A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

Quote from: blast on May 29, 2016, 12:21AMI know quite a bit about the Ulster Orchestra position through my union work. They have probably the smallest admin team of any British orchestra. Computers breed work, government regs breed work, All admins have ballooned in recent years. Here in Scotland both Scottish Opera and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra have NO full time performers on staff but carry very large full time admin teams. Something very odd about the modern world.

Chris Stearn

What roles do they perform other than the ones we've talked about above? Please correct me if that 19 number is wrong. I just can't dream up any work for half of those people.

In contrast, I believe British brass bands usually have a President, a Treasurer and a Secretary. Same for sports clubs. But then there's F1 pit teams. They have loads of people.

Chris, what role do you think the Union should/could/does play in improving the pay and job satisfaction of orchestral and other players?
ttf_Dombat
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:42 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_Dombat »

CEO + secretary
CFO + secretary
Human Resources and Accounts x2
Building and Health and Safety
Tickets and Subscribers x2
Marketing x2
Education x2
Librarian
Orchestral Managers x2
Drivers, stage managers, lighting, workshop x4





ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

Quote from: Dombat on May 29, 2016, 02:10AMCEO + secretary
CFO + secretary
Human Resources and Accounts x2
Building and Health and Safety
Tickets and Subscribers x2
Marketing x2
Education x2
Librarian
Orchestral Managers x2
Drivers, stage managers, lighting, workshop x4

Two tickets and subscriptions staff? Does that work really take up 80 hours per week?

Same goes for Marketing and Education. If your orchestra does 3 education projects per week of 2 hours each, and each takes 10 hours preparation, that's still only 36 hours work.

Building and Health & Safety Officer belongs to the venue's staff roster, not to the orchestra, or the duties can be shared out among the orchestra managers and the porters.

You have four people working in accounts. I can't see 160 hours of work per week there. The secretary can be shared and the CFO's duties can be shared out among the CEO, Orchestra Managers and an accountant.

Four porters seems a little generous. I did a quick Google and the BBC Symphony Orchestra has two listed, as does the Halle Orchestra.

Interestingly, the BBCSO has a staff list of 15 people. They have 3 librarians because they do a lot of new music, I believe. They have a few producers because of the broadcast work. The Halle has a list of... 46  Image OK, 14 are part time but that's still 39. Some of these are education staff for what seems to be quite an active youth choir and orchestra programme. Fair enough. But three artistic planning staff? Seven in marketing? Five in "Development" - a Director, a Giving and Legacy Manager, Corporate Partnerships Manager, plus two others. And that's in addition to an accounting staff of five. Do these people really each have 30-40 hours of work to do each week? Am I missing something here?
ttf_Exzaclee
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_Exzaclee »

wait a minute... you guys are advocating cutting people who actually do stuff. important stuff.


you want to trim fat off of a budget? there's always people at the top pulling down 6 figure salaries doing $#%&-all. all the jobs you guys are talking about trimming (librarian, ticket staff, porters, etc...) are people that are pretty invaluable to an organization running smoothly.

I think some of you haven't been involved much with orchestras or large productions before. if you haven't you have no idea how invaluable those people are.
ttf_Dombat
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:42 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_Dombat »

Quote from: sonicsilver on May 29, 2016, 03:16AMTwo tickets and subscriptions staff? Does that work really take up 80 hours per week?

Same goes for Marketing and Education. If your orchestra does 3 education projects per week of 2 hours each, and each takes 10 hours preparation, that's still only 36 hours work.

Building and Health & Safety Officer belongs to the venue's staff roster, not to the orchestra, or the duties can be shared out among the orchestra managers and the porters.

You have four people working in accounts. I can't see 160 hours of work per week there. The secretary can be shared and the CFO's duties can be shared out among the CEO, Orchestra Managers and an accountant.

Four porters seems a little generous. I did a quick Google and the BBC Symphony Orchestra has two listed, as does the Halle Orchestra.

Interestingly, the BBCSO has a staff list of 15 people. They have 3 librarians because they do a lot of new music, I believe. They have a few producers because of the broadcast work. The Halle has a list of... 46  Image OK, 14 are part time but that's still 39. Some of these are education staff for what seems to be quite an active youth choir and orchestra programme. Fair enough. But three artistic planning staff? Seven in marketing? Five in "Development" - a Director, a Giving and Legacy Manager, Corporate Partnerships Manager, plus two others. And that's in addition to an accounting staff of five. Do these people really each have 30-40 hours of work to do each week? Am I missing something here?

Building manager: depends how you define the limits of the orchestra. I work in an opera company, this means the house is integral to the performers (/workshop/lighting/masks/costumes etc). Even an orchestra that have a hall used for more than one group need their rehearsal studio, green rooms, canteen etc.

Education staff: the education programs are the key to any orchestra. This may involve visiting schools, touring with chamber groups, pre-program talks, in house toddlers, kids and school concerts. It could be done with one but it is a lot of work (in house we have 1 music, 1 theater, 1 ballet and 2 interns working this).

Marketing: a great in and out of house canpaign is needed to draw people in. Standard media, social media, out of house events, special concerts, website maintenence, programms, leaflets... probably again able to be covered by 1 and a part timer but the less funding that comes in the harder you have to work for your audience.

