Analysis, Withdrawn

From Minneapolis, Minnesota, the flash – apparently official – Michael Henson’s sanity died at 5pm Central Standard Time yesterday.

*takes off glasses in a dignified Cronkite-ian manner*

Yeah, the MOA suddenly decided to withdraw from financial and organizational analysis yesterday afternoon because, after months of discussion, the board couldn’t stomach the proposed terms. From this MPR article…

Orchestra President Michael Henson says the orchestra board decided to move forward on its own when the musicians insisted the scope of the analysis extend beyond simple finances.

“And unfortunately we began to see those parameters expand to include an examination of our artistic decision-making process and the quality and effectiveness of the board,” Henson said this afternoon. The board decided to move on with an analysis on narrower terms.

However musicians say management has stepped out of line. They say management and musicians had agreed to a framework for the study. Then the players say management wanted the following language inserted in the agreement. “It is understood that this financial analysis/review is not intended nor will it encompass subjective matters such as the artistic quality of the music director or the musicians, the comparative quality of other orchestras, programming decisions, performance of management or staff, or board quality/competency.”

The musicians objected to this language, and said so.

Tim Zavadil, chair of the Musicians Negotiating committee says the examining the artistic decisions, board performance and making the comparisons with other orchestras is what makes this an analysis as opposed to an audit.

He says the musicians were under the impression they were still talking about how to do the analysis and he was flabbergasted to hear management has decided to go ahead on its own instead of together with the musicians.

“That would be the best way to go, to do it jointly,” Zavadil said this afternoon. “I am sure if we did one they would say well that’s just one that the musicians did on their own. I don’t know what our response will be if they release this information.”

Okay, so here’s what I don’t get, and why I’m making the call that Mr. Henson’s sanity is dead. If management can’t agree with the musicians on terms for analysis, then why not pull out of analysis altogether? What’s the point of a unilateral analysis? Unilateral analysis won’t placate musicians. It won’t placate lawmakers. It won’t placate the public. It won’t placate board members. If anything, I’d think it might piss the board off, because they were told for months that an analysis was unnecessary: a “frolic and detour,” in the immortal words of Doug Kelley. So how are they justifying it now? The only reason I can think of is that Mr. Henson wants another wedge to insert between the board and the musicians (“look, ladies and gentlemen of the board, we did an audit and a financial analysis, and they still won’t work with us!”). But there’s such a thing as the law of diminishing returns, and there already are dozens of wedge issues. Would one more really be worth all the money they’re sinking into the analysis? Especially since the state is conducting its own audit, too? And let’s be blunt: how much further can the relationship between the board and the musicians deteriorate? What would be the use of using this issue as a wedge? – unless there are rumbles of rebellion happening behind the scenes, and some board members are pushing for the MOA to do their own analysis? But that’s a stretch. I’m racking my brains and I honestly have no explanation for what is going on here. So help me out here, clever readers: what purpose could a unilateral analysis, as opposed to a withdrawal from analysis, serve Mr. Henson? I sincerely hope I’m suffering from an acute lack of imagination, and that there’s a sensible explanation somewhere.

I think we should visit the SOTL Archives (TM) and see what the MOA has said about financial analysis in the past. Just for fun.

In response to the Union’s call for an independent audit of the Minnesota Orchestra’s finances, the MOA Negotiating Committee declined the request, citing unnecessary delay and duplication of efforts as the Orchestral Association undertakes an annual independent audit and shares its audited results publicly each December. – MOA press release, 25 September 2012

It’s as transparent as you can be, and we have done that every year, and those numbers are public. The musicians have them. If they want to do a forward-thinking analysis, the first place they’d go would be to a certified financial statement or tax returns. Those are sort of the gold standard documents in financial analysis… We have opened our books up totally. We don’t need to take another frolic and detour into something that won’t help any. – Doug Kelley, 30 November 2012

Our volunteer Board members will continue to do everything possible to remove any barrier the musicians say is standing in the way of them making a serious counterproposal that helps to address our Orchestra’s $6 million operating deficit… The Board has been eager to move forward with a joint independent financial review since we agreed to this course in January… We aim to come to a common understanding with the musicians over the significant financial challenges facing the Minnesota Orchestra, so that we can negotiate a sustainable settlement that protects the Minnesota Orchestra for the future. We hope to do this as expediently as possible in order to prevent further concert cancellations. - Minnesota Orchestral Association email blast, 1 April 2013

Well that’s awkward.

Another question: why not allow for a review that analyzes board competency or artistry of musicians or staff performance? Why are such things off-limits? It’s almost as if Mr. Henson is terrified that if anyone came in from outside the MOA bubble, he or his methods might be judged……….?

And here’s another weird thing: the musicians have been saying since November that they wanted a review that encompassed these “subjective” things. Unless he is very slow, there’s absolutely no way that Mr. Henson should have been surprised at “parameters” expanding to include “subjective” matters. These are the musicians’ words from November:

The audits that the MOA refers to are based exclusively upon the historical financial statements provided by the Association to the auditor. These reports cover statements of changes in net assets, operating activities and cash flows. In other words, an audit focuses solely on limited areas of past performance.

Audits do not cover an institution’s viability, stability, business plan, strategic plan, the quality of its management, comparative performance, or present and future prospects. A joint, independent financial analysis would review all of these things, and would assess current and future trends, opportunities and risks.

I’m not sure how much clearer you could get than this. If after reading that, Mr. Henson didn’t know that was what the musicians wanted, well… I don’t really know what to say about that. The incompetency speaks for itself.

I also think it’s worth mentioning one more thing… Six days before this announcement was made, Michael Henson was interviewed for MinnPost, where he said, “We hope very much that we can announce successfully the financial analysis this week.” As I wrote on Facebook, either he had a good idea the withdrawal was coming and chose to mislead MinnPost – or he withdrew from four months of discussion on a flighty whim – or he’s unquestioningly doing (or being forced to do) the bidding of someone else. Not sure which one of those ideas I loath the most.

Detroit, Minnesota, and Funhouse Mirrors

Will the DSO be Michigan’s next casualty in this recession?

YES, if DSO management and board of trustees have their way.

They believe the DSO cannot survive in its current form and propose to downgrade our orchestra from its world-class stature by drastically reducing the number of musicians and performances, slashing the musicians’ compensation and benefits while imposing draconian working conditions…

We are DSO patrons, donors, subscribers, business owners and community members.

We are people who love great music and also recognize the economic value that this powerful orchestra brings to Detroit and Michigan.

We believe so strongly in preserving the essential character and tradition of this world-class orchestra that we formed the nonprofit group: Save Our Symphony (SOS).

The mission of SOS is to promote and support the world-class artistic excellence and stature of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra and to hold its management and board of trustees accountable for their fiduciary responsibilities to the public trust including the preservation of this great orchestra and its future.

Join us so your voice can be heard: please register your email with us to stay sharp on the latest updates. Thank you for your patience as we establish contact information and build our website.

***

A few weeks ago I was contacted by David Assemany, the vice president of Save Our Symphony, the audience advocacy organization that formed in the wake of the crippling 2010-2011 Detroit Symphony strike. He was curious about some figures I’d posted here on SOTL, and he said if I had any questions to contact him. Before I wrote him back, I checked the Save Our Symphony blog to read about that group’s experiences. The first entry was the one you just read.

I couldn’t scroll fast enough. I felt as though I was looking in a funhouse mirror: the reflection wasn’t perfect, but it was certainly recognizable…and it was us. There was a community caught off-guard – a group of citizen activists scrambling to learn how orchestras work – stakeholders who felt ignored, disrespected, and betrayed – musicians leaving in droves – tensions over an expensive building project – accusations that the board cared more about bricks and mortar than souls – theories about capitalism and capitalists run amok – a CEO saying wildly insensitive things – a total breakdown in communication in the triangle of board, musicians, and community. Entry after entry after entry after entry could have been written by Twin Cities music fans. Just replace Minnesota with Michigan, and voila.

It was deeply, deeply unsettling.

Mr. Henson Goes to St. Paul, Part 2

Click here for part one of my “Mr. Henson Goes to St. Paul” series.

***

Well, after that marathon transcription session, I’m ready to dig into the meat of the matter. Please feel free to join me in the comment section.

Margaret Kellihan: …There’s a wonderful packet that they’ve put together for all of you, including the impact on your own districts of the Orchestra.

Some questions… What specifically did this packet say? Did it include anything about the Orchestra’s financial situation? If so, what? Can a person or organization face consequences for submitting false or misleading information in writing to the state legislature? I highly doubt that anything illegal occurred; I’m assuming the leaders of the MOA were extremely careful to check with their lawyers to make sure that everything was done within the bounds of the law. But just the fact that I have to say “I’m assuming the leaders of the MOA were extremely careful to check with their lawyers to make sure that everything was done within the bounds of the law” leaves a terribly rotten taste. I’d be very interested in seeing what claims were made in that packet, or to the state government in general. How closely did lawmakers look at the financial situation of the Orchestra while deciding whether to entertain the request? What information did they need? What answers were they given? I don’t know how this all works, and I’d be interested in finding out.

MK: Over 900 jobs will be created with this little bit of state money, partnered with a lot of private money.

MH:  Our private fundraising efforts are going very well, but public funding is critical if we are to reach our ultimate goal. Our private donors are keen to hear that the state is a partner in our project.

Of course we already knew about the synergy between public and private money within the Building for the Future campaign, but hearing it here again really underscores how desperately important this bonding request had become to the MOA and their vision of the organization’s future. I doubt the renovation could have even happened without it. So I completely understand what a temptation it must have been to manipulate numbers to, as Mr. Ebensteiner said in 2009, “support our state bonding aspirations.” I don’t agree with that tactic, at all, but I certainly understand it.

