Symphony Association Needs More Support, Not More Criticism

San Diego has shown quite dramatically that it wants a symphony orchestra! The drama. The suspense. The heroic efforts of so many in so short a time gave the most heart-warming testimony on behalf of the orchestra that it has experienced in its 76-year history.

But a symphony orchestra is a fragile entity that requires tender loving care continually, not just in moments of crisis. There wouldn’t be crises if the TLC shown in the last two weeks were available to the orchestra year-round.

Why is an orchestra so fragile, especially in our city? Not everyone will like the answers, but reality must be faced and the collective myopia of many corrected. The economic dynamics of this art form need to be better-understood.

Very simply, 75% of its expense is people-related, while at best only 50% of its income is derived from the sale of its product, a perishable listening experience that nourishes the listener’s spirit, creativity and inner well-being. Therefore, the product must be desirable and the hall where it’s performed should allow it to be heard at its best, thus making the marketing function of this business easier.

With the opening of Symphony Hall, the orchestra now has the right place to play. The music played is the responsibility of the music director and should be subject to ratification by the marketing committee of the orchestra’s board of directors, for they represent the “common man.”

The musicians in our orchestra are some of the finest anywhere. If one were to get to know them as individuals, not just from afar as “that group of people on the stage,” one would have a Much deeper appreciation of their professionalism, their dedication and their commitment. This is the livelihood with which they make their house and car payments, put food on their tables and shoes on their kids. They also have to be consummate gamblers, as they know the sale of their product will not cover their salaries.

To balance the orchestra’s budget, contributed income, i.e. donations, must cover the gap between earned income (ticket sales) and the total expenses. This income comes in a variety of ways, including individual and corporate memberships in the association, concert sponsorships by businesses, participation in fund-raising activities such as the Quarter Note Classic, and grants from foundations, the National Endowment for the Arts, the state, the county and the city. It should also come from an endowment fund, which our orchestra doesn’t have.

Raising contributed income in our community for the orchestra is not an easy task. The city and the county provide modest funding through transit occupancy tax (TOT) collections funneled to the association via COMBO. That level of funding has not materially changed in absolute dollars in a decade, though TOT collections have increased substantially. The city and county funding is based, not on association needs as presented to these governmental entities, but on what COMBO requests, which in turn is based on what it believes will be allocated to it from the TOT funds. This, of course, raises the general issue of TOT fund allocation. Is it being used in accordance with its original purpose, or has it become a source of general revenue for the city and county?

Before Proposition 13, the school district provided funding to help offset the costs associated with the Young People’s Concerts. No more. But because the association believes this is an important program, it has continued these concerts without that support.

For years, the symphony association, in effect, subsidized the San Diego Opera. Although the opera formed its own orchestra, its contract with the musicians did not provide for health insurance or a pension fund. Only because the musicians had those benefits through their symphony contract was the opera able to employ such high-quality players. Dialogue with opera officials to correct this monetary imbalance came to naught. Yet it was my experience that the opera received more TOT funding than the symphony.

Funding sources in the corporate sector have been difficult to secure at a sufficient level and on a consistent yearly basis. When I was elected association president in mid-1982 and became more intimately involved in raising contributed income, I was stunned at the number of doors closed in my face.

Some people thought I should be committed to a mental hospital for taking that thankless and hopeless job. Some took out their petty anger on me about past events over which I had no control. Some said they wouldn’t contribute as long as Mr. or Mrs. So-’n’-So was involved with the association. Some said, “get your house in order” and then we’ll contribute; when that occurred, another flimsy excuse was offered.

It reminded me of the dog chasing its tail. The association worked hard and long to fix potential contributors’ perceptions of it to make it an attractive community “investment” for them. With some we succeeded; with others we probably never could overcome their myopia. These same scenarios apply to some individual folks too.

Then there are those who harbor a “death wish” for the orchestra, those who don’t want it ever to be successful because of some real or imagined perception of the association. The success of mass appeals like we just witnessed has to be a nightmare for these folks.

Then there are those “citizens” (individuals, businesses and associations) who ignore the orchestra altogether, making believe that it doesn’t exist, but who emerge from the shadows when the news is not good with all their expert wisdom and Monday morning quarterbacking. They sit on their hands in the stands while those in the arena are working hard to make the orchestra successful. If the folks in the arena make a mistake of commission, they are quick to criticize. But these folks are guilty of a worse trait, the mistake of omission and criticizing those who are trying with their heart and soul. Let those blessed with 20/20 hindsight ask themselves the following questions before they offer their expert advice:

1. Do they, or their businesses, hold season tickets?

2. Do they, or their businesses, contribute regularly to the orchestra?

3. Do they, or their businesses, participate in the orchestra’s fund-raising activities?

If the answer to any one of these questions is “no,” let them reflect first about their own involvement and commitment before pointing fingers at the association and its board.

Yes, the association is not perfect. Staff and volunteers have erasers on their pencils, too. (I usually use up the eraser on my pencil before the lead is all gone.) The association needs more stability and continuity in its management. But the daily hurdles encountered can cause “burnout” in short order.

The association is a corporation, a business, and it needs stable and consistent business leadership to allow it to reach its goals. Does IBM change presidents every two years? Of course not. Neither, I submit, should the symphony association. A volunteer president must serve three “masters”--family, career and the association. That’s one too many. I know. I’ve been there. It can’t be done! The price paid in attempting to do so is too high . . . and the general public doesn’t ever hear about it. A permanent, salaried chief executive officer would be part of the solution.

Thank God for the association’s cadre of loyal supporters, including those folks who contributed to the $2 million. They have brought the symphony today to the base upon which it can build for tomorrow.