While I'm not directly involved with most aspects of touring for the PSO, I talked to a few people on staff and thought I'd try and lay out how it can be different than the theatre/musical theatre/dance formats that we've discussed already. To generalize, orchestral touring (for Tier 1 orchestras) is incredibly expensive, and seems to be on the decline. Unlike normal touring, which can extend the life of a production and bring in additional revenue, orchestral touring is NOT profitable.
The booking process is relatively similar. The PSO has two agents, one for domestic touring and one for international. Coincidentally, the domestic agent also represents guests artists we hire...not sure how that works. In the case of the current European tour, the PSO puts together a package of pieces and programs they would like to tour with. Pieces can be mixed and matched, but are generally set into three possible programs. They also have a roster of soloists for the tour, in this case a violinist with two possible concertos, a pianist, and vocalists for two possible works. The agent then goes about finding sensible matches with festivals and presenting venues, and negotiates programs with each festival or presenter. The range of programs is necessary to provide enough variety to fit into surrounding programming. Five orchestras can't be booked for the same summer festival to play the same symphony. I can't speak confidently about the timeline, but I know the initial process starts several years out, and I helped finalize programming back in the spring.
Fees for orchestras, much like soloists, vary greatly. When the PSO books a guest artist to perform in Pittsburgh, they generally pay less for that artist than a symphony in a smaller city. The exposure and caliber of the orchestra make the booking attractive for a guest artist. The same goes for the PSO touring internationally. The PSO's fee with a venue in Lithuania would be very high, a performance at The BBC Proms would be lower, and an engagement at the Musikverein smaller still. Fees also might be lower if the engagement is for multiple nights, like the four concerts the PSO is playing in Vienna. In some cases, the PSO pays the guest soloist performing with the orchestra, and in some cases the presenter will pay the soloist fee.
Unlike much of the touring we've discussed, orchestras almost never negotiate a share of ticket revenue. No one could tell me why, but it seems that it just isn't done. Most large orchestral festivals in Europe seem to still be highly popular, and I believe every PSO concert so far has been a sell-out/success. Perhaps presenters can be comfortable offering the full fee upfront. However, hotel and transportation are often part of the negotiation.
Logistically, touring is a complicated process, and is largely determined by musician contracts. Similar to equity contracts, there are relatively complicated work rules that go into play when touring. While I won't lay out rules, some issues include:
-rehearsal time in each different venue -the usual break/playing time rules -transport duration and meals -due to late travel hours and performances (one concert in Spain was at 10pm), hotels must have late night dining, usually signifying a 4 or 5 star hotel -access to instrument and wardrobe trunks at certain times
Finally, the fees paid by presenters only cover a portion of the cost of touring an orchestra. Instead, the majority of the cost is covered by sponsors, particularly large institutions that operate internationally.
“Orchestral touring is NOT profitable”. So, why does the PSO tour? Jesse, you gave lots of great details and information on the logistics of the tour. But why does the PSO go through all that trouble? Here is my take as an outsider.
Of course, on a broader level, touring gives the organization a certain prestige.
As a “PSO fan”, or whatever you might call me, it seems like there is a lot of value created in the audiences the PSO is not performing for – the audience they have right here in Pittsburgh. So, taking this beyond the broad prestige a tour can bring, I think the PSO really takes the opportunity they have to build their community at home. For example, the blog which has broadcasts and reviews, intended for many audiences but surly including its home base. Also, I believe it was last year that the PSO’s slogan that went on the front of their program books was “hear why the world cheers”. Many of the PSO’s audience members are “proud parents”, in a way, and this phrase reminds them of how proud they are of THEIR PSO. And I remembered that phrase for a whole year, so it did something right.
