bloke wrote:Have you ever noticed that there's a little "foe" button that you can click, whereby all of my posts would be hidden from your view, or has curiosity got the best of you?
This isn't a good solution because it can render subsequent remarks unintelligible.
One thing that irks me is when I read "I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but this is what I think." An alternate way to express this would be "I am deliberately ignorant, but you should read what I have to say anyway."
Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.
Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.
Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.
bloke wrote:I'd be glad for the National Endowment for the Arts to stop tossing chicken feed to American symphony orchestras if cities/counties/states would also stop raping their citizens in sales and property taxes to build stadiums and arenas for football and basketball for-profit entertainment corporations - as well as for states-sponsored/funded minor league football and basketball leagues.
I could not agree with anything more than this.
B&H imperial E flat tuba
Mirafone 187 BBb
1919 Pan American BBb Helicon
1924 Buescher BBb tuba (Dr. Suessaphone)
2009 Mazda Miata
1996 Honda Pacific Coast PC800
bloke wrote:Finally,
Have you ever noticed that there's a little "foe" button that you can click, whereby all of my posts would be hidden from your view, or has curiosity got the best of you?
Doing that would cause half of tubenet to disappear!
Several points to ponder:
1) It has always been difficult, even back in the "good old days"
2) Making an orchestra successful today is even more difficult and complex than you think. Not for amateurs nor the faint of heart.
3) Labor/management strife is NOT inevitable. There is a better way.
I run a successful American orchestra and have huge respect for the talented, dedicated people who make the music, those in administration, and the generous volunteers who populate our boards. If people can move beyond "talent VS. management" to "talent WITH management," it's a great place to start.
Frank Byrne wrote: If people can move beyond "talent VS. management" to "talent WITH management," it's a great place to start.
I played for years in a foreign orchestra where this was the operating principle. The euphemism "social partners" was cooked up to describe the mgmt/players' relationship. Ultimately, all it meant was that the 'union' (such that it was) granted every single request management had without question. It was scandalous. I'm afraid the relationship is meant to be adversarial.
(sidebar): It also didn't help that 85% of the orchestra's budget came straight from govt. subsidies; an annual, guaranteed "gravy train" that ran for decades. Since there was virtually no chance this would ever be cut, program directors created seasons that no-one would ever want to attend, because it was ugly, unlistenable, supposedly "important" music. Many times there were more people on stage than in the hall. The voters finally found their voices and slashed the subsidy.
"No" what? You do school work, yes? They pay you, yes? Your business is "busy" because of them, yes?
To really stand by your principles, you should refuse all public school related work and sales from now on. No more military sales either.
Yeah, reductio ad absurdum, of course...
The question of whether a program should not be undertaken or subsidized by government is completely unrelated to the question of whether those who carry out those possibly unnecessary programs do it competently or not. The first is a policy question (in government, undertaken by the legislative branch, who is usually responsible for passing bills that create programs), and the second is a management question (in government, the responsibility of the executive branch). There are many programs in government that I oppose, but when they are well-run, I applaud those who do so. Running a program poorly purposely to undermine support for it should get any government employee or contractor fired forthwith. That is not their prerogative. I don't suppose that Bloke would advocate that approach.
Rick "not reductio ad absurdum at all, and more likely non-sequitur" Denney
On the original topic, some observations from those for-profit corporations whose management skills we might admire:
1. The people who bring in sales make more money, by far, than the people who make the product they are selling. There is a reason for this: Selling is hard. It's even harder to solicit donations successfully than it is to make world-class music, and even less likely to be something one can learn in school.
