rjzeller

Something I stumbled across today. Interesting reading -- seems to me they're reminiscent of a few other businesses or bueracracies we may already know about.

I think it lends credence to some of what I've heard Manny state in the past regarding public vs. private management, but really, it's just an interesting financial read on orchestras today....

http://www.mozartinthejungle.com/work2.htm

Mikey

This is a clip from the above article. Read it and weep.



The base pay of a New York Philharmonic musician is now $103,000. According to 2003 tax records, Glenn Dicterow, the New York Philharmonic concertmaster, was making $366,000; Carter Brey, the principal cellist, $255,000; Philip Smith, the principal trumpeter, $243,000; Philip Myers, the principal hornist, $227,000; and Cynthia Phelps, the principal violist, $216,000. The have-nots in this scheme are primarily section string players, who have to pay for instruments costing significantly more than woodwinds or brasses — often in five or six figures.

tpter1

I have to stop and wonder a moment. I don't think it's really ethical for newspapers to print salaries like that. I can just hear the resentment now. I don't think Glenn Dicterow wants to have to answer questions about his salary or should have to face negative comments coming into a labor negotiation. These kinds of articles always seem to create mob mentality.

I agree with the overall tone; that is, string players have to take a second mortgage to pay for their instruments. Players' salaries go down while administrative positions go up. (I'm VERY familiar with THAT scenario, only with differing titles). But I think it goes too far when individual salaries become public information, and weakens the position of the bargaining unit during negotiations.

Jhorn229h

Say what you want, but all orchestral musicians are underpayed - EVEN those in the NY Phil.

J

MJ

I would have to agree with J horn here. What are the top athletes in the world getting paid. How about the top lawyers or top surgeons in this country?

Those salaries are chump change compared to what the best of the best make in their respective fields. They deserve that and more.

cornetguy

[
Those salaries are chump change compared to what the best of the best make in their respective fields. They deserve that and more.[/quote]

Comparing symphony orchestra to sports teams, law firms etc is an apples an oranges comparison. The teams and law firms, are making money and not having to go to the subscription base, corporations, government, donors with the beggers bowl, tap into the endowment fund and jack ticket prices up more and more every year so fewer people can afford to go to break even. A non-profit group that is paying the kind of salaries that the NY Phil is is going to have problems with all of the outside sources. "why should I contribute to an organization that pays those kinds of salaries." (personal note that is one of the reasons i don't contribute to public radio) I think that sooner or later the AFM is going to have to have a mindset change.

PINCHUNO

I think many other freelance musicians, apart from myself wouldn't call $243000 "chump change". No offense intended here, but what are some people thinking? that we should all get $500000 upwards? I'd be all for it, but at the end of the day, we aren't brain surgeons or heart specialists here. For as fulfilling and emotionally rewarding music can be for the musician and the listener, we aren't saving anyone's lives here by playing. (not that I've heard of anyway)

Jhorn229h

You must remember, with the possible exception of Mr. Vosburgh, Phil Smith is the BEST at what he does. He is still WAY underpayed.

J

tpter1

That is exactly what I meant when I said "weaken the position of bargaining unit", and is why salaries should not be made public like that.

I am not a performer, so I don't have the performer's perspective, but I do think they are underpaid. Especially when you compare the ability level and expectations made on them with that of other professionals who earn their money in the public eye. They are different types of organizations to be sure, but their job is essentially the same.

People buy tickets to see them. Some tickets cost a good amount of money. There are corporate sponsorships and subscribers. Players and management do not always see eye to eye. There are players who have celebrity status, especially among those who know the field well. Injury can be frequent and resulting from normal discharge of duty; it can also serve to end a career. Am I talking baseball, hockey, football or music? The answer is all 4. And yes, ball clubs do go to corporate sponsors (Gatorade, Nike, Campbell's soup to name a few) with the beggars bowl, but it's in a slightly different guise than outright asking for a donation and a mention of a thank you or advertisement in the Playbill or program or lobby or name of the hall or chair.

gregc

I'd like to see musicians make more, of course. I can't argue that NYP members generate the kind of revenue for their employers that major league ball players do though. The $ has to come from somewhere.