4x porters: yes, generous. We have 2 full time only for the orchestra (+sound, lighting, drivers for away games)

Accounts: we're dealing with 50-150 employees + casuals jumping in and out from left right and centre. Human resources can be insane in a place like this.

Tickets and subscriptions: again it depends where you draw the line between the orchestra and house. Our ticketing staff need to be knowledgable about every work on the program, know the acoustics, access and ins and outs of every venue, field calls/emails from subscribers and be the public face of us out of hours.

CEO actually doing any financial work? They are basically there to wine and dine the subscribers/sponsers, create a homongenous programm and collect too much money... they're never going to share their secretary.

Maybe I am on the genourous side for staffing but I have seen the hours our behind the scenes staff work and it is noticable in house when more than one or two are away sick...
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

Sonic, how many of those people are actually paid?

I probably know more about what goes into managing an orchestra than most of you since I am Librarian of a small orchestra (5 concerts a year) and serve on the Board.  NOBODY on our Board is paid.

Our Personnel Manager is a violinist.
Our Librarian (me) is a trombonist.
Our Advertising Manager is a violinist.

Our Operations Manager is a retired violinist.

I'm sure if we were the Boston Symphony the jobs listed would be too big for somebody to do for free.

I think trying to second-guess another operation without actually serving in it is an exercise in futility.

You remind me of the accountant's analysis of a symphony, where he feels that all the duplication in the violins, violas, cellos, and basses could be easily condensed to one player with a suitable amplifier.
ttf_kbiggs
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_kbiggs »

Quote from: Exzaclee on May 29, 2016, 07:12AMwait a minute... you guys are advocating cutting people who actually do stuff. important stuff.


you want to trim fat off of a budget? there's always people at the top pulling down 6 figure salaries doing $#%&-all. all the jobs you guys are talking about trimming (librarian, ticket staff, porters, etc...) are people that are pretty invaluable to an organization running smoothly.

I think some of you haven't been involved much with orchestras or large productions before. if you haven't you have no idea how invaluable those people are.

Yes.

Several years ago, a friend was negotiating a contract with the now-defunct San Jose Symphony Orchestra. Shortly after the negotiations failed, management decided to dissolve the symphony. Most of the players reformed themselves into the now highly successful Silicon Valley Symphony, a more democratically run organization... Anyhow, during the negotiations, the CEO and other upper management were complaining about their salaries. My friend pointed out that audience members pay $____ per ticket to "hear me play my horn, not watch you fly a desk."

Staff are essential to running an orchestra smoothly. One orchestra I played in kept asking for volunteers to do things year after year. Sometimes they never got done, and the orchestra administrator always got blamed. (She did, however, volunteer to make sure it was all done!) It wasn't until they hired a part-time grant writer that they were able to fund a few of the essential part-time positions--PR, stage manager, librarian, etc., most of whom were regular orchestra members.
ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

OK, there are fair points here about what functions are within the orchestra's remit. I believe - could be wrong - music education was largely transferred from local government to the Halle: contracted out, as it were. Hence the education department. Likewise with sales responsibility. Is it the venue or the orchestra that does it? It wasn't me who suggested losing the librarian and the porters. I think they're essential and underappreciated, actually. I've never seen more than two porters at any of the symphony orchestras I've worked with, but I imagine opera companies have more. And you're darn tootin' these people are all paid.

On that list from the Halle orchestra are two archivists. Not librarians, archivists. Two. What do they do and is it the best way to spend that bit of the budget? There's also a Giving and Legacy Manager. So... so many people are bequeathing money to the Halle Orchestra that they need a full time member of staff to deal with it, over and above the accountancy team? Really? And those seven Marketeers. Do numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 bring in income, over and above results produced by numbers 1 and 2, greater than the cost of employing the extra 5?

I've had minor dealings with two CEOs and in defence of those two, they were great. One was insanely rich from previous business dealings, didn't take a salary and provided expertise and connections to the orchestra's benefit. The other was a professional manager who had come from a food company. He didn't get a fat salary but he was everywhere, helping with everything, even humping harps and timps. He typed his own letters too. I'm sure that there are also fat cats though, and they are fair targets for slimming down.

Maybe some orchestras are rolling in money and can afford to employ a Mute Polisher and an Assistant Changing Room Light Switch Supervision Technician. I don't know, I haven't seen the books. But a lot of bands are largely publicly funded and I, for one, would prefer to see my tax money pay for free children's concerts or outreach sessions for disabled people, or even *gasp* higher pay for the players! If the Ulster orchestra is struggling for money, gotta get more income or cut costs. Can they afford (job titles from their website) a Director of Marketing AND a Marketing Manager? Do they need a Director of Concerts & Artistic Planning AND a Planning Manager & Artist Liaison? Northern Ireland has only 1.8m people of which only 350k are school age children. Are two Learning and Community Engagement staff necessary or could they scrape by with one? If these people are absolutely indispensable, gotta work out a way to pull in more money. Government won't give it to you. Private companies might, if you give them something in return. The punters might pay a little extra. The union might let you squeeze in a few more gigs. Will it be enough?
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

The issues of which you speak are properly the responsibility of the Orchestra Board as supervised by the CEO.  Whether they are a publicly funded company or a privately funded company that's their job.  They have to figure out a way to reconcile income and expenses.

