How Professional Ensembles Deal with Musicians in Decline?

[JTeagarden]

How do professional ensembles (perhaps together with their counterparts, musicians' unions) deal with individual performers' declining abilities?

I assume that many professional musicians regulate themselves, and know when they are not playing to the ensemble's standard, and leave before being asked to, but what about those who do not?

Is cacking Bolero or Mahler 3 once enough? Do their solo duties get politiely re-assigned so their landing is a bit softer?

How does this all work, and who decides?

[brassmedic]

Usually, the CBA has language that specifies how it must be done. The conductor would make that decision, and must notify the player in writing. Often, the player is given an opportunity to correct their deficiencies within a certain time period. If the conductor is still not satisfied, the player is dismissed. The player can appeal that decision, in which case it would go to a committee that includes peers in the group. They can require the player to perform excerpts and vote on whether to retain the player or not. I don't know if major symphonies do it this way; I haven't studied their CBAs.

This all applies only to ensembles that have a union contract, of course.

[Burgerbob]

Many times, they simply do not do anything.

[GabrielRice]

Any CBA worth the paper it's written on (hard disc space it's stored on?) has a procedure in place.

Obviously it can be incredibly awkward to have those conversations, but it is always in the job description of the Music Director. And they sometimes get themselves in trouble when try to act without reading and understanding the contractual procedures.

[JTeagarden]

Is is safe to assume the the Union will act in the best interests of the ensemble?

Are there instances where an outright dismissal, while seemingly justified, does not take place in lieu of something last drastic and/or face saving?

[LeTromboniste]

Is is safe to assume the the Union will act in the best interests of the ensemble?

I would be very troubled to learn of a union acting "in the best interests of the ensemble". That's very much not the job of unions. Unions are supposed to represent and defend employees, not employers! Unions make sure there are fair procedures in place in the CBA, to ensure that their members have some level of job security and can't just be dismissed without very good reason, and then they work to ensure that these procedures are followed by defending members, whether their dismissal is actually justified or not.

[GabrielRice]

Is is safe to assume the the Union will act in the best interests of the ensemble?

No. That is not the union's function, nor should it be. The union's role is to represent the interests of the players, not the employer. If a musician is disputing a dismissal it is clearly the union's responsibility to represent the musician's side in that negotiation or arbitration or whatever the process calls for.

Are there instances where an outright dismissal, while seemingly justified, does not take place in lieu of something last drastic and/or face saving?

Absolutely. It happens - and used to happen more often - that a principal player will step down into a section position, either by their own choice or at the request/urging/dictate of the Music Director and sometimes other principals. A string principal of one of my orchestras was demoted several years back - still a member of the orchestra but now in the section. I don't think anybody was suggesting they be dismissed outright though.

John Ilika was principal trombone of the North Carolina Symphony until this season. When Jonathan Randazzo, former 2nd trombone, won the principal trombone job in St. Louis and then resigned from NC after getting tenure, John stepped down to the second chair at his own request after they held an audition for principal. I don't know John well, but he seems very happy with the change - not feeling he's finished playing but happy not to be in the hot seat anymore.

[robcat2075]

I recall a story several years ago where a Chicago Symphony string player's eyesight was failing and they got her a giant screen to display her part on.

That's not quite the same as a musical decline but it is a potentially performance-impairing decline, none-the-less.

A string principal of one of my orchestras was demoted several years back - still a member of the orchestra but now in the section.

In the Dallas Symphony Orchestra an "emeritus" will often appear after their title. I have no idea how that enters into payscale calculations.

[WGWTR180]

Is is safe to assume the the Union will act in the best interests of the ensemble?

Are there instances where an outright dismissal, while seemingly justified, does not take place in lieu of something last drastic and/or face saving?

They should act in the best interest of the musician.

[tbdana]

Just observing that pros are playing very well into their eighties, and they tend to retire before they become a problem. I don't see this as a big issue.

