British Orchestras & the Cuts

[Guest]

How are the cuts going to pan out in terms of British high art music? I see the Hallé's now in trouble as a second round of cuts - at local government level - are made. There's a brief blog about it here:

Arguments to defend British orchestras, BBC Radio 3 and the BBC Proms, the great cornerstones of British musical high art, will hot up as the public expenditure cuts - deeper than anything ever attempted in Britain before - begin to bite.

It becomes increasingly difficult to defend tax-money spent on, say, a third oboe parping away at a Mahler symphony while old ladies on inadequate state pensions, shivering in poorly maintained public housing stock, have just had their meals-on-wheels cut. But the arguments have to be made.

British Orchestras & the Cuts

Or

[DracoM]

I'm involved with a youth orchestra that has been in operation for over 50 years, and we are really fearful of what will transpire.

It is not just parental means / will at stake, but the support of schools, music teachers and county authorities. We have pretty prudent financial management, but if the pro orchestral world is about to suffer, if music teachers get laid off, then whither the amateurs?

[Philidor]

Maybe I'm wrong but I've the impression the battle hasn't really started yet. There'll be massive amounts of lobbying behind the scenes, the great and the good mobilised to defend their pet projects, institutions and baseline funding. But - to extend the military analogy - the troops are still being dispersed, armed, victualled, and fed propaganda.

The arts scene in the States is a few months ahead of the UK and, besides, it operates in a much more red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist environment. Detroit Symphony Orchestra musicians have been on strike for several weeks. I believe they picketed a Vienna Boys Choir concert a few days ago.

LOL - The Vienna Boys Scabs.

I've not even heard a British government minister present the meals-on-wheels v. Mahler argument yet. But it's bound to emerge sooner or later. I imagine, say, Eric Pickles will be first over the top.

The Proms will be interesting to watch - a £6m public subsidy, I believe, from the licence fee.

In the end it boils down to how much the British value classical music and whether the government has the will and ideological self-confidence to take on the great cultural icons and throw them to the market. Detroit could be Britain in ten years time. The Tory Party's stuffed with barbarians who grind their teeth at the thought of tax money spent on Mahler. Now's the time for them to move. We'll see.

[salymap]

An interesting thread started on the BBC MBs but was nipped in thebud by news of the closures of our Boards. Iposted about the London orchestras, saying that perhaps they could reduce 4 independant orchestras to 3 by amalgamating players not due for retirement into the remaining orchestras.

Daft I realised after thought as most musicians woulds rather busk onCharing Cross Station that join a rival band. Hornspieler said, if I remember correctly, thatthe regional orchestras were in a better position. Any further comments welcome. I'm sorry for all, prof and amateurs but the profs have more to lose, surely

[Philidor]

I'd be interested to keep this thread going - a rolling record of how the knife falls on British classical music: from the Proms, to BBC Radio 3, to the great London orchestras, to wonderful youth orchestras in the sticks, to peripatetic music teachers getting the heave-ho (while the London bankers - who caused the problem - collect their bonuses).

[Chris Newman]

There have been arts funding crises under Wilson, Thatcher and Blair: all were hopeless leaders when faced with cultural acttivities. I have often thought that if push came to shove a couple of London's orchestras could work in a similar way to the old Sadlers Wells Opera Company prior to it becoming ENO. It had the Sadlers Company and the Wells Company. One month the Sadlers Company operated at the Coliseum whilst the Wells Company toured. The next month they swapped. They both had what were really large chamber orchestras. Occasionally for Wagner, Strauss etc. the two companies came together: eg, The Mastersingers and The Ring with Goodall. If the X Philharmonic Orchestra became two chamber orchestras which toured seperately there would be more concerts to go around, more guaranteed work and the bands could come combine a couple of times a month to satisfy the demand for Mahler, Bruckner and so on. It is noticeable that Eastern European Orchestras often do this in Britain for weeks on end. One reads adverts where (I use an imaginary orchestra and companies as example) the Caspian Philharmonic Orchestra is playing Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Beethoven at Norwich and on the same night an orchestra of the same name is accompanying the Caspian State Opera (or Ballet) at Sadlers Wells Theatre. The next day the combined orchestra with a star conductor is at the Barbican. It will take a businessman of the Raymond Gubbay school to price the whole thing out so that the public can afford concerts and make it work but I reckon that it could be done and does not necessarily mean watering and dumbing down.

