Dismayed and confused about the departure of music director Esa-Pekka Salonen, musicians of the San Francisco Symphony are distributing leaflets to concertgoers.
Image courtesy of Janos Gereben.
The Berlin State Opera communicated tonight that its…
Boston Symphony pulled one out of the fire…
A PR informs us this morning that the…
A social media activist has circulated a video…
Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.
It is long past time for the American non-profit structure to reform and evolve so situations like this no longer occur. The idea of an independent board is laudable and useful in many ways but in times of conflict it sets up its members as inimical. Performing arts organizations like this need to be completely self governing. They need to raise their own money and write their own contracts, similar to European orchestras. Too often in America the realities of the checkbook devolve into the familiar “workers vs. management” conflict that belies the fact that these are non-profits and that the board is not there to turn a profit or to pay a dividend. If the musicians want to keep EPS, they need a structure that permits them to raise the funds and spend them as they see fit.
Entirely impossible.
The only self-governing orchestras in the world are those guaranteed funding by the state, and indeed heavily subsidized by the state, so that in fact the musicians never have to worry about their foundational finances: they are guaranteed a salary, they are guaranteed health care, they are guaranteed a regular raise, they are guaranteed a pension.
All that the self-governing musicians are left to worry about are the “cherry on top” financial issues: extra ticket sales, profits, royalties, pet projects…
If musicians — like lawyers in a partnership, or doctors in a medical group — had to go out and get clients to generate enough revenue every year for their basic survival, their business model would be very different, to begin with, they wouldn’t be unions and there wouldn’t be tenure.
Also, in exchange for the state-guaranteed perennial stability, they get far lower salaries than their American counterparts. The Berlin Philharmonic musicians are not pulling down San Francisco salaries.
Actually, the Berlin Phil musicians are doing quite well financially in a city that is still relatively cheap in comparison to other German cities and where the cost of living is a mere fraction of what it takes to make it in San Francisco. It’s the San Francisco Symphony musicians who are getting the short end of the stick, in a city where the cost of living is absolutely prohibitive and where 100K is barely a living wage. For musicians of that caliber to make less than 200K for a base salary, given their experience and given how competitive it is to win that audition, is nowhere near any sort of luxury and is frankly rather insulting. The real comparison is not dollars but cost of living.
A few American chamber orchestras, most notably Orpheus, are self governing. No reason it couldn’t work in larger shops.
But the members of Orpheus have a job, in a more formal way, in another orchestra.
You’ve obviously never been in orchestra management.
Actually, “commercial,” pop and jazz musicians DO have to go out and get their own clients…but that may be outside the scope of this forum
Practically, the only way this would work, because of the enormous efforts needed for fund raising and budgeting, is to have a committee of the orchestra members serve as a sort of board and then have them hire a manager and staff. It would just move the point of tension from the space between the orchestra and the board to the space between orchestra and management, which exists already. If you told most orchestra members that their responsibilities would expand to the areas you mention, they would balk.
Well said!
Nanton?
Then how are outfits like the London SO and Vienna Philharmonic able to cope with these issues? Is it simply a matter of having state subsidies? Do they not have to worry at all about fundraising? I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the notion of self-governance.
Yes. It was answered in another thread.
It’s perplexing that you cite European orchestras as some kind of panacea when the fact is that most are heavily dependent on government subsidies, and as we see on this website on almost a daily basis, when those subsidies are cut, the results are devastating for orchestras.
The management of orchestras and opera companies often seem inept and devoid of creativity, but I’m not seeing it in this cases. EPS’s complaint appears focused on cuts to “special projects” and touring. If the orchestra need to reduce expenses, better to start there then eliminate subscription concerts, for example, or layoff musicians.
(I’m also inclined to take management’s word on the orchestra facing financial difficulties because arts organization all of the country have had trouble raising money in the last few years.)
As for the issue of restoring musicians’ salaries, that’s subject exclusively to collective bargaining and has nothing to do with EPS. And I’m sure management will take the position that if the musicians want a salary increase, then costs need to be cut somewhere, like special projects and touring.
Finally, as for “digital media opportunities,” every orchestra is struggling with how to make and distribute recordings when media sales fell off a cliff more than a decade ago, and while streaming reaches a large audience, it generates little to no revenue. There is simply no longer much money in recorded media, and if orchestras want to be recorded, then they’re likely going to have to be ok with performing that labor for free.