[Schultz]

Oh it can be a very big issue. Not being able to play your instrument any more is not a grounds for dismissal in many permanent ensembles. Especially when one has been a member for a long time. It can be a very slippery slope and often requires a tap on the shoulder if someone isn’t open to the idea that they maybe aren’t cutting it any
more. There’s often chances for retraining or taking steps to improve. I’ve heard of scenarios where it’s gone to court. And the result is usually in favour of the “struggling musician”. And as you can well imagine it causes a lot of personal issues. Bad feelings in sections. Long standing friendships ruined. Musicians in this scenario can often be very well paid to sit at home.

[tbdana]

Oh it can be a very big issue. Not being able to play your instrument any more is not a grounds for dismissal in many permanent ensembles. Especially when one has been a member for a long time. It can be a very slippery slope and often requires a tap on the shoulder if someone isn’t open to the idea that they maybe aren’t cutting it any
more. There’s often chances for retraining or taking steps to improve. I’ve heard of scenarios where it’s gone to court. And the result is usually in favour of the “struggling musician”. And as you can well imagine it causes a lot of personal issues. Bad feelings in sections. Long standing friendships ruined. Musicians in this scenario can often be very well paid to sit at home.

Can you give some specific examples? I'm not aware of this problem.

[JTeagarden]

I appreciate that the Musician's union is there to represent the musician, but what if the overall consensus among the union members is that the player is bringing down the ensemble's level by their performance? Will the union generally go to bat for the individual member even where the rank and file agree that they are no longer pulling their weight?

I can see scenarios from the MD just doesn't like the player, to the lead trumpet shat the bed on the opening to Mahler 5 3 nights in a row, is the union's position generally the same in both scenarios?

[Schultz]

I could but i’m not sure if a public forum is the correct place to….
There are some wonderful musicians with amazing stellar careers who may have stayed on longer than they should have and by doing so did not serve the level of their ensemble or their colleagues.

Germany and The Netherlands where I have lived for over 20 years have a mandatory retirement currently around age 67 depending on what year you were born. While this can be frustrating for musicians who are still performing on a high level, sometimes it’s not a bad thing…

[JTeagarden]

Please, no naming of names! Not gossip mongering, but I have seen several of the heroes of my youth decline as players, and I always hoped they were treated respectfully.

[JTeagarden]

I could but i’m not sure if a public forum is the correct place to….
There are some wonderful musicians with amazing stellar careers who may have stayed on longer than they should have and by doing so did not serve the level of their ensemble or their colleagues.

Germany and The Netherlands where I have lived for over 20 years have a mandatory retirement currently around age 67 depending on what year you were born. While this can be frustrating for musicians who are still performing on a high level, sometimes it’s not a bad thing…

That seems like a good aproach.

[LeTromboniste]

I appreciate that the Musician's union is there to represent the musician, but what if the overall consensus among the union members is that the player is bringing down the ensemble's level by their performance? Will the union generally go to bat for the individual member even where the rank and file agree that they are no longer pulling their weight?

That is not remotely part of the role of the union. The union is there to ensure the musicians have good working conditions. That they are paid adequately and in a timely manner, that the employer contributes to their social security and pension, that health and safety measures are respected, that they're not asked to work hours they aren't paid for, etc etc. They don't have anything to do with artistic matters.

The (very real) risk of letting management play it fast and loose with terminations trumps the (very rare) potential drag of the hypothetical scenario described here, by several orders of magnitude. That's why unions have a duty to defend everyone, even those who they know deserve to be fired. In the big picture, without a union that defends employees, you'd have way more people fired who shouldn't be, than you have people, with a union, who deserve to be fired but aren't.

[JTeagarden]

I'm good with the concept, just interested in how it plays out in real life...

[GabrielRice]

I appreciate that the Musician's union is there to represent the musician, but what if the overall consensus among the union members is that the player is bringing down the ensemble's level by their performance?

What if the overall consensus among union members is that the player is an irritating person who makes bad jokes and nobody wants to talk to? You can't just vote somebody out.

Will the union generally go to bat for the individual member even where the rank and file agree that they are no longer pulling their weight?

The function of the union in this case is:
1. to ensure that there is a well-worded contract that spells out the process of dismissing a player very clearly and
2. to ensure that that process is carried out fairly.

