Symphony board to move forward with per-service contracts

By Donecia Pea
doneciapea@gannett.com

The board of directors for the Shreveport Symphony Orchestra announced late Friday afternoon it will move forward with its proposal to move core musicians to a per-service payment structure.

Management is expected to begin offering contracts in the next two to three weeks, according to the symphony's lead negotiator and attorney, Bobby Gilliam.

Gilliam said the board's decision to move forward with the proposal came after the musicians rejected the board's final offer. "They basically rejected the offer with no counteroffer."

However, symphony musicians were unaware of the board's plans to move forward. "We have received no notice of the employers' