quote:

And in Ms. Borda's case, IIRC, the LAPO was in a bit of a financial mess when she took over, and whatever she earns above the norm might well have been worth it to the organization.

Well, I wouldn't say it was a financial mess, but she did get the opening of Disney Hall back on track which was the start of a huge resurgence and reinvention of this organization. And of course, her greatest coup was signing Gustavo Dudamel. I'd say she is absolutely worth every last penny she gets.

quote:

Originally posted by gloriarex:

quote:

And in Ms. Borda's case, IIRC, the LAPO was in a bit of a financial mess when she took over, and whatever she earns above the norm might well have been worth it to the organization.

Well, I wouldn't say it was a financial mess, but she did get the opening of Disney Hall back on track which was the start of a huge resurgence and reinvention of this organization. And of course, her greatest coup was signing Gustavo Dudamel. I'd say she is absolutely worth every last penny she gets.

I am guessing she makes about 8X the base scale for a player. She makes about 1% of the LA budget.

I would LOVE to see those guidelines applied to other orchestras. If the exec. director in Shreveport were to make 8X the proposed scale, the salary would be about 25 grand. If an orchestra has a budget of 1.5 million, 1 percent is 15 grand.

Nothin wrong with paying the boss well if they get results. But in the smaller orchestras, the salary of the exec director should be measured like I did it, a combination of X times what the players make and a certain percentage of the budget. A bit of an incentive program!

hey the basketball analogy is great

Not only in the white community, thousands and thousands of teenage men entirely abandon
other areas in order to play basketball! The grade inflation in the white communities can
be particularly disturbing, when basic skills of motor coordination can not be reached
the future of these young men's lives are severely marginalized.

I think of the CBA analogy as very accurate. Can one enjoy the income, even though it is
below poverty? Sure it isn't all roses and champagne, but if you cut out the cost of gasoline
(because most of the time the players are travel ling on buses) than because the cost of living lowers the
standard is
automatically a little higher . Also if one really can only see themself playing
basketball forever then they have to. The income wouldn't matter. It would be
so fulfilling, and obviously to the ones who really want to earn it, there would be more
opportunities for hustling on the side. In many communities streetball is very popular
and tournament style play on the underground is vibrant. This in turn provides inspiration
and hope for the future of thousand upon thousands of young men, passionate to basketball.
It redirects their focus from rampant grade inflation at least.

So in the end can one blame one's self from playing basket ball, even if he or she truly
loves it?

I don't know if many potential donors to symphony orchestras are turned off by high compensation for music directors, executive directors and even some principal players, but I sure am. In Washington, for example, Maestro Slatkin is well known for having argued for more non-ticket funds for The National Symphony despite himself 'earning' $1.2 million a year from the group. I'm sorry, but if Slatkin, Borda etc. really cared about the financial health of their organizations, they would do the job for a third of their current compensations and still live very well.

I dunno -- that musicians (or managers) should compromise their wage earning ability out of regard for their ensemble will probably not get too much traction in this forum! As to the LA Philharmonic, the finances are in superb condition; why should Borda give back her pay? And the whole notion that smaller budgets are inherently better for orchestras is the same line of thought that is dooming Shreveport and Columbus. Look at current examples: orchestras with bigger budgets are generally the better orchestras. Look at past examples: are there any cases in which an orchestra voluntarily shrunk itself and was better off for it?

It seems to me that orchestras do not want to be considered as businesses when the overall profit/loss statement is released, but their top executives and even a few principals sure think of their own compensation in business terms. They want to maximize their earnings in a personal business sense, just like folks in the for-profit world. Basically: Not a business when it suits their purposes, but yes a business when it comes to them personally.

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
They want to maximize their earnings in a personal business sense, just like folks in the for-profit world. Basically: Not a business when it suits their purposes, but yes a business when it comes to them personally.

The non-profit world is full of that. The compensation at Red cross, United Way, etc is quite high.

quote:

I don't know if many potential donors to symphony orchestras are turned off by high compensation for music directors, executive directors and even some principal players, but I sure am. In Washington, for example, Maestro Slatkin is well known for having argued for more non-ticket funds for The National Symphony despite himself 'earning' $1.2 million a year from the group. I'm sorry, but if Slatkin, Borda etc. really cared about the financial health of their organizations, they would do the job for a third of their current compensations and still live very well.

This is frighteningly close to what the boards in Columbus and Shreveport are telling the players.

Cygnus,

You are right about those two charities, which is one reason I don't contribute to them. However, the chiefs there do "watch over" organizations with far greater numbers of employees and stakeholders, and far more geographic reach, then orchestral administrators.