I can see scenarios from the MD just doesn't like the player, to the lead trumpet shat the bed on the opening to Mahler 5 3 nights in a row, is the union's position generally the same in both scenarios?

Yes, see above.

[GabrielRice]

Of course, how this all plays out in real life depends on the people involved. The elected officials of the union are human just like the rest of us, and they sometimes make poor decisions. Ideally, that leads to them not being re-elected.

This can all cut the other way as well. I had a situation in an orchestra in which my reading of the contract was that the music director had the power to appoint me to a permanent position, based both on many performances with the orchestra and on the results of an audition that had not yet concluded with a tenure decision (I did not win the audition on the day it was held, but I was a finalist). The union officials read the contract differently and insisted that the orchestra hold another audition. Even though they were acting against the interests of a long-time union member (me), they held that they were "defending the contract." I still believe they were incorrect, and I bowed out of the next audition for various reasons.

Those union officials are no longer in office. My situation is not directly the reason, but the membership clearly believed its union needed different leadership.

[tbdana]

That is not remotely part of the role of the union. The union is there to ensure the musicians have good working conditions. That they are paid adequately and in a timely manner, that the employer contributes to their social security and pension, that health and safety measures are respected, that they're not asked to work hours they aren't paid for, etc etc. They don't have anything to do with artistic matters.

The (very real) risk of letting management play it fast and loose with terminations trumps the (very rare) potential drag of the hypothetical scenario described here, by several orders of magnitude. That's why unions have a duty to defend everyone, even those who they know deserve to be fired. In the big picture, without a union that defends employees, you'd have way more people fired who shouldn't be, than you have people, with a union, who deserve to be fired but aren't.

This, 100%.

[tbdana]

Germany and The Netherlands where I have lived for over 20 years have a mandatory retirement currently around age 67 depending on what year you were born. While this can be frustrating for musicians who are still performing on a high level, sometimes it’s not a bad thing…

Well, that would suck for me. I didn't even start playing again until I was 67, and I feel like I can still hang with most young hotshots. To me, being forced out just because a great player hits an arbitrary birthday is a great injustice to music and art, not to mention the particular person who hits that sell-by date.

Joe Alessi is 66. Imagine telling him he'll be kicked out of the NY Phil on his next birthday because he's "too old."

[robcat2075]

Nothing said here is going to affect the career or memory, plus or minus, of anyone in an A-list orchestra or even the B and C orchestras.

This is the tiniest backwater of musical discussion, noted by no one other than those of us here.

Anyone in those orchestral positions has far more significant forces guiding their careers ... their own performance and their interactions with their ensemble... such that anything said here is reduced to insignificant effect.

[Schultz]

Joe Alessi is 66. Imagine telling him he'll be kicked out of the NY Phil on his next birthday because he's "too old."

It happened to Ben v Dijk a few years ago. Both at his orchestral job in the Rotterdam Philharmonic and as a teacher at the Royal Conservatorium of Den Haag.

And it happens to my colleagues at the German production of the Lion King that has been running for almost 24 years. It’s just the labour law!

[tbdana]

Joe Alessi is 66. Imagine telling him he'll be kicked out of the NY Phil on his next birthday because he's "too old."

It happened to Ben v Dijk a few years ago. Both at his orchestral job in the Rotterdam Philharmonic and as a teacher at the Royal Conservatorium of Den Haag.

And it happens to my colleagues at the German production of the Lion King that has been running for almost 24 years. It’s just the labour law!

I understand it, but I think it's an artistic injustice.

[timothy42b]

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has a mandatory requirement age of 60.

[WGWTR180]

Joe Alessi is 66. Imagine telling him he'll be kicked out of the NY Phil on his next birthday because he's "too old."

It happened to Ben v Dijk a few years ago. Both at his orchestral job in the Rotterdam Philharmonic and as a teacher at the Royal Conservatorium of Den Haag.

And it happens to my colleagues at the German production of the Lion King that has been running for almost 24 years. It’s just the labour law!

