Eargasms

I had a candid and informative discussion with three Charleston Symphony musicians last week about their artists’ perspective on the CSO’s current funding crisis. I initially expected to voice their concerns in an upcoming print article – but have since been asked to blog about it instead. It’s rather long for a blog post – but you need to know what they’re thinking. So please – read on:

If you’ve been following the ongoing gush of media coverage about the situation, you already know that the CSO management and executive board are considering a massive budget cut (like $500K) for next season, the main consequence being a drastic reduction of the orchestra’s core size. That means anywhere from ten to thirty of their musicians could lose their jobs. Also under consideration is a “fractional pay” plan that would tie both the musicians’ and staff members’ paychecks to total cash on hand – to take effect as soon as mid-March. Remember, nothing has been decided at this point: everything is still “on the table.”

The musicians I spoke with are double bass Principal Ed Allman, French hornist Anne Holmi and flutist Regina Helcher-Yost. They represent an ad-hoc musicians’ self-advocacy group called the “Keep the Music Playing” Committee. Ironically, their board has a committee of the same name.

First off, they hastened to assure me that the last thing the players want is an adversarial relationship with their management and executive board. They truly appreciate all their front-office staff’s hard work, as well as the all-volunteer board’s selfless service. They fully understand that both “sides” seek the same ultimate goal: the CSO’s survival as a top-quality performing entity. The salient differences between them boil down to how this goal can be achieved – particularly insofar as personnel cuts are concerned.

They explained that three different “core musician” reduction plans are being considered: the most draconian of which could cut the core players back to sixteen! They contend that even the least drastic of these plans (cutting around a dozen) will seriously degrade both the orchestra’s vaunted quality, as well as its future “appeal” to the musical public.

We first discussed the simple fact that the vast bulk of the symphonic repertoire simply cannot be performed with even a dozen or so fewer musicians (down from 46, their current core). This means that freelance substitute players – or “extras” – will have to be engaged in large numbers for many future performances. This, the musicians believe, is not a cost-effective option, since extras are paid according to union scale, plus travel and per diem allowances – making them potentially more expensive than keeping current players in place.

While there’s a sizeable pool of available extras, the best of them are often not available for a given performance, and the orchestra will often have to settle for “second-best” – or even “tenth-best,” depending on how far down the list they have to go before hiring somebody. Thus the quality of many extras is unpredictable. And I can personally cite several instances over the years when sub-par extras have degraded CSO performances.

Besides, one measure of an orchestra’s quality is its sense of ensemble – which depends in part on how long its players have been performing together – and many future extras will have little or no experience performing with the CSO. These factors raise grave doubts in the musicians’ minds that the CSO can remain a first-rate band under the “reduced core” concept.

And even that scenario presumes that the CSO will have enough money to engage extras in sufficient numbers to keep playing their mainstream repertoire. A tiny orchestra can only play smaller-scale pieces, and the musicians wonder how long they can keep their public’s interest and support going on a steady “chamber orchestra” diet. Composers like Haydn or Mozart surely wrote some great stuff – but the CSO’s fans will eventually want more.

Finally, musician cutbacks will not only affect the number of players onstage. These folks are part of our community, and on many levels. Slashing their numbers will mean fewer musicians to present school programs, coach (or be part of) college ensembles, serve our children as private teachers, perform for local chamber music organizations (like Chamber Music Charleston), and enhance local church music events. And what of the consequences to those who have made their homes and are raising families here?

So then, how to keep the cash flowing, and the music sounding? The players fully realize the gravity of the situation. They don’t claim to have all the answers, or some “magic bullet” to solve the crisis – and they realize that something will have to give. They’re artists, not business people. But they do have some solid ideas as to how some helpful extra funds could be raised — over both the short and long hauls.

First, it may help to discuss a term that’s been bandied about for years now – namely the “sustainable business model” that boards past and present have insisted must be developed for the CSO. They justify it by telling us that many potential major donors refuse to support the orchestra until such a model is in place. And the model they’re now proposing does just what a troubled business’s would: lay people off. After all, any company’s major expense is its employees. But my sources suggest that what often works well for a business may NOT work for a non-profit outfit — particularly where artistic intangibles are present, as they are here.

It’s interesting to note that the musicians’ current contract was based on just such a model – which the board pronounced “sustainable” just two years ago. And they indeed finished the following season (last year’s) in the black, and for only the second time in the CSO’s history. But could any model possibly have taken into account the current global economic meltdown?

That said, the musicians’ initial revenue-generating suggestions have to do with their firm contention that the orchestra is underutilized. They are paid, per union rules, by the “service” – or concert. A certain number of services is set for each season – often far more than the season’s concert schedule will fill. The current season, in particular, has quite a surplus of unfilled services, due in part to the concerts that were cancelled early on. This system gives the CSO some flexibility to schedule spontaneous events at need – or for a special purpose, as in their recent collaboration with the Charleston Ballet Theatre (look for my review in Eargasms shortly). But the fact remains that the musicians are still getting paid for concerts they never perform.

But the musicians – all of them – WANT to work. So why not fill up some or all of those vacant services with new and different sorts of events: exploring unusual new venues like docked cruise ships or hotel lobbies … or tying into other big Charleston tourist extravaganzas, like the bridge run and wildlife expo?

Why not repeat some of the varied fundraising efforts that have worked well in the past? Like their Halloween “haunted house” event; one of several successful ventures that may bear repeating. Also, there are several new proposals that are being independently explored by the CSO’s most ardent supporters: the tireless Charleston Symphony Orchestra League. Ideas include a bumper sticker campaign and special fundraising dinner events (with classical entertainment) at local restaurants – among others.

Bolstered by a grassroots publicity campaign (which the musicians are gearing up for), the CSO could well find new markets and younger audiences for their “product” – and maybe even push their support base beyond its current senior-citizen majority.

The next matter, in particular, is fast becoming a potentially bitter bone of contention to the musicians. The CSO – along with most other American arts institutions – normally conducts its annual season subscription renewal drive at about this time of the year. But the board has inexplicably delayed this year’s drive, depriving the CSO of a substantial infusion of funds (normally somewhere over $200K) that could help see them through the rest of the season.

Otherwise, the CSO faces insolvency by mid-March – along with the related possibility of chapter eleven bankruptcy, should ongoing discussions fail to produce an agreement. Needless to say, the players feel that postponing the CSO’s usual subscription drive puts unfair pressure on them to give in to their management’s proposals.

So, there you have it: the unvarnished musician’s view. I’ve laid it out pretty much as they gave it to me – with (I hope) a minimum of editorializing. The musical public needs to be aware of their concerns – which delve far more deeply than mere dollars and cents.