American orchestras, like any US non-profit organization, receive enormous government subsidies in the form of their tax-exempt status. Who is making up the government revenue lost through tax exemptions? All other tax payers and tax-paying organizations, obviously. Wealthy philanthropists who donate to non-profits are simply avoiding paying tax money that would be spent according to the wishes of (and for the good of) the general electorate.
In addition to cutting back special projects and touring, the SFS is the only major US orchestra that has not restored musician salaries to pre-Covid levels. They used to have parity with LA, and I believe minimum annual compensation is now somewhere around $40k down, in a city that is arguably considerably more expensive in which to live. There is a huge number of vacancies in the orchestra, and top-tier musicians are very aware of what is going on when making decisions about where to spend their money on auditions. It’s a very bad situation.
What? Almost all European orchestras are creatures of the state. The only notable self-governing orchestras on the continent are the Berlin Phil and the Vienna Phil. And, Vienna’s musicians are also employees of the State Opera. Berlin and Vienna also have the most valuable brand names in the industry. London’s orchestras, save the BBC, are self-governing, but although excellent, they are notoriously poorly compensated. SFS’ board has made a bad mistake. They need to rectify it.
Aha. This addresses the queries I just posted above (before I’d scrolled down this far). Many thanks.
Bravo!!!!!!!!
Players will be auditioning like crazy to get out of SF. Maybe the board will hire Alondra.
yup. principal timpani has recently been to Chicago and NY, and is currently in LA….
Cut, cut, cut. Save, save, save. That’s essentially the philosophy of most orchestra managements these days. That, and the fact that they harbor the uttermost contempt for their own patrons, as they will not hesitate to offer a second-rate product in order to save some money, as they are convinced audiences won’t even notice. But that’s what you get when boards are run by philistines — in other words, by very wealthy people who somehow have come to believe that their wealth and power actually gives them the necessary credentials to run an artistic organization. They’re only doing it, by the way, to satisfy their own egos, impress their corporate friends, and admire their own picture in the program book, often accompanied by a vacuous, copy and paste statement that purports to be conveying some sort of credible artistic vision. The reality is, they often have zero qualifications for running the arts, expect for having very deep pockets. Unfortunately, in a country where art subsidies are simply negligible and where narcissism is a way of life, this won’t be changing anytime soon.
This essential “conflict” if you will, is playing out in orchestras and opera companies throughout the United States. Orchestra boards are failing their mission because they treat their ensembles like failing businesses rather than the cultural institutions that they are.
phf655’s idea is a good start. The players, in San Francisco and elsewhere, need to take responsibility of their own destiny by finding a way to get on the governing boards, and make sure they are taking a part in the hard decisions. I realize that touring and media have their issues. But everyone should step back and look at the back of their envelopes: divide 333 million by 100 players, which works out to 3.33 million per player. A 5 per cent draw on that 3.33 million works out to $166,000.00 annual salary, which comes close to what they are getting in the first place. One could make a case that the players could be giving concerts for practically nothing. Discuss.
Salaries for musicians are generally about a third of the budget of any major orchestra. So you’d need a billion to fund the whole operation, probably more in SFSO’s case.
And some boards just treat the orchestra as a plaything. My orchestra just skims the top of the rep because that’s all the big donors want to hear. Plus, it’s easy! You don’t even have to think! Just look at what sold the best 2 or 3 seasons ago and repeat it! It’s program-by-number. No actual knowledge of the repertoire needed.
That’s what you get when none of your execs have musical experience beyond high school.
The NY Met Gala being a prime example of American participation and support of the arts. Here today, gone tomorrow.
That’s all very well. But who pays the bills?
But what actually inspires donations… a bunch of old ladies on the board or the beautiful artistry and hard work of the musicians?
*standing ovation*
“MBA” is to “Creative Endeavor” as “Bubonic Plague” is to “14th Century”.
A naive, self-serving manifesto. Sad to read such clueless whining.
Sad to read such clueless BS. Why do you even post on a classical music site???
@professional musician: You brook no opposition and want me to cancel myself, correct? How wonderfully American.
Perhaps Andy knows the naive, self-serving musician who wrote the manifesto?