Curious: does one have to completely stop working as a musician or do they just have to quit their steady gig?

[blast]

Joe Alessi is 66. Imagine telling him he'll be kicked out of the NY Phil on his next birthday because he's "too old."

It happened to Ben v Dijk a few years ago. Both at his orchestral job in the Rotterdam Philharmonic and as a teacher at the Royal Conservatorium of Den Haag.

And it happens to my colleagues at the German production of the Lion King that has been running for almost 24 years. It’s just the labour law!

They have VERY good pensions for musicians in Holland. There are plenty of people in the UK and US that can't afford to retire.

[Cmillar]

They have VERY good pensions for musicians in Holland. There are plenty of people in the UK and US that can't afford to retire.

The only professional musicians that can officially 'Retire' in North America (as in, not work anymore) are those who have been fortunate enough to either:

- have been in a symphony orchestra for many years and have a pension plan in place through the symphony and/or musicians union

- have made a ton of money by playing in NYC Broadway shows over many years and socked away a bunch of money

- were fortunate enough to have been playing in the LA or NYC or Toronto recording studios over the lucrative years of studio recording and have been collecting residual payments from past recording work, or made wise investments in the stock market with all the money they were making

- were members of a US Military ensemble for many, many years, and collect a government pension which will allow them to live somewhere they can perhaps afford to live on that pension

Otherwise....retire? Really? Most musical work now in the US, apart from being in a symphony or playing on Broadway or doing some recording work that has some unions involved, in non-union.

The only musicians I know of who have retired are those who were very busy musically and had the foresight to buy a house in the '80's or '90's somewhere in a city in North America, and then sold that place for a lot of money! They were smart and saw that if they didn't get a house at that time that they were going to be able to afford one in the future.

And now, probably at least 95% of most music gigs in North America are non-union. You take whatever money you can get!

Some musicians may have made a lot of money in society work (weddings, conventions, etc.) but usually only as a 'Leader'. But there are certainly no pensions involved in that work, the majority of which is non-union and becoming more so all the time.

Also...retire? Why? If you're an artist or musician most of us are just starting to 'hit our stride' as we get older and are still in good physical and mental health! It's always sad to hear of health problems causing a fellow musician to have to give it up. Many musicians have had to stop playing in their prime years.

Could you imagine asking Pablo Casals to retire? Dave Taylor is 80 something and still killing it! Jay Friedman just had to retire at 80 or something. Malcolm McNab could probably step out and play trumpet again anywhere at anytime for anybody. Most of the best brass players in North America are probably over the age of 60, whether they're in the symphonic world or the commercial world or jazz world.

On that note, here's a dear old friend and mentor Al Muirhead, a trumpet player in Calgary who is now 90 years old. Still on top of his game!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VhwVhJU7DY

[BPBasso]

On a different angle not related to age. I don't know the full story here, so just vaguely sharing what I do know.

I knew a trombonist I played along side during high school. They were in their 20s and had landed full-time orchestral positions in the US. Unfortunately, they ended up needing a surgery that changed how they played the instrument. I believe they spent a year or two attempting to relearn how to play, but eventually they resigned from their current position and changed paths in life.

Hated to hear this. They were an extremely talented and dedicated musician.

[CalgaryTbone]

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has a mandatory requirement age of 60.

I'm pretty sure that they are not paid for their choir work. It's quite a different thing for an amateur group.

Jim Scott

[Schultz]

Curious: does one have to completely stop working as a musician or do they just have to quit their steady gig?

Oh no it’s just the salaried positions one is required to stop. You can keep freelancing or teaching privately if you so choose. You can also by mutual agreement of employer and employee continue to work in a lesser capacity. For example one of our Lion King musicians could still work as a sub on the show if they so desired.

[WGWTR180]

Curious: does one have to completely stop working as a musician or do they just have to quit their steady gig?

Oh no it’s just the salaried positions one is required to stop. You can keep freelancing or teaching privately if you so choose. You can also by mutual agreement of employer and employee continue to work in a lesser capacity. For example one of our Lion King musicians could still work as a sub on the show if they so desired.