Again, with the “parent” analogy – the PSO has, at least a couple times, had concerts associated with the “sending off” and “welcoming home” of the orchestra (like you might do sending your kid to summer camp, or whatever). This year, they offered only one performance of Mahler 2 before taking it on tour. Last year I went to a couple of the PSO tour preview concerts which were held in the Pittsburgh Opera rehearsal space. This was the perfect way to use the tour to build relationships with donors/constituents at home – the seating was extremely limited, and tickets were never actually on sale. The physical seating arrangement was such that the orchestra was on the floor, and the audience was seated in a square around the orchestra on an elevated level. So, you got the opportunity to sit in a position from the musicians you cannot get in Heinz Hall. And, for the “welcoming home” excitement, now I have PSO withdrawal and I cannot wait to go hear them again when they return from Pittsburgh.
And, one more proud parent moment – hearing through the Pittsburgh Media and WQED that audiences LOVE the PSO abroad, and that shows are sold out or close to it. And, I actually do not just hear this from the media – people are really talking about it (people=my dorky music friends). This makes me feel like we have something truly special here in Pittsburgh (which of course we do – even if their tour is not profitable).
I think you raise a good initial point, Rebecca--what a symphony tour brings in isn't cash so much as cachet. I would take that a step further, and say that a symphony tour isn't meant to bring in money because being able to tour is (or at least is becoming) a way for that symphony to show that they don't NEED money that much.
Wait, wait, I hear you cry, ALL symphonies desperately need money right now. Bear with me a second. :) By Jesse's logic (and yours, and mine), tours spend lots of money that they don't make back. Prestige aside, doing a tour gains a symphony very little, so I think it's logical to say that one significant reason symphonies tour is because they CAN. And that's the point I'm getting at here: a symphony in serious financial trouble will probably not plan a tour, because they can't afford one. A symphony in only moderate or even minor financial trouble, however, could very likely plan a tour, not just to raise awareness and prestige, but to show the world that they can do it. It's a way of saying hey, everyone, we may still need our usual revenues and donations, but by and large we're doing okay over here.
I don't know the PSO well enough to tell if this logic figured into its decision, but the symphony I do know well, the St. Louis Symphony, publicized their recent tours (to California in 2010 and to Europe this year) with a very similar justification. The fact that they could even do those tours was held up as a neon sign showing how well they had bounced back from their financial issues of a few years ago and how great their forward momentum was and is.
In tight times, luxuries get cut, and a tour is one of the bigger luxuries a symphony can buy. Tours becoming viable is a good sign of, if not drastically improving economic circumstances, at least that some orchestras are recovering well enough to be comfortable bringing back a luxury or two.
While the tours may not be 'earned income' profitable -- they may offer opportunities for contributed income that far exceed the earned income concerns. (if the big funders in Pittsburgh like that they are on an international tour -- perhaps they double their end-of-year donation this time, for example.)
Agreed on this point. Several of the touring dance companies that performed while I was working at Jacob's Pillow ended up using the cast parties at the Pillow for their own philanthropic efforts. The tour allowed them timely access to potential large donors. Since the Pillow is a presenting organization it usually ended up being a win-win situation. The draw of the particular company allowed the development department the ability to expand contact lists and introduce themselves to the fans of a particular company and in return the presenter allows the touring company to effectively broaden the geographic area of the 'ask'.
Rebecca, you're probably right. I believe a big part of it is "international acclaim" . With a European conductor and a very "European sounding" orchestra, it remains important for them to maintain that level of artistry and reputation. I believe internally, touring internationally is still a big thing for the upper levels of administration and board. And certainly, for at least a portion of the audience, there is a great deal of pride in having an internationally known orchestra.
As for the cost, I know there is a board mandate that tours do not "lose money". I think it's up to big corporate sponsors and donors to pick up the check for the tour. For companies that operate internationally it's a great marketing tool, and donors can travel along with the orchestra as a perk.
When we were talking about performing arts touring in class, it seemed as though the actors/performers didn't have any time to visit the city they were touring to. I am curious as to whether or not touring creates an opportunity to grow as a musician or conductor through either being able to listen to/gain access to different types of music or have the opportunity to meet other musicians at like a networking meeting that could be arranged.
