A recent editorial in The San Francisco Standard has struck a discordant note in the world of classical music, questioning the very future of a beloved institution. Titled with stark urgency, Hear that? It’s the sound of the San Francisco Symphony setting itself on fire, the piece raises serious concerns about the orchestra’s current trajectory. Before we delve into the analysis, it’s crucial to read the original article to fully grasp the gravity of the situation. Understanding the context is key to appreciating the challenges facing what should be a harmonious “San Francisco Song,” but is instead facing potential disruption.
Screenshot of the San Francisco Standard editorial, highlighting the provocative title and serious tone regarding the San Francisco Symphony’s troubles.
The Credibility of the Critic: Adam Lashinsky’s Voice
The author of this critical editorial is Adam Lashinsky, a seasoned writer with a strong background in finance and business journalism. His credentials speak volumes: a professional writer affiliated with Chartwell Speakers, he has extensively covered Silicon Valley and Wall Street since 2001. Lashinsky is also a panelist on Fox News Channel’s ‘Cavuto on Business’ and a published author of bestselling books, including “Inside Apple” and “Wild Ride: Inside Uber’s Quest for World Domination.” This is not an amateur opinion piece; it’s a carefully considered analysis from a respected voice in financial journalism. His seriousness lends weight to the concerns raised about the San Francisco Symphony’s current state.
Cynthia Hersey: A Donor Sounding the Alarm
The editorial highlights Cynthia Hersey, a donor who seems to be deeply concerned about the symphony’s direction. At a high-dollar donors’ gathering in February, music director Esa-Pekka Salonen voiced his worries about planned cuts impacting the orchestra’s quality. Hersey openly compared Salonen’s comments to a “bomb dropping,” expressing her understanding that he was unhappy with the situation and aware of impending cuts. This wasn’t Hersey’s first public expression of concern; she had previously written her own editorial in The San Francisco Standard about the symphony’s issues. Hersey’s perspective suggests a growing unease among donors and patrons regarding the leadership and governance of the San Francisco Symphony, signaling potential trouble for the future “san francisco song” of the city’s cultural scene.
A Difficult Interview: Leadership’s Optimism vs. Lashinsky’s Skepticism
Lashinsky’s editorial recounts an interview with CEO Matthew Spivey and board chair Priscilla Geeslin, who presented a united front, expressing optimism about the San Francisco Symphony’s future. They acknowledged “real financial challenges” but their optimism seemed to clash with the reality of the situation. Lashinsky notes, “It’s not entirely clear, though, how dire those challenges are…” This suggests a disconnect between the leadership’s public stance and the deeper, more troubling financial realities that Lashinsky uncovers. The united front presented by Spivey and Geeslin, notably without the presence of Salonen, raises questions about transparency and the true nature of the symphony’s internal communications.
Financial Deficits and Fundraising: A Troubled Score
The editorial points to an $11 million operating deficit in the symphony’s most recent fiscal year, a figure Spivey acknowledges. However, this deficit is stated before including an “extraordinary” $15.1 million donation from the Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation. Lashinsky wryly observes that excluding donations makes any orchestra appear to be running a deficit. He references Deborah Borda, a highly respected figure in orchestra administration, who emphasizes that orchestras inherently operate on a non-profit model, relying heavily on philanthropy. Borda advocates for building a compelling vision to inspire donors, rather than solely focusing on cost-cutting. The focus on deficits and the reliance on “extraordinary” donations highlights a potentially unsustainable financial model for the San Francisco Symphony, threatening the harmonious “san francisco song” it aims to produce.
Cutting Concerts, Rising Costs: An Unsustainable Crescendo
Lashinsky highlights a concerning trend: while the San Francisco Symphony is reducing programming, its fundraising and administrative costs have increased significantly. Development costs reportedly jumped 31%, and administrative expenses more than doubled between 2018 and 2023. This mirrors a situation observed with the Minnesota Orchestra before its lockout, where reducing concerts paradoxically hindered productivity due to fixed annual salaries for many employees. This data suggests that the San Francisco Symphony might be prioritizing cost-cutting in areas that directly impact its artistic output, while simultaneously increasing spending in administrative functions. This approach raises questions about the leadership’s priorities and their long-term strategy for maintaining a vibrant and successful “san francisco song.”
Chart illustrating the relationship between earned revenue and the number of classical subscription concerts, suggesting reduced concerts may not improve financial performance for orchestras.
Transparency and Context: A Thousand Pages of Paperwork Not Enough?