Well that's good to hear. One thing that's finally caused trouble here are people that are able to take their AFM Pensions but still continue their full time job. In my case it would be a Broadway show. I believe that no one generally should forced to retire. But keeping the subject to Broadway newer players are unable to move into these chairs as very few give them up once they begin taking their pension. Some scale back a bit but I worked on a show for years where musicians were pulling in hefty pensions(rightly earned) and were still keeping their 6 figure gigs. But that's the system that's in place.

[JTeagarden]

I get the labor protections, but would note that, in a market characterized by an over-supply of musicians, these protections can also work as a kind of conspiracy of the employed to the detrminent of the unemployed, pulling up the ladder after you made it safely to the boat.

[blast]

You have obviously not worked for professional music management.

[JTeagarden]

No, but I observe how the protections that are given to one group of people can come at a cost to those outside of that group in the way of fewer opportunities, it cuts both ways economically.

Again, I am fully in favor of labor protections, but it is disingenuous to think that nobody is disadvantaged by them.

[WGWTR180]

No, but I observe how the protections that are given to one group of people can come at a cost to those outside of that group in the way of fewer opportunities, it cuts both ways economically.

Again, I am fully in favor of labor protections, but it is disingenuous to think that nobody is disadvantaged by them.

As someone told me at one point early in my career “ there’s always someone better on the horizon eating away at your heals.” If we replaced musicians when someone better came along none of us would have jobs for more than a few months time.
I look at the positives protections provide. I can’t worry about others not working. One day I’ll not be working.

[JTeagarden]

I hear you, and know that what you say is true, but it definitely has its downsides to those on the outside looking in.

[brassmedic]

No, but I observe how the protections that are given to one group of people can come at a cost to those outside of that group in the way of fewer opportunities, it cuts both ways economically.

Again, I am fully in favor of labor protections, but it is disingenuous to think that nobody is disadvantaged by them.

Tenure is not absolute. An incompetent musician can still be fired; they just need to have a good reason. In the non-tenured music world, I see a lot of favoritism going on. I'm not saying good musicians aren't being hired, but ability isn't always the sole determining factor. Tenure guards against capricious actions by management. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[brassmedic]

The only professional musicians that can officially 'Retire' in North America (as in, not work anymore) are those who have been fortunate enough to either:

- have been in a symphony orchestra for many years and have a pension plan in place through the symphony and/or musicians union

The AFM pension was a ponzi scheme from the start. They finally had to cut benefits starting in 2004, and by 2010 the benefit payments are only one quarter of what they were before 2004. Some musicians are retired and receiving lavish pension checks, while anyone currently working will get much less back in retirement than they pay into the system. I believe 11% of our pension contributions actually go straight into the pockets of already retired musicians. You will never see any of that money. They call it "unallocated", which means it goes into the fund but you never get any of it back. So yeah, no way for anyone under a certain age to be able to retire. Plus the whole fund will be insolvent in 10 or 20 years, depending who you ask. So young musicians now probably won't get anything when they retire. Unless, as you said, they work for an organization that has its own pension plan.

[BGuttman]

The way out of the dismal retirement dilemma is to self-fund your retirement by putting money into an IRA of some sort. I realize that sometimes the salary is barely enough to cover expenses, but whatever you can afford (up to about 10%) going into a long term savings account is going to make a big difference at the end. This was also a useful strategy in the High Tech field where job security and longevity is nearly unknown and most companies have no retirement system. Depending entirely on Social Security (in the US) is a plan for failure.

[CalgaryTbone]

The only professional musicians that can officially 'Retire' in North America (as in, not work anymore) are those who have been fortunate enough to either:

- have been in a symphony orchestra for many years and have a pension plan in place through the symphony and/or musicians union

The AFM pension was a ponzi scheme from the start. They finally had to cut benefits starting in 2004, and by 2010 the benefit payments are only one quarter of what they were before 2004. Some musicians are retired and receiving lavish pension checks, while anyone currently working will get much less back in retirement than they pay into the system. I believe 11% of our pension contributions actually go straight into the pockets of already retired musicians. You will never see any of that money. They call it "unallocated", which means it goes into the fund but you never get any of it back. So yeah, no way for anyone under a certain age to be able to retire. Plus the whole fund will be insolvent in 10 or 20 years, depending who you ask. So young musicians now probably won't get anything when they retire. Unless, as you said, they work for an organization that has its own pension plan.