If they are doing a lousy job of it, there are two options: replace the Board or go under. 

And if they go under, like any big tree in a forest falling, it makes space for the little trees to grow.
ttf_robcat2075
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_robcat2075 »

QuoteThere's also a Giving and Legacy Manager. So... so many people are bequeathing money to the Halle Orchestra that they need a full time member of staff to deal with it, over and above the accountancy team? Really?
Typically these people aren't there to count donations that spontaneously flood in.

They seek out people who can give or leave large sums and convince them to do so.  Getting someone to leave $10 million to the Symphony rather than their kids or their church or Breast Cancer Awareness or any of a hundred other targets probably takes time and schmoozing ability. It involves networking among the wealthy to get leads on potential donors.

No, there isn't any heavy lifting but talking someone out of money for next to nothing in return is tricky stuff that most accountants can't do.

ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

Quote from: robcat2075 on May 29, 2016, 11:34AMTypically these people aren't there to count donations that spontaneously flood in.

They seek out people who can give or leave large sums and convince them to do so.  Getting someone to leave $10 million to the Symphony rather than their kids or their church or Breast Cancer Awareness or any of a hundred other targets probably takes time and schmoozing ability. It involves networking among the wealthy to get leads on potential donors.

No, there isn't any heavy lifting but talking someone out of money for next to nothing in return is tricky stuff that most accountants can't do.


Ah that makes more sense. It's just another sales job then, with good odds. All they need to do is get a single 100k donation per year and they're worth employing.

I had another thought. There are a few examples of orchestras run as private, commercial enterprises. A very famous one is Andre Rieu's orchestra, which is extremely successful. Anyone know what sort of management team he has? Then there's something like Cirque du Soleil, which is a slightly different and much bigger thing but still a commercially viable, privately owned artistic endeavour.
ttf_wgwbassbone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_wgwbassbone »

To say that there is no stress in a top level orchestra job is silly and you absolutely no idea what it's like or what you're talking about.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BillO »

Quote from: wgwbassbone on May 30, 2016, 08:20AMTo say that there is no stress in a top level orchestra job is silly and you absolutely no idea what it's like or what you're talking about.
This appears a little out of the current context.  Who was it that said a top level job in a orchestra had no stress and which top level job were they referring to?  Or do we have to review ~100 or so posts to figure this out?
ttf_trombone addict
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_trombone addict »

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 16, 2016, 09:04AMYes, of course! Stress management is part of the skillset you need to maintain. How stressed do you get as a working musician? How stressed do the people already in those jobs get? They probably were stressed at their audition, but professional musicians don't stay pro very long biting their nails over tuba mirum. I'd wager that you don't get very stressed out over your gigs, Sam, because you're a pro. I don't sweat any of my gigs. Norman Bolter from the BSO isn't sweating any gigs, from when I was at UMass.

Now what's really funny was the call I got last week to play alto on Mozart's Requiem for a project put together by a touring choir. The choir was a cohesive group but the director was trying to piecemeal the orchestra together from local musicians and leaned heavily on the Army brass musicians. Mozart Requiem, reconstructed alto part doubling the voices, 15 hours of rehearsals and a two hour concert. The pay was 100,000 KRW or about $70. I had to say no. I felt bad, because any concert is good for the community and it was probably a very cheap price for tickets. If orchestras were paying $70 for nearly twenty hours of work, then you could complain about conditions for working musicians.




Quote from: BillO on May 30, 2016, 08:28AMThis appears a little out of the current context.  Who was it that said a top level job in a orchestra had no stress and which top level job were they referring to?  Or do we have to review ~100 or so posts to figure this out?



Perhaps this?
ttf_robcat2075
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_robcat2075 »

Quote from: sonicsilver on May 29, 2016, 11:47AMI had another thought. There are a few examples of orchestras run as private, commercial enterprises. A very famous one is Andre Rieu's orchestra, which is extremely successful. Anyone know what sort of management team he has?

I just read an article about Andre Rieu.  

Interesting. He's a touring act, quite like Cirque du Soleil. He might prepare one or two programs a year whereas a symphony that resides in a city has to prepare a new one almost every week.

I wonder how the musicians in his orchestra do financially. Do the y really love getting bused from city to city to play the same Strauss Waltzes each time?  Judging from his calendar of concert dates it doesn't look like it's a full time job as a Symphony position would be.


In any event I don't think his is a model that can be transferred to a symphony orchestra.


ttf_robcat2075
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_robcat2075 »

Quote Stress management is part of the skillset you need to maintain. How stressed do you get as a working musician? How stressed do the people already in those jobs get? They probably were stressed at their audition, but professional musicians don't stay pro very long biting their nails over tuba mirum.
I recall Philip Farkas writing that he didn't know any horn players who didn't smoke, because of the stress involved.

He also said that if he missed a note, even while practicing, he was devastated because OMG what if that happened in a concert?


I think there are high level musicians for whom stress is a big deal.
ttf_BillO
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BillO »

ttf_wgwbassbone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_wgwbassbone »

Yes the quote was so far back that I couldn't find it to quote it.
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

Quote from: robcat2075 on May 30, 2016, 08:43AMI just read an article about Andre Rieu.  

Interesting. He's a touring act, quite like Cirque du Soleil. He might prepare one or two programs a year whereas a symphony that resides in a city has to prepare a new one almost every week.