If he doesn’t, I do. And Andy’s perception is spot-on.
Sorry.
It would be really nice if one of the Bay Area mega-millionaires would chip in to make up the budget shortfall so that EPS could be persuaded to stay. Marc Benioff are you listening??
It would also be really nice if one of them would chip in and pay for the kitchen renovation my wife has been asking for.
That’s your job mate.
Trust me, if someone with the money wanted EPS to stay, they’d make him an offer he wouldn’t refuse. But they’re not.
Well said.
Not their business…It´s about arts here, not farts.
A very sad state of affairs, and I am with the musicians all the way.
But I’d be surprised if it works. EPS announced it was his own decision to leave. There wasn’t one clear demand the board failed to meet, so there isn’t a clear way to get him to stay.
The problem is the boards overall culture and priorities. They’ve made it clear they’re not willing to commit the resources necessary to retain a music Director of EPS’ caliber, vision, and intellectual heft. A short sighted decision by a wealthy institution,, and one that bodes ill for its artistic future and continued cultural relevance.
There are many conductors around today that are of the “caliber” of Salonen. No music director in today’s orchestral world is indispensable to the survival and flourishing of a top-30-budget-size US orchestra. And by “intellectual heft” you likely mostly mean that Salonen is a respectable composer, not that he is so superior in “intellect” to so many other conductors on the current scene.
The “artistic future and continued cultural relevance” of the San Francisco Symphony are to be found in SF and the Bay area, with the orchestra’s smaller donors and patrons, subscribers, and single ticket buyers — not on the shores of Lake Lucerne in Switzerland or nestled in the harbor in Hamburg, Germany in the Elbphilharmonie.
An international orchestra has to play globally.Apparently you have no clue about the international orchestra scene…Kind of cultural MAGA crap.
@professional musician: Insular thinking and an astonishing sense of musician entitlement on full display. Talk about folks believing they’re above the fray that is impacting society.
The reference to the domestic US MAGA movement is revealing as well.
And I LOVE the previous spot-on references to Lucerne and Hamburg.
“MAGA crap.” A logical fallacy and a totally irrelevant comment and line of thinking.
“Apparently you have no clue about the international orchestra scene.” I might know a bit more about it than you think.
And what is the “international orchestra scene” anyways? Touring to Europe (mostly Western), Carnegie Hall, and more rarely Asia for the few major US orchestras that can consistently afford it?
Touring to Carnegie Hall, the Kennedy Center, Florida, Chicago, southern California, and other parts of Europe and Asia (Japan and South Korea mostly, major metropolitan China more rarely) for European orchestras?
And then there is touring to South America by any major European or North American orchestra: that is extremely rare nowadays.
In the end all of these so-called “international” orchestras — to include the Vienna Philharmonic and Staatskapelle Dresden — spend the vast majority of their time playing in their major metropolitan venues in a single country.
As a further example, did the Minnesota Orchestra’s tours to Cuba in 2015 and South Africa in 2018 make it an “international” orchestra?
And audio/visual streaming of live orchestral concerts (or even opera) via the internet does not an international orchestra or opera house make. Such a notion is in the end ephemeral.
However, there are still the high-quality audio recordings (whether on LPs, audio tapes or cassettes, CDs/DVDs, or downloads and streaming) released by the commercial/boutique record “industry,” like Deutsche Grammophon in its glory days, or BIS Records and the Minnesota Orchestra with its now conductor laureate Osmo Vänskä. These “legacy” media formats are the only way that any “major” orchestra can even be considered to have had or have a consistent “international” presence in the post-World War II then post-Cold War era, especially in the lives of the average person who attends orchestral music concerts on a regular basis in their hometown.
Here, we are not talking about the tiny fraction of concertgoers — “connoisseurs” — who travel to see orchestras in other US states, regions, or countries, whether those orchestras are on tour or playing in their home venues.
No orchestra is truly an international orchestra, not even the Berlin Philharmonic with its “Digital Concert Hall” subscribers. Sure, it goes on “international” tours more or less every year nowadays, but where does most of its funding come from in the end. Where do its in-person patrons come from in the overwhelming majority of cases?
No, actually. There aren’t many current conductors who compare to Salonen. At least in my experience.
This is a fair observation from someone with much experience.
