
July 02, 2009
July 11th Star Wars Concert!

June 17, 2009
This is not an orchestra economics post...
June 12, 2009
Farewell, ASA
From D-town back to D-town
June 01, 2009
The Economic Disease of American Orchestras (Part I)
This is Part I of a two-part series. Part I focuses on defining and challenging the cost-disease, while Part II examines its strategic implications for symphony orchestras.
Part I: What is the Cost-Disease?
If cultural academia proves accurate, then the fine arts, and symphony orchestras in particular, may be more outdated than anybody once thought. Although they have not degraded culturally or artistically, their business models seem less and less sustainable every year. We often hear how orchestras struggle to pull in audiences; demand has not kept up in a world with modernizing musical tastes. Yet this is only part of the story. Just recently, an Andrew Mellon Foundation report found that even if the average symphony were able to fill all of it seats, it could not recoup enough revenue to match its costs. Intuitively, this seems like a problem, yet we are reminded that nonprofits by definition do not make money. The longtime symphony observer will note that orchestras can fill the gap with various private and public funding mechanisms. But the problem is, orchestras were more self-sufficient in the past!
Baumol and Bowen studied this long-term trend in the 1960s. They found that the fundamental problem with performing arts was that the sector had little productivity increase; an orchestra in 1900 cannot perform a Beethoven symphony any more efficiently than an orchestra in 2009. By constructing an economic model that distinguished the productive and nonproductive (including the arts) sectors, they discovered that rising productivity led to higher wages in both sectors. Cost of living increased across the broad spectrum, and the nonproductive sector found itself mired with higher fixed costs every year. On the other hand, while the productive sector saw increased revenues from higher productivity, the nonproductive sector’s revenues remained relatively flat (relative demand does not change in this model). Ultimately, this led to less production (read: fewer concerts) in the nonproductive sector as managers substituted away from the arts toward more productive activities. Baumol later revised the model and found that production could indeed increase due to the income effect (performing organizations put on more shows to try and recoup income), but that revenue nevertheless accounted for a decreasing fraction of costs, and in particular labor costs.
Empirical evidence since that time suggests that costs have indeed risen faster than revenue. Many orchestras today will admit that they have this problem; though some fault may go towards aggressive labor unions or guest artist agents, the underlying problem cannot be denied. Performances have increased overall due to the founding of many more orchestras (with some federal and state funding solutions) as well as the increased support of private and corporate philanthropy, which is generally a good thing. Yet, with rising costs, is it possible for all these new orchestras to stay in business? Can private philanthropy continue to patch up an ever-widening gap between costs and reveues? Can demand somehow increase enough to bridge this gap?
Of course, the cost-disease theory has its fair share of objections. Some point out that labeling the arts as a “nonproductive” sector is a mistake; there are constantly new product and process innovations. While I believe that this is true of the sector as a whole, the classical arts, and especially symphony orchestras, do not readily reap these gains. The rise of recordings, for one, has been touted as a productivity innovation. Yet the benefits of this innovation distribute asymmetrically; smaller orchestras cannot compete with the brand name and mass recognition of the Chicago Symphonies and the Berlin Philharmonics of the world. This is compounded by the fact that there is a limited classical repertoire for all orchestras to capitalize on. Looking at financial data, most symphonies without international recognition indeed make little revenue from their record sales. What about repertoire innovations? Many orchestras rightfully include room for new composers and modern works in their concert schedules, but their impact is mitigated in several ways. First of all, while these innovations increase demand for the orchestra, they do not necessarily make the orchestra more efficient. Second, the definition of “orchestra” constrains the scope and nature of these innovations. For instance, new repertoire cannot save orchestras from the costs of 80 full-time musicians. Finally, this repertoire has difficulty penetrating the “high culture” stigma of a symphony orchestra. It is the orchestral experience, not simply the music itself, that determines the audience base, and this overall experience is oftentimes just too elitist or stuffy for the average concertgoer despite innovative music.
The arts as a whole are productive - new phenomena like digital music, youtube, and ever-changing musical innovations continue to be profitable. If the arts were another business sector, there would be creative destruction - symphonies might have been phased out of most regions and reduced to a few large cities, as both managers and audiences go toward the more profitable. Yet the mission and nature of classical music and symphony orchestras today is one of preservation. The gap between costs and revenues (known as the "performance income gap") therefore continues to rise, and demand has so far only been able to fill it through philanthropy. While I don't presume to announce that the sky is falling atop the roofs of symphony halls, I will say that the financial operating environment of symphony orchestras is gradually changing, regardless of economic fluctuations like the current one.
(stay tuned for part 2)
April 16, 2009
Musings on Performance
What must not be understated, though, is the sheer volume of performances most students undertake. Symphony orchestra and DCP both perform twice a semester. Chamber music, area recitals, personal recitals, and auditions comprise one additional performance. Tack onto this list numerous recital accompanments, gigs, and outreach performances, and it would appear that the most involved performers may be out in front of audiences on average once or twice a week! Suffice it to say, I've had weeks here where I probably spent more time on stage than in class.