MK: The Orchestra has been winning terrific acclaim all around the globe, including the London Daily Telegraph, as well as the New York Times. And you can also know the reach of this Orchestra by the fact that it’s one of the only – it is the only American orchestra with a regular broadcast on the BBC. I think that’s pretty amazing, Madame Chair, and members.

It appears from the Speaker’s words that a major reason this request was entertained was because the Minnesota Orchestra is a world-class ensemble…or, in other words, a destination for world-class orchestral players. Implication: if they were to secure this money for the renovation of Orchestra Hall, Mr. Henson and the board had ethical (if not legal) obligations to do everything they could to maintain the status and the reputation of the Minnesota Orchestra. But I’ve yet to hear anyone in the orchestra business suggesting that the current leadership team is doing that. Indeed, Robert Levine has called for the entire board’s resignation, as well as Henson’s dismissal. We all remember the joint editorial that Marriner, de Waart, and Skrowaczewski published in the Strib in early October, in which they said, “An orchestra does not recover easily, from such drastic cuts, if ever.” And Drew McManus recently wrote in the comment section of his blog:

I would also add that provided everything in Royce’s article is accurate, the public trust is likely damaged beyond repair at this point as well. It’s difficult to separate the accounting decisions vis-a-vis the public bond funding and the corresponding decision to then reverse the policy for the purpose of artificially exacerbated negotiation leverage.

As the situation unfolds, it is depicting an increasingly sad state of affairs for an organization that once held one of the highest reputations in the field.

If we hear from dissenting respected voices from within the orchestra business praising management’s handling of the conflict, I’d be happy to feature them here. But I personally have found none.

On the financial front, we have announced balanced budgets over the last three consecutive years, and we are facing the current economic downturn with stability.

The slickness of that sentence just… It makes me queasy. It’s so terribly upsetting. As a commenter on violinist.com said, “Henson uses an interesting choice of words: ‘…we have announced balanced budgets…’ rather than saying they achieved, attained, or just plain had balanced budgets. I could ‘announce’ tomorrow that I am indeed the Queen of Sheba. Doesn’t make it so.” Well, exactly. He’s allowing himself wiggle room. And listen to the tone of his voice as he says it. He doesn’t stop; he doesn’t hesitate. He’s owning that obfuscation. It’s not troubling him at all, even though he’s clearly constructed the sentence to allow him to backpedal later if necessary.

We could debate whether the “we have announced balanced budgets” line is false or simply misleading, but personally, I consider the bit about “we are facing the current economic downturn with stability” to be a lie. A total fabrication. You might disagree with that assessment; “stability” is a subjective word, and it can mean a lot of things to lots of different people. But personally I can’t begin to conceive of a “stable” fiscal future that involves a 20-40%+ pay-cuts for musicians and endangers the quality of the core product. I wonder why Mr. Henson even included this phrase? He could easily have stopped after the slippery “we have announced” bit. Nobody would have noticed.

In general, the orchestra is musically enjoying a Golden Period with music director Osmo Vänskä.

Sigh.

This is obligatory now

Since I joined the Orchestra, we have tested and re-scaled the scope of the hall project in light of the very challenging economy.

This is a point I would love to hear more about. What did the testing and re-scaling consist of? Did anyone ever consider postponing the project for a few years? Did the public have any input into the decision-making process? If not, why not?

Our private fundraising efforts are going very well, but public funding is critical if we are to reach our ultimate goal.

Yes, fundraising was going so well that, a few weeks after testifying to the legislature, Mr. Henson said to the Strib…

“You recall that the project was downsized from $90 million,” Henson said, referring to a previous plan announced in 2007. “If we can generate more money through our fundraising, then it would make sense to grow the project, but it’s too early to say that, and we’ve made a priority to be fiscally responsible.”…

KPBM was expected to deliver sketches last December, but that likely was delayed to see whether fundraising might be robust enough to expand the project.  - Star Tribune, 15 March 2010

I know I mentioned that point a few days ago, but I think it deserves repetition, especially in light of Graydon Royce’s recent article. Because now we’ve got to wonder: did Mr. Henson really believe he could grow the project, or was he just saying that to manipulate the public? Your guess is as good as mine. This is incredibly disheartening. As Mary recently said in the comment section of Drew McManus’s blog: “A nonprofit’s most precious asset is trust of the community and donors that they are doing the right thing.” And right now we have a major trust deficit. Which will lead to exacerbated financial crisis. And so the downward spiral continues.

In other words:

We’re aiming to maintain the vast majority of that orchestral series, and the object has to be to actually retain that audience, so that when we close the hall and reopen it in a year’s time, we have retained as much of that audience as possible and retained that enthusiasm. So hopefully in the next couple of months we will be announcing that, and we are trying to minimize the amount of disruption.

Hmm. Yeah, about that…

(You know, now would be a fascinating time for minutes to surface in which MOA leaders discuss the possibility and likelihood of a work stoppage. Paper proof that Mr. Henson and his colleagues were anticipating a strike or lockout in January 2010 would add a whole new level of sleaziness to this entire affair.)

(Also, I’m eagerly anticipating the release of the Orchestra’s 2013-2014 schedule. Then we’ll have a much better idea of how many classical concerts the MOA really wants to put on relative to other non-renovation years.)

If I could also supplement that, we’re also aiming to increase our state touring for that year as well.  And we’ll be looking at between two to four weeks of activity. So I think we’re going to see a smaller main season, but we’re also going to take that in terms of increasing our presence across the whole state.

Great idea! Unfortunately, it never happened. Most (if not all; I’m not sure) of the Orchestra’s state touring is now done via the Common Chords project. In the 2011-2012 season, when the Orchestra was still in the hall, there were two Common Chords residencies, one in Grand Rapids and one in Willmar. In the 2012-2013 season, there was only one week scheduled, in April, in Bemidji…even though the Orchestra’s performance calendar was totally blank from September to mid-October. Is this an indication that the MOA was anticipating a work stoppage back when they were scheduling the season? Read the tea leaves as you will.

Well, those were the gist of my thoughts. I might have more as time goes by, and if I do, I’ll flesh those out in the comment section in conversation with you.

Lame

I’m just going to leave this here. It speaks for itself. From the Star Tribune…

Thursday’s cancellations will have consequences beyond the orchestra.

The Minneapolis Convention Center had projected income of $274,000 from the fall and holiday orchestra seasons, said spokeswoman Kirsten Montag. And the Minnesota Chorale, which had been scheduled for dates with the orchestra in October, November and December, will lose nearly all of its earned income for the fiscal year, said executive director Bob Peskin.

“We’ll have to make up the lost income with further expense cuts and increased donations,” Peskin said.

Orchestra president and CEO Michael Henson said the December dates — which include classical, jazz and presentations in addition to the holiday fare — were projected to make up 19.3 percent of annual ticket revenue. However, the net impact is a wash because the orchestra won’t have to pay rent at the Convention Center or musician salaries and benefits.

Misrepresentation, Reality…Misrepresentation of Reality

~ Preface ~

If you’re a first-time reader, I highly highly highly recommend that you mosey over to this post, If you’re just joining us…, to get all the relevant details about who I am, what I’m doing, and where the Minnesota Orchestra negotiations are at right now. Otherwise big chunks of the following won’t make much sense.

This blog has been criticized – and occasionally rightly so – for overuse of sarcasm. Well, if sarcasm isn’t your thing, then you’ll want to look away now, because this entry is loaded with it.  That being said, until Minnesota management gets serious, I’m not particularly interested in being serious, either. The time for joke charts like this one is over. It’s time for some real answers. And if you don’t give them to me, then I’m going to Release The Snark! What else am I supposed to do? Reason calmly and politely and rationally? I – and many other patrons – have already tried that. And it didn’t work. Like, at all. So I dunno. Might as well turn up the sarcasm?

I’d also like to say – once again – that I do not speak for the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra. I have never spoken for the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra and I will never speak for the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra. I speak solely for myself. If we often share perspectives, then so be it, but keep in mind that’s incidental. We are totally separate entities. They never pressure me to say anything, and even if they did, I wouldn’t listen to them. I say what I say how I want to say it when I want to say it. So if you’re going to criticize this entry, or the tone of this entry, then remember the criticism belongs squarely at my feet. Not an ounce of it should go to them. Because they’re better wiser human beings than I am, and they consistently take the high road, while I routinely veer off into the brambles of angry, cranky, frustrated snark.

Now for our feature presentation…

***

What’s that, you say? Minnesota Orchestra management has some new information up on their website?

…

*heart rate spikes*

*face flushes*

*do you think they’ll answer any of my questions???*

*omg*

*gallops along to read, excited to finally get some answers!*

*reads document*

*heart rate slows*

*becomes ridiculously disappointed*

*resists urge to get drunk*

*pounds wall in frustration*

*searches Google Images for “FRUSTRATION”*

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH

Here it is, in all its irrelevant, completely unhelpful glory. It’s a two-column chart called “Misrepresentation vs. Reality.”

Deep, man. Cuz I mean…what is reality, really? Do we really know? Like, really?

I love how we’re all tip-toeing over the word everyone’s thinking but nobody’s actually saying. I say obfuscation; you say misrepresentation; we both mean another word entirely…am I right? Anyway. Let’s get to analyzing. I’ll copy/paste the Misrepresentation and Reality, and then counter with my own Misrepresentation of Reality. Then management (assuming they ever acknowledge I exist) can come back with a “No, That Misrepresentation of Reality Is Really A Misrepresentation of Reality.” Or, whatever.

Here goes:

Misrepresentation: The Minnesota Orchestral Association’s (MOA’s) contract proposal calls for salary cuts of up to 50%.

Reality: The proposed salary cuts in the current proposal range from 20 to 40% with the vast majority under 35%. (Specifically, 70% of the musicians would see salary cuts of less than 35%.)

The current proposal offers an average annual salary of $89,000 plus ten weeks paid vacation, and additional benefits averaging $30,000 per musician (including healthcare and pension), for a total package of $119,000.

Misrepresentation of Reality: ”The vast majority” are “under 35%”? Oh, well, that’s not so bad, then! I guess I’ll put away my picket sign. Twenty to forty percent of someone’s paycheck is chump change. So chump-ish, in fact, that, if Michael Henson took that pay cut, he’d only lose out on a mere $80,000 to $160,000 a year. I’m sure he’d swallow such a cut easily, without any resistance whatsoever. Especially since there are so few orchestra CEO positions available in the world today, and since he’d have such difficulty finding work elsewhere.

I’m going to sound a bit like a broken record here. As I’ve said before, keep in mind the difference in base versus average salaries (the proposed base is $78,000); both numbers should be considered. As I’ve said before, musicians don’t have vacation weeks, ever; only weeks in which they do not perform with the orchestra. As I’ve said before, take everything from both sides with not just a grain of salt, but a salt mine.

The more I read about this topic, the more I realize I can’t state with any certainty what numbers are accurate. Especially not when we’re talking about the massive fiscal infrastructure of a major American symphony orchestra. And especially especially not when the numbers come from management, since they have a long – and apparently proud – history of obfuscation. However, I am well aware that just like Bible verses, numbers can be massaged to say whatever the crap you want them to. (Exhibit A.) And since management routinely obfuscates about the things I do understand, like musician “vacation time”, then that makes me feel as if they’re also obfuscating about the things I don’t understand, like their financial status. That’s just common sense. If someone obfuscates about one thing, what’s to keep them from obfuscating about another? So they’ll really need to step up their game to get me to believe them.

So let’s keep reading and see if they do that…

Misrepresentation: The MOA turned down three musician contract proposals.

Reality: Musicians have not presented a single contract proposal since negotiations began in April.

The three “proposals” provided by musicians—to play and talk, to submit to binding arbitration and to conduct an independent financial analysis—are not contract proposals.

Misrepresentation of Reality: But…binding arbitration would have resulted in a new contract, right? If I offer to do something that’s guaranteed to end in a contract, then that’s basically a contract proposal. IMHO. If I tie a ring box around the neck of my boyfriend’s dog and push the dog into the room where my boyfriend is sitting, I’m not saying out loud “please marry me,” but the intent is obvious: I’m making a proposal of marriage. If an orchestra offers to go through binding arbitration, then their intent is obvious. Correct?

Misrepresentation: The MOA is refusing to share specifics on the Orchestra’s finances with musicians.

Reality: Board and management have been communicating the financial position of the Orchestra with musicians for three years.

In addition, the Orchestra’s Negotiating Committee has provided more than 1,200 pages of information to the Musician Negotiating Committee in the past six months, including the independently audited financial statements.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Oh, I see. So the board and management have been communicating the financial position of the Orchestra with the musicians for three whole years…just not with the public or with the press. *thumbs up* My confidence in you is soaring…like the Hindenburg! (To borrow a famous quote from Colbert.)

There is nothing in the “reality” spiel about incomplete and misleading numbers, which, to the best of my understanding, is the crux of the issue. Number of pages tells me nothing. Nada. Zilch. I could easily print out 1200 pages of documents about the sorry state of my finances and still not reveal to you how much is actually in my savings account ($5, if you’re interested). Also, notice: no word about the already approved budget that they are apparently refusing to release. And no word about the mysterious vanished article from 2010 that says how well they’re doing. No word, no word, no word. The rest is silence, et cetera.

Misrepresentation: The audited financial information shared was from Fiscal 2011 and is out of date.

Reality: The Fiscal 2011 financials are the most current audited figures available.

Our most recent fiscal year ended in August and our 2012 independent audit is now underway. Those figures, too, will be shared with musicians when the audit is complete.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Dunno the exact truth here (and if you do know anything, please don’t tell me – unless you want to go on the record; I really really don’t want to get stuck in the middle of discussions about numbers I can’t verify), but this is what Ellen Dinwiddie Smith said in the Matt Peiken MNuet interview… (5:29 in)

MP: Ellen, you also told me, and I want you to talk about this a little more, you mentioned that to date, you have not seen…as an orchestra, you have not been shown the books, let alone your request to have an independent auditor look at them. Is that true, that the musicians have not seen the books?

EDS: This is true. We have repeatedly called for a joint independent financial analysis, and they have refused to do that. We have given the papers that we were given to people who have looked at them and basically told us that everything they’ve given us is so contradictory to each other that it doesn’t make sense.

So…take from that exchange what you will. Pretty impossible for those of us on the outside to understand all the subtleties of what’s going on here, I think. Nonetheless, management doesn’t once address the musicians’ central allegation: that there are contradictory numbers at play.

Misrepresentation: MOA’s refusal to “play and talk” signals an intention to create a second-rate orchestra.

Reality: After six months of playing and talking without a single counter-proposal from the musicians, Orchestra management concluded that continuing to repeat that activity would only result in more unproductive discussions and costly delays. A “play and talk” agreement incurs monthly operating losses for our organization of $500,000.

Preserving the future of an exceptional Orchestra for generations of music lovers is our highest priority. We await a counter-proposal from the musicians so we can resume negotiations and reach a settlement as quickly as possible.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Hey, guys. I know it’s hard for you, but let’s get real for a brief moment. The idea of the “playing and talking” period being while the musicians were still legally obligated to play…that’s just such a ridiculously ludicrous notion, and so far outside the definition of the phrase “playing and talking” in the orchestral world, that I don’t even know what to say. Barney Frank said it best: “On what planet do you spend most of your time? Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table; I have no interest in doing it.” And you know what? He’s right. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why I’m giving this chart the time of day. It’s ridiculous and useless and irrelevant. This is the Dick Morris of charts. At a certain point, you stop reading for information and start reading for the sheer entertainment value.

But we’ve gotten this far. So let’s keep going… Maybe we’ll be surprised by a flash of insight…

Misrepresentation: Most of the musicians will leave if this contract is approved.

Reality: We believe our musicians remain committed to this organization and community, and hope they will choose to remain.

Other major orchestras across the country who have undergone a market reset have not seen significant departures from their players.

These orchestras still report a high number of qualified candidates applying for positions that do become available.

Misrepresentation of Reality: That Kool-Aid must taste awfully delicious. While you’re drinking, you might be interested in checking out what happened to the principals in Detroit after their own orchestral apocalypse. Here’s a little taste.

Also, clever clever clever use of the word “most.” No, “most” probably won’t leave…but “a lot” certainly could. Especially our principals. Who are some of the very best in the business. Heck, one could easily argue that we’ve already lost Sarah Kwak over this. She and her husband – also an Orchestra violinist – saw this coming. I wouldn’t be surprised if that knowledge factored heavily in their decision to leave for Oregon.

Also also…”undergoing a market reset.” Ha. Hey, while we’re throwing around chilling Orwellian phrases, here are some of my personal favorites: “Ministry of Plenty” – “Newspeak” – “Ignorance is Strength” – and “no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.”

Note that once again, there is no concern at all, whatsoever, for THESE particular musicians, for these individuals, for these hearts and souls, and for the relationships the community has with them. The callousness verges on entertaining…if it wasn’t so cruel. The relationships they’ve built with community members – particularly, with children and young people – are not easily replaceable. I know this will come as a shock to some of you, but there are other consequences to this conflict besides economic ones. And you’ve yet to address those.

Orchestra member Manny Laureano is a co-artistic director and conductor at the Minnesota Youth Symphonies. If he’s anything like my youth symphony conductors, he is hugely influential, and his example brightens hundreds of kids’ lives. When he announces his departure for greener pastures, I defy you to walk up to every single student that he has led and inspired over the years in the Twin Cities, and reassure them that “well, a high number of qualified candidates are applying for Mr. Laureano’s now-vacant seat, so don’t worry, kids! That’s just what happens during market resets!” I dare you to do this. Orch dorks may not look threatening, but I think you’d be surprised by the reaction you’d get. Repeat a scene like this for every single individual who leaves the orchestra due to the behavior of management. Behind every single departed musician, I guarantee you will find a wake of depressed fans, students, friends, co-workers…maybe even families. These are holes that cannot be mended quickly or easily…if ever. Poking open those holes is not a task that should be taken likely. And when it does need to be done, it needs to be done with empathy, sympathy, and respect. None of which you’ve shown. Ever.

For future reference, this is how an emotionally intelligent person would answer the question “will musicians leave?”

Yes, there is a danger that some will leave. We regret that our community cannot afford to pay them the salary they could earn elsewhere. We respect these individuals’ decisions to seek work elsewhere. We are proud of them and the amazing work they’ve done in the Twin Cities, and we wish them well as they seek better-paying jobs in other communities. We can only hope that their replacements will live up to the high standards they have set.

In other words…… R-E-S-P-E-C-T!!! Find out what it means to me! (And plus it’s to-tal-ly free!) You can sing along with a karaoke version here! (Actually, the lyrics to this entire song are hilariously applicable to this entire debacle, and I really recommend taking a break from this blog to belt them out. It will be therapeutic.)

