Combating Dissatisfaction in American Orchestras

This is a paper I wrote for an Arts Leadership course called Realities of Orchestral Life, taught by David Angus, the President & Secretary-Treasurer of the Rochester Musicians' Association, Local 66 of the American Federation of Musicians and third horn in the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. The ideas presented below seem simplistic, but I remind you that the basics must be mastered before more complicated ideas present themselves.

Symphony musicians are in a difficult state. Their passion and livelihood are determined by non-musicians who think in terms of numbers and business models; those who make the artistic decisions are often constricted by money; and the audience who supports the orchestra financially typically desires to hear the same symphonies over and over again. Musicians live in a state of perpetual dissatisfaction. What they do, how they do it, and the rate of variability in which these factors change are not controlled by the musicians. Unlike most professionals, they cannot easily make a change in companies or in how they present their expertise. Assuming they were lucky enough to win another rare audition (and I do mean luck, for their skills are often matched – if not surpassed – by hundreds of others going for the same job), they will find themselves in a different city with the same predicament: lack of control. For this reason, there are few turnarounds in professional orchestras. Those who were once excited about winning a job and playing in a professional symphony are now tempered by the reality of their situation. While most professionals would get a raise or change jobs, musicians are stuck in the same seat playing the same pieces every few years. Their dissatisfaction only grows. To handle the fact that their passion and years of dedication and craftsmanship are no longer in their control, many become apathetic.Instead of inflicting blame on any particular group or person that manages the orchestra, this author will instead present ideas to reverse the pattern of dissatisfaction in orchestras, while still maintaining the traditional roles of leadership. This way the average orchestra can experiment with these ideas without fearing that their whole management and ways of working will be restructured. The basic orchestral model currently works, but it would be much more effective if musicians and management learned to cultivate respect on both sides, expand the degree of control musicians have, and promote their orchestral goals for the future.

Many professionals have expressed concern over the “us versus them” attitude between the musicians and management in the orchestral world. While unfortunate, this is a natural consequence of the less-than-democratic system. Musicians do not feel respected by those who make the final decisions because their artistic needs are not being met or taken seriously; the responses of those who must defend their decisions are “we cannot possibly satisfy the artistic desires of eighty different people – the budget will not allow it.” There is a clear disconnect between the two groups, yet rarely is management given the chance to explain their decisions, and the reasoning is less than desirable to the musicians who are tired of hearing “money” as an excuse. Experts in business and finance are brought in to help out the orchestra, which furthers the issue of non-musicians controlling every aspect of the musicians’ lives.

A helpful solution is to remove the barriers between musicians and management to instill some mutual respect. It seems simple, but the closest way to gain respect from colleagues is to treat them with courtesy and respect. All people involved in the organization should make a conscious effort to listen to and address grievances in a respectful manner. Administrators should give in-depth details to the musicians so that they feel more involved in the decision making process. That way the orchestra would understand that it is not necessarily the fault of the administrators that caused the lack of original programming. The conductor should play to the orchestra’s strength and interests and not just his own. The orchestra is a group effort; not a totalitarian regime. Musicians should treat each other with courtesy and understand that mistakes can happen. Petty grievances should be forgotten, as distractions are created by those who thrive on drama. These are ideal situations, but they are not above the standards of the typical workplace and they are certainly not too much to ask.

A solution that is more difficult to achieve is to hold several social functions per season in order for all involved to get to know one another. Orchestras make more than just a product; they make music, which is an emotional experience. If those who are supposed to create the emotional experience are apathetic and dissatisfied, the audience will pick up on that and not feel moved by the music and not want to come back. This, in turn, affects the finances of the orchestra, meaning they do not have enough money to play pieces considered tonally risky or too large. When the artistic desires of the musicians are not fed, it tends to increase their apathy. It is a nasty cycle that can only be broken when people make the effort to change. Musicians should enjoy playing with one another, and that means trusting their colleagues enough to bear their soul and play. Trust is only achieved with repeated experiences of trustworthiness, like in friendship. If the musicians and management got to know each other on a personal level and treated one another with courtesy, they would be more willing to accept hardships and difficulties as a team.