I wonder how the musicians in his orchestra do financially. Do the y really love getting bused from city to city to play the same Strauss Waltzes each time?  Judging from his calendar of concert dates it doesn't look like it's a full time job as a Symphony position would be.


In any event I don't think his is a model that can be transferred to a symphony orchestra.



You may also note that most of his orchestra is women.  That saves (on average) 20% of the cost Image

I agree that being on the road constantly playing the same program can get old. 

If you want to hear about traveling as a musician check out Megan's (jhreq's) blog as a musician for Barnum and Bailey Circus.  Her blog name is taz39.

There are some art forms that just won't make enough money to pay for themselves: Opera, Concert Bands, Stage (Jazz) Bands, Orchestras.  They need to be supported by an organization.  Most modern popular bands are a few members.
ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

Quote from: BGuttman on May 30, 2016, 10:15AMYou may also note that most of his orchestra is women.  That saves (on average) 20% of the cost Image

How?
ttf_robcat2075
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_robcat2075 »

Quote from: sonicsilver on May 30, 2016, 12:40PMQuoteYou may also note that most of his orchestra is women.  That saves (on average) 20% of the cost Image
How?

Because they weigh 20% less.   Image
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

Quote from: sonicsilver on May 30, 2016, 12:40PMQuote from: BGuttman on May 30, 2016, 10:15AMYou may also note that most of his orchestra is women.  That saves (on average) 20% of the cost Image

How?

Women earn 79 cents for each dollar a man earns

(see linked article)
ttf_harrison.t.reed
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_harrison.t.reed »

Quote from: BGuttman on May 30, 2016, 08:14PMHow?


Women earn 79 cents for each dollar a man earns

(see linked article)

 Image while it would be hilarious if he really did save money that way ...

Part-time workers make less than their full-time counterparts!! NEWSFLASH!!

These studies of a gender based wage gap are bogus. It is true -- if you take the wages of all females that work and compare them with all wages of all men who work, that number is spot on. The humanity! The audacity!

The studies don't account for the fact that women seek part time work more often than men, pursue career fields that are low-salary like teaching more often than men, often stop working for an extended period (more than regular maternity leave) after having a child, choose to work less overtime than their male counterparts, and ask for less at a job interview.

Women who make the same choices as men in a given field and work the same number of hours get paid the exact same amount of money as their male counterpart. In short, it seems that there is a difference between men and women, and the difference is what they value and how that affects major decisions in life.

There is a disparity in the number of CEOs making gagillions who are female. This follows suit with the disparity of females who choose to be entrepreneurs. CEOs of any gender usually are not suits who come out of a college and are suddenly CEOs. And there is certainly no successful company hiring CEOs based solely on the fact that they are male. Great CEOs build a company from the ground up and become CEOs of their own company and later may be considered for the job at other companies if they are talented. Women who build successful companies from the ground up and are talented actually do become CEOs who make tons of money, there just aren't as many women who choose to do this compared to men.

Most serious economists do not bother studying the glass ceiling any longer because it's a myth. It was proven a myth by comparing wages and salaries between male and female workers in many fields, who worked the same number of hours, did not leave their job for kids, and took the same amount of vacation time. It found that they all got paid the same, and even that many industries had offered bonuses and incentives to hire females for jobs that were traditionally male dominated, especially math and science fields. These individuals actually came out ahead of their male counterparts.

I guess if, based on the touring schedule, Andre Rieu's orchestra is not as full time as a symphony, and it's mostly women, it increases the stats on women seeking part time jobs more often than men Image
ttf_Dan Hine
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_Dan Hine »

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 30, 2016, 10:31PM
The studies don't account for the fact that women seek part time work more often than men

Except that the study Bruce linked to clearly states:

"American women who work full time, year round are paid only 79 cents for every dollar paid to men."

Quote from: harrison.t.reed pursue career fields that are low-salary like teaching more often than men
Not relevant since studies show that men and women in the same occupation earn less.

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

"Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio."

The site above has links to many publications to back up its findings.  Can you cite some sources for your claims?
ttf_patrickosmith
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_patrickosmith »

Quote from: savio on May 29, 2016, 01:03AMSymphony work would never be pathetic for me..
Leif

There is a price for doing that which you (and a great many other people) love. Enjoyable occupations often offer less pay. Unenjoyable occupations often offer higher pay.
ttf_patrickosmith
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_patrickosmith »

Quote from: BMadsen on May 17, 2016, 10:53AMHarrison, maybe your experience is different than ours, but I'm with Sam… more about it below…

I'm with Sam here. Part of "making it" here (and, anywhere when you aren't in a full time position) is building an extremely wide network of people willing to call you for work. That means your name gets passed on to people. If one of those players you've networked with recommends you because they can't do a gig, you could easily be offered something that you aren't qualified for. And, the vast majority of the work I'm involved in has no rehearsals - just show up and read the music. Meaning, you get found out on the gig if you up to snuff. If you are, it means future work. If not, you are out with that band, and all of those musicians are now aware you're not up to snuff, at least in that setting, harming your rep and limiting future work.