Misrepresentation: The Orchestra Board raised money to renovate Orchestra Hall that should have been used to pay musicians.

Reality: The funds for renovating Orchestra Hall are part of a larger $110 million campaign which began in 2005.

The majority of these contributions ($60 million) are being used for two purposes: to build the future endowment, which will continue to fund musician compensation, and to support artistic initiatives (like touring and recording).

Misrepresentation: The MOA should now use the funds raised for Orchestra Hall to support its musicians instead.

Reality: Our donors had a choice over which component of our $110 million campaign they wished to support.

Some donors (corporate, foundation and individual) prefer to give one-time capital gifts that come with naming options.

The funds raised for the renovation of Orchestra Hall are restricted for that purpose and cannot be diverted for other uses.

For example: $14 million in bonding support from the State of Minnesota must be used for this capital project and cannot be used for ongoing operations. In order to draw down these funds, the Orchestra has met a requirement for a 2 to 1 match with funding from private and corporate supporters.

Misrepresentation of Reality: BFEWJIAO;IFJEOWA. FJISODA;JFIDS;AJFIDSA.

AGAIN, BECAUSE IT’S STILL RELEVANT

Look, I don’t think anyone is saying “Stop the renovation in its tracks and give that money to musicians!” No. We’re objecting to the picture you painted in 2010 and earlier, in which you were “a beacon institution” among “bad economic news.” We’re wondering if people would have donated to the hall construction effort if they’d known such massive pay cuts were coming. In other words, if you guys had told us in 2010 about the impending pay cuts, would you have raised enough money for the hall? That’s what we’re asking. But you’re not answering. Hello! Is anyone home? Anyone? It’s not that complicated a question!

Misrepresentation: The MOA has money to pay the musicians—it just doesn’t want to.

Reality: The Orchestra has paid musicians’ salaries over the last several years by making additional draws from its endowment. The draw rate was three times higher than a sustainable level in 2011 (17% vs 5%).

That’s like taking money out of a 401k to pay normal living expenses. The more that’s pulled now, the less there is for the future.

If we continue to draw from our endowment at our current rate, the MOA endowment will be depleted by 2018.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Groovy, cool beans, awesomesauce. How about you prove this to us by submitting to a joint independent financial analysis? Like this Star Tribune editorial said you should? The very same Star Tribune editorial that you posted a link to on your website? In the words of Reagan and the Star Tribune, “trust but verify.”

Or is Reagan too much of a union-loving commie pinko lefty for you?

Look, even if the numbers come back as total exact duplicates to your independent audits…well, hey, at least you’ll have shut the musicians – and us patrons – up for a while. And I mean, you’ve got to admit, we’re frigging obnoxious.

Misrepresentation: The musicians already took a pay cut in 2009.

Reality: The musicians agreed to a one year wage freeze in 2009. They did not offer to take a cut in salary.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Um, that’s actually not how you characterized it in 2010… “At the same time, Henson negotiated modifications to the musicians’ contract, resulting in around $4.2m in cost savings up to 2012 – mostly through salary and pension reductions, and a wage freeze in FY2010.” (That “winning article” just keeps on giving and giving. My goodness. No wonder Henson wants it removed from the face of the earth.) That’s also not what you told the Star Tribune in August 2009: “Musicians at the Minnesota Orchestra have agreed to concessions in the face of financial pressures on the organization… The plan involves pay cuts totaling $1.8 million.”

What am I missing?

Misrepresentation: The musicians offered to take more cuts but were rebuffed by management.

Reality: The musicians did not offer to take any cuts.

They did offer to defer salary increases in exchange for extending the current contract an additional two years. However, this would have further depleted our endowment and put off the problem, not solved it.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Fascinating! Of course this had absolutely nothing to do with the fact the SPCO’s contract would be up for expiration in 2012. And it has nothing to do with the fact that an overworked local media wouldn’t be able to keep track of both stories. And it has nothing to do with the fact that major contracts were coming up in Atlanta and Indianapolis and Cleveland and Chicago and St. Paul, and at least three of those were likely to be settled with sharply concessionary contracts. No…nothing whatsoever to do with any of those things. It was all 100% concern over the health of the organization and the endowment. Mmmhmm.

*tinfoil hat crinkles*

(Of course I have no proof of this, and I can’t imagine we’ll ever get proof from management. But it’s not very hard to read the writing on the wall, and wonder. And since they’ve never addressed it…)

Misrepresentation: Management hasn’t taken any cuts internally.

Reality: In fact, staffing costs have been lean for many years. Over the last decade, all costs in the organization—minus musician costs—have decreased by 6%. In that same time period, musicians’ costs have increased by 26%.

Since the start of the 2007 musician’s contract—during which time the players received a 19.2% increase to base salary—the management and administrative team has taken a salary reduction, a wage freeze and had their pension contributions from the MOA reduced by more than 40%. This includes the president.

The size of the staff has decreased by 20% since 2009 due to layoffs.

Misrepresentations of Reality: I think a guest blogger (or two) may eventually have something to say about this. I think you’d be surprised by the…tenaciousness, shall we say, of certain patrons. So stay tuned. And stop belittling us.

Is anyone saying that management hasn’t taken any cuts internally? Because we all know that people have been fired, and fired brutally. In fact, that’s actually one of our concerns! Take a listen to what Ellen Dinwiddie Smith said in the Peiken interview (at 29:30).

What happened when they fired our staff…right before they closed the hall this summer…we had several staff members who were actually told that morning. They were brought into an office, and as they were being brought into the office, their computer passwords were changed, and they were told they had to leave the building. They were escorted out of the building and they were allowed to come back some time later and pick up their things. These are people who had worked at the orchestra twenty years, some of them just like at the stage door. There was no reason to make that kind of a layoff because they knew they were going to get laid off or whatever in a week or two weeks when the hall closed, but the Association staged it in such a way that, oh, we had to do this, you know, big layoff thing.

Soooooooo. Is this true? Why aren’t you addressing this allegation? Do you still want to talk about cuts in management, or would you like to move onto another subject?

Here’s a question: if this is true, then what the actual [bleep]? What possessed you? Who on earth decided this was okay? This isn’t how we do things in Minnesota.

This also is a phrase that interests me: “This includes the president.” Then whassup with this? $390,000 in 2009 and $404,000 in 2011-ish? Even if Michael Henson’s total compensation, including benefits, somehow did go down, it sure as crap doesn’t look like it went down 20-40%. Also, how about this article? “For the big guns, nonprofits with budgets of $25 million to $50 million, the median CEO compensation was $243,000 at the top tier.” Thoughts? Explanation? Justification? Rebuttals? Apologies?

No. Crickets.

One more thing: I’d imagine the decrease in the size of the staff was at least partially due to the fact that your hall is under renovation, and you had to let some people go while you were away. Correct? And yet…no mention of that here. Obfuscations obfuscations obfuscations. At this point I’m realizing it would have been easier to point out the things in this chart that are true, rather than pointing out the things that are misleading. Oh, well; we’re too far along now. Let’s keep going…

Misrepresentation: MOA doesn’t want any assistance from a third party to break the stalemate.

Reality: Orchestra management strongly supports an independent party involved in negotiations, and a federal mediator is participating in our negotiations.

It is highly unusual to suggest arbitration in a negotiation in which one side has not put forward even a single proposal.

Final and binding arbitration provides no assurance that the Orchestra’s financial instability would be solved, even in the short term.

At best, it would delay needed changes for many months while the arbitration unfolds. The Orchestra would incur significant operating losses with each month’s delay.

Misrepresentation of Reality: OK, so I know that every orchestra is local, and every orchestral meltdown is unique in its own way (“each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”). And we could probably have a long in-depth discussion about why (if you would bother discussing anything with anybody in-depth, which you won’t). But here’s a question: why do you think that the managements at Louisville and Detroit even entertained the idea of binding arbitration for more than five seconds, if it didn’t provide any assurance of financial stability, even in the short term? Were those leaders just being reckless? Were they desperate? Stupid? Or do you think that your financial position and outlook are even worse than theirs? If so, why? Because our arts scene is envied across the country. And I think the folks in power at Louisville and Detroit would have killed to be in this generous, thriving, well-educated community.

Misrepresentation: The Orchestra’s endowment has been mismanaged.

Reality: On the contrary, the MOA Endowment has exceeded investment return benchmarks over the last five years.

The critical issue is that we have taken additional draws from our endowment in order to fund the 2007 musicians’ contract—and this has reduced the endowment’s value. In short, we have less money to invest because of the salaries from the previous contract.

Our organization needs to learn to live within the means of a 5% investment draw, to ensure the endowment can grow and support the Orchestra in the future.

Misrepresentation of Reality: FYI, in case you’ve forgotten, the musicians didn’t unilaterally impose a contract in 2007: you guys agreed to it, too. If that contract is the only thing that went wrong, you deserve blame, as well. In 2007, orchestra board chairman Paul Grangaard said, “We have a three-year plan to break even, and we’re confident we’re going to achieve that.” (Mr. Grangaard is still listed as being on the Board of Directors.) So don’t give me this crap that it’s solely the musicians’ fault and you had absolutely nothing to do with it and you have no idea who on earth okayed all these crushing fiscal obligations.

Also: what is the definition of “mismanagement”? It could be anything from “fraud” to “slightly under-performing the market,” really. Depends on who you ask.