I make a big distinction between maestros and executive directors on the one hand and most of the orchestral musicians on the other. Even in the highest-paid orchestras, the rank-and-file musicians are not paid that much.

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
Cygnus,

You are right about those two charities, which is one reason I don't contribute to them. However, the chiefs there do "watch over" organizations with far greater numbers of employees and stakeholders, and far more geographic reach, then orchestral administrators.

I make a big distinction between maestros and executive directors on the one hand and most of the orchestral musicians on the other. Even in the highest-paid orchestras, the rank-and-file musicians are not paid that much.

In ye olden days, Ben and Jerrys (Ice cream) had a rule that nobody could make more than 6X what anybody else made. They finally abandoned that, which is a shame because it was a gret rule.

The top orchestra salaries are about 140K or will be soon. Keep in mind that most make overscale, some make double or triple. 6X 140 is $840K, pretty close to the LA exec directors pay.

If you ever have any free time, I strongly suggest going to guidestar, google it. It will tell you the salaries of the top 5 people in any nonprofit. Ironically, the only one I could find that doesnt is Shreveport. Anyhoo, some of the pay for exec. directors is obscene if you use this scale. I have one I am looking at right now, a 3 million dollar budget. The top 5 office people:

$146K
$106K
$73K
$71K
$56K


This doesnt include expenses and benefits. With that, its over 500 grand for a 3 million organization. Based on this, the LA Phil is paying peanuts.

Cygnus,

The Form 990s, found on Guidestar, have reported incomes in two (really three) catergories.

One is the the "top five" that you mentioned. However, if you read the form, it's the top five highest paid OTHER THAN officers and directors (the Executive Director is almost always part of the Board of Directors as an ex-officio member, and is often no listed here). Also, the "top five" list is only for those making over 50k per year; thus, Shreveport might not have anyone making over 50k per year other than the director, who would be listed elsewhere on the form.

Directors are listed a couple of pages before the "top five" on the 990. Often, this line on the form will just say, "See Attachment Q" or something; if this is the case, you'll have to scan the addendum to the form to find the list of the Board Members, and you'll likely find the director listed with his/her salary on it.

The third category is "five highest paid independent contractors." Sometimes this is where you'll find the music director's salary. In fact, the Chicago Symphony used to have Daniel Barenboim listed in both catergories; about a million bucks for being "Music Director" in the "top five employees," and about another million bucks for conducting duties in the "top five independent contractors."

Jared,

there are no salary listings anywhere on the Shreveport PDFs. I checked the past two years. Yeah, sometimes the salaries are for the top players, and officers are in a different location, addendum, etc. In this case, not one is listed.

Cygnus,

You don't list the any salaries on the form if they aren't over $50,000.

quote:

Originally posted by Jared:
Cygnus,

You don't list the any salaries on the form if they aren't over $50,000.

Correct. However, if the executive director of the Shreveport Symphony is making less than 50K, I think we may have stumbled on the problem.

It would be VERY hard to believe that anyone associated with the Shreveport Symphony (Exec. Director, Conductor, Director of Marketing etc) isnt making over $49,999.

Cygnus,

Six times over base is arbitrary. And even if it weren't, it's from the for-profit world, even in a company formerly run by American socialists.

There's no ethical reason, or probably even competitive reason, the typical executive director, music director or even concertmaster of a major symphony orchestra needs to make more than a few hundred thousand a year.

I will admit that I have not seen an official tax document saying this, but Scott Green, the Executive Director in Shreveport makes around $80,000. This was general knowledge that was brought up often as a matter of contention amongst musicians who did not feel their salary should be cut while management wages stayed disproportionately high.

I don't know why Guidestar only has the IRS 990 forms for Shreveport through 2005. If organizations are responsible for requesting that Guidestar post these forms for the sake of financial clarity amongst potential donors, then it's not surprising that the SSO stopped doing this. It's far easier to manipulate figures for PR purposes when the general public has to dig a little deeper to investigate for themselves. In 2005 Green is listed among the officers, directors, trustees, and key employees, all of whom are listed as devoting zero hours per week for zero compensation (Even if this is the right way to fill out the form, it's a little ironic). There is a box checked that states no one in the organization made an aggregate of more than $100,000.

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
Cygnus,

Six times over base is arbitrary. And even if it weren't, it's from the for-profit world, even in a company formerly run by American socialists.

