http://www.detroitsymphonymusicians.org/index.html

You can email Stanley Frankel(Chairman of the Board, Detroit Symphony) at

stanleyfrankel@detroitsymphonymusicians.org

to express your concern about the contract proposals.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: delmarw,

It's a shame that the site and the details are so ambiguous. I have no idea what "up to 28%" means, does in mean 27% or 4%?

It's tempting to write the Board chair and whine, but how would anyone know the actual details? If there is anyone here from the DSO, perhaps they can relay that to the commitee. For all we know, the cuts may be in their best interest, maybe the endowment is shot.

It's too easy to say "The management is a bunch of meanies" without giving facts. How big is the orchestra, how many positions are not being filled, on and on.

quote:

Nevertheless, the musicians placed on the table a proposal agreeing to more than $9 million in cuts in salary and benefits, including cuts of 22 percent in next year’s annual scale, 14 percent in 2012, and eight percent in 2013.

“The musicians’ proposal was rejected and management flatly refuses to negotiate when we meet,” McKay said.

Don't see what's vague about that. A 22% cut isn't enough? There's another quote which mentions that the number of positions is currently 84 - down from 95, and aside from that six musicians have left for other gigs in the past two years.

Beyond that press release, there are two other rather detailed articles on the site by Doug Cornelsen and Shelly Herron which provide a great deal of perspective on what's going on with the DSO's endowment and fundraising.

Frankly, this is the most informative musician's site I've ever come across. Did you get beyond the 1st paragraph of the press release, Cygnus?

Maybe it got changed since you read it, Cygnus, but when I read it just now it said "cuts upwards of 28%."

quote:

Originally posted by RWhite:


Did you get beyond the 1st paragraph of the press release, Cygnus?

I read every word on the site.

quote:

There's another quote which mentions that the number of positions is currently 84 - down from 95, and aside from that six musicians have left for other gigs in the past two years.

6 musicians left? Golly, I've never heard of musicians leaving an orchestra before. And yes, that's vague. Are they having auditions, are the seats frozen, are they permanently down to 84?? Did they agree to that, even suggest that?

RWhite, it's an incredibly one-sided website, which of course we expect and all get behind being musicians. The problem is that their state has been among the hardest hit if not THE hardest hit by the recession, their unemployment is about the highest in the US, their city is like a demilitarized zone, and it's going through scandal after scandal.

I've rallied for years on this site about incompetent management and leadership, and I'm not changing my tune. But C'mon, this is a city and region that's devastated by economic collapse. I'm seeing a lot of "but we'll fall outta the top ten", and not much " our city is about to implode, can someone help"? Nor did I see any actual facts about the endowment. If they are there they are hiding.

I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for the musicians there. I am suggesting, for their sake, that they consider revamping their site. I doubt there is anyone within 500 miles of there that cares if they "fall out of the top 10". Only musicians would understand that, it has little meaning to a city that's usually in the bottom one in most categories.

Bottom line: is the money there? That question is really never answered. If it is, let the reader know in no uncertain terms.

RWhite, try an experiment: look at the following slideshow. When you see each picture, think about the phrase "Falling out of the top 10" and tell me if you think that's the way that you would word it if you were in charge:
Remains of Detroit

I agree with Cygnus. After hearing how many budget cuts & hiring freezes there are in some of the regional orchestras in Michigan, it's not surprising at all that they're taking a pay cut. At this point, you almost want to ask what orchestra is NOT taking a pay cut.

The only thing i don't buy is this statement in the newsletter: "younger musicians seeking a career in a great orchestra will probably look elsewhere" - but i just don't see that happening. I could understand if it were, for example, a barely full-time gig dropping down to part-time status (as we've read about of some groups), but that's obviously not the case here. And even still, there are quite a # of players taking per-service auditions, no matter what music school they went to, especially flutists. A gig is a gig. I seriously doubt these 'highly qualified applicants' would skip over Detroit altogether.