Two questions. First question: is this bit from the musicians’ website false? “Board Chair Jon Campbell expressed regret at the Board and Management’s handling of the endowment funds over the past ten years, noting that they had been unhappy with the advice they had acted upon and had to change investment advisers. Campbell also admitted that the Board and Management had been wrong in 2007 regarding their investment predictions.” Second question: why the switch in independent investment consultants? You said yourself a few days ago that you switched: ”In 2010, a new independent investment consultant, Cambridge Associates, was hired to manage the portfolio.” Answer those two questions honestly, and then maybe we could get past the posturing and strutting and puffing and begin to discuss this like adults.

Let’s get past this. It’s not impressing anybody.

Misrepresentation: MOA leaders created the organization’s strategic plan in secret and the plan reflects no interest in artistry, community service, education or marketing.

Reality: Musicians were participants in creating the artistic and community outreach portions of the strategic plan, since this is their area of expertise. Likewise the board and management created the financial portions of the plan.

As part of the strategic planning process, the board openly shared the Orchestra’s financial situation with musicians in a series of meetings spanning three years.

The complete plan—including sections on artistic achievement and community outreach—is available online, and includes many initiatives relating towards international touring, recording, broadcasting, and new community outreach programs

Misrepresentation of Reality: First off, please please please stop touting the fact that you were telling the musicians how terribly you were doing financially, when you weren’t telling us. This only reminds us of your fundamentally disingenuous nature. I feel like my husband cheated on me for three years with a woman named Nicole, and, worse, that he keeps insisting he’s trustworthy by saying, “But I was faithful to Nicole the whole time!” You’re. Not. Helping.

Second, the “complete strategic plan” is utter poppycock, full of phrases that are so vague and cliched as to render them practically meaningless. “New concert formats”? “Explore new earned income streams”? “Vital holiday festivals”? What in the name of crap is a “vital holiday festival”? Let me check Google…

Oh. Well, maybe Google Image Search will be more helpful – ?

Nope.

Those are the first three results when you look up “vital holiday festival” on Google Image Search. Unfortunately, this doesn’t clear up my confusion, or answer my questions. And neither does management. So I’m still in the dark.

Look, you can’t write a “complete strategic guide” for a major symphony orchestra in a glossy thirty page document full of pretty pictures and sentence fragments. The idea of that is absurd. A real comprehensive strategic plan would be difficult nuts and bolts work, requiring substantial input from the community, and it would take hundreds upon hundreds of pages to debate, define, and implement. And you haven’t released those pages. I don’t even know if they exist! Right now I kinda doubt they do.

And that’s not even touching on the changed mission statement. Here’s the old one:

Our mission is to enrich and inspire our community as a symphony orchestra internationally recognized for its artistic excellence.

Our mission will be implemented by:

• Enhancing the traditional core of concerts with innovative approaches to programming and format;
• Providing the finest educational and outreach programs;
• Representing and promoting the Minnesota Orchestra and the State of Minnesota to audiences across the state, across the country and around the world through tours and electronic media;
• Maintaining an acoustically superior hall with a welcoming environment.

Here’s the new one:

The Minnesota Orchestral Association inspires, educates and serves our community through internationally recognized performances of exceptional music delivered within a sustainable financial structure.

End statement. Something’s missing in that second one that’s very prominent in the first. I can’t quite put my finger on it… Something about “an orchestra”, maybe? Question: why take the word orchestra out of an orchestra’s mission statement?

Misrepresentation: MOA’s proposal includes a dramatic shift in healthcare costs to musicians.

Reality: In the proposed contract, the musicians will participate in the same medical plan that covers management and administration.

Even with this change, the MOA will make an average annual contribution towards family medical coverage of $17,250 per employee, almost twice the national average.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Um, yeah. Quick question… Are you aware that the “reality” you just gave didn’t even address the misrepresentation?

I ask this in all sincerity: Do you think we’re dumb? Because I’m getting the vibe you think we’re dumb. But the thing is, we aren’t dumb. And we get really annoyed when you treat us like we’re dumb. Because we aren’t, in fact, dumb.

Misrepresentation: Musicians have collected more than 7,000 signatures supporting their position.

Reality: None of the petitions provide any specifics on the contract negotiations. The current petition online reads “Minnesota deserves artistic excellence. I support keeping world-class musicians in the Minnesota Orchestra so that all Minnesotans may continue to enjoy extraordinary music.”

Orchestra leaders support that position. Preserving extraordinary music for generations is the core of the proposed contract and the Orchestra’s five-year strategic plan.

Misrepresentation of Reality: Well, duh. Nobody is going to sign a change.org petition if they have to read a 50-page contract full of indecipherable legalese first. But I can guarantee you, the people who signed do support one thing: they support keeping these particular world-class musicians in Minneapolis. And orchestra leaders simply don’t support that position. And don’t tell me they do; Davis and Campbell themselves have said they’re expecting turnover, and they seem awfully cool with it. Also, there’s that old maxim: “actions speak louder than words.” Pretend you’re management. If you really wanted to keep these musicians in town, would you treat them the way management has been treating these musicians? No. Of course not. We’re Minnesotans. (Well…I’m from western Wisconsin, but that’s basically the same thing.) We have a long proud history of being fundamentally decent human beings. There’s a whole Wikipedia entry on it.

*reaches the end of the chart*

*keeps clicking, convinced there’s more, somewhere*

*reaches end of page*

Nothing.

NOOOO!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I feel just like I did at the end of season one of Sherlock!

You can’t end the story there! Guys! That’s narrative malpractice! There are so many unresolved plot points! Nothing more about why you refuse to submit to an independent financial analysis? Nothing explaining why the Strib was wrong for recommending you do so? Nothing about how your Industry News section only has sad articles about orchestras and never happy ones? Nothing about being sorry for treating the musicians like cogs in a machine? Nothing about how Henson is still earning roughly $1100 every single day the lockout churns on? (He’s earned over $36,000 since it began, by the way…) Nothing about the dozens upon dozens of questions I’ve raised on this blog? Nothing about why you won’t talk to Matt Peiken? Nothing about the intelligent questions Mary Schaefle asked? Nothing about the mysterious vanishing Michael Henson article of 2010 that everyone’s talking about? (Even frigging Alex Ross at The New Yorker knows about it at this point!) Guys, this was such a huge opportunity for you, and you just…you kind of blew it, to be honest.

I could tear this chart apart even further. Maybe I will, too, eventually, if I’m ever in the mood to shoot muskies in barrels. But doing so would just consist of me further blabbing about things I’ve already blabbed many thousands of words about, and that would be boring and a complete waste of space. (Just like this chart!) The only interesting thing about this crap is the fact that management found it necessary to post it. Is this a sign that they’re having difficulty winning over their public? Or that they’re gearing up to pull an SPCO and cancel concerts through December 31st within the next few days, and they want to be prepared for the surge of confused PO’d patrons who will be coming to their website looking for an explanation? Who the crap knows. But if prior efforts haven’t done anything to move the needle of public opinion, I can’t imagine this will.

Hey, Minnesota management! The day you start getting real, then I promise you, that’s the day I’ll drop the sarcasm and start taking you seriously. Until then, I can’t view management’s position as anything except a terrible joke. And I’m going to treat it with what an inappropriate joke deserves: with massive amounts of scorn and derision.

Is Minnesota Orchestra management lying to us?: Part II: Michael Henson Edition

When I read the latest Star Tribune article on the Minnesota Orchestra crisis, one quote in particular struck me as being so patently absurd, and so directly opposed to everything that had come before it, I felt like I’d wandered into a new upside-down dimension. Either Michael Henson is going off the rails, or I’m becoming dangerously entrenched and reading much too deeply into a couple of sentences, and I’m not sure which it is. If you could convince me I’m crazy, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

Here’s the portion of the article that made me feel as though a Rod Serling sighting was imminent:

Michael Henson, president and CEO of the orchestra, said on Friday that no immediate financial crisis exists, but he likened the investment funds that help fund each season to a retirement account.

“You can’t spend 90 percent of it in the first four years of retirement,” Henson said. “You need to make it last.”

He indicated the orchestra would like to draw no more than 5 percent annually from the funds; the draw rate has averaged nearly 10 percent over the past 10 years, he said.

…

Before I begin, I’m going to assume that Henson was quoted accurately, and that his words weren’t manipulated or misrepresented in any way. We should hear within the next couple of days if he objects as to how his comments were portrayed.

With that assumption out of the way, let’s try to unpack this “no immediate crisis” remark.

First, I’d like to say a few words on the nature of crisis.

If you are on track to spend ninety percent of your income in your first four years of retirement, then you are in IMMEDIATE CRISIS.

If you’ve staked the long-term fiscal health of your organization on overly “optimistic economic assumptions and the hope of limitless benefactor generosity,” then you are in IMMEDIATE CRISIS.

If you say on your website that “if the Orchestra continues to operate at its current rate of spending, our endowment will be depleted by 2018“, you are not only in IMMEDIATE CRISIS, you’ve been in IMMEDIATE CRISIS for years.

If your only hope of creating a “fiscally responsible” organization means cutting musicians’ pay somewhere between 25-50%, then you are in IMMEDIATE CRISIS.

If you knew you wouldn’t be able to work for the next few years, and knew your only income would be your life savings, and you knew you’d run out of that savings by 2018, then you would be in IMMEDIATE CRISIS.

If you knew that all American resources would, at the current rate of spending, be depleted by 2018, then newsflash: we would all be in one hell of an IMMEDIATE CRISIS.

Call this what it is:

AN. IMMEDIATE. CRISIS.

Financial crises don’t start when your checks start bouncing. Crises start when you make the calculations and realize that all resources will be depleted by a particular point in time (say, 2018) if you don’t make major unprecedented changes (“significant departure[s] from the traditions of the past,” according to management) that run the risk of changing the face of your organization. The risk of such a thing happening is, in and of itself, a crisis. A huge one. Period.

