Why don't major symphonies tour like rock bands?
Tom Martin -- Wed, 06/18/2008 - 01:49
Lots of symphony orchestras lose money. Most cities have a symphony. Instead of covering all that cost, why don't we have 5 or 10 major orchestras that have touring as a primary part of their schedule? Note the word primary (as opposed to occasional). Then, in Detroit, or Buffalo, or New Orleans, or Denver, or Portland, or Pittsburgh, or Phoenix, or Sacramento, or Hartford, or Milwaukee, or Jacksonville I could hear the NY Phil or the CSO or Berlin for that matter. Or maybe it would be the Orchestras like Cleveland and Philadelphia and Minnesota who tour because the biggest and most famous don't need to.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
A full symphony orchestra has around 100 members.
100 x traveling expenses = losing money...
In comparison many rock bands have 1/10 that number of people to move around.
Combine that with the hall and promo expenses and you have a difficult "nut" to crack.
:cry:
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Good point. So, assuming a 1 week stay:
$50k in airfare
$100k in hotels
$35k food
$15k transport
$200k total
If a city could replace 10 weeks of performances with touring symphonies, it would cost $2million for logistics.
Since overhead is about 50% of symphony expense, you'd need at least $5 million total budget for this to work, assuming that a) you still need $500k-$1 million for marketing and b) the cost of the touring group = cost for a full season of the local group (that is, cost per performance can be higher for the touring group).
That is about the budget, I'd guess, of a mid-size city symphony. So, the interesting question becomes: could 10 weeks of name brand symphonic performance generate more revenue than a season of the local team? It is a little more complex than that, but I don't know that it wouldn't work. Conveniently, 50 performances with 2000 seats at a $50 average ticket generates $5 million in revenue, so it isn't impossible.
Not obvious the gain is big either.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Another counter argument...
Given that any locality has $X that are spent on classical concerts.
What would be the effect of a national level orchestra touring through town and taking ticket dollars away from the local orchestras and performers?
In some areas this may be just enough to tip over the economics of the regional orchestras so they don't make their budgets.
Local classical musicians might find it harder to make a living and be forced to move to larger metropolitan areas.
So touring orchestras could, in effect, decimate local classical music scenes.
Don't hate me, I'm just playing devil's advocate
:twisted: :twisted:
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Completely. The idea is to fully replace the (money losing, lower quality) local group with the touring symphonies. But the economics would have to be better.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Aren't you overlooking the fact that most major symphonies, like the CSO, are booked for 7-month seasons in the home town?
And the CSO does travel, often during the summer, to Europe for some gigs.
The perhaps most importantly: These guys (and gals) are all union and are already contentious about their contracts and unwilling to play any more gigs or for any more time than they are paid. I've seen this every time the contracts go up for negotiation. So any "tours" would be have to be planned years in advance and included in a contract. Then there is the question of who pays for the extra money that would take? That money would have to be guaranteed years in advance. Unlikely.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
I can't speak for the CSO specifically, but I think the problem is that some bigger orchestras lose money on parts of their seasons. If they had more profitable "tours" that would be a benefit. For all I know, this might mean that Cleveland, Minnesota and Dallas are the touring Orchestras, not Chicago and New York.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Yes, you are probably correct--I know donations are helping out both orchestras and opera companies; that and corporate support seem key.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
Donations and other "unearned" income are typically about 60% of income, I believe.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Almost all tours of major US orchestras are underwritten by wealthy corporations or wealthy private donors. Host states and cities also sometimes contribute to the high cost of the touring symphony. I suspect that orchestras lose little if any monies under this model.
The CSO (Cincinnati not Chicago) relies on wealthy donors and sound financial management to fund the full cost of the tours. A CSO Press Release notes:
"CSO supporters who donated additional dedicated gifts for the purpose of the Japan Tour include The Otto M. Budig Family Foundation, Peter G. Courlas and Nicholas Tsimaras, Sue and Bill Friedlander, Lois and Dick Jolson, Patricia and Calvin Linnemann, Chris and Tom Neyer, Farah and John Palmer, Vicky and Rick Reynolds, Dee and Tom Stegman and Sallie and Randolph Wadsworth Jr."
The release also notes that orchestra policy under its budget stabilization plan mandates that the orchestra embark on tours only if they are fully funded.
See http://www.cinstages.com/article.asp?CinstagenewsID=3495
Amandela77