| Wow. I guess I didn't intent this to become a referrendum on the salaries professional orchestra musicians make. Far as I'm concerned, they're worth every penny and more.
Me? I'd be glad to make a quarter what Mr. Smith does to play my horn professionally. But then, I haven't really put in the time, have I?
Just to sit in one of those concert halls and hear a piece of work performed like these folks can do is fantastic, and they cannot get paid enough.
A friend of mine who is a first-rate cellist passed on a musical career to become a radiologist instead. Yeah, he's making it big. But when I told him how I'd love to play even for a lower tier symphony, we discussed salaries and he gave me an answer I'll never forget:
"I just don't think $50,000 or even $150,000 is enough money for the level of skill and dedication required."
This, of course, coming from a man who makes a heck of a lot more than that, even.
But it made me think -- these people (many of them, anyway), took some risk and worked very hard, are exceptionally disciplined, and have had to earn their spots. They not only deserve what they make, but a whole lot more. Mr. Smith can make $500,000 a year and I'd still be content. All that really matters is that he's happy and his audience is happy. If the answer is yes to both, pay doesn't matter (and having it public does seem a tad unfair).
What ballplayers provide is entertainment. What these people provide is beauty.
Anyway......
What I found intriquing about the article is not how much money A and B are making, but rather the economic makeup of these large orchestras and the difficulties in running them. I'm not sure if I'm for or against the salaries the executives and directors are making; only that I would be curious to see if these organizations approached finances the same were they to be privately funded and for-profit instead of publicly funded and non-profit.....
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who do not. |