I’m racking my brains and I can only come up with three explanations for this bizarre statement. Leave a note in the comments if you can think of another.

1) The orchestra is truly IN IMMEDIATE CRISIS!!!ZOMG111!!!1!ELEVENTY!!!1!…but Michael Henson either A) lied or B) accidentally said it isn’t. That means that Michael Henson is either A) a liar or B) incompetent.

2) The orchestra is not in immediate crisis, and management is misrepresenting what’s actually in the endowment in order to get a sharply concessionary contract.

3) Henson didn’t actually use those exact words, and didn’t mean to insinuate that the Orchestra isn’t in crisis right now, but he made a statement that led Graydon Royce to feel comfortable risking his and his paper’s reputation by interpreting it in that way. I have no reason not to trust Mr. Royce. (And like I said, we’ll see in the next few days if any statements emerge from Henson disputing how his remarks were interpreted…) If this is true, then that means Michael Henson is communicating poorly at a moment in time when he needs to communicating with crystal clarity. It also suggests that he hasn’t thought enough about how to explain the Orchestra’s problems coherently and persuasively. If you need unprecedented concessions from your musicians because if you don’t get them, the organization as you know it will no longer be able to “survive”…then for God’s sake, run with that. Yes, Campbell and Davis made some pretty damaging PR mistakes within the last few weeks, and that sucks. But Campbell and Davis have s*** to do. Those guys were probably sneaking a five-minute phone call into the Star Tribune in between eating caviar, approving billion dollar mergers, and telephoning Tim Pawlenty to ask if he’d be interested in being CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable (where Davis is a director, FYI). But this is Henson’s full-time job. For which he is being paid $400,000+ this year alone. He should be fully capable of handling a simple newspaper interview without mucking up his message.

Some additional questions…

If there isn’t an immediate crisis, why tamper with working conditions? How much would the changes in working conditions save the orchestra? Have they run the calculations on that? Why haven’t they made those calculations publicly available with their proposed contract? They’ve got an awesome shiny website with which to disseminate such information…

Also: why not agree to an independent financial analysis?

I’d like to take a moment to discuss the current musicians’ contract, which management is saying doomed all prospects of fiscal sustainability. This shamefully irresponsible contract was signed in October 2007, according to this Playbill article. Michael Henson came aboard in September 2007, so I’m not sure if he had any say in negotiating or ratifying that.

But even if he didn’t, dude was super-proud of how things were going financially at the Minnesota Orchestra as late as July 2010…almost three years into that irresponsible five-year contract. In retrospect, this is a hilarious article to read. [Edit 10/15: This article has since been removed from the Minnesota Orchestra website. Feel free to draw your own conclusions as to what that means. There has been no explanation so far. You can take a peek at the screenshots I took here.] For a bit of perspective, let’s remember that the much ballyhooed Strategic Plan was published in November 2011. In the introduction we read that “the ideas in this plan have been developed, tested, and honed over the last 18 months.” So that means management started working on the ideas contained within the Strategic Plan in the spring of 2010. Insinuation: they were seeing “significant financial issues and unsustainable fiscal practices the organization must resolve to ensure a sound future” before the spring of 2010. (This meshes with the claims of the Open Letter, which claims, “This is a journey that began several years ago, when the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Orchestra recognized that the organization could no longer survive [my bold] based on optimistic economic assumptions and the hope of limitless benefactor generosity.”) So, having established that, I’d like to let Michael Henson from July of 2010 say a few things. Remember that during this time, he had not only been seeing “significant financial issues and unsustainable fiscal practices” within his orchestra for at least the last few months, if not the last couple of years, he was also, behind closed doors, writing a plan to address those financial issues and unsustainable fiscal practices.

Take it away, Michael Henson of July 2010!

The former Bournemouth Symphony head is strategising his way through the recession - and winning. [my bold]

“There’s no single strategy to beating the downturn,” Michael Henson asserts. “There has to be a whole series of strategies to maintain a focused approach. The priority is continuing the excellence in the artistic work.” With orchestras across the US hard hit by the recession – and management strategies the number-one talking point at the League of American Orchestras’ conference in June - the Minnesota Orchestra stands out as a beacon institution among the bad news. It’s planning a European tour in August (its second in two years), expanding its online content and starting a large-scale renovation project at its home venue – having recently announced the end of a highly successful fundraising scheme. “I would say the support we get from the community is unique,” Henson boasts.

“Minnesotans are highly educated and committed to education,” he goes on, “and with a community this size – around 5m people in the region – we have a wide range of arts organisations, and a collective desire from individuals and corporations to support them.” In 2008-09, contributions accounted for 44 per cent of the orchestra’s $32.5m income. “On top of that, we’ve made some concessions at various points, there’ve been some layoffs and pay cuts in administration,” Henson notes; in August 2009, he took a seven per cent pay cut himself [heh], while Osmo Vänskä, music director since 2003, took 10 per cent [the organization's fiscal leader took a smaller pay-cut percentage-wise than the music director? classy]. At the same time, Henson negotiated modifications to the musicians’ contract, resulting in around $4.2m in cost savings up to 2012 – mostly through salary and pension reductions, and a wage freeze in FY2010. The orchestra currently numbers 95 contracted players, with six positions open; delaying filling those positions could save up to $1.8m in the long term. [Why are these concessions not mentioned on management's website? Have they slipped Henson's mind? Pity, because he seemed awfully proud of them in 2010...]

…

The orchestra announced in June 2009 that it had raised $14m of its $40m goal for the renovations. One year later, thanks to a last-minute $5m donation from the Target department store chain, it announced it was up to $43m. “The extra will mean we have enough to do it right – to improve chair Y as well as chair X,” says Henson. It also bodes well for the orchestra’s more long-term fundraising programme, “Building for the Future”, which aims to supplement its endowment by $30m, and provide a further $30m for artistic and educational endeavours. Including the renovation funding, the campaign has raised $82m of its $100m target. “Even though we’re in a recession, we have to keep up the commitment to the long-term vision,” Henson continues. ”The board agreed to take the risk on this.”

…

This year, Minnesota will be the only US orchestra represented at the Proms, a fact with added significance for Henson. “We have already made six live broadcasts this season on the BBC,” he notes (another echo of his Bournemouth days). “Our appearances at the Proms, the world’s greatest music festival, have grown from our close relationship with the BBC and will contribute to the process of increasing our visibility.” Its 2010 tour will also take it to the Edinburgh Festival and the Concertgebouw Amsterdam. “We have to keep up our international presence,” Henson says, indicating again his multi-stranded approach to building up the orchestra’s standing. “It’s all about keeping the key priorities in mind.”

This does not sound like a man (or a board) who has been seeing “significant financial issues and unsustainable fiscal practices” for months or years. Nor does it sound like a man (or a board) who is thinking very deeply about those significant financial issues and unsustainable fiscal practices and writing a Strategic Guide of how to address them. And this surely does not sound like a man (or a board) who is anticipating the necessity of a sharply concessionary contract – a “significant departure[s] from the traditions of the past” – a mere two years later, in September 2012. So of course one has to wonder: was Michael Henson being disingenuous to this reporter, or is he being disingenuous to us now?

In case you were thinking this was just a bad interview…may I present to you the Michael Henson of December 2009…

Henson says the last fiscal year was also one of artistic success for the orchestra both at home and abroad.

“We are quietly pleased with the results,” he said. “We are in control of a difficult situation and I think we are looking forward to the future with a similar amount of control, mindful of the economy we face.”

He says the coming year will continue to present economic challenges but he is confident the orchestra is keeping a careful handle on the situation.

That’s nice. But if you were drawing out of the endowment at an average of 10% during this time, then you were (by the parameters you set forth in the Star Tribune yesterday!) not in control of a difficult situation. You were not keeping a careful handle on it, and you had no right to be pleased – quietly or otherwise – with how things were going. Yes, I know that when non-profits are struggling, there is a reluctance to admit how bad things are for fear of scaring away donors and fostering death-spirals. But if things are bad, and you sugarcoat them, when the chickens come home to roost, you can’t treat the public like clueless idiots for asking why your tune has changed. You can’t be in a house, smelling smoke, feeling heat, and hearing smoke alarms, while simultaneously telling people you’re totally in control of any fire that may be forming on the property…and then, when the flames start coming out the windows, scold the public - who wasn’t even in your damn house - by saying, “Guys, I’ve been talking about this raging inferno for years. Help me put it out!”

Of course that leads me to wonder: maybe the fire wasn’t actually burning yet?

Here’s another article from December 2008:

As was the case last year, the orchestra drew only 6 percent from its endowment to help address the budget. The $191 million endowment was down 11 percent because of stock-market performance. The board is allowed to draw up to 7 percent, but spokeswoman Gwen Pappas said the organization has been very firm about avoiding that method.

Okay, so… Based on that 2008 article, let’s try to figure out what’s been happening with the endowment draw rate. I’m using an average of 7% for pre-2007 years, even though Ms. Pappas said the organization had been avoiding that percentage, and it may well have been lower…

2002 – 7% or less

2003 – 7% or less

2004 – 7% or less

2005 – 7% or less

2006 – 7% or less

2007 – 6%

2008 – 6%

I obviously don’t have all the numbers, but based on the ones I do, I don’t think it’s particularly outrageous to assume that, if Henson’s “ten percent over the past ten years” statement is actually true, then in 2009, 2010, and 2011, the board must have increased the draw rate to an annual average percentage of 17%+. This seems frankly unbelievable, especially since Richard Davis went on record in December 2010 as saying, “This was a season characterized by disciplined budget management and significant expense cuts, which kept our operations stable in an unpredictable environment.” I don’t know if anyone would call a 17% annual draw “disciplined budget management” (especially not the Richard Davis of 2012), but…okay. I’d be curious to know what all happened in 2009 that necessitated such a dramatic climb in the draw rate. Yes, the crashing economy no doubt had a lot to do with it…but does that explain all of it? (Or, is Michael Henson lying about the draw rate?)