I've found you have to balance the need to make enough to pay the bills, with the need to protect your rep. And, with your ability to feel enough up to snuff to make it possible to take the gig. Depending on how last minute it is, I'll take or not take a gig. If I am not sure I can handle it, I'll even mention to people calling me that I'm not sure it's in my wheelhouse and offer some names. Occasionally, they've still asked me to play in spite of that, and then been given future work because of my honesty, and willingness to learn. It's a tight wire act that can really threaten the blood pressure from time to time!

I don't disagree with Sam here, but one thing that we all tend to forget is, while we are in an art form, we are also entertainment. So, while I agree that the top of the top should get paid more (lots more), it's also a matter of economics. If the art form/form of entertainment we work in is not as in demand, there is going to be less money available to pay. Pay follows value. When our culture is convinced of the value of these orchestras, more money will flow into them, and there will be more money to pay the players.

A lot of orchestras aren't doing much to connect with the community at large, which then means that the community they want support from feels disconnected from the orchestra, and unwilling to support it. The NY Phil sees attendance at their free concerts in the park at around 60-70k at the Central Park concerts - which sounds like a lot until you realize that's only 0.8% of the population of New York. They do multiple performances all over the 5 boros, but I went to the brass section concert in the Bronx one year. There were about 500 people there - 1/2 of the auditorium was empty. When talking to some of the concert goers, they had attended all of the other concerts. So, you have repeat goers that drops the number. Even if they reach 300k unique people over the entire summer series (a number I doubt they hit), that's only 3.6% of the population - a tiny percentage.

Maybe I'm wrong, but 3.6% seems like a really low number to reach in a community for a free resource. Which would then explain why orchestras are hurting, and pay isn't as high as maybe it should be…..

Note well: unless you win a full-time position in a major orchestra --an unlikely outcome-- the aforesaid description, given by a successful musician working in NYC, is a fair description of the *best* your occupation *might* offer ... if you have musical talent, if you continue to play well, if you network well, if you maintain your reputation, if you can break in, and if and if ...
ttf_harrison.t.reed
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_harrison.t.reed »

Quote from: Dan Hine on May 31, 2016, 12:19AMExcept that the study Bruce linked to clearly states:

"American women who work full time, year round are paid only 79 cents for every dollar paid to men."

The site above has links to many publications to back up its findings.  Can you cite some sources for your claims?

True enough! It does indeed say that. Let's take a look at what a broad range of hours counts as full time later on. But I'll bite.

Let's ask Harvard Professor Claudia Goldin:
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

If you don't believe a Harvard economics professor who [s]has a vested interest in proving the wage gap is real[/s] has focused her career on this issue, there are many other studies and articles. You can easily search for them, but heres some more.

Let's take a look at the WSJ article based on a Bureau of Labor Statistics report that shows that men are far more likely to work 45 hours per week, and women 35 hours per week, which both count as full-time and are equally weighted in all of the bogus 77 cent on the dollar feminist backed "studies" (links to the real study in the article):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wage-gap-myth-that-wont-die-1443654408

http://www.aei.org/publication/new-bls-report-womens-earnings-17-9-gender-pay-gap-2013-explained-age-marriage-hours-worked/


The second link shows a chart drawn from the BLS data that pares the actual wage gap down to about 5% , and that can be explained by other studies that show that women are not as good on average at negotiating salary as men are. This is an inequality, but it is not because of discrimination.

I challenge you to find a report that isn't just based on a broad average of all workers split only by gender, fulltime or not, that supports the actual existence of a real wage gap.

ttf_wgwbassbone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_wgwbassbone »

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 30, 2016, 10:31PM Image while it would be hilarious if he really did save money that way ...

Part-time workers make less than their full-time counterparts!! NEWSFLASH!!

These studies of a gender based wage gap are bogus. It is true -- if you take the wages of all females that work and compare them with all wages of all men who work, that number is spot on. The humanity! The audacity!

The studies don't account for the fact that women seek part time work more often than men, pursue career fields that are low-salary like teaching more often than men, often stop working for an extended period (more than regular maternity leave) after having a child, choose to work less overtime than their male counterparts, and ask for less at a job interview.

Women who make the same choices as men in a given field and work the same number of hours get paid the exact same amount of money as their male counterpart. In short, it seems that there is a difference between men and women, and the difference is what they value and how that affects major decisions in life.

There is a disparity in the number of CEOs making gagillions who are female. This follows suit with the disparity of females who choose to be entrepreneurs. CEOs of any gender usually are not suits who come out of a college and are suddenly CEOs. And there is certainly no successful company hiring CEOs based solely on the fact that they are male. Great CEOs build a company from the ground up and become CEOs of their own company and later may be considered for the job at other companies if they are talented. Women who build successful companies from the ground up and are talented actually do become CEOs who make tons of money, there just aren't as many women who choose to do this compared to men.

Most serious economists do not bother studying the glass ceiling any longer because it's a myth. It was proven a myth by comparing wages and salaries between male and female workers in many fields, who worked the same number of hours, did not leave their job for kids, and took the same amount of vacation time. It found that they all got paid the same, and even that many industries had offered bonuses and incentives to hire females for jobs that were traditionally male dominated, especially math and science fields. These individuals actually came out ahead of their male counterparts.