There's no ethical reason, or probably even competitive reason, the typical executive director, music director or even concertmaster of a major symphony orchestra needs to make more than a few hundred thousand a year.

A lot of folks who make a lot of money would disagree. Lets face it, those at the top make the big bucks and they also make the rules. The divide between the haves and have nots has been growing at obscene rates.

However, for looking over an $85 million dollar budget, 900K isnt unreasonable. As a human, I agree with you. As a musician, I would be glad to pay the suits plenty if there is something in it for me, aka a higher salary. Usually, its pay the suits well and they try to cut YOUR salary. LA isnt doing that.

A conductor is also a fundraiser. Again, if he/she can raise the big bucks, great. Pay em a fortune and we all can sleep on piles of Benjamins. Its happening with the big boys, their salaries keep going up. With the lower tier, its a constant battle of pay cuts while the suits get raises. If they did their job well, its a win-win for everyone. Musicians are generally not greedy people, we just want a decent wage. If a fundraiser can do that, they can earn whatever they want as long as the band is taken care of.

quote:

There's no ethical reason, or probably even competitive reason, the typical executive director, music director or even concertmaster of a major symphony orchestra needs to make more than a few hundred thousand a year.

Why try to deny reality? Everyone is making what they are where they are because if they weren't they would get that much or more from someplace else. There is competition involved. Competitively, orchestras have been at a disadvantage for retaining good staff and management in part because other non-profit industries do pay better (not to mention the for-profit world). Pay scales in orchestras and the typical multipliers for principal players haven't developed as a conspiracy; it's just a market at work, and obviously working quite well. Has the US orchestral scene ever been better, either in terms of artistic creativity or financial health? This is what's all the more disheartening about the leaderships in Jacksonville, Shreveport, and Columbus: they can't figure it out, even with examples of success to learn from all around the country.

I think it's a myth that many top executives in symphony orchestras would go to top jobs in other non-profits or even the for-profit world if their compensation were lower. Can anyone name any top people who have done so? I also disagree with the belief that the U.S. orchestral scene has never been better artistically and financially. It's undoubtedly true that less-prestigious orchestras of today are much, much better than they were 30, 20, 10 or even five years ago. But the so-called Big Five? I don't think any are as distinctive or artistic, or even technically competent, as they were in their respective heydays. And financially, things were best in the late 1990s during the height of the Internet- and technology-stock mania. So many orchestras are struggling financially today, and the future doesn't look that bright. Sure, Boston, San Fran, Boston and I guess Chicago and L.A. are doing great financially, but how many other orchestras are?

I admit I made my claim of healthy orchestra finances without looking at numbers, but the numbers might support what I claimed.

I could find ICSOM Wage Charts from 1985, 1995, and 2005. Of those orchestras who reported pertinent figures, here's a summary:

Season 1985-86:
16 orchestras with balanced budgets
9 orchestras with deficits less than 2% of budget
13 orchestras with deficits greater than 2% of budget

Season 1995-96:
27 orchestras with balanced budgets
1 orchestra with deficits < 2% of budget
13 orchestras with deficits > 2% of budget

Season 2005-06:
19 orchestras with balanced budgets
6 orchestras with deficits < 2% of budget
16 orchestras with deficits > 2% of budget

I suggest these snapshots show a stability in the orchestra business, perhaps even an industry standard rate of deficit plagued orchestras. It is not always the same orchestra (with the exception perhaps of St Louis!) in the big deficit category.

While the budgetary success of orchestras has stayed consistent, that consistency has maintained within ambitious industry-wide growth. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the Comsumer Price Index increased 82% from 1985-2005. Among those ICSOM orchestras that reported pertinent statistics in both years the median budget growth was 132% (Houston) with the increases ranging from 25% (Syracuse) to 361% (Chicago Lyric Opera).

Surveying these stats also suggests that smaller rates of growth do not create financially healthier or artistically superior orchestras.

As to managers, it does seem unlikely that symphony execs would change industries. Symphony execs have spent long enough in the symphony business that their expertise is industry specific. And that's the point: you have to pay for expertise. I know middle and lower level managers who talk of the opportunites to make more money in other industries. Especially in fundraising it's easy for successful managers to jump industries for better rewards.

Principal players' salaries? Fine by me. Weeks off? Don't get me started!!

Flanagan gave a radio interview regarding the Stanford report. You can stream it here. President and CEO of the LA Phil, Deborah Borda, rebuts Flanagan's findings.

It's a good listen. I especially like the way Flanagan pronounces orchestra. He puts the emPHAsis on the wrong syLLAble.