Also, since the post-2009 draw rates were clearly such dramatic outliers, regardless of exact percentages, why didn’t Henson say something like “over the last three years, our draw has increased to an average of 17%+, but before the recession began, it was no higher than 7%”? Were ulterior motives at play? Did he want to make it look like the huge draws were an indication of systemic failure, rather than merely a result of the recession? (This meshes with management’s insinuation that problems have been in place “for many years.”) Did he want to keep the public from placing the blame on him? Did he just pull that number out of nowhere, forgetting that a quick Google search is all it takes to check his statements against Star Tribune articles?

[Important Edit 10/29: More information on draw rates here.]

And why isn’t Henson willing to clearly discuss everything that happened in his tenure, positive or negative? It smacks of a rather desperate insecurity. He was proud to say in December 2009 that he was in control of a difficult situation, and that he was pleased with how things were going. In July 2010 the Minnesota Orchestra felt comfortable posting an article on their website saying, “The former Bournemouth Symphony head is strategising his way through the recession - and winning.” Implication: management thought they were strategising their way through the recession, and winning. But now we’re being told that, “Whoops; our bad; we didn’t actually mean ‘winning’; we meant ‘veering ever-closer toward an inevitable fiscal Armageddon.’” Then why didn’t you tell us then???

Binds like this don’t happen overnight. If the Orchestra’s only options truly are to deplete their endowment by 2018 or impose 25-50% wage cuts, there is an immediate crisis, no matter what Mr. Henson says. Obviously someone, somewhere, screwed up. Badly. And even if part of the blame rests on the musicians’ 2007-12 contract, not all of it lies there. If the problems really were this serious back in July of 2010, and December of 2009, and December of 2008, then Michael Henson knew about them. And he had a duty to say something. Or at least email whoever was in charge of the website and say, “Guys, you might want to take down that ‘Michael Henson is winning’ article…it will come back to bite us in the a** in 2012 when we’re forced to reveal how hopelessly f***ed we are…”

Michael Henson is either misrepresenting the facts now, or he was misrepresenting the facts then. Period.

(Also, I have a funny little factoid for y’all: when you Google “Michael Henson Minnesota Orchestra”, my Hundred Questions are on the first page. So every time Michael Henson does a Google search on himself and his employer, he’s going to be reminded of me. Aww.)

Like I said, convince me I’m crazy. Please. Because this just seems too wild to be true. As always, the comments section is open to everybody.

Update, 9/26.According to the musicians’ blog, at their most recent negotiating meeting, the musicians asked management questions about “inconsistencies found within the Board and Management’s financial information.” I’m assuming at least some of those questions were similar in nature to the ones asked above…? “The meeting proceeded with an assurance from the Board and Management that the Musicians would receive answers to these questions later…” Interesting. Feel free to speculate as to what that means… If I hear or read anything from management addressing what I wrote above, I’ll add it to this entry. If you hear anything, post it below.

Women as Musicians; Past and Present, 1895

Another article, another stereotyped view of women from the 1890s.  Once again, women are deemed capable of interpreting, but incapable of producing – seen as sub-par composers – and even accused of “retarding” the growth of musical understanding. And yet it is not a simple case of sexism, since women violinists are praised and men are insinuated to be unable to get in touch with their emotions. Understanding the role that gender has played in the history of music remains an elusive task…

This is from The Current Opinion, January 1895.

***

T.L. Krebs…The Sewanee Review

Since the days of Gobi, the Hindoo goddess, of Miriam, the Jewish maiden, and of the Sirens of ancient Greek mythology, a woman has figured conspicuously in the development of music. Although she has never been a great productive genius, although she has never created symphonies, operas and oratorios of lasting value, her influence has been such that, without it, we could hardly conceive our music off the present to be possible. In music we need all the faculties, all the characteristics, in a word, all the personality of the human being. Since the nature of woman is such as man does not possess; since the elements of male and female individualism combined make up what we know as human mind and soul, it is evident that, without the assistance of woman, without her influence, her emotions, her intuitions and her prejudices, a full development of music would be impossible. Since music is the language of the emotions and appeals directly to the heart, it must necessarily affect strongly a being so preeminently emotional, one who consults the heart much oftener than the head. As there exists a clearly defined masculine and feminine element in the nature and construction of music, it is evident that there must also be the same condition in its interpreters.

The instrument justly considered to be most pre-eminently suited to women, because of its lightness, its form, the natural grace required in its treatment, but, above all, because of the deep poetry of its tones, its emotional qualities and its sympathetic appeals – the violin – was for years neglected by female musicians, for reasons which, plausible though they may seem, are, nevertheless, utterly without justification. Every twenty years ago it was an odd sight, and one that rarely failed to elicit visible and audible comment, not always charitable, when a girl or young woman carried a violin case through the streets of a city. Now it is quite different, thanks to a few noble women, who, not heeding this criticism as adverse as it was prejudiced, devoted themselves to the queen of all musical instruments. The violin, in the hands of a skilled female performer, appeals to the emotions of the listener as it does but rarely when played upon by a man, although the greatest depth and grandeur of which the instrument is capable have not yet been elicited by women.

Prominent among women who have composed music is Clara Schumann, who has published many more or less acceptable pieces of vocal and instrumental music. Fanny Hensel, the sister of Felix Mendelssohn, composed a number of songs and pianoforte pieces in the style of her illustrious brother. Josephine Lang, a friend of the Mendelssohns, also composed some pleasing vocal music. Louis Ruget composed songs that were admired and sung, for the time being, throughout France and Belgium. Marie Malibran, the great vocalist, was also the author of several fine songs. A few years ago an opera composed by Ingeborg von Bronsart, the celebrated pianist, was performed at Weimar under the direction of the composer. This opera met with a favorable reception both from the public and from the musicians of that great art center. Among the few women who have gained fame as writers on musical subjects are Elisa Polka, Mrs. Raymond-Ritter and Anna March, who have written some excellent sketches and essays.

But why is it that woman, who has gained the height of fame not alone as executive musician, but also as painter, poet and novelist, who has even manipulated the chisel and modeling-clay with success, and has attained renown at the bar and in the dissecting-room, has not excelled as a productive musician? Though woman is highly qualified by nature to express ideas in music as if they were the workings of her own soul, though she is peculiarly fitted to reflect the poetical nature of the art on the background of her own individuality, she cannot create these poetic reflections in compositions original with herself. Her nature is opposed to the cold reasoning and the solution of profound musical problems, such as must be encountered by the successful composer. This perhaps explains why there is not a single composition by a female musician  that bids fair to hold even the second or the third rank. As a teacher of music, except in the field of theory, woman has been eminently successful, though it is painfully obvious that some, by their incompetence and superficiality, have done much to retard a healthful growth of musical understanding. In this capacity women have a great and glorious future before them.

Musical And Arts Criticism, Press Work for Women, 1904

There is no particular reason I’m including this on the blog except for the fact that I consider myself more a music writer than musician, and I rarely come across any discussion of female music writers from around the turn of the century. It is important to keep in mind that many of our primary sources about women musicians were actually written by men. Even nowadays, it seems as if the majority of the best arts journalists are men…or is this just coincidence, given the fact the sample size of best arts journalists is so pathetically small? Who are some of your favorite female writers on the arts – whether of the past or present?

This is from the 1904 book Press Work for Women by Frances H. Low.

***

Musical and Art Criticism.

This branch of journalism is, for the most part, even in the sixpenny women’s papers, for some extraordinary reason, almost wholly in the hands of men, and offers an interesting though limited field for a cultivated writer’s taste, imagination, and knowledge. Dramatic criticism involves attendance at first nights, and also some of the disagreeable features inseparable, apparently, from the stage. But as an enormous number of concerts take place in the afternoon, and as nearly all art shows can be visited in the daytime, it seems strange that so small a number of women are employed as art and musical critics. A large number of lady journalists attend private views and concerts, and describe the people and the frocks, and everything but the artistic productions; but their functions are not those of the trained critic. Seeing what a number of cultivated women musicians there are, this want of enterprise is striking; and I cannot help thinking that students who have a thorough knowledge of the theory of music, might do worse than qualify themselves as critics. The best way to bring herself under the notice of editors would be for the young critic to write a short magazine article dealing with some aspect of the musical art in an original and individual way; and with this object, it would be best to get her views printed in a journal that is not an exclusively musical organ.

Symphony Orchestras of Women, 1913

Here is a passionate plea by music writer and founder of Musical America John C. Freund to allow women jobs in symphony orchestras. Unfortunately, nearly half a century would pass before women were consistently seen in orchestral positions. By that time, Freund was long dead.

This article appeared in The Violinist in September 1913.

***

Nearly six hundred million dollars, or almost seven dollars per head for every man, woman and child of the population, spent in the United States for music in every form! That is, for the purchase of musical instruments, from the mouth harmonica and the talking-machine to the concert grand, for music teachers, for concerts and recitals, for church music, for bands, for opera, and let us not forget the music in the theaters, the vaudeville shows and the “movies.” Of these $600,000,000 you may safely estimate that at least eighty-five per cent are spent by the women. And yet, with this vast expenditure, at least six to eight thousand young women, graduating with honors from our leading music conservatories as instrumentalists, have no hope of being able to learn a living at their chosen profession, except they, in turn, become teachers, descend to a cabaret show, or play slumber songs to their babies.