Another huge factor in the dissatisfaction of orchestral musicians is the lack of control they exercise over their own careers. This was a brilliant thesis put out by Seymour and Robert Levine in their article, “Why They’re Not Smiling: Stress and Discontent in the Orchestra Workplace.”¹ While they concentrate on many psychological factors, this author’s suggestion will be to address the lack of control concerning artistic decision making without changing its current model of programming. There are certain percentages of the seasonal program that must be dedicated to pops, classical, and guest artists – but some concerts are open to more creative suggestions. Perhaps in the final revisions of the programming, which typically go through several revisions before permanently accepted, the artistic administrators can suggest a list of pieces that would fit in the open time slots and have the musicians vote on their favorite ones. This is a small step, true, and not complete freedom in choosing the way some would prefer, but at least the musicians have a say. Another suggestion would be for the musicians to write down a list of their most desirable pieces to play, and the artistic administrators can keep it in mind when they start planning the next season.

In order to address several concerns at once, some sort of meeting should be set up that includes all people involved in the orchestra. Instead of management on one side defending their decisions to the musicians, they will all be split up into groups to brain storm and come up with solutions together to further instill respect. Proportionally, there are less people in management then there are musicians, so the orchestra can be split up into groups of no more than ten people, with at least one of those people from management. The rest of the group would ideally come from different sections of the orchestra. The groups could sit down and discuss the decisions for the season and why they were made. Grievances that were voiced throughout the season should be divided up so each group gets a different one. That way all will be given the opportunity to be solved. At the end, each group should have one representative share the potential solutions to the rest of the orchestra. This kind of group method was explored by Robert J. Wager and Tina Ward, whose article, “The Exploration of Teamwork: The Lahti Symphony Orchestra,”² proved an interesting read.

The final factor explored in this paper will be the involvement of hope and expectation in an orchestra. If the musicians and management are not content, and yet they are not making significant efforts to change this dissatisfaction, they are most likely suffering from lack of a clear mission statement or dedication to the statement. When people are dedicated to an agreed-upon goal, their work ethic reflects the standards of that goal. Imagine eighty or more musicians dedicated to spreading their love of classical music to the community, educating them, and using their art to benefit the people around them. That kind of goal is more exciting than simply performing music that has been played fifteen times before. Musicians should understand how their art affects the world around them and convince people that it is an important and relevant part of society. If musicians are convinced of that vision themselves, their enthusiasm will exude in their performances, and the audiences will come. To encourage the mission statement around the work place, people in management should frequently recite it at the beginnings of rehearsals. During meetings and workshops people can give small talks about the importance of the vision and the effect it is having on sales, the community’s opinion of the orchestra, and the overall morale of the players. People work best when they have something to look forward to, and audiences want to be inspired.

Many symphony musicians might be unhappy in their current situation, but there are simple, effective ways to combat dissatisfaction and make the orchestra an exciting place to work, which in turn makes it an attractive event to attend. By cultivating respect and trust between the musicians and management, increasing the amount of control musicians have over their careers, and promoting the orchestra’s mission statement, the American symphony will become a career goal instead of an undesirable back-up plan. Blame will no longer separate the musicians from the management, and they will have a healthy relationship that involves thoughtful discussions and mutual agreements.

¹ - Levine, Seymour and Robert. Why They’re Not Smiling: Stress and Discontent in the Orchestral Workplace. Harmony: Forum of the Symphony Orchestra Institute, April 1996, 14-25. http://polyphonic.org/harmony.php?id=2

²- Wagner, Robert J. & Tina Ward. Explorations of Teamwork: The Lahti Symphony Orchestra. Harmony: Forum of the Symphony Orchestra Institute, October 2002, 1-24. http://polyphonic.org/harmony.php?id=15