The (AFM/CFM) Canadian Pension is in pretty good shape - there was no mortgage crisis (Fanny Mae?, Freddy Mac?) here.There were a lot of dubious assumptions regarding the way that a lot of pension money in the US was invested prior to that major banking crisis (and terrible choices made by the banks). In the US, a bunch of the major orchestras have their own pensions, separate from the AFM one, which they also contribute into at a fairly low rate. None of the Canadian orchestras have their own pensions to my knowledge. Many of those big US orchestras are finding their own pensions to be difficult to afford, and are negotiating different payment packages for their new hires. I'm not up on the rules for collecting both salary and pension in the US, but north of the border, there is a cut-off for still contributing to a pension plan after 65, and I believe that coincides with the age that you must start drawing money out of retirement funds (called RSP's here). The Government wants it's taxes at some point!

Jim Scott

[brassmedic]

Different types of IRAs here. Some have mandatory distributions, I think. I actually asked AFM pension and they said one can delay drawing their pension and continue making employer contributions, so both of those things would make your pension checks bigger when you do retire. You do not have to stop working unless you take your AFM pension early, in which case there is a time period during which you can't do AFM work.

[CalgaryTbone]

I think 71 is the age where you can't contribute to the AFM/CFM pension anymore, and when you must start drawing from your RSP accounts in Canada. Up until then, you can still get employer contributions to the union pension and you can still be topping up the individual accounts. After then, you can still work, but can't add to those accounts - you must start withdrawing from them in some form at that point too.

JS

[CalgaryTbone]

Getting back to the original thread, I have a bit of an issue with the question. It seems to assume that all older players will be washed up at some point, and misses the contributions that experience brings to an orchestra. I'm thinking about stuff like this more, since retirement is on the horizon.

I wouldn't say that young players are accident prone, but someone just out of school is still learning the standard repertoire. I was lucky to have had a lot of orchestral experience before I started my job as a 24-year-old, but still was surprised in rehearsals by a few unwritten "traditions" in standard rep., like added dynamic changes or formattas. You learn quickly, but some of that learning comes from cueing into your more experienced colleagues.

As you become more experienced, you start to become one of those people that new younger players and substitutes turn to for those same cues. Some things don't age as well, but playing smart can make up for a lot of that. Also, styles change a bit, but some of those changes are just recycled from the past. Often it's important to be able to play in a style from an earlier time to satisfy a conductor asking for something different.

I think orchestras, like societies, benefit from having a variety of generations to bring different perspectives to their music making.

Jim Scott

[mbarbier]

In relation to Jim's post, I really like the way it has worked out with the Cleveland Orchestra and their horn section. The last two principal hornists have stepped down to fourth horn at a certain point in their career. I had both Rick Solis and Richard King as chamber music coaches in school and the perspectives they brought from experiencing both roles was incredibly invaluable. I'd imagine that kind of institutional knowledge has a huge impact on that orchestra as well.

I remember reading a passage in Solti's biography where there was some friction when he arrived at the CSO as he'd made a comment about older orchestras in an interview and the older members of the group, because of how freely Reiner fired had fired musicians, were rather anxious when he arrived. He spoke about how quickly he learned that it was very difficult to replace them and their experience when they retired because the younger musicians were still learning on the job vs veteran musicians who had already gone through it.

On the original question, Ensemble Modern has a pretty unique way of doing it, assuming it's not changed since one of the musicians told me about it. The group is collectively run and every year they have a large meeting and a vote. They step out one at a time and all the musicians vote on their continued membership. Apparently if you're out of the room for more than a minute it's basically a quiet sign that you need to tighten up your playing. Id imagine it's quite stressful, but it seems to allow for people to correct things on their own. they're a group with a very high playing level and member retention.