quote:

Originally posted by Cygnus:
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.

I would just note that they abandoned it because they couldn't find anyone they felt was qualified at that salary level. So if by "great" you mean "doesn't work", than, uh, yeah

As for the original topic:Whatever anyone thinks of Norman Lebrecht, I thoroughly enjoyed (in a depressed kind of way) reading "Who Killed Classical Music" if only because it was the first time in my life that greedy orchestral musicians weren't blamed for orchestral budget problems. Which makes sense, when you consider that musicians generally only make up half of a typical budget (it's been a while since I've studied the wage charts, so this is off the top of my memory). Of course, like executives, you have to pay to have the best when it comes to conductors and soloists, but not enough orchestras are willing to stand up to them and say, you know what, we can't afford you, we'll look elsewhere. I personally think it's absurd that musicians settle for considering 50% of the budget to be the target, when you are the essential week-after-week product.

Just once I'd like to see an orchestra tell Zuckerman, "gee, I'm sorry but the musicians now account for 75% of the budget, so we only have $20k left to pay you this time. K THX BYE"

(Thank you for indulging my outlandish fantasy)

I have often wondered why the American orchestras don't get together and put caps on the fees of guest artists and conductors. This has been an established practice in cities like London for years, and I find it outrageous that they are regularly paid so much better in the United States than in Europe.
To pay an MD over $1 million for 12 weeks of work isn't a problem for the board, but they often seem to resent paying a musician a six figure salary for being in the top one percent of his/her field.

quote:

Originally posted by louie:
I have often wondered why the American orchestras don't get together and put caps on the fees of guest artists and conductors.

Probably because that would be collusion, and therefore illegal under US law.

However, before everyone jumps all over the soloists and conductors, I would point out that many of them have been known to be quite flexible about their fees when informed that a given orchestra is facing fiscal hardship and trying to save money. There is a market system for these things, and most soloists are not interested in breaking anyone's bank.

Also, I think that the issue of European vs. American pay is a bit more complicated than louie makes it out to be. Since a soloist or conductor gains a great deal more exposure with an average European concert than s/he could on an average American tour stop, it stands to reason that less money need be paid to make it worth the soloist/conductor's while. There are other factors as well, and certainly the American predilection for throwing money at celebrity factors in somewhere, but I'm not sure that it's as cut and dry as American orchestras needing to somehow "cap" the system.

Another significant issue for soloist/conductor fees is exchange rates. For a good number of years the dollar has been declining against the the pound and Euro. Assuming fees in the US and Europe have increased at the same rate in their local currencies, the lower value of the dollar means that European fees have - in dollar terms - increased significantly more than they have in the U.S.. Chances are that many conductors and soloists are accepting lower fees to perform in the U.S. than they are in Europe.

Some things about soloists I've never really understood. First, in many cases, why bother? I know I'm not a typical listener, but I prefer all-orchestral programs, though I know that the conventional wisdom (which in this case might actually be correct) is that orchestral programs with a soloist sell better than an all-orchestral program. Obviously there is a valid artistic reason to program concertos or other solo works, but I do wonder, on a strictly economic basis, how often soloist fees justify the extra ticket revenue they generate.

Also, it would seem to me that the orchestras that can best afford to pay high soloist fees should also be the ones that can best afford not to have to. Appearing with a top-tier orchestra is a huge break for lesser-known soloists and also serves to confirm/renew the credentials of even well-established performers. In principle, they should be willing to play practically for free due to the boost or sustenance doing so can give to their careers. OTOH, there isn't a lot to be gained, exposure-wise, going out to play with the 2nd and 3rd tier groups out in the provinces, and it would make more sense to charge more to appear there, even though those orchestras can less afford to pay. The MET caps its fees, with even the Domingos and Flemings of this world supposedly earning only about $15k per night at present (of course they probably evade them some way or other), for the very reason that singing at the MET will benefit their careers and earning power elsewhere.