider that a couple years ago Whole Foods opened up a big, beautiful new store right down the street from Davies Hall, which they had to shudder within about a year of its opening. San Francisco’s struggles are real and those denying them are as irrational as right-wing anti-vaxxers.
Shutter.
“…four to six new commissions per season.”
I suspect that is four to six more than the audience is eager for.
If they are like new commissions we have heard in Dallas they are thoroughly forgettable and not worth the listeners’ time.
I would be curious to track the past “new commissions”. How have they done in the world, out on their own?
Have many have gained traction in the concert world or was the premiere their once-and-done?
If an orchestra is wanting to program something other than the warhorses, there is a wealth neglected material from the Romantic and Classical eras that is more worthy of a hearing than the new pieces being commissioned today.
And they are free.
Obviously art is a funny thing and your opinion may vary, but I have personally *loved* many of the SFS commissions I’ve heard. Among my favorites, https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Hymn+to+a+Blue+Hour&atb=v393-1&ia=web Seems to have lots of traction and performances. One of many.
They act like the symphony has a dwindling pile of cash to fund its activities indefinitely, with no way to increase its resources. Arts institutions always run a deficit. That’s where fundraising comes in. That’s your job, Board of Directors. The bay area is home to probably the largest concentration of private wealth in the world today. Someone just dropped 60 million on the SF ballet. Find a way to tap into the community’s vast wealth, or step aside and let others who can, do so.
And why “factor out” investment performance in summarizing the numbers? Unless they’re grossly incompetent money managers, their investment performance has likely been pretty sweet in the last few years.What is the purpose of investment performance if not to fund the institution’s mission?
And why is this the first we’re hearing of the supposed financial problems? Where have been the special campaigns to fundraise or otherwise address the supposed problem in recent years?
This is not an institution on the brink. This is an institution suffering from the board’s lack of vision and understanding of its mission, and of their own role, and hiding their failures behind disingenuous bean -counting.
Allow me to summarise the waffle – “I can’t believe people don’t want to throw money at me!”
To my own last point asking why we haven’t heard about this before: the last major news from the symphony board, only last September, was the announcement of the proposed $100 million remodel of Davies symphony hall by Frank Gehry associates (with lots of excited talk about his Disney Hall in LA. ) And now suddenly they’re in the throes of a long standing financial crisis leaving them unable to meet projected operating expenses or even restore pandemic cuts to musicians salaries?
I call BS. Or gross mismanagement. Or hijacking the institutions resources to serve other agendas? Yes that’s only speculation on my part. But the appearance is extremely bad.
A $100 million Gehry hall will last 100 years, attract tourists and concert goers, improve the neighborhood, change the profile of the city.
A $100 million for new music will last 100 minutes each time, and never to be played again and forgotten, and will do none of the things that Starchitecture can (look at Barcelona, look at LA, look at Hamburg, look at Sydney..)
It’s a warning sign when contributed income is less than income from ticket sales. That’s what needs to change in SF.
Ok, confess! There’s more to this story here: when he left LA, EPS said he wanted more time to compose, so he didn’t want another MD position. So how SFS talked him into taking this gig (barely a lateral move) is anyone’s guess. And already he quit? What’s the truth here??? We weren’t born yesterday!
Well, just over a decade went by between his departure from LA and his first season as MD to SFO. One suspects that the whole “more time to compose” thing didn’t go the way he fantasized. The LA gig was taken, MTT had done wonderful things with SFO, and it is a fair bet they did lead EPS to believe they were committed to a path of ambitious innovation and adventurousness.
If the financial deficit has been going on for 10 years, how was EPS led to believe that he could have the kind of productions when he was hired? Something is not adding up.
All these musical stuff only takes resources off our woke ambitions.
SF lost the MTT fund raising machine when he retired. EPS has not been there long enough to become the fundraiser his predecessor was. That said, they should have thought about this prior to hiring him.
But if you read the document – these deficits were starting to really build up when MTT was still the MD.