I guess if, based on the touring schedule, Andre Rieu's orchestra is not as full time as a symphony, and it's mostly women, it increases the stats on women seeking part time jobs more often than men Image

This is turning into a political thread it looks like. Harrison with folks thinking like you women are doomed.
ttf_harrison.t.reed
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_harrison.t.reed »

Quote from: wgwbassbone on May 31, 2016, 05:44AMThis is turning into a political thread it looks like. Harrison with folks thinking like you women are doomed.

I agree with ending the political banter. My last thought though is a response to you thinking women are doomed:

Our current social system says that women are every bit as capable and talented as men, since women happen to also be homo sapiens. If you can come to grips with that, you can see that trying to protect women as a group based solely on gender makes them less than human, since all humans are capable of making whatever choices they want to make. Making women less than human is bad. People who think this way and want to start making concessions for ANY group of people who are not legitimately disabled, doom those people whom they are trying to help.

We could go back to the old social norm that said: "women and men a pretty different, even though they are both homo sapiens. Let's pay men enough so that women can stay home and do the critical task of raising a family and caring for the home." Somehow that seems like a step massively backwards.
ttf_wgwbassbone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_wgwbassbone »

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on May 31, 2016, 06:22AMI agree with ending the political banter. My last thought though is a response to you thinking women are doomed:

Women are every bit as capable and talented as men, since women happen to also be homo sapiens. It might be unbelievable, but if you can come to grips with that, you can see that trying to protect women as a group based solely on gender makes them less than human. That's bad. People who think this way and want to start making concessions for ANY group of people who are not legitimately disabled, doom those people whom they are trying to help.

What I mean is that your facts regarding jobs/equal pay are skewed. Forget about part time jobs. Full time jobs in some fields pay less to women than men.
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

I was trying to make a simple joke with sonicsilver who is always looking at asinine ways to pare costs of symphony orchestras.  This has gone WAY over budget.

I will say that given the typical amount of education and preparation a typical symphony musician has to do, the pay is rather meager.  For the amount of effort you could become a physician.
ttf_robcat2075
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_robcat2075 »

Quote from: BGuttman on May 31, 2016, 07:44AMI will say that given the typical amount of education and preparation a typical symphony musician has to do, the pay is rather meager.  For the amount of effort you could become a physician.

Well, there's another career where they're unhappy.   Image

Long hours, high expenses, growing competition, corporatization, healthcare reform... all spoiling the party.
ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

Quote from: BGuttman on May 31, 2016, 07:44AMI was trying to make a simple joke with sonicsilver who is always looking at asinine ways to pare costs of symphony orchestras.

Two words for me to take offence at, there...

Actually, I totally agree with Harrison who presents his points excellently. I can only add that in addition to the evidence in the studies, we can reason that there is no significant pay gap a priori.

If women really were paid 20% less than men, companies would be falling over themselves to hire females to cut their wage bill. But we don't see the workforce dominated by these cheaper females, do we? So that tells us one of two things. EITHER there isn't really a pay gap OR there is but it represents an additional value that men offer and that employers are willing to pay for. And this relates to orchestra budgets too.
ttf_sfboner
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sfboner »

OH my GOD can we please split off the wage parity discussion to another thread??!?!?!
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

I can lock the thread if the pay gap stuff continues (and I will).

You all have been warned.
ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

The original post of the thread was about an article discussing dissatisfaction with orchestral jobs, including pay.

There was an observation that Andre Rieu's orchestra was majority female. Then, a suggestion that the women were paid less than the men, contributing to the group's financial wellbeing.

Please explain why discussing gender pay gap in a thread about job satisfaction is so unacceptable that the thread has to be locked.
ttf_sfboner
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sfboner »

To the best of my knowledge, there exists no gender pay disparity in symphony orchestras.  Bruce did make a joke about it, which now seems to have been ill-advised.  Gender pay disparity is a red herring which is derailing the actual conversation.

But I guess why not just keep it?  It's no more asinine than 95% of what's been posted in the thread so far.
ttf_BGuttman
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_BGuttman »

Quote from: sonicsilver on May 31, 2016, 03:05PMThe original post of the thread was about an article discussing dissatisfaction with orchestral jobs, including pay.

There was an observation that Andre Rieu's orchestra was majority female. Then, a suggestion that the women were paid less than the men, contributing to the group's financial wellbeing.

Please explain why discussing gender pay gap in a thread about job satisfaction is so unacceptable that the thread has to be locked.

I have more argument with you trying to prove it doesn't exist. Image
ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

So you're threatening to lock the thread because you disagree with me agreeing with Harrison?

Or is a discussion of pay not relevant to orchestra job satisfaction and financial stability?
ttf_patrickosmith
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_patrickosmith »

Quote from: sonicsilver on May 31, 2016, 10:37PMSo you're threatening to lock the thread because you disagree with me agreeing with Harrison?

Or is a discussion of pay not relevant to orchestra job satisfaction and financial stability?