These are all good points. Perhaps the musicians' site needs to be altered a bit to reflect a bit of sympathy for and understanding of the region's challenges. But, the premise and objective of the site's mission is valid. The DSO musicians have the right to inform the public of their position and attempt to rally support for their case - much of which is unknown to the public, if for no other reason than the fact that people just don't pay much attention. I also disagree with the notion that people who would care about the orchestra's top ten status don't exist in that area. In a city that has so much civic pride, yet has lost so much justification for it, an appeal to that pride and a hope that this particular part of it might be salvaged is a worthy effort. I believe Detroit can still afford this orchestra. The question is whether or not it is a priority for those that can help. It's natural for musicians to take up an effort that operates independant of management and, to a degree, critisizes the job they do. Obviously, managament has much less to lose when it comes to the "shrinking" of an orchestra.

Also, with regard to the "younger musicians looking elsewhere" comment. This was not worded well. The bigger issue for an orchestra like Detroit is that, assuming a shrinking contract, musicians in section or associate chairs in orchestras like, say, Atlanta, Dallas, St Louis, Cincinnati etc will no longer look to the DSO's Principal and other titled vacancies as opportunity for promotion. That's where an orchestra like Detroit's will lose when it comes to filling positions.

quote:

Originally posted by timpaholic:
I also disagree with the notion that people who would care about the orchestra's top ten status don't exist in that area.

I could have worded that better. They could have too. What they are saying ( I think) is that they will fall out of the top 10 "in pay". For that, I don't think they will garner much support. It's a terrific orchestra, and if they said emphatically that they will fall out of the top 10 musically, it would go further.

I think that within the next 20 years, we will see a situation arise where the artistic excellence of a group will outweigh it's pay in attracting players, if only very slightly. This whole "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude has to stop. People will always want to play with the DSO because it is the DSO. A city in a depressed economic area can't raise the same money as one in a prosperous area, at least not forever. A city like that may fall out of the top ten "pay scale", but that's not everything in life. As long as they have decent pay, there will be hundreds of qualified people auditioning who would love to have that gig, and don't care about a perceived "top ten" status.

Perhaps it's naive of me, but I think there's reason to be optimistic. As one who lives in Michigan and knows both the DSO and it's musicians, I think that one can look at two factors that will bode well for the organization's future.

First of all, the DSO scored big time when it brought in Leonard Slatkin as MD. He is really going to bat for the orchestra and the community. I heard him give a lecture several months ago and he had so many ideas on how to rebuild the orchestra's standing. Everything from programing to education to fundraising. There is no doubt: the man is dynamic, energetic and passionate. He's just what the orchestra needs.

As for the city itself, it really isn't that bad. I'm not saying it doesn't have problems - many of them larger and harder to fix than those of other rust-belt cities. But lately I hear more and more promising news of the city's revitalization. It will probably take years if not a couple of decades to become fully apparent, but progress is being made.

In the present, it's hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Michigan was in economic trouble long before the rest of the country got hit, what with the collaps of the auto industry and the loss of manufacturing jobs. The latest negotiations of the DSO is just another sign that we're not out of the woods yet. Still, difficult as it may be now, I think that Detroit and it's orchestra will emerge strong.

The issue isn't a pay cut - the musicians are expecting pay cuts and actually included HUGE cuts in THEIR OWN PROPOSAL to management. The issue is bargaining in good faith rather than gutting the organization without explanations or plans for the future.

The players seem to have accepted that falling out of the top 10 in pay is unavoidable. What's at issue is the refusal by management to even suggest a goal of when/how the organization might rebuild to that level. Is that what leadership is about these days? Finding ways to permanently make your organization less-than-great?


All of McKay's statements about the "top 10" are put in artistic terms - not about money. The management is relying on the public's view of Detroit as a third-world country (a la Cygnus') to fuel an attempt (which actually goes back many years) to radically change how it operates. No doubt - they think they are doing the right thing. But read Shelly Herron's article about Development and ask yourself why those issues aren't addressed first and foremost.

It may be hard for some of you to believe that Detroit actually has some incredibly great aspects to it. The DSO is, and always has been, one of those. Those of us who live here know that too.

quote:

Originally posted by RWhite:
to radically change how it operates.

Lemme get this straight:
The musicians offered a 22% pay cut. Mgmt. has offered 28%, yet somehow this is "radical"?? How in the world is that "radical", it's a 6% difference?

quote:

What's at issue is the refusal by management to even suggest a goal of when/how the organization might rebuild to that level. Is that what leadership is about these days?