The great feminist movement which is taking place all over the world, in Islam, in Europe, and more particularly in the United States, where it is finding its highest and its noblest form of expression, as we saw in the suffragette parade this Spring, is in my judgment, the great reform movement of the hour, because it is going to make the world better, for it will make it sweeter and cleaner.

In this uplift music, literature and the arts will play their part with our ninety millions, just as surely as all the various movements for betterment will play their part.

Already there are not only popular but municipal and even State movements for the recognition of music, not only as a necessary and integral part of education but as a necessary integral part of that recreation which is as much a duty in human life as the providing of food, drink, clothes, sleep and sanitation.

What we need right here in New York is a symphonic orchestra composed of women and led by a woman. In the first place, as we have the material, why would we not have the orchestra?

Such an orchestra will be supported by liberal-minded people, perhaps, first, for its novelty, but afterwards for its value and its excellence.

It will not provide positions for the thousands of competent women musicians, but it will act as an example, and other orchestras composed of women will be formed all over the country.

The question as to whether woman is musical or not is so easily answered that one need only mention the names of the great singers, pianists and violinists of world renown. As to whether women has creative ability as a composer has nothing to do with the question, though Musical America, two years ago, found there were in this country no less than sixty women composers whose work had merit sufficient, at least, to be printed and be profitable to the publishers.

But why should not woman prove to have creative ability in music, as she has shown she has in literature, as she has shown she has in art, as she has shown she has in science? – for it was Mme. Curie who discovered radium.

An orchestra of women would not be a fad. Indeed, it is not any new thing. There is the well-known Fadettes Orchestra of Boston; there is a fine women’s symphony orchestra in Los Angeles, with Cora Foy in the concertmaster’s chair; there is the noted Aeolian Ladies’ Orchestra in London, England, now over twenty years old, with a woman conductor; there is the Olive Mead Quartet, the American String Quartet, there are women who play in the Hartford Symphony Orchestra; not long ago, in Detroit, Mich., the ladies of the Fine Arts Society organized a string quartet, for which Elsa Ruegger was solo ‘cellist. The Soldat String Quartet is known throughout Germany, and the Nora Clench Quartet holds its own against many masculine rivals. So, you see, it is already in the working; it needs only expansion and encouragement – the encouragement given by publicity to the movement to break down the ridiculous prejudice that a great musical composition cannot be interpreted by humanity except it be dressed in evening clothes, white ties and patent leather boots.

“It may be objected that the attitude of the Musical Mutual Protective Union is opposed to having women in the orchestras. I understand that they do take women members, though this applies only to women playing in orchestras with men. My proposition is for the formation of high class orchestras of women, to give opportunity to the women who can perform the music.”

If you say, “We have already too many orchestras,” I reply, “Possibly too many in New York; possibly in one place; but we have over ninety million people who are showing every day a greater appreciation for music.”

And the women are working. There are already in this country several hundred musical clubs, composed of women, with a membership of nearly 100,000, who are the greatest factor in the encouragement of artists of the highest rank. They are the backbone of our festivals. They are, indeed, the backbone of our best orchestras, for the Philharmonic, it is a well-known fact, would have gone to pieces not so long ago but for the public spirit of the late Mrs. George R. Sheldon.

Why, at this very moment, with preparations for the great exhibition going on in California, to celebrate the opening of the Panama Canal, who is working for music? Who is doing something? The women! Only recently two women of high social standing came here from California to make the conditions under which the sum of $10,000 is offered by the city of Los Angeles for a prize opera, which is backed by $70,000 more for the production of that opera by an American composer on an American subject.

Someone may say, “Yes, you may be able to get together fifty or sixty women of superior ability to perform the finest works; but who, pray, will conduct them?”

Well, we have, to begin with, Maud Powell, a master mind, as well as a great musician with an international reputation. Here is a telegram from her, which reads:

“Of course women should play in symphony and other orchestras, if they want the work. Wanting the work implies measuring up to the standards of musical technical efficiency, with strength to endure well hours of rehearsing and often the strain of travel, broken habits and poor food. Many women are amply fitted for the work; such women should be employed on an equal footing with men. I fail to see that any argument to the contrary is valid. But if they accept the work they should be prepared to expect no privileges because of their sex. They must dress quietly and as fine American women they must uphold high standards of conduct.”

You see how sensibly she talks. She claims for woman no privileges whatever on account of her sex, and there she takes ground that is unassailable. Capacity has no sex. A person can do a thing or not, whether he or she wears pants or petticoats.

If it be said that should women invade the orchestra and concert field or the theaters, they will take the bread from the mouths of some of the men, I reply, “They will not do it where the men are competent, and if they do it where the men are not competent the public and my ears will benefit.”

When the ancients desired to represent, to typify the spirit of music, of art, of literature, did they do it in masculine terms? Did they do it with male forms? In every case the very words were feminine, as were the forms that represented the spirit of men’s nobler attributes. Why? Because they realized that in the stress and strain and struggle for existence the nobler qualities will always be submerged, and therefore it would be left to the women ultimately to put humanity on a higher plane, not only of civilization, but of aspiration and accomplishment.

This does not mean that every woman is fitted to be a musician, or that every woman who is a musician is fit to play in a symphony orchestra. But it does mean that when a woman is fit to play in an orchestra and wants to do so, that she shall have an opportunity – that is the crux of my whole position.

If women have inspired the poets, the writers, the thinkers, the statesmen, the scientists, the musicians of the world, do you not think that some of them, at least, are capable of interpreting the very works to which they have given inspiration?

One thing is certain: while a woman in an orchestra may carry, surreptitiously, chewing gum and a powder puff, she won’t have to go out in between times for beer and a cigarette.

Now, let me tell you a little story to illustrate my position: Many years ago, at a time when even a woman pianist was almost unknown here, and a woman violinist would have been almost hooted in the streets if she carried her violin case, I became acquainted with a little Russian, or Polish, Jewess who had extraordinary musical talent. Her parents were, as most of her class are, extremely poor. A German musician of great talent, but himself poor, recognized the child’s ability and gave her lessons for nothing, for years. She tried to get engagements, without success; and finally she went to the conductor of a well-known orchestra and applied for a position. He heard her play, and said: “My dear young lady, you have so much ability and talent that you would put to shame some members of my orchestra. I could use you as my first violin, but if I were to put you in that position there would be not only a riot on the stage, but one in the audience.”

For a time, her parents having died, the young girl endeavored to maintain herself, playing around in little restaurants on the East Side, till the usual love tragedy happened, with a handsome but unscrupulous young Italian singer. She had a child, which, from lack of proper nourishment, died.

In her despair she took to drink and sank and sank – till she sank out of sight.

Here was a genius, a great talent, who was told that she had no show, no opportunity – because she was a woman. And we boast of our civilization and we call ourselves a Christian people!

This whole question, wherever we touch it, wherever we tackle it, is not a question of sex at all. It presents to the thinking mind no problems. It is a matter of elemental truth, of basic, elemental justice. - Musical America.

Two Woman’s Journal Articles, 1920-21

Here’s two articles from the suffrage magazine The Woman’s Journal that shed some light on the battle to allow women to play in orchestras. I’m still mystified by the reasoning that women couldn’t play in orchestras because the touring would tire them, when many conductors had no problem hiring women soloists who traveled even longer and harder than orchestral players did.

***

New Hope for the Musicians

31 December 1921

A bit of news interesting to women musicians comes from London. The Royal Philharmonic Society has abolished all sex distinctions and has admitted women to all privileges equally with men. When the Society was founded in 1813, except as singers women musicians did not appear in public. In recent years they have been admitted as fellows and associates but not to the higher grade of membership, which is considered a professional honor and is rather strictly limited in number. Many women musicians have aspired to this membership which is now open to them, and as the directors are elected annually by the members, women may now become directors also.

During the war, because of the lack of men, women were admitted to the symphony orchestras of both London and Paris, and some women musicians are still playing in them. In Paris, the famous Lamoreux orchestra is closed to them, but the equally famous Colonne orchestra has a number of women playing side by side with men. In the United States, except as harpists, women are not found in any of the large symphony orchestras.

Why Only The Harp?

14 January 1922

The conservative Old World moves ahead in some respects faster than the United States.

For some time women have been playing in the symphony orchestras of London and Paris, while they are still not accepted in the best orchestras of the United States with the exception of an occasional harpist. Conservatories and music schools of all descriptions have a large majority of women students. In all their graduating classes the women far outnumber the men. While they do not take up the wind instruments in any number, many women study the violin and a few the ‘cello. Why is the one source of a steady professional income in an established orchestra denied them? And, conversely, if the orchestras welcomed women players, would not many more women be encouraged to carry their studies to a greater proficiency?

A famous conductor recently gave two reasons why in his opinion women are not engaged for orchestra work. He claims, first, that they do not play as well as men and, second, that symphony orchestras in this country have such a long season and rehearse so constantly that women would find the work trying; further, that the large orchestras are on the road so much that it would be disagreeable for women. One might answer in regard to the last objection that women musicians travel in company with men in opera companies without embarrassment.

Undoubtedly the fact that women are not admitted to the best orchestras keeps many talented women from studying stringed instruments seriously, since the field of solo performer is possible for only a very few. What do women musicians themselves think of it? – G. F. B.