I know live orchestral music in France is very popular, and the shows I went to there were sold out. I can imagine something like the opposite of a "project tour" where the company is the one who gets educated. This way the symphony could look at touring as a continued education program making its artists better. Is this a wacky idea? Is there something I'm not thinking about that wouldn't make this possible?
Depending on the tour schedule -- usually there is time for the artists to do some 'tourist' activities (depending on the amount of time for travel/load-in, etc). The technicians and stage or tour manager, sadly, get the least.
AND -- there are actually 'exchange' programs for artists that have an educational framework (more cultural exchange). For example, the German Embassy likes to bring over companies to the US and take the US company to Germany (with artists working together on both sides).
Following Brett’s comment above, I want to highlight the fact that government institutions can be a great help for international touring. Brett already mentioned the German Embassy as an institution which supports cultural exchange by bringing foreign companies to Germany or German companies to other countries. In addition to that, German institutions like the “Goethe Institut” (http://www.goethe.de/enindex.htm) or the “ifA” (http://www.ifa.de/en/) are great resources for arts companies when they’re planning to go international with their show. And I’m sure that a lot of countries all over the world have this kind of institutes in one form or another, too. The advantages of this kind of support are quite obvious: Partnerships with Embassies or cultural institutes normally include some kind of financial support – it could be a grant or simply the absorption of travel and hotel costs. Additionally, the arts companies don’t have to care about hiring an agent because the supporting institute will undertake this part. Oftentimes, the institutes and embassies own little concert spaces themselves with the result that artists sometimes just have one institution to work with – and not several presenting organizations. However, there is a big “BUT” in this type of international touring. Embassies and other cultural institutes have are reason why they are supporting specific international artists and tours. Normally, they don’t want to act as normal presenters – they want to create an additional value for their home audience through the artist’s performance instead. Therefore, the supported artists and companies must be willing to participate in some kind of cultural exchange programs which normally includes educational aspects. Additionally, embassies and cultural institutes oftentimes support artists and companies which aren’t that famous and well known in their home country. Therefore, I doubt that the PSO got any kind of support from one of the above mentioned institutions for their recent concerts in Germany …
I am curious about orchestral touring from the presenter's perspective. Do many orchestra's have similar repertoires, and if so are there significant differences between one orchestra's version of a piece and other orchestra's version of the same piece? In theatre, presenters are booking the show (Wicked or Jersey Boys or whatever) or the star, but in orchestral touring the presenters book the ensemble. How do they decide which ensemble to book when many different ensembles play the same pieces?
Although it is in Dutch -- I found the programming at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam to be a conundrum in the same regard. Looking at their annual line up they had many overlapping pieces but by different groups. http://www.concertgebouw.nl/ I know from the Kennedy Center that they try to NOT present the same music in the same year (between the NSO and presented organizations). However, they have not always succeeded -- and it DOES have an impact on the 'lesser' ticket (think brand). However, this didn't seem to matter in Amsterdam :-)
Interesting. I'm curious as to what presenters have to gain by presenting an orchestra from Pittsburgh (or anywhere for that matter) rather than a relatively local orchestra with a similar repertoire.
This might deviate slightly from the original post, but I wanted to reply to Stephanie and Brett’s comments about artist exchange. I’ve been recently following two artist exchanges in the dance field. The first is part of the DanceMotion USA tour, a cultural-diplomacy program of the State Department and the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Trey McIntyre Project, a contemporary ballet company based in Boise, Idaho toured to Vietnam, China, the Philippines and South Korea in May. As part of the artistic exchange, three dancers from the Korea National Dance Company have been working with Trey McIntrye Project for the past three weeks in the USA, developing an original piece reflective of the cultural exchange and shared experiences, melding both companies’ dance styles and cultural identity into the new work.
