Anonymous wrote:
+1
Especially when there is a limited amount of money available for County services. Why does the County decide that paying for this is more important than paying to support the arts?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would have a lot more support for the orchestra, and would have loved to have gone to see them, if I had ever known they existed!
Do you have kids in school in MCPS?
The 2nd grade trip to see them is always a hit.
No I do not have kids in school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would have a lot more support for the orchestra, and would have loved to have gone to see them, if I had ever known they existed!
Do you have kids in school in MCPS?
The 2nd grade trip to see them is always a hit.
Anonymous wrote:I would have a lot more support for the orchestra, and would have loved to have gone to see them, if I had ever known they existed!
Anonymous wrote:17:56 is right. And there are additional contributing factors (like the shutdown, the construction, a couple of individuals on the Council who have decided they're done supporting the National Phil, some leadership challenges and transitions at the Phil, some basic interpersonal/human interactions gone wrong, etc...)
The dollars it would take to close the gap now are really quite small. The larger issues in the rent/funding model and the dynamics between the county and the Phil are more challenging.
The loss to the community is quite substantial - through the 2nd grade music program, the youth summer choral and string institutes, the "all kids free" ticket program, the orchestral musicians who now need to find other income generators, the hundreds of musicians (volunteer and paid) who are without a musical home now (and bereft of the opportunity to perform in the beautiful hall), and on and on...
I am a part of the National Phil musical family, I am a longtime donor, I'm a parent and taxpayer in MoCo and I am crushed and dismayed by this failure to find a way to make things work.
Anonymous wrote:I know a fair amount about this. This is Strathmore's fault. They raised the rent on NPO by over $200k a year ago. It's around $500k now. NPO, being an orchestra, needs to use that space for practices and performances, since there aren't really any suitable places nearby for an orchestra to practice. They can't easily go elsewhere.
Strathmore got greedy by almost doubling the rent, and NPO couldn't make it work. Strathmore didn't support them either -- if you went to Strathmore's site, the NPO performances were not advertised, because Strathmore treated them just like a renter. Same like the Peppa Pig shows there -- they're in Strathmore, but Peppa (err.. Daddy Pig I suppose?) sold the tickets on their own and advertised the events on their own.
The problem (and NPO also bears some of the blame) is that both are non-profits and the rental deal placed all the risk on NPO. Instead, the should have struck a revenue-sharing deal, like NPO pays no rent, but Strathmore gets 30% of all ticket proceeds, and agrees to market and advertise too. This way, both sides share risk, and both sides win when NPO does well.
Instead, Stathmore has lost both the BSO (Baltimore Symphony Orchestra) and NPO.
Anonymous wrote:I know a fair amount about this. This is Strathmore's fault. They raised the rent on NPO by over $200k a year ago. It's around $500k now. NPO, being an orchestra, needs to use that space for practices and performances, since there aren't really any suitable places nearby for an orchestra to practice. They can't easily go elsewhere.
Strathmore got greedy by almost doubling the rent, and NPO couldn't make it work. Strathmore didn't support them either -- if you went to Strathmore's site, the NPO performances were not advertised, because Strathmore treated them just like a renter. Same like the Peppa Pig shows there -- they're in Strathmore, but Peppa (err.. Daddy Pig I suppose?) sold the tickets on their own and advertised the events on their own.
The problem (and NPO also bears some of the blame) is that both are non-profits and the rental deal placed all the risk on NPO. Instead, the should have struck a revenue-sharing deal, like NPO pays no rent, but Strathmore gets 30% of all ticket proceeds, and agrees to market and advertise too. This way, both sides share risk, and both sides win when NPO does well.
Instead, Stathmore has lost both the BSO (Baltimore Symphony Orchestra) and NPO.