[RobertLeDiable]

The problem is that symphony orchestras aren't just expanded symphony orchestras, Chris. Cutting a big orchestra in two won't necessarily give you two quality chamber orchestras because the styles of playing are different. When you occasionally hear a symphony orchestra reduced to chamber size to play Haydn or whatever, the result often isn't that good. It's arguable that London has two many orchestras, though not as many as other world cities of such a size, like Tokyo, or even as some smaller cities like Berlin. The truth is that most of them don't receive all that much public subsidy, so there must be enough commercial income to sustain them, otherwise they would go to the wall. I bet if you cut all subsidy to one of them, it would find a way of carrying on anyway - these are organisations with a great history and considerable support.

In my view, the greatest threat to British orchestras in the near future will be massive cuts in local authority budgets. For example, in the North of England: Leeds city council supports a big orchestral concert series, as does Sheffield. Will that survive? What about the big subsidy Salford agreed to give the BBC Phil a few years ago? Will that continue? In the South, will towns like Eastbourne still be able to subsidise visits by the likes of the LPO? What about Bournemouth?

It's all very uncertain and worrying.

[RobertLeDiable]

What I meant to say was "symphony orchestras aren't just expanded chamber orchestras", of course.... <doh>

[MrGongGong]

In my view, the greatest threat to British orchestras in the near future will be massive cuts in local authority budgets. For example, in the North of England: Leeds city council supports a big orchestral concert series, as does Sheffield. Will that survive? What about the big subsidy Salford agreed to give the BBC Phil a few years ago? Will that continue? In the South, will towns like Eastbourne still be able to subsidise visits by the likes of the LPO? What about Bournemouth?

It's all very uncertain and worrying.

I think this is sadly already the case in some places....
Its unlikely (but not unimaginable , for those of us who remember the Bournemouth Sinfonietta !) that we will "loose" a major Symphony orchestra but more likely that they will concentrate performances (and education and other work) in areas where there is local authority support.
Its a great investment for a local authority but with the emphasis on "saving money at all costs" i suspect that some places will loose what many people have spent years establishing.

[Cavaradossi]

In my view, the greatest threat to British orchestras in the near future will be massive cuts in local authority budgets. For example, in the North of England: Leeds city council supports a big orchestral concert series, as does Sheffield. Will that survive?

I would think that Leeds & Sheffield will be better protected than other cities as they only facilitate the booking of a variety of orchestras and pay a fee, which if ticket prices and sales are achieved, the outgoings to the authority will be minimal. If the leisure budgets are cut at Leeds, they could scale back the number of concerts from 22 per season to fit in with the new budgets. The Orchestra of Opera North will I trust survive as their main position is just that, as the orchestra for the opera company, the orchestral commitments are an extra level of income for them.

What may occur, in the planning for future seasons 2012-13 onwards by Opera North, that we see much more main stream repertory, plenty of Così, Tosca & Bohème revivals but less of new productions and not so well known works and new commissions.

I am much more concerned about how ENO will survive through all this, it is already known that some in power feel that two funded houses within two mins walk of each other is not feasible in the current climate, especially as ENO are virtually having to give away tickets, to get punters inside for most productions.

[perfect wagnerite]

DracoM is absolutely right. Some of the worst casualties will be youth orchestras, which were under the cosh even before the current outburst of economic illiteracy. My own city of Brighton and Hove has a structure of three orchestras with theto the Brighton Youth Orchestra at the top. It's a fine orchestra, too, and has in recent years played at the Albert Hall (see here), Symphony Hall in Birmingham and at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig (I'm reliably informed they set up the percussion for Sheherezade on Bach's grave). All the work that has built up this structure now appears to be under threat. The answer is always for parents to dig deeper, but not every parent can. The utter disgrace (and New Labour were every bit as guilty as the current lot) is that it is increasingly rare to find high-quality music teaching and performance in the state sector and I for one don't want to see music-making as the exclusive preserve of private schools.

[BBMmk2]

It's always the Arts that get first chomp when the going gets tough. Why havmnt the gpoverment not been stricter with the bankers!! look how they are earniong these days. So soon after the crash as well!!

[secret squirrel]

I reply as one who has a love classical music making and who has 'performed live' (albeit mostly in a choral capacity, but sometimes with orchestra, but most importantly as one who loves to attend live concerts; I also have a Wife who sings with one of the two Opera comanies mentioned above:

The two question I feel, that should be asked are: "Will <insert orch; live music making etc> be missed?" and "once times and finances are better, will funding be re-instated?"

We are - it has to be admitted - a teeny weeny minority when it comes to life's importances (?!). While music making and the wider industry as a whole gives you and me a job as well as cerebral, spiritual satisfaction, it is arguably less important to the masses than nurses, meals on wheels, armed forces etc. In fact we are at the bottom or near the bottom of any list. Hencethe cuts.