In my opinion, the discussion temporarily went sideways when it became a lengthy discussion/debate/argument over wage parity. Perhaps they are related to this thread but it seems to be its own separate issue worthy of as much discussion/debate/argument as you would care to have ... in its own thread. It is drowning out other points being made that are more central to the subject topic.
ttf_wgwbassbone
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_wgwbassbone »

Hopefully back on point:
Any job that involves repetition of some type can eventually make one unhappy. We each have our own perspective and we each deal with adversity/challenges in our own way. Imagine sitting beside the same individual for 5 years, 10, 30 years! No matter how positive the experience is it's still sitting beside the same person(s) for what can be an eternity. Imagine having a musical director that you can't stand yet you have to show up everyday day, suck it up, and perform at a high level. Some would say "I'd do that for free if I had the chance" yet without living it you cannot experience it.
Some on this Forum have stated that it's not really work to sit in a high level orchestra. If you really believe that you just don't get it. Work has many definitions but my friends/colleagues that have high level Orchestra jobs, especially in the NY area, certainly work at their craft. You're only as good as your last performance. One chipped note by a major player resonates far more than 50 beautiful performances.
Orchestras are now at the mercy of their individual Boards of Directors, most who have lost touch with what their own orchestras are about. Some think that they are just raising money for people who "play music" for a living. Some orchestras on the highest level have made major financial blunders that will impact not only the current roster but future rosters as well.
Then we get down to money. How much money is enough money? Once again an individual need. To a weekend warrior who works hard for, and deserves every dollar they earn, someone making six figures on a major orchestral job might seem extreme. Yet if you have achieved a spot in a major orchestra and have to live in New York, LA, Boston, Chicago, etc.. how far does that salary go?
My perspective is slightly different but runs along the same lines. Although I've never won a major orchestral job I do work in a Broadway pit and have had the same show for almost 14 years. Now I'm fortunate that I work a great deal outside of the show so I'm able to keep myself fresh and am able to enjoy other musical experiences. I'd say that our subbing rule is one of the best perks of the job. The money? Well it's okay for me. Could it be more? Sure why not?? I've managed to keep my level of performing at a high level. But I can tell you that playing something thousands of times over the last 14 years has it's challenges. Playing with the same musicians night in and night out, playing the same music over and over, dealing with many music directors on a nightly basis.
All of this takes it's toll. At the same time one needs to be professional and should demand the highest level of performance. Unfortunately many I work with there just come in and "punch the clock." Not ideal. If you think that doesn't wear on you mentally think again. It's part of the job and luckily I've learned to live with it without accepting lower standards for myself.
In the end many will never be happy with the job conditions, the money, the interpersonal relationships that come with any job. I'm very lucky and happy that I can earn a good living playing the bass trombone and will continue to as long as I'm able. It's easy to complain. We all have egos. If one is that unhappy quit but don't fool yourself. There's someone around the corner ready to take your place and eventually a new round of complaining will begin.
Time to practice!

ttf_robcat2075
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_robcat2075 »

Quote from: wgwbassbone on Jun 01, 2016, 06:04AM
Orchestras are now at the mercy of their individual Boards of Directors, most who have lost touch with what their own orchestras are about.

There are some famous cases like that, as in Minnesota recently; however, the article notes that the board-run orchestras have generally fared better financially and stability-wise than musician-run orchestras.

The mutual self-interest of the musicians should lead to the best decisions but somehow it doesn't.  Image
ttf_blast
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_blast »

Thanks Bill... at last some real insight... saved this thread from dropping to 'chit-chat'.

Chris Stearn.
ttf_savio
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_savio »

Yes thanks for that post Bill! It gives insight how the real life is. Especially for us that never played and have that experience in orchestras. I was never good enough to get into an orchestra job but I did some gigs long time ago. And now these days I in fact get some gigs back. I believe its because some want the vintage trombone sound back again. The trend setting; bigger, bigger is stopping.

With my few substitute gigs and little experience I sit on needles every time I play. I dont feel I have the experience to do it. At the same time I feel its very fun. I have listen your words from many professional players, and of course never understood it full out how that life really is. I think only you people that live that life understand it.

Thanks for your post!

Leif
ttf_sfboner
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sfboner »

Quote from: savio on Jun 01, 2016, 01:03PMYes thanks for that post Bill! It gives insight how the real life is. Especially for us that never played and have that experience in orchestras. I was never good enough to get into an orchestra job but I did some gigs long time ago. And now these days I in fact get some gigs back. I believe its because some want the vintage trombone sound back again. The trend setting; bigger, bigger is stopping.

With my few substitute gigs and little experience I sit on needles every time I play. I dont feel I have the experience to do it. At the same time I feel its very fun. I have listen your words from many professional players, and of course never understood it full out how that life really is. I think only you people that live that life understand it.

Thanks for your post!

Leif

Quite so, Leif!  That's what's been bothering me about this thread - people sounding off will all sorts of opinions but not the least idea what they're talking about.
ttf_savio
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_savio »

Quote from: sfboner on Jun 01, 2016, 01:20PMQuite so, Leif!  That's what's been bothering me about this thread - people sounding off will all sorts of opinions but not the least idea what they're talking about.

Agreed, your words make me think what is pathetic....

Leif
ttf_sonicsilver
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_sonicsilver »

Anyone here run a professional performing group? I have. Not a symphony orchestra, but a small combo. It's hard. I did all the management, and all the writing and I played a bit too  Image  Of course, I payed myself more than the others who just had to turn up and play what I put in front of them, and there was a sense of satisfaction and achievement too.

Over time, finances got tighter and tighter. There came a point where I could no longer ask the guys to come out for the fee shared between nine. So I had some hard choices. Yes, it would have been nice to keep the second percussionist for the latin and afro stuff, but it was a luxury. Lose the guitarist and make do with just the keys. Do a bit of re-writing and get by with two horns instead of three.

