@Anon said, “Or has management been put in a difficult position by players demanding salaries that are not commensurate with the audiences they are pulling in?”
I might have thought that at the start of this dual lockout in the TC, but now my thinking has changed. It seems to me players have every right to ask for the best for themselves. If they are not the orchestra, then who is? What good are soloists or conductors without them? What good is management without them (unless they want to change the focus from having a critically acclaimed symphonic orchestra to just managing a hall with acts passing through it — oh wait, the MO mission statement has just been changed, hasn’t it? :-0).
That doesn’t mean, however, that, under the current ‘business-model’ (that is failing them) they have the right to bankrupt the orchestra with their demands. Nor can they — they have to be agreed upon by management.
Negotiations should be made and at the very least cuts should be made across the board – management and players alike. A working model needs to be found in an agreement already made by another comparable orchestra with a similar financial situation (having nothing to do with artistic acclaim). Drew suggested Pittsburgh.
I am not an expert and could be wrong; this is just my impression at the present time.