Another exchange is from this past October when principal dancers and choreographers from the New York City Ballet traveled to Taipei, Taiwan. This performance and work development opportunity was approached as an opportunity to promote internationally acclaimed artists. The artists spent multiple weeks in Taipei taking and teaching classes, and collaborating with the artists in the new work. Unfortunately there isn’t much news coverage on behalf of NYCB, therefore I’m unsure if this was a dancer specific project or sponsored by NYCB.
Overall, the international tour can help promote this exchange of ideas and forge new artistic ventures when the company is really immersed into the location and can spend a considerable amount of time there, financial concerns aside.
Great NY Times Article about Trey McIntyre Project’s Cultural Exchange http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/arts/dance/trey-mcintyre-project-collaborates-with-korean-dancers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Dance Motion USA Blog http://dmusa.blogspot.com/
Wendy Whelan – Principal of New York City Ballet, Photo Blog with photos of the trip to Taipei http://www.balletcatsandotherthings.com/
It is worth mentioning, since dance was brought up, that the Paul Taylor Company actually makes money from their touring activities and, according to the bio film 'The Dance Maker' they lose significant amounts of money on their annual NYC show. I believe that this is probably because of two things: 1) Professional dancers at the top of their game make one fifth of what a top orchestral musician makes and 2) The dancers that Paul Taylor uses aren't represented by a union (which is pretty typical in the dance world even at the level that Mr. Taylor's company operates.)
Tagging on to the dance examples...although dated, the Washington Ballet did an exchange with Cuba and China in the mid2000's to serious funding and critical acclaim.
Bringing it back to Brett and Christina's comments about contributed income involved with touring; other than embassies, there are foundations that specifically fund international exchange. (I am sure that some foundations would also fund domestic tours, but it seems the word "international" is the more attractive word to funders.)I wonder if touring actually CAN be profitable for orchestras when you consider the amount of contributed income received for that specific purpose as well as the increased attractiveness and "value" given to the orchestra.... which = more donations!
I looked online for any articles or studies conducted about this theory, but I wasn't able to find much. I think that this topic would be a very interesting study not only for orchestras, but for any touring arts. The question being; "Do the direct benefits of increased donations and the indirect benefits of greater prestige outweigh the expenses incurred when an orchestra goes on tour." I imagine this would be very difficult to study, but there may be some value in comparing the touring practices and donation patterns of orchestras of similar size, quality, and context over a period of time.
Couple of points/topics I wanted to bring up. very interesting things being discussed here!
Stephanie, yes, orchestras typically have rules written into their CBAs that define the proportion of travel to services (rehearsals/performances) to days off. There are also normally rules on how much time have to be between travel and services, for obvious reasons. It also helps that the various programs are rehearsed before orchestras go on tour so rehearsals normally consist of sound and balance checks to get a feel for the acoustics in the hall. That leaves additional time before rehearsals and between rehearsals and concerts to explore! Also, in the case of the PSO, when they were in Vienna, sometimes they didn't have rehearsals since they performed several times in the same venue. Just 1 concert per day = tons of time to explore (and practice on one's own!)
Another thing that I wanted to talk about that was slightly tangential from what has been discussed so far was touring for youth orchestras. It's something that is fairly common--my youth orchestra went on an international tour every other year and I know many other youth groups that use the years between their international tours to tour domestically. It seems interesting to me that youth orchestras do this other than the educational value of taking students to perform in different places because I know a good number of orchestras (and maybe this is because they are extremely poorly managed financially) that are not doing well financially. In fact one youth orchestra that I know of even operates in the red on years/seasons following a tour and barely breaking even on years preceding a tour.
Should they be exploring other options? Are there ways to increase funding for youth orchestras to go on tour? Exchanges perhaps to lessen costs of accommodation?? I feel like there are a million ways to make the whole process better, but why isn't anyone getting into them?