I think that even the Chicago Symphony Orchestra does not invite as guest conductors all of the numerous talented conductors that exist today, both young and more experienced, of all nationalities.
The music critic David Hurwitz rates Salonen as one of the ten “best” living conductors on the scene today in a YouTube video of March 16, 2022 — but his selections are based exclusively on the totality of living conductors’ commercial recordings, rather than live archival recordings/broadcasts available through the websites of some major symphonies — let alone live performances, the audio recordings of which for the vast majority of concerts are almost never released commercially.
And there are many living conductors on the scene today, especially young ones, who have made very few or no commercial recordings, and it is not because of lack of talent. Thus, in his assessment, Mr. Hurwitz has excluded large numbers of excellent conductors from consideration.
Just saying: don’t ever — ever — cite Hurwitz if you want to be taken seriously.
What a joke. On you.
David Hurwitz is just another music critic out there, and as informed as any. He can argue with the best of his colleagues.
He even reviewed the Gramophone review by critic David Gutman of John Wilson’s recent Chandos release of Ravel’s Daphnis et Chloé. And that was interesting to say the least.
His YouTube video channel is quite informative. And his Classics Today website is still relevant to the classical music review scene when it comes to commercial releases.
But, then, I suppose you just dismiss those outright, and have not recently listened to a single one of his videos, or read a single review of his recently on Classics Today.
His two articles in respectable academic journals on vibrato in more detailed historical context are most interesting:
Music and Letters Volume 93 Issue 1 February 2012
‘So klingt Wien’: Conductors, Orchestras, and Vibrato in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
Nineteenth Century Music Review Volume 11 Issue 1 June 2014
Vibrato, the Orchestral Organ and the ‘Prevailing Aesthetic’ in Nineteenth-Century Symphonic Music
Then again, I gather you might not have read any of these; or perhaps you have published in both of these journals yourself.
He has written about half-a-dozen books on famous composers. So what if they are more than a bit on the popular side of the equation. Have you read any of them? Have you written any yourself? These are just useful questions.
And perhaps most relevant of all to the developing San Francisco Symphony situation, he wrote a brief but provocative article on Classics Today about the Minnesota Orchestra during its debacle from 2012-2014. That title: The Minnesota Orchestra: Is “Class” A Quantifiable Commodity?
Your debating skills in this matter need to be sharpened.
It’s not impossible a change in board leadership could lead to EPS reversing his decision. Ironically the controversy has done a lot to raise his profile in SF since last week! San Franciscans love a cause.
Nowadays, nobody, anywhere in the USA, seems to be able to accept that decisions are sometimes made from above.
Any nonprofit board that thinks of itself as “above” rather than as the servants of the institution should resign in disgrace.
I am thankful every day for the competence and generosity of the Musical Arts Association, the governing body of the Cleveland Orchestra. Generations of generous people who know and love music have made our orchestra the envy of many larger cities.
Not really sure what’s going on, or who is or isn’t blowing the most smoke. Or none at all.
Because so much money over the past 20 years has flowed into the SF metro area, its economy has been prone to “greed is good” and also a skyrocketing cost of living. In turn, that has affected the monthly budget of both the SFS and its employees, musicians included.
Some of what is mentioned in that letter is so-called “First World problems,” so the [quote, unquote] working class isn’t exactly going to be devastated.
If it were my own money I’m not sure I’d want to give it to some ‘maverick organization’ to squander on some ‘experimental’ musak nonsense by its ‘revered’ music director.
ALSO- San Francisco is no longer safe to do business or go to concerts. The lower attendance necesitates cost cutting measures. It’s not the board’s fault that SF is such a cesspool of crimes that people are afraid to go to concerts and operas.
I say e-mail your SF city leaders instead of the board.
Attendance as well as cash reserves are up compared to pre-COVID, so I’m not sure where you’re coming up with that.
Problem with your comment is that others seem to feel differently. Most performances at Davies has been essentially very full or sold out this season, with very few open seats any given night.
I am very curious about the programming intentions of SFS without Salonen. It seems clear the next Music Director won’t have much latitude and SFS won’t promote them as the new vanguard.
Any speculation?
More movie nights?
