Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

sasymphony.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#71

Post by [deleted] »

vimax wrote: post #36
sjtindell wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see this at all. They didn’t make less than you because of some moral failing by society at large. They made less because there is such a glut of artists that the bottom pay rate is literally less than zero, hence “do it for the exposure”. There is more art created every day today than ever before. The old school art forms you think are so crucial just aren’t.

Nothing shows this like walking in Austin and seeing homeless musicians on every corner just as good as the live band you paid to go see.

[deleted]

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#72

Post by fred_is_fred »

todd8 wrote: post #69

Years ago, I had a partner that was a highly trained symphony musician (studied musicology and performance at a major university, PhD etc). After all these years of training and having incredible skills, she was unable to support herself. The fundamental problem is that there are maybe 30 symphony jobs in North America for her instrument that pay enough, and there is a world of new players being churned out by Fine A…

I am always confused why people do this to themselves - a PhD no less! It would not have taken more than an hour of research to know that you'd be unable to get a decent paying job - whether it's fair or not.

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#73

Post by cperciva »

toyg wrote: post #42
cperciva wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's stopping the entire union from starting their own symphony as a co-op. The AFM won't let them. Members aren't allowed to take gigs which pay less than union-defined minimum rates. In many cases they're not even allowed to donate their services to non-profits; the closest they're allowed to do is to get paid, remit union dues, and donate cash to the non-profit.

The AFM is not god - what's the worst that a union can do, expel a member? And then that member is free to work as he pleases.

The AFM has pretty much every professional performance job in the country locked down. Getting kicked out of the AFM means giving up their orchestral career.

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#74

Post by kareemsabri »

yakak wrote: post #62
kareemsabri wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't get the impression from the article the city administers the symphony or that the budget for the musicians comes out of public funds. They aren't expressing shock at the city, they're expressing shock at one or two comments on here that they deem morally disgusting. It's totally unnecessary (we can read) but pretty standard.

It seems to me like you are inventing ridiculous interpretations. A city of a million can do whatever it likes with private and public fund raising to support it's art and sport choices. San Antonio wanted a professional symphony for 1/4 the rate by impoverishing the participants. They didn't come back to the table because they should find another job or a different city. The rebuke of the performers for not negotiat…

I don't know why your first sentence is necessary.

As I said, the San Antonio Symphony does not appear to be a public organization. Of course I could be wrong, I just read the article. Wikipedia appears to confirm my interpretation. Though even if it were a city can't do "whatever it wants" they still have budgets and stuff. But it isn't so your point is moot.

I never said it was the performers fault. No idea what you're responding to.

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#75

Post by cperciva »

hulitu wrote: post #53
Animats wrote: post #33

Here's management's final offer:[1] The Symphony Society, which governs the local symphony through a board of trustees and management, made a “Last, Best and Final” offer on September 13. That offer would: - Cut the number of full-time symphony musicians from 72 to 42. - Reduce the symphony season length from 31 weeks to 26 weeks. - Slash the salaries of full-time musicians from roughly $36,000 a year to $24,000. - H…

> - Cut the number of full-time symphony musicians from 72 to 42. So they want to change from a symphonic orchestra to a chamber one.

No, they want to be able to program music by Mozart without paying a Bass Clarinet player to do nothing.

Even if most symphony performances include 72 players, not all of them do, and it's not always the same 72.

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#76

Post by yakak »

kareemsabri wrote: post #74
yakak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like you are inventing ridiculous interpretations. A city of a million can do whatever it likes with private and public fund raising to support it's art and sport choices. San Antonio wanted a professional symphony for 1/4 the rate by impoverishing the participants. They didn't come back to the table because they should find another job or a different city. The rebuke of the performers for not negotiat…

I don't know why your first sentence is necessary. As I said, the San Antonio Symphony does not appear to be a public organization. Of course I could be wrong, I just read the article. Wikipedia appears to confirm my interpretation. Though even if it were a city can't do "whatever it wants" they still have budgets and stuff. But it isn't so your point is moot. I never said it was the performers fault. No idea what yo…

A city has a government, a city is also the collection of people, organizations, etc that are interested in the success of the city.