While I'm not directly involved with most aspects of touring for the PSO, I talked to a few people on staff and thought I'd try and lay out how it can be different than the theatre/musical theatre/dance formats that we've discussed already. To generalize, orchestral touring (for Tier 1 orchestras) is incredibly expensive, and seems to be on the decline. Unlike normal touring, which can extend the life of a production and bring in additional revenue, orchestral touring is NOT profitable.
ReplyDeleteThe booking process is relatively similar. The PSO has two agents, one for domestic touring and one for international. Coincidentally, the domestic agent also represents guests artists we hire...not sure how that works. In the case of the current European tour, the PSO puts together a package of pieces and programs they would like to tour with. Pieces can be mixed and matched, but are generally set into three possible programs. They also have a roster of soloists for the tour, in this case a violinist with two possible concertos, a pianist, and vocalists for two possible works. The agent then goes about finding sensible matches with festivals and presenting venues, and negotiates programs with each festival or presenter. The range of programs is necessary to provide enough variety to fit into surrounding programming. Five orchestras can't be booked for the same summer festival to play the same symphony. I can't speak confidently about the timeline, but I know the initial process starts several years out, and I helped finalize programming back in the spring.
Fees for orchestras, much like soloists, vary greatly. When the PSO books a guest artist to perform in Pittsburgh, they generally pay less for that artist than a symphony in a smaller city. The exposure and caliber of the orchestra make the booking attractive for a guest artist. The same goes for the PSO touring internationally. The PSO's fee with a venue in Lithuania would be very high, a performance at The BBC Proms would be lower, and an engagement at the Musikverein smaller still. Fees also might be lower if the engagement is for multiple nights, like the four concerts the PSO is playing in Vienna. In some cases, the PSO pays the guest soloist performing with the orchestra, and in some cases the presenter will pay the soloist fee.
Unlike much of the touring we've discussed, orchestras almost never negotiate a share of ticket revenue. No one could tell me why, but it seems that it just isn't done. Most large orchestral festivals in Europe seem to still be highly popular, and I believe every PSO concert so far has been a sell-out/success. Perhaps presenters can be comfortable offering the full fee upfront. However, hotel and transportation are often part of the negotiation.
Logistically, touring is a complicated process, and is largely determined by musician contracts. Similar to equity contracts, there are relatively complicated work rules that go into play when touring. While I won't lay out rules, some issues include:
-rehearsal time in each different venue
-the usual break/playing time rules
-transport duration and meals
-due to late travel hours and performances (one concert in Spain was at 10pm), hotels must have late night dining, usually signifying a 4 or 5 star hotel
-access to instrument and wardrobe trunks at certain times
Finally, the fees paid by presenters only cover a portion of the cost of touring an orchestra. Instead, the majority of the cost is covered by sponsors, particularly large institutions that operate internationally.
“Orchestral touring is NOT profitable”. So, why does the PSO tour? Jesse, you gave lots of great details and information on the logistics of the tour. But why does the PSO go through all that trouble? Here is my take as an outsider.
ReplyDeleteOf course, on a broader level, touring gives the organization a certain prestige.
As a “PSO fan”, or whatever you might call me, it seems like there is a lot of value created in the audiences the PSO is not performing for – the audience they have right here in Pittsburgh. So, taking this beyond the broad prestige a tour can bring, I think the PSO really takes the opportunity they have to build their community at home. For example, the blog which has broadcasts and reviews, intended for many audiences but surly including its home base. Also, I believe it was last year that the PSO’s slogan that went on the front of their program books was “hear why the world cheers”. Many of the PSO’s audience members are “proud parents”, in a way, and this phrase reminds them of how proud they are of THEIR PSO. And I remembered that phrase for a whole year, so it did something right.