Clearly, someone is not telling the truth. This latest article suggests the opposite.
talks stalled
I'm not taking sides here, I'm trying to get some clarity. Obviously if I was to take sides it would be with the band, same as anybody else around this dump. I'm just trying to get legit facts and figures, not editorializing about top ten lists. I leave that to Letterman.

quote:

But read Shelly Herron's article about Development and ask yourself why those issues aren't addressed first and foremost.

RWhite, we've had discussions on this site about many orchestras. Columbus, Shreveport and Louisville come to mind. In those cases, the appearance was that the mgmt was not only combative but strangely apathetic. They didn't seem to care about the band. There's a big difference between apathy and not being able to raise funds. You know better than me, I don't live in Detroit and have only been there maybe 6 times. I asked before, I'll ask again: is the money there? If it is, tell us. I have no idea why they can't keep a director of development. If you know, tell us.

We all have a dog in this race. When the venerable DSO takes a hit, it means that every orchestra below them can take one too. Make no mistake: I am on their side 100%, rootin for the band. But ambiguity only goes so far.

quote:

Finding ways to permanently make your organization less-than-great?

This has to stop, it's killing the US arts scene. You've been around the block, I have too. There are orchestras with a budget of 1 million that sound quite good, and ones with a budget of 12 million that sound like dog crap. I honestly believe that there are mgmts in places like Shreveport that want a "less than great" orchestra, they don't care. Others want a fiscally sound orchestra that will be around for the next generation to enjoy. My guess is that DSO is the latter. Whether they are right or wrong, I have no idea. I don't think anyone does, it's all a crapshoot with this economy. This whole "well if we don't have a zillion dollar budget we will suck" attitude is ridiculous. They won't suck, they are the DSO and have a marvelous history to prove that. People would friggin' PAY to play with them.

Cygnus - the "radical" aspect is the refusal to even talk about rebuilding after such large cuts - not the cuts themselves.

Furthermore I think the question of "is the money there?" isn't the whole story. That's an overly simplistic argument.

As Herron's article points out, the donor base has shrunk considerably between 1996 and 2008. Since many of those years were quite good economically, one could suppose that Herron's contention that such shrinkage was due to high Dev. team turnover and lack of energy on that front - opting instead for the "low-hanging fruit" of key donors - is astute. If one only relies on 5000 key players to make huge donations each year, it's no surprise that the current view would be "the money's not there".

I think the conventional wisdom about Detroit is overstatedly bleak, and doesn't consider what all goes in to providing an audience for a great orchestra. Parts of LA are certainly hellish, but no one seems surprised that they have a flourishing orchestra. Cleveland is nearly as challenged as Detroit - yet the musicians didn't face this degree of animus in their recent labor dispute. I'm not minimizing what they had to confront, but I think it's fair to say that this is worse. Lastly, pictures of buildings that have been abandoned for 30 yrs. don't account for the supporters all over the gigantic metro Detroit area.

Lastly, why is it wrong to question the commitment to artistic quality when such draconian proposals are put forth? Pay and benefits are certainly not the only factors leading to artistic growth and health - but it can't be denied that they are a factor.

quote:

Originally posted by RWhite:


Furthermore I think the question of "is the money there?" isn't the whole story. That's an overly simplistic argument.

It's the only part I'm asking about though. I'm trying to get facts and figures. Deception abounds. I'm trying to figure out, without a smokescreen or editorializing, what the endowment is.


I'll break everything one needs to know about symphonies everywhere into 2 easy to understand categories:

1. Symphony mgmt sucks, bunch O fools sittin around not doing their gigs.

2. Stuff happens.

I'm of the opinion at this moment that it's #2. I have no reason to think otherwise, the website didnt give me one.

RWhite,

you're a lot closer to the situation than I am. I'm not close to it at all, I'm just some guy readin a website. If I, a musician who is clearly sympathetic to their cause, cannot get the scoop from their website, than the average Joe can't either. Simply put, they aren't making their case strong enough. I should have said that at the beginning, we could have avoided this whole thread. It's that simple, they are not making their case strong enough. I hope in the future that they do.