This is not attempt to ‘justify’ any of the MOA actions. However, there may be a possibility than an understanding of this issue might further define the complexity of the situation MOA could be facing.
What if, for example, they are scurrying around trying to figure out how how not to be labeled ‘the band that locked out Mozart’? What if they have done what they can to flush out anyone involved? Now what do they do? :-0
“Henson, Campbell, and Davis are vandals, pure and simple.”
Just suppose for a moment that they are (also) dealing with something that happened behind their backs that may have involved one or more of the players that could have a significant effect on the public perception of the orchestra? Would ‘vandal’ still be an appropriate term?
With all due respect, that is your opinion about Hensen and you are entitled. My position on him and MOA is somewhat different. I happen to have a somewhat unique perspective, which you may choose to accept or not.
While I agree that MOA does seem to have actual malevolence against the players, I think that they may perceive that as not entirely unjustified. In one case, at least, things have happened behind the back of the board that could also affect the existence of the orchestra. It may be that MOA is flushing trying to flush anyone involved with this out, albeit in a clumsy manner with dire consequences.
Well, let’s try…(this is observation, not my opinion)
When Mr. Vanska was hired in 2003 it was to take the MO to the next level as a top US orchestra with international status. At about that time the MOA also began borrowing money to make this vision happen. Although the MO received some stellar reviews, and played like champs, this was not enough to hold the attention of donors with money, so there were ongoing losses that threatened to drain the endowment.
With the rebuilding of the Hall, the MOA realized that this might be their one chance to put the MO back into a fiscally sound position. They probably hoped that the status and recognition already earned by the MO under Mr. Vanska would hold while they trimmed and streamlined everything to make a financially viable model for the long-term future. Having discovered how expensive having a world-class orchestra can be, they decided to err on the side of caution. They hoped everyone would support their new paradigm.
The players, however, believed their own press more than the MOA, and now, since they were ‘elite’, chose to hold their ground. They then did something, however, that was reminiscent of Diana’s attacks on the monarchy — they demanded full financial disclosure and moved toward demonizing the board, perhaps in hopes that the public would help them. This backfired, however, and MOA only fought back with additional ferocity. When would the players acknowledge the financial crisis the MO is in? When will they live in the real world?
http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2013/10/breaking-osmo-vanska-says-i-quit.html
Edward said, “It is feeling as if this orchestra board is the Tea Party of the orchestra world – resolute, unyielding, narrow & blind.”
How about the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party? That might work too…:-0
With all due respect for Mayor Rybak, who has, until now, appeared to be a staunch champion of the MO players, why does his statement seem to generate an eery analogy to Pilate washing his hands?
Why isn’t he in there with them? :-0
With all due respect, what if Mr. Henson were to have even more on his plate even than resolving the lockout? What if there are other issues that, unlikely though it may seem, might have a tangential connection to the lockout?
Le Chant du Rossignol...(song of the nightingale) 