Yes, we give something amazing to those who listen / attend, but like a firework and the inital buzz, it is tomorrow but a memory. Indeed this logic will keep the recording industry alive only, I fear in times to come.

But herein lies the problem (and an analogy DracoM will be acutely aware of): ALL, (yes ALL, bold italic etc!) of the musicians on a recording or a special event (choir at a Royal Weddin, Christmas, Easter etc) or the bandmens that play in military tattoos etc have to be actively involved from Grade 1 upwards in music making; there is no geenie and a <poof!: three wishes> scenario.

So to cut now, will KILL off ALL future music making. Think (Dracom) of thePost Reformaton choral scene with little or no boys - all Verse anthems, or today Deans and Chapters trying to save money (or rather find it) to fund their choirs. They want (have to have) a big Advent / Chrtsitmas / Easter service, but some fail to grasp that it is the 'daily round' that 'prepare' the church's musicians for said specal event.

(sorry for the choral eg, but it's what I am familiar with, not orchestras!)

But does our country have the musical heritage of Germany (three opera houses / city!) orAustria (see Vienna's graveyards!)? Historically, I'd say "no", but today, we're (are /were) a bloody close second, if not first...

Basically it's a case of asking oneself "what am I prepared to sacrifice?" I for one would probasbly HAVE to attend fewer concerts hust to pay (at 20% VAT, don't forget) the bills - be they piano lessons for the child or Scottish and Souther Energy's EVIL price hikes for my gas this winter.

I am not alone and so it follows that only the very rich will be able to afford the (necessarily increased) ticket prices and others who used to attend will simply have to remain ignorant.

A return to about 100 years ago, then, when our national music making was (sorry for the pun) 2nd fiddle to running a country and (then, Empire)...

I really do fear and feel fo our musicians, both serving ad up andcoming (of all ages), but "Breakfast" apart, perhaps the saddest ripple effect will be a return to elitism in Classical Music - not a good thing.

that's about it for my two penn'th - just waffling on, but in sympathy to all of us.

[teamsaint]

just a few thoughts on an important subject.

Youth Orchestras.no doubt they will have to be very careful in expenditure...butI don't anticipate real trouble here, given a bit of will. parents are very hard stretched, (I should know) but if youth groups are sensibly run, finance shouldn't be a problem. my local city musical group charges £30 per term however many groups a student attends.(reduced if there are more than one child per family). The money has to be found, but its a drop in the ocean compared to instrumental tuition.
YOuth groups might also consider their expenditure and income streams. One local funded youth group recently visited china. CHINA. i would be impressed if someone could justify this financially.AS far as I am aware, parents paid out most of the cost. Not clever in my view.

on to professionals , on which I have only an opinion, and no experience.Large orchestras are inherently expensive. They thus need to maximise income streams. Im not really sure that they are all that brilliant at doing this...maybe I am wrong.Seems to me they often plod round the same old circuit,playing to the inevitable middle aged audience.Maybe a bit more creativity in scheduling...look at the success Elbow had.orchestras might think about seeing themselves as a resource, to be creatively used.

Sadly, any hope that classical music will cease to be the preserve of the few is a pretty vain hope. indeed, exclusivity fits in nicely with the philosophy of the old etonians who are running the country again.Job done.

[Philidor]

Why havmnt the gpoverment not been stricter with the bankers!! look how they are earniong these days. So soon after the crash as well!!

Good question. I was amazed to discover that for much of the 20th century both the US and UK super-rich were taxed at c. 80-90%. Look at the stats:



Source

It was Reagan and Thatcher who dropped the super-rich tax rates, to c. 35% in the States and c. 50% in Britain. Result? High pay exploded. If you're being taxed at 90% there's little point in having big pay rises. It's all eaten up by the Exchequer. But at 30-50% there's a real incentive to inflate the wages of the wealthy.

We're fed this nonsense by the Daily Mail that a 90% personal tax rate for the wealthy is some sort of gross, class based assault on decent North London types dreamed up by beastly Labour governments in the 1970s.

When, in fact, in both Britain and America, an 80-90% tax rate for the rich was standard practice for much of the 20th century. Just look at the fourth column from the left. That's how the US built their great infrastructure projects: dams, interstate highways, putting a man on the moon. They taxed the rich until their pips squeaked. Britain did the same.

Is there any good reason why City of London bankers shouldn't be taxed at 90% now?

Of course, it would need to be co-ordinated across the developed world so the unpatriotic bu*gers didn't all scarper to a tax haven. But is that so difficult? That's what the G20's for.