With many symphony orchestras folding or shrinking in size because of budget cuts, I am compelled to respond because I believe there are solutions to the problem.
There is nothing more exciting for the audience than to see and hear great symphonies performed by a full orchestra. And I am all in favor of quality service and education. When you give and get the best, you get high quality. With the rise of personnel cutbacks in orchestras, I think the patrons need to be aware of how reduced orchestras affect everyone involved, and also realize there are solutions.
It is obvious that when an orchestra reduces the number of musicians, the repertoire is affected. Imagine hearing Wagner, Berlioz, Mahler, Beethoven and other great composers performed by a reduced orchestra. I don't want to see orchestras fade away, performing concerts with a skeleton crew.
The question is, when orchestras cut musicians because of budget cuts, how come they don't cut back on pay for the executive director (president) and music director (conductor)?
Meanwhile, musicians are eliminated.
Do you think orchestras want to hear musicians complain about budget cuts? No. Do you think once cuts occur, musicians will return? Don't hold your breath.
Orchestra budget cuts are the product of ongoing issues. Many musicians are already being paid below what they should earn, and it takes many hours to practice any one piece of music, leaving little time or energy to address budget cuts.
Many patrons are probably only interested in hearing live music. And I don't think professional musicians have time or energy to address budget cuts. With the salaries of executive and music directors, it does not leave much left to pay musicians.
Thus, the beginning of a long saga of budget cuts. It doesn't end until either the orchestra folds or the musicians removed as regular players wait for a call to fill a position they used to hold. How can a musician survive with lost work and uncertainty, reduced to waiting for a call?
Furthermore, when a professional orchestra rehearses and performs at a public school or at a state university where the music library for the symphony is housed, the orchestra saves money, not needing to rent or buy a concert hall or space.
But when students are added to the orchestra itself, it helps save money on the cost of hiring professionals. And if there are budget cuts, even tenured musicians are told their services are being reduced.
Of course, they cannot and should not be replaced by students. But in reality, they are replaced when the orchestra cannot afford to hire them. When budget cuts like this happen, who else to fill the empty chair but students who pay the college to play in the orchestra. Why not? Is this fair to students, who are not in a union? Are they getting their money's worth?
I think the patrons make the decisions because they are the paying customer and deserve to get the best for their money.
But many questions arise. Do they mind paying to hear an orchestra with fewer professionals and more students?
With orchestras reduced in size, should the public pay full price? And are colleges willing to realize they need to step up their music programs by teaching students that they need to join the union?
I have pondered several solutions to this problem, because once an orchestra cuts back, it becomes a Pandora's box.
If people don't act now and realize there are ways to keep all orchestras vital without reduced musicians, soon patrons will go to concerts where synthesizers replace most of the orchestra with only a tiny core group of live musicians.
Numerous orchestras have cut out musicians, replacing them with one person playing synthesizer and a few musicians representing each instrument in the orchestra.
A synthesizer cannot replace the quality of sound of a full orchestra with musicians. Even with a few players combined with a synthesizer, it cannot provide the same nuance and expression that many live musicians can provide on instruments.
The sounds of strings cause vibrations in the air, which the audience receives. The brass and winds provide a quality of sound that no synthesizer can duplicate.
The first solution is to eliminate the executive directors (presidents) and music directors (conductor). Their salaries are always the highest. In eliminating these people, the orchestra would have money to buy or rent music as well as keep all tenured musicians.
By replacing the executive director with a college student, that money could go toward music and, perhaps, a suitable concert hall for concerts and rehearsals. Let a business major student or management student handle all business responsibilities as part of their course work.
And once the student graduates, allow another student to take on the responsibility. The student would not get paid. As an incentive, the student will get a grade, credit and letter of recommendation, and be well-prepared for a career.
Meanwhile, the orchestra gets what it needs without spending unnecessarily.
Instead of a music director or conductor, have a college student or student from a music conservatory conduct the orchestra as his or her course requirement and get a grade and credit.
This would be a wonderful opportunity for the student considering a career as a public school or college teacher, or a conductor for an ensemble of any kind. Aspiring teachers and conductors are always seeking an opportunity to conduct. Given the opportunity to conduct a professional orchestra, I am sure the right student could handle it very well.
The art of symphonic playing goes beyond what any conductor can do. Although the conductor has knowledge of music style and how to play, so do trained musicians.
It has been demonstrated in orchestras that provide opportunities for laymen to conduct during special fundraising concerts.
I have seen many of these people conduct and without training wave the baton while the orchestra plays, as well as times where the conductor has stepped aside to listen while playing continues.
When musicians lose jobs due to budget cuts, the ultimate solution is to eliminate the conductor. Symphonic players can most definitely still play under baton of a volunteer layman or student, or, in the future, perhaps a programmed robot.
Where to find those volunteers? There are many retired professionals who would also do well to take on the responsibility of executive director on a voluntary basis.
Conductors could be found on a voluntary, rotating basis, perhaps through an open competition among those with some of the necessary skills but who have day jobs.
With these suggestions above, I believe that all local and surrounding musicians can keep their jobs. Without taking steps, those familiar faces you know and appreciate seeing in the orchestras might fade away.
Are patrons paying to hear concerts so they can see the familiar Mr. or Mrs. Personality conduct the orchestra?
Or are they interested in helping to support live music provided by many gifted and talented accomplished professional musicians who pay to be in the union and spend tremendous sums on musical instruments and training?
Is it more exciting to hear a full-size orchestra of professional musicians or a diminished orchestra?
Personally, I believe that the patrons should have the final say.
___
Zito is a local cellist who holds a master's degree in music education.
Print this story
E-mail this story