It was very unpleasant telling three fine players there was no more gig for them. They certainly deserved their slots, but it's not about deserving: it's about the numbers on the spreadsheet. I'm not a job-creation charity for musicians and neither are symphony orchestras. No one's entitled to a salary because they practised really hard and got good. If only...

All the orchestral work I've done was as a freelancer, so I never really experienced grind or burn out or repetitiveness. I enjoyed the playing and the people were nice, with a small number of exceptions, as ever. No problems with how the bands were run administratively ever affected me, although there was a slightly political situation about non-local nationality players in one group that I didn't care for. The pay represented a much better hourly rate than you'd get in most other jobs and I was satisfied with it. Very highly paid pop musicians still find stuff to gripe about, whereas non-paid amateurs can be totally content, so I'm not convinced that remuneration is closely correlated with job satisfaction.

These are only my opinions about my own experiences, but perhaps I'm one of those who doesn't know what I'm talking about and didn't enjoy any of it after all and still have nine musicians in my sextet.



ttf_savio
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_savio »

Thanks for that post sonicsilver!! It boils down to "work moral". No matter what work we do, in any field, it is up to ourselves to make it good and mean something for our family, for the environment we work in, in the end for us self.

No work is pathetic.....

Leif


ttf_Exzaclee
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_Exzaclee »

Quote from: sonicsilver on Jun 01, 2016, 02:39PMAnyone here run a professional performing group? I have. Not a symphony orchestra, but a small combo. It's hard. I did all the management, and all the writing and I played a bit too  Image  Of course, I payed myself more than the others who just had to turn up and play what I put in front of them, and there was a sense of satisfaction and achievement too.

Over time, finances got tighter and tighter. There came a point where I could no longer ask the guys to come out for the fee shared between nine. So I had some hard choices. Yes, it would have been nice to keep the second percussionist for the latin and afro stuff, but it was a luxury. Lose the guitarist and make do with just the keys. Do a bit of re-writing and get by with two horns instead of three.

It was very unpleasant telling three fine players there was no more gig for them. They certainly deserved their slots, but it's not about deserving: it's about the numbers on the spreadsheet. I'm not a job-creation charity for musicians and neither are symphony orchestras. No one's entitled to a salary because they practised really hard and got good. If only...

All the orchestral work I've done was as a freelancer, so I never really experienced grind or burn out or repetitiveness. I enjoyed the playing and the people were nice, with a small number of exceptions, as ever. No problems with how the bands were run administratively ever affected me, although there was a slightly political situation about non-local nationality players in one group that I didn't care for. The pay represented a much better hourly rate than you'd get in most other jobs and I was satisfied with it. Very highly paid pop musicians still find stuff to gripe about, whereas non-paid amateurs can be totally content, so I'm not convinced that remuneration is closely correlated with job satisfaction.

These are only my opinions about my own experiences, but perhaps I'm one of those who doesn't know what I'm talking about and didn't enjoy any of it after all and still have nine musicians in my sextet.

Yes I have. Everything from small combos to big bands... there's a reason I'm 40 and have no house or retirement to speak of. I wouldn't begin to compare what I've done to what goes in to running a symphony orchestra. I can take out a bank loan and put a big band project together (the next one is slated for next summer.) The amount of money to which I would need access to make a symphony orchestra project happen is more than my credit can handle, and would involve way more work than I can handle myself, probably requiring the hiring of 5-10 people outside of the contracting to make it work.

Everytime I've done a big band project I've decided I need to hire a few assistants the next time so I can just focus on playing and writing and not stress out over all the other BS associated with it. Everytime the next project comes along I forget this bit of self-advice and try to take on the whole thing myself, and again wish I'd hired assistants.

ttf_patrickosmith
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am

A Pathetic Living at the Symphony?

Post by ttf_patrickosmith »

Time for another extract/quote from my Frank Crisafulli archives.

" ... All joking aside, this is a painful area for me. We prepare many young people, not an overly large number though, who can handle any situation in any orchestra. There are always players who can do this. Mind you, there are fine music schools across the country. Some of them almost as good as this one (laughter). I hear people from these places and they are well-coached and well-trained. I work with them, but what, really, can I promise them? Nothing. We make no false promises here at Northwestern.

What is really hurtful to me is when a young man announces that if he can't play in an orchestra then he doesn't want any part of music. He doesn't want to teach. I think that is rather sad. I point out to him that I teach and I enjoy it. Others teach and they enjoy it. I think that is a very fortunate and wonderful thing. Of course, if they don't want to or like to teach, then it is just as well that they don't.

The fact remains that this is a terrible road [professionally playing] because in many cases they may have to settle for a job in some little orchestra. Probably not even earning a living wage. Major orchestras today are looking for performers who have established themselves with another orchestra. They want someone who went out and professionally auditioned, was accepted, and remained for some years: in effect raiding another orchestra. They reason that someone has made a decision which in turn helps them.

Oddly enough, the Chicago Symphony listens to all applicants and evaluates them. This is not done everywhere. In any case, students who hope to play professionally, while I say the chances are very slight, cannot waste their time and energy worrying about this end. Their time should be spent in preparation. The tremendous discipline necessary is a marvelous thing for any human being and certainly will help them later in life."

Post Reply

Return to “The Business of Music”