Dear Dr. Romenstein:
Thank you very much for taking the trouble to reply personally to my letter. Please call me Sally. I was not aware that you are a past member of the ASOC; this information seems to be missing from your bio. As a former member of such a tightly knit group, you are probably not surprised at how vocal (sorry!) we are.
Your plane analogy is very interesting, but I would respectfully submit that the “pilots” currently have a 777 – a state of the art aircraft -- under their command. Our main objection to your current financial proposal is that it appears the “mechanics and ground crew” propose downgrading to a lesser aircraft.
I would take the analogy further: where is this plane headed? Do we put our destination in the mechanic’s hands? Is it the mechanic’s decision to take us from a world class symphonic orchestra and associated chorus to being a regional organization? If so, it’s only fair to let the pilot and passengers know exactly where they are headed.
I also would respectfully point out that, as mechanic and ground crew, you don’t currently have a plane flying the friendly skies ...
All plane analogies aside, I would appreciate more clarification on what your goal is. Yes, we acknowledge that the situation is very serious. But if you get everything you want, please let us know what we will have. ASOC singers never compromise on quality. We expect the organization that cherishes us to be honest with us and state clearly that such compromises are expected in the outcome.
May I have your permission to publish your letter on our blog site? It will mean very much to the chorus to know that their letters and concerns are being acknowledged directly by you, the ASO Board, and WAC.
Yours truly,
Sally Kann
#302
Dear Chorus Colleagues:
ReplyDeleteReality bites. We all wish contract negotiations had not broken down and that all had continued as before. But it did and it can't.
I do not know exactly why or how previous management got us into this situation, but it did. Probably tried to do too much with too little and expected that it would come out ok. We were and still are living in an economic decline for the last four to five years that was and is affecting individual patrons and corporate sponsors. It continues.
Audiences are declining as the "market" for classical music declines. This is similar to what the big bands experienced beginning not too many years after WWII. It may surprise many to know they were as popular at one time, as rock and rap are today. No comment as to quality.
Like it or not the ASO organization cannot continue to live beyond its means. I speculate lenders and donors have told Stanley Romanstein to get his financial house in order before they will give/lend more cash. There is always the Philadelphia route, which is not a good one.
I expect that the bigest expense for the organization is the orchestra. Staffing and other aspects of compensation must be rationalized to economic realities. I hate that but reality bites. It will not be as before. I hate that, too. It's better than the most obvious alternative.
I sent Stanley Romanstein a letter on the situation. I recommended that he look at his organizational structure, from top to bottom, and eliminate any function or person who is not contributing directly to the bottom line. The bottom line is making music on our stage with the ASO and the ASOC and with acts he brings in to increase revenue. Eliminate functions such as "education" and "outreach", etc. and ratonalizing the size of the development staff. Each job must be engineered to fit into the organization's mission and goals.
The opposing argument is that these functions contribute to long-term audience and talent development. Nice. But with no short-term, we have no long-term. "You have to spend money to make money". Not if every time you spend money (perform) you go further in debt.
I do not know what numbers either management or the orchestra have as their "final position". I believe we've seen and/or heard only the numbers that they want the public to know. That's common in these types of situations.
Like him or not, put yourself in Stanley Romanstein's shoes. Sure, he's got a "tin ear" sometimes, but I wouldn't want to be doing what he has to do. I don't think he relishes the task of telling people they are being let go or that compensation must be reduced. I wouldn't. Would you?
Finally, I understand our emotional involvement in all of this. Some of us have done this gig for a long time. It's my 38th season. (Good Lord, has it been that long?) I certainly don't want to see it end this way or, at minimum, miss another trip to Carnegie.
Folks, not to get too emotional myself, but this will probably be the last time I get to sing Belshazar's Feast or the Chichester Psalms, and I'm not alone. Lets keep this thing on as high a plain as we can.
On the other hand you have every right and obligation, as a member of this organization, to express your feelings and ideas. That's what blogging is all about. In America but not in many other countries. Just a reminder from an old guy how fortunate we are to be able to express our ideas,opposition, support, etc.
And let hope that both sides can come to a solution that preserves the organization and allows it to begin to work on that debt. It will not be easy.
If you're a praying type, say one for a just and lasting solution. If you're not, keep your fingers crossed. Maybe we could all do both. Couldn't hurt.
See you Monday. I hope there will be many more.
Musical love to all,
Ed
Thank you Ed ... I'm really glad you posted your comment. You're right that although two chorus members might not share the same view ... I don't agree with you, for example, about eliminating educational programs ... you and I both want to preserve top-tier orchestra. I doubt that any of the conductors we have worked with would want anything less.
ReplyDeleteI too appreciate your comments and perspectives from the long-view. I agree that S.R. PhD needs to look long and hard at the administrative side of the budget as well to see where cuts could be made. Perhaps it would be better for everyone to "take a haircut" rather than eliminating divisions such as education, under which the ASYO and Talent Development programs fall. Don't forget, the ASO uses the ASYO as free labor to put on several family concerts each year--somewhat similar to the way the chorus is free labor and a big box office draw for the concerts in which we perform the big choral masterwork favorites
ReplyDeleteIf you think it's okay to cut "education" and "outreach" then you are advocating no future for the ASO. That is just crazy. I am an Atlanta Public School teacher and I fashion much of our yearly curriculum around the ASO's Education and Outreach programs--if you kill those, you're impacting not just the future, but the current access to the arts for children.
ReplyDeletehttp://springdaleparkmusic.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_archive.html