Again, with the “parent” analogy – the PSO has, at least a couple times, had concerts associated with the “sending off” and “welcoming home” of the orchestra (like you might do sending your kid to summer camp, or whatever). This year, they offered only one performance of Mahler 2 before taking it on tour. Last year I went to a couple of the PSO tour preview concerts which were held in the Pittsburgh Opera rehearsal space. This was the perfect way to use the tour to build relationships with donors/constituents at home – the seating was extremely limited, and tickets were never actually on sale. The physical seating arrangement was such that the orchestra was on the floor, and the audience was seated in a square around the orchestra on an elevated level. So, you got the opportunity to sit in a position from the musicians you cannot get in Heinz Hall.
And, for the “welcoming home” excitement, now I have PSO withdrawal and I cannot wait to go hear them again when they return from Pittsburgh.
And, one more proud parent moment – hearing through the Pittsburgh Media and WQED that audiences LOVE the PSO abroad, and that shows are sold out or close to it. And, I actually do not just hear this from the media – people are really talking about it (people=my dorky music friends). This makes me feel like we have something truly special here in Pittsburgh (which of course we do – even if their tour is not profitable).
I think you raise a good initial point, Rebecca--what a symphony tour brings in isn't cash so much as cachet. I would take that a step further, and say that a symphony tour isn't meant to bring in money because being able to tour is (or at least is becoming) a way for that symphony to show that they don't NEED money that much.
DeleteWait, wait, I hear you cry, ALL symphonies desperately need money right now. Bear with me a second. :) By Jesse's logic (and yours, and mine), tours spend lots of money that they don't make back. Prestige aside, doing a tour gains a symphony very little, so I think it's logical to say that one significant reason symphonies tour is because they CAN. And that's the point I'm getting at here: a symphony in serious financial trouble will probably not plan a tour, because they can't afford one. A symphony in only moderate or even minor financial trouble, however, could very likely plan a tour, not just to raise awareness and prestige, but to show the world that they can do it. It's a way of saying hey, everyone, we may still need our usual revenues and donations, but by and large we're doing okay over here.
I don't know the PSO well enough to tell if this logic figured into its decision, but the symphony I do know well, the St. Louis Symphony, publicized their recent tours (to California in 2010 and to Europe this year) with a very similar justification. The fact that they could even do those tours was held up as a neon sign showing how well they had bounced back from their financial issues of a few years ago and how great their forward momentum was and is.
In tight times, luxuries get cut, and a tour is one of the bigger luxuries a symphony can buy. Tours becoming viable is a good sign of, if not drastically improving economic circumstances, at least that some orchestras are recovering well enough to be comfortable bringing back a luxury or two.
While the tours may not be 'earned income' profitable -- they may offer opportunities for contributed income that far exceed the earned income concerns. (if the big funders in Pittsburgh like that they are on an international tour -- perhaps they double their end-of-year donation this time, for example.)
DeleteAgreed on this point. Several of the touring dance companies that performed while I was working at Jacob's Pillow ended up using the cast parties at the Pillow for their own philanthropic efforts. The tour allowed them timely access to potential large donors. Since the Pillow is a presenting organization it usually ended up being a win-win situation. The draw of the particular company allowed the development department the ability to expand contact lists and introduce themselves to the fans of a particular company and in return the presenter allows the touring company to effectively broaden the geographic area of the 'ask'.
DeleteRebecca, you're probably right. I believe a big part of it is "international acclaim" . With a European conductor and a very "European sounding" orchestra, it remains important for them to maintain that level of artistry and reputation. I believe internally, touring internationally is still a big thing for the upper levels of administration and board. And certainly, for at least a portion of the audience, there is a great deal of pride in having an internationally known orchestra.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cost, I know there is a board mandate that tours do not "lose money". I think it's up to big corporate sponsors and donors to pick up the check for the tour. For companies that operate internationally it's a great marketing tool, and donors can travel along with the orchestra as a perk.
When we were talking about performing arts touring in class, it seemed as though the actors/performers didn't have any time to visit the city they were touring to. I am curious as to whether or not touring creates an opportunity to grow as a musician or conductor through either being able to listen to/gain access to different types of music or have the opportunity to meet other musicians at like a networking meeting that could be arranged.