2. People in sales have two assets: Sales ability (which is a combination of talent and personality that occurs about as rarely as first-quality musical abilities--and musicians don't necessarily require the personality). And a prospect list--connections they possess or can develop of potential buyers of whatever they are selling. Even if there are musicians who have natural sales abilities, and there probably are in any group of 65 people, it is not likely that they will have a decent prospect list. That world-class oboist won't know the key little old ladies in the Junior League, or the big business owners in the area who are likely to support such causes. An orchestra is not competing for donations for those who have already decided to give to a musical ensemble, let alone a classical musical ensemble. Many of their prospects haven't decided whether their donation should go to arts or to wounded vets, feed-the-poor programs, churches of their choosing, animal rights, or whatever. This would be the biggest issue with Bloke's model. This is also the reason why stars sign contracts with managers--presumably the managers already know the prospects--record-company executives, radio station program directors, etc., etc.
3. Non-profit corporations work for the salaries of their staff. For-profit corporations work for the salaries of their staff, plus a small add-on for the stockholders. (Sometimes it's the other way around.) Too many non-profits think of themselves as government, providing legislatively mandated services, where the measure is not fiscal sustainability, but service outcomes. (Sometimes, government agencies purposely obscure those measures for obvious reasons, but that's another story.)
4. 20% of any given sales force produces 80% of the sales.
5. 1 in 5 CEOs in any really challenging industry is good enough to last more than 2 or 3 years. No, that is not an official statistic, but that's the way it seems to me. What this means to me is that a self-run orchestra probably won't be any less likely to have real executive skill than one with a professional manager, though both models will have exceptions.
6. Sales solicits three kinds of fiscal support for a non-profit: Operating funds, sustaining funds, and capital funds. In an orchestra, sustaining funds come from endowments and long-term public-sector support. Operating funds come from ticket sales--a different sales effort. Not many orchestras use much in the way of capital funds.
Rick "noting that a number of government contractors are non-profits, not that you could tell by looking at how they operate" Denney
Musicians are no less subject to resume and interview BS than are non-musician directors, but perhaps they are less likely to pick a golf-club buddy.
My niece is part of the management team for a per-service professional chamber orchestra in Columbus. She is also a gigging professional bassoonist and teacher (private and college) in the area, though she does not perform in the chamber orchestra she works for. I suspect many management team members of good orchestras have a strong musical background.
The military bands are largely run by musicians who transitioned to administrative jobs or who do them in addition to their musical duties.
So, is the issue that the staff is non-musical, or that the staff is not part of the ensemble and therefore non-responsive to the needs of the musicians?
Note that "executive director" does not equal "sales guy", and the two skill sets may be miles apart.
Even amateur ensembles run into these issues, but are more likely for members to volunteer their management skills. Our band has put on some big programs recently (Canadian Brass, Boston Brass) that required significant executive ability, including the ability to negotiate and review contracts with outside artists, maintain the accounting necessary to provide transparency necessary for a tax-exempt charitable organization, manage front-of-house ticket sales, manage back-of-house artist accommodations, manage donations and memberships, manage outreach, and manage the musicians themselves, who often have real disagreements amongst themselves. Even when musicians are part of the management, they can lose sight of why the organization exists, and need frequent reminders. But amateur groups are more likely to have actual executives, lawyers, accountants, sales people, and others with specifically helpful skills. Musicians with a minor in business might help, but there is also the issue of motivation, aptitude, and experience. You started out saying that these roles could be filled by musicians or their spouses, but then you are limiting your pool of expertise. Then, you added the option of hiring an executive director, but in the end, you might need more than that.
Rick "suspecting that when good people are in charge, good things happen, no matter what their resume, and the issue is too few good people" Denney
Last edited by Rick Denney on Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
UncleBeer wrote:
(sidebar): It also didn't help that 85% of the orchestra's budget came straight from govt. subsidies; an annual, guaranteed "gravy train" that ran for decades. Since there was virtually no chance this would ever be cut, program directors created seasons that no-one would ever want to attend, because it was ugly, unlistenable, supposedly "important" music. Many times there were more people on stage than in the hall. The voters finally found their voices and slashed the subsidy.
There's a moral in there somewhere.
I listened to my last unlistenable concert decades ago.
No more!!
I am committed to the advancement of civil rights, minus the Marxist intimidation and thuggery of BLM.