The San Francisco Symphony has publicly disclosed a substantial amount of financial information online – over a thousand pages of 990s and audited financial statements. While this level of transparency is commendable, the symphony claims these figures “lack context” when questioned about rising administrative costs. Lashinsky questions how so much documentation can still be insufficient to provide basic context. This apparent contradiction raises concerns about the symphony’s communication strategy and whether true transparency is being achieved, or if the volume of information is inadvertently obscuring key issues affecting the “san francisco song” of the orchestra.
Contract Negotiations Delayed: A Looming Strike?
The musicians’ contract is set to expire in late November, raising the specter of a potential strike. While management cites financial constraints as a precursor to negotiations, musicians offered to begin talks early, an offer reportedly declined by the administration. Lashinsky points to examples of other orchestras, like Detroit and Minnesota, that successfully negotiated contracts early, even after periods of significant turmoil. He questions why the San Francisco Symphony is not pursuing a similar proactive approach. The delayed negotiations and the possibility of a strike introduce further instability and uncertainty into the symphony’s future, threatening the continuity of its “san francisco song.”
No Search for a Music Director: A Visionless Future?
Despite Esa-Pekka Salonen’s departure announcement three months prior, CEO Spivey states that there has been no search initiated for his replacement. Given that searches for music directors often take years, this delay is alarming. Lashinsky highlights the extensive and proactive searches undertaken by other major orchestras, even involving aggressive recruitment efforts. He contrasts this with the San Francisco Symphony’s apparent lack of urgency, questioning the seriousness of its leadership. The absence of a succession plan for the music director role suggests a lack of long-term artistic vision for the San Francisco Symphony, potentially silencing the unique “san francisco song” it could create.
Lack of Artistic Vision: More Than Just a Pipeline
Spivey and Geeslin’s vision for the symphony, as articulated to Lashinsky, focuses on “bringing in new audiences, increasing the donor pipeline, and ‘living within the means that we have.’” Lashinsky criticizes this as lacking ambition and being overly focused on financial mechanics rather than artistic goals. He reiterates Deborah Borda’s emphasis on vision as the driver for both artistic success and fundraising. The focus on pipelines and financial constraints, without a compelling artistic vision, risks turning the San Francisco Symphony into a financially driven entity devoid of artistic inspiration, ultimately muting the powerful “san francisco song” it should be sharing.
Merger Rumors and Financier Influence: A Succession-esque Plot?
Rumors are circulating about a potential merger between the San Francisco Symphony and the San Francisco Opera, possibly driven by board chair Priscilla Geeslin and her financier husband. While Spivey denies knowledge of such plans, Lashinsky acknowledges that this scenario, while seemingly far-fetched, could explain some of the current perplexing decisions. He laments the recurring theme of major arts organizations being influenced by the personal agendas of the financier class. These merger rumors, however unsubstantiated, add another layer of complexity and concern to the San Francisco Symphony’s situation, suggesting that external factors and power dynamics might be influencing the direction of its “san francisco song.”
Deborah Borda’s Blunt Assessment: “Freer and More Forward-Focused”
Esa-Pekka Salonen declined to comment for the editorial, but his friend Deborah Borda provided a telling quote: “I have never seen him freer and more forward-focused.” Lashinsky interprets this as a deliberate jab at the San Francisco Symphony’s leadership, portraying them as restrictive and hindering to Salonen’s artistic freedom. Borda’s pointed comment underscores the perception of a strained relationship between Salonen and the management, further highlighting the internal turmoil within the symphony. Her words serve as a powerful indictment of the current leadership and their handling of the situation, suggesting they may be losing sight of the artistic heart of the “san francisco song.”
Lashinsky’s Call to Action: Audience to Decide
Lashinsky concludes his editorial with a direct call to action for San Francisco audiences: “Now it will be up to San Francisco audiences to decide for themselves if the moves the current symphony leadership makes to replace Salonen are up to snuff–or if they need replacing themselves.” This is a strong statement, suggesting the need for potential regime change if the leadership fails to address the symphony’s deep-seated issues. Lashinsky expresses surprise at the speed with which public opinion has turned against the leadership, even before musician contract negotiations have begun. His concluding remarks emphasize the power of the audience to influence the future direction of the San Francisco Symphony and ensure the continuation of its vital “san francisco song.”
What Should Patrons and Donors Do? Fight for the Symphony’s Song
For patrons and donors concerned about the San Francisco Symphony’s future, Lashinsky offers clear advice: organize, engage, research, and advocate. He encourages them to delve into the financial documents, recruit diverse skills, raise funds, and be persistent in their advocacy. He emphasizes that audiences have successfully navigated similar crises in other orchestras and urges them to fight for the principle that a few individuals should not control the fate of a major American orchestra. The call is clear: San Francisco audiences must actively fight to protect and preserve the “san francisco song” of their symphony.
Sources