ReplyDeleteI know live orchestral music in France is very popular, and the shows I went to there were sold out. I can imagine something like the opposite of a "project tour" where the company is the one who gets educated. This way the symphony could look at touring as a continued education program making its artists better. Is this a wacky idea? Is there something I'm not thinking about that wouldn't make this possible?
Depending on the tour schedule -- usually there is time for the artists to do some 'tourist' activities (depending on the amount of time for travel/load-in, etc). The technicians and stage or tour manager, sadly, get the least.
ReplyDeleteAND -- there are actually 'exchange' programs for artists that have an educational framework (more cultural exchange). For example, the German Embassy likes to bring over companies to the US and take the US company to Germany (with artists working together on both sides).
Following Brett’s comment above, I want to highlight the fact that government institutions can be a great help for international touring. Brett already mentioned the German Embassy as an institution which supports cultural exchange by bringing foreign companies to Germany or German companies to other countries. In addition to that, German institutions like the “Goethe Institut” (http://www.goethe.de/enindex.htm) or the “ifA” (http://www.ifa.de/en/) are great resources for arts companies when they’re planning to go international with their show. And I’m sure that a lot of countries all over the world have this kind of institutes in one form or another, too.
DeleteThe advantages of this kind of support are quite obvious: Partnerships with Embassies or cultural institutes normally include some kind of financial support – it could be a grant or simply the absorption of travel and hotel costs. Additionally, the arts companies don’t have to care about hiring an agent because the supporting institute will undertake this part. Oftentimes, the institutes and embassies own little concert spaces themselves with the result that artists sometimes just have one institution to work with – and not several presenting organizations. However, there is a big “BUT” in this type of international touring. Embassies and other cultural institutes have are reason why they are supporting specific international artists and tours. Normally, they don’t want to act as normal presenters – they want to create an additional value for their home audience through the artist’s performance instead. Therefore, the supported artists and companies must be willing to participate in some kind of cultural exchange programs which normally includes educational aspects. Additionally, embassies and cultural institutes oftentimes support artists and companies which aren’t that famous and well known in their home country. Therefore, I doubt that the PSO got any kind of support from one of the above mentioned institutions for their recent concerts in Germany …
I am curious about orchestral touring from the presenter's perspective. Do many orchestra's have similar repertoires, and if so are there significant differences between one orchestra's version of a piece and other orchestra's version of the same piece? In theatre, presenters are booking the show (Wicked or Jersey Boys or whatever) or the star, but in orchestral touring the presenters book the ensemble. How do they decide which ensemble to book when many different ensembles play the same pieces?
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is in Dutch -- I found the programming at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam to be a conundrum in the same regard. Looking at their annual line up they had many overlapping pieces but by different groups. http://www.concertgebouw.nl/ I know from the Kennedy Center that they try to NOT present the same music in the same year (between the NSO and presented organizations). However, they have not always succeeded -- and it DOES have an impact on the 'lesser' ticket (think brand). However, this didn't seem to matter in Amsterdam :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd I should mention that experience was live....not a random analysis :-)
DeleteInteresting. I'm curious as to what presenters have to gain by presenting an orchestra from Pittsburgh (or anywhere for that matter) rather than a relatively local orchestra with a similar repertoire.
DeleteThis might deviate slightly from the original post, but I wanted to reply to Stephanie and Brett’s comments about artist exchange. I’ve been recently following two artist exchanges in the dance field. The first is part of the DanceMotion USA tour, a cultural-diplomacy program of the State Department and the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Trey McIntyre Project, a contemporary ballet company based in Boise, Idaho toured to Vietnam, China, the Philippines and South Korea in May. As part of the artistic exchange, three dancers from the Korea National Dance Company have been working with Trey McIntrye Project for the past three weeks in the USA, developing an original piece reflective of the cultural exchange and shared experiences, melding both companies’ dance styles and cultural identity into the new work.
ReplyDeleteAnother exchange is from this past October when principal dancers and choreographers from the New York City Ballet traveled to Taipei, Taiwan. This performance and work development opportunity was approached as an opportunity to promote internationally acclaimed artists. The artists spent multiple weeks in Taipei taking and teaching classes, and collaborating with the artists in the new work. Unfortunately there isn’t much news coverage on behalf of NYCB, therefore I’m unsure if this was a dancer specific project or sponsored by NYCB.
Overall, the international tour can help promote this exchange of ideas and forge new artistic ventures when the company is really immersed into the location and can spend a considerable amount of time there, financial concerns aside.
Great NY Times Article about Trey McIntyre Project’s Cultural Exchange
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/arts/dance/trey-mcintyre-project-collaborates-with-korean-dancers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Dance Motion USA Blog
http://dmusa.blogspot.com/
Wendy Whelan – Principal of New York City Ballet, Photo Blog with photos of the trip to Taipei
http://www.balletcatsandotherthings.com/
It is worth mentioning, since dance was brought up, that the Paul Taylor Company actually makes money from their touring activities and, according to the bio film 'The Dance Maker' they lose significant amounts of money on their annual NYC show. I believe that this is probably because of two things: 1) Professional dancers at the top of their game make one fifth of what a top orchestral musician makes and 2) The dancers that Paul Taylor uses aren't represented by a union (which is pretty typical in the dance world even at the level that Mr. Taylor's company operates.)
DeleteTagging on to the dance examples...although dated, the Washington Ballet did an exchange with Cuba and China in the mid2000's to serious funding and critical acclaim.
ReplyDeleteBringing it back to Brett and Christina's comments about contributed income involved with touring; other than embassies, there are foundations that specifically fund international exchange. (I am sure that some foundations would also fund domestic tours, but it seems the word "international" is the more attractive word to funders.)I wonder if touring actually CAN be profitable for orchestras when you consider the amount of contributed income received for that specific purpose as well as the increased attractiveness and "value" given to the orchestra.... which = more donations!
ReplyDeleteI looked online for any articles or studies conducted about this theory, but I wasn't able to find much. I think that this topic would be a very interesting study not only for orchestras, but for any touring arts. The question being; "Do the direct benefits of increased donations and the indirect benefits of greater prestige outweigh the expenses incurred when an orchestra goes on tour." I imagine this would be very difficult to study, but there may be some value in comparing the touring practices and donation patterns of orchestras of similar size, quality, and context over a period of time.
Independent study anyone?
Couple of points/topics I wanted to bring up. very interesting things being discussed here!
ReplyDeleteStephanie, yes, orchestras typically have rules written into their CBAs that define the proportion of travel to services (rehearsals/performances) to days off. There are also normally rules on how much time have to be between travel and services, for obvious reasons. It also helps that the various programs are rehearsed before orchestras go on tour so rehearsals normally consist of sound and balance checks to get a feel for the acoustics in the hall. That leaves additional time before rehearsals and between rehearsals and concerts to explore! Also, in the case of the PSO, when they were in Vienna, sometimes they didn't have rehearsals since they performed several times in the same venue. Just 1 concert per day = tons of time to explore (and practice on one's own!)
Another thing that I wanted to talk about that was slightly tangential from what has been discussed so far was touring for youth orchestras. It's something that is fairly common--my youth orchestra went on an international tour every other year and I know many other youth groups that use the years between their international tours to tour domestically. It seems interesting to me that youth orchestras do this other than the educational value of taking students to perform in different places because I know a good number of orchestras (and maybe this is because they are extremely poorly managed financially) that are not doing well financially. In fact one youth orchestra that I know of even operates in the red on years/seasons following a tour and barely breaking even on years preceding a tour.
Should they be exploring other options? Are there ways to increase funding for youth orchestras to go on tour? Exchanges perhaps to lessen costs of accommodation?? I feel like there are a million ways to make the whole process better, but why isn't anyone getting into them?