I just received my guide/calendar to the ‘24-‘25 SFS season and as usual, the main corporate sponsors are Chevron and BofA, former SF institutions now based elsewhere. Meanwhile, Apple, Google and Meta worth trillions combined, are just down the road yet glaringly invisible. What’s wrong with these boards (Opera and Ballet included) that they can’t convince any of them to part with a measly 0.01% of their market value?
because these nuveau-riche tech billionaires aren’t interested in the arts, if they go to classical concerts and operas at all, they do so to be seen on social media.
arts donors are predominantly the old money who value the importants of arts and education.
If memory serves their one of the highest paid and coddled orchestras in the country, with one of the worst attitudes. Hard to take them seriously
Your memory is just fine.
I am glad to read this and totally agree with the thoughts expressed in this flyer.
Bringing Esa Pekka to sf changed my habits around attending classical performances. I have listened to classical music all my life but rarely found live performances that exciting. I think I attended maybe a couple times in my 15 years in sf before he arrived and have gone several times a year since he joined. I doubt his replacement will keep me interested, but am so angry at sf symphony right now that I doubt I’d go even if somehow they find someone at his level who agreed to the orgs terms.
Misguided, but appreciate your willingness to own it.
Watch out the Frisco Fiddelers are on the march; next their be throwing their bows!
The damage is done. The Board at orchestras of this size very rarely have any significant contact with its Music Director. That falls under the purview of the CEO/Executive Director, Artistic Administrator, and the musicians. That EPS chose to so publicly call out the Board is telling on several levels. He could have very easily announced he would not be renewing his contract due to any number of innocuous and acceptable reasons. Instead, he chose to level serious dissatisfaction with the artistic direction of the orchestra under the leadership of the current Board. What that says is that there is a breakdown in the communication somewhere in the middle. It is the Music Director who is charged with the artistic vision of the orchestra and it is the CEO/ED’s job to facilitate that as best as they can, while remaining fiscally responsible to the Board. If there had been a strong enough connection with the CEO/ED, at the very least, management might have avoided such a public condemnation from its star music director. Experience matters, as does mutual respect. From all reports, EPS is not one to “throw tantrums” and, while losing him is a blow, it is definitely a cost-cutting measure from a Board that is content to see him go and a CEO/ED powerless or inexperienced enough to at least keep things out of the muck. A strike when the current contract extension is up is not far-fetched, and both the Board and management may well in fact welcome it. Strikes, also, are cost-saving measures. The biggest loser is the institution.
Least emotional and most lucid assessment so far in the thread. This tubular bell can not be un-rung.
Several major chairs are already hitting up potential orchestras in other cities. They see the writing on the wall. They know contract negotiations are not going to go well, and the wise players are already looking for another chair to sit in before the music stops.
Damage to the SFS has been done, and will continue to be done for a while.
As for “wise” SFS players beginning to seek jobs with other orchestras, finding a permanent position is much more difficult than just being a first-in-line extra or substitute.
As an example, the principal cello of the SFS, Rainer Eudeikis, was the principal of the Utah Symphony from 2014-19, then won the same position with the much larger-budgeted Atlanta Symphony (2019-22), but then left in 2022 after winning the audition for principal with the SFS. Would he want to audition for anything other than a position with the ancient “big-five” or LA Phil, even assuming any of those positions open up any time soon?
In related matters, in the end, the musicians of the top-ten budget-size orchestras in the US should only expect to travel to Europe on tour perhaps twice in ten years. Anything more is in the end more of a prestige vanity project.
On a slightly different tangent, releasing commercial recordings on a boutique label or in-house label is also in a way a “vanity” project (and is not inexpensive), but it is far more sustainable and even relevant in the PR realm than attempting “international” touring every year or every other year. And it is far more useful and relevant for your average orchestral music aficionado and local supporter.
Any strike by the San Francisco Symphony musicians would likely in the end be counter-productive, even for the orchestra’s finances in the long-run.
They play music that’s decades old if not older while dressed up in tuxedos: that’s hardly “maverick”; and who the hell uses terms like “a third of a billion dollars”? Get over yourselves.
If you are talking about the San Francisco Symphony you are terribly misinformed. When is the last time you were actually in Davies Hall? Probably never.
If it means the board wants the orchestra to get back to its core mission of excellent classical music, fine. There are many, many other great conductors. Glen Cortese is available.