The point being argued was that someone is disappointed by comments in these threads and somehow their upset is inappropriate. Looking at the comments many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when offered lower compensation.

The city as a whole is saying it can't afford a professional symphony and that's fine. That isn't the performers fault and they were protected from a downward spiral by having a union that didn't let them go into poverty either working for free to their no longer compensated standards or losing more and more funding through poorer quality while they worked other jobs.

No one would accept the argument that IT workers are in the wrong if they refuse ever increasing pay cuts to stay in an environment that is no longer able to support them.

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#77

Post by kareemsabri »

yakak wrote: post #76
kareemsabri wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why your first sentence is necessary. As I said, the San Antonio Symphony does not appear to be a public organization. Of course I could be wrong, I just read the article. Wikipedia appears to confirm my interpretation. Though even if it were a city can't do "whatever it wants" they still have budgets and stuff. But it isn't so your point is moot. I never said it was the performers fault. No idea what yo…

A city has a government, a city is also the collection of people, organizations, etc that are interested in the success of the city. The point being argued was that someone is disappointed by comments in these threads and somehow their upset is inappropriate. Looking at the comments many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when…

I read all the comments that were posted prior to the morally outraged top-level comments before I replied. There are very few (maybe 1-2) blaming the musicians, expressing anti-union sentiments, or anything like that. And of course, the first few comments are rarely representative of the general sentiment of a discussion, which is why I said the morally outraged comment expressing disgust was not necessary. I also agree musicians should not have to work for $17,000 a year, or $34,000 a year.

The morally disgusted comments at the tenor of the discussion were posted 8 and 9 hours ago, respectively. The sole comment posted prior to that, as far as I can tell, with anti-union sentiment was

"If the musicians weren't unionized, wouldn't they all be better off right now since they'd still be employed?"

which has a bunch of pushback in the replies immediately. So again, the point that the moral outrage at the HN crowd and their anti-union sentiment trying to force the musicians into poverty seems unnecessary.

"many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when offered lower compensation"

I don't see many. Feel free to share (posted before the morally outraged comments, of course).

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#78

Post by kareemsabri »

kareemsabri wrote: post #77
yakak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A city has a government, a city is also the collection of people, organizations, etc that are interested in the success of the city. The point being argued was that someone is disappointed by comments in these threads and somehow their upset is inappropriate. Looking at the comments many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when…

I read all the comments that were posted prior to the morally outraged top-level comments before I replied. There are very few (maybe 1-2) blaming the musicians, expressing anti-union sentiments, or anything like that. And of course, the first few comments are rarely representative of the general sentiment of a discussion, which is why I said the morally outraged comment expressing disgust was not necessary. I also a…

Anyway, I'm gonna bow out of this discussion now as it's not that important. HN is what it is.

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#79

Post by dorchadas »

hulitu wrote: post #16
evouga wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly from this article nobody comes off looking great: there are musicians refusing to accept fiscal reality on one side, and management acting in bad faith and firing the conductor out of spite on the other. Pity.

> there are musicians refusing to accept fiscal reality on one side Maybe the "fiscal reality" is that they can use this time to do better things which maybe are also paid better.

What constitutes a "better thing"? Anything that pays better? Is working in ad tech somehow "better" than being a musician? I think it shows the priorities of our society, and I think that's part of the problem (if you can't make money, you don't deserve to exist)

Re: The Board of Directors Announces the Dissolution of the San Antonio Symphony

#80

Post by ambrozk »

wiz21c wrote: post #31
kube-system wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They filed chapter 7. It’s gone. Many symphonies around the US are struggling with money. If your income can’t pay the bills, you can’t operate. This isn’t the first one to shut down and it won’t be the last. Patronage is declining.

If your income can't pay the bill, then society as whole must think about it's useful to keep you alive or not. There is another world outside the economical one.

I look forward to hearing the argument that society should indefinitely bankroll large symphony orchestras at good salaries, but I am skeptical that it would actually convince people. It seems to me that outside of the very rich and the very old, the popularity of classical music has dramatically among audiences. "Think of the oboeists!" is not necessarily a winning campaign slogan. I mean it when I say that I hope this changes, but I don't see how it can unless classical musicians find a way to actually appeal to a broader segment of the public.
Post reply on HN