Performance, contrary to intuition, does not occur note-to-note. In fact, I don't think most human minds are capable of processing notes at performance speed; such an approach would very likely trip up the musician. Instead, the stage mind thinks in abstract concepts. Performers learn to subconciously group together notes into blocks or phrases, and memory triggers, often the end notes of prior phrases, guide them through a piece. These blocks, or concepts, are not easily perceivable or describable; on stage, they are translated into music through visualization and through emotion. Although the performer does not think by notes, he or she is generally aware of what notes are currently being executed, and thus is able to tweak individual notes during the execution of a particular concept. This is what gives live performance its spontaneity and excitement.
Obviously, this depiction of performance holds consequences for the idea of practicing. Practice is no longer simply a quest for perfection in execution, it is rather a means of building and refining these subjective concepts. These ideas are both conciously and unconciously developed through practice, whether in the formation of a certain phrase contour or in the determination of an ideal attack for a particular note. Performers bulid these details into their concepts rather than think of them conciously during a concert. Likewise, muscle memory is built within the framework of these concepts; look no further than musicians who often have difficult times starting a performance at the middle of a phrase.
As one becomes a more adept performer, he or she is able to conceve of larger and larger phrases and concepts at a time while simultaneously fine-tuning his or her ability to notice and tweak details. Larger conceptions generally mean that a piece is more unified, as the parts, the individual phrases, are seen as components to a whole. Good performers also become more comfortable with their conceptions so that to audiences, their execution looks simple and easy.
These skills can really only develop on stage in front of a real audience; they cannot develop through practice, since practice is altogether a different cognitive process. Thus, the performance time I've had over the last four years has been absolutely invaluable; stage time has been just as valuable a teacher as anything else. I know that opinions sometimes differ on whether private lessons can help much here at Duke, especially given limited practice time and instructor time. But lessons are not the only way to develop musicality. Perform, don't just practice.
December 08, 2008
Red Cliff Review
A couple days ago, I finally watched John Woo's version of Red Cliff, the $80 million epic based off of the Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms, or San Guo Zhi. While previous Three Kingdoms films have all taken from the fictional novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms (San Guo Yan Yi), Woo told interviewers that his film was more realistic and avoided the traditional black-and-white symbolism that the novel endorsed. As a huge fan of San Guo Yan Yi, I naturally wanted to see this new, more grounded version of the decisive Chi Bi battles.
Instead, I walked away craving the original 1980s Romance videos (which I watched on youtube hours before my thesis was due). Red Cliff was a great movie - the acting was for the most part good, the effects were astounding, and Lin Chi-ling is a cutie:). What it lacked, ironically, was realism. In the end, I felt that the old Chinese series, based nearly exactly off San Guo Yan Yi, was both more believable and more realistic, despite its ties to the novel rather than history. Here's why:
1. Things that make you go o_O
In comparison with actual history and San Guo Yan Yi, Red Cliff might have been the most otherworldly. The battle itself, for example (Shu/Wu army vs. Wei army):
History: 50,000 vs. 240,000
San Guo Yan Yi: 100,000 vs. 800,000
Red Cliff: 1* vs. billions
*Guan Yu, the halberd-wielding half-man half-beard
o_O. Seriously, there was a scene where an exasperated Zhang Fei begs for reinforcements, until the camera then pans to a wall of shields vigilantly parting to make way for the noble Beard. Except... he's alone. Even the horses knew failure and stayed away. And yet, Guan Yu fights his way to Cao Cao's inner circle, where Cao Cao's hundreds of elite champions could not stop him.
2. Hollywood Music
From the movie's start, a full orchestra reminds us time and time again of the main theme: a symphonic, part-noble and part-melancholy work of grandeur. In other words, hollywood stuff. This contrasts to the TV series' simple, guzhen-based pieces. I might be a music snob, but holywood music, though enjoyable, is far from reality. Stick with the authentic stuff.
3. Strategists need Makeovers
Guys like Zhuge Liang and Zhou Yu were supposed to be not only the intellectual cream, but also some cocky badasses who knew exactly how to take over the world. Just take a look at Zhuge Liang's future resume:
- Successfully invaded the Kingdom of Shu
- Captured barbarian leader seven times
- Scared Zhou Yu to death with mental prowess. This is not a figure of speech; he actually gives the poor guy a stroke by proving he's more brilliant.
Red Cliff Zhuge Liang spends his free time helping animals give birth. Seriously?
The thing is, having a more badass chief strategist actually makes San Guo Yan Yi more believable than Red Cliff. Badass Zhuge Liang makes you believe a few thousand men can utterly annihilate a million-strong army, or that a handful of fishing boats can alight an entire fleet of battleships. Confidence, even arrogance, is what drives his character. Wimpy Zhuge Liang hides behind his one-man army (i.e. Guan Yu) and shys away from man-to-man conflict, much less total war. You just can't imagine him burning entire regiments to death or slaughtering old men with his knowledge of Confucian literature (go to 5:30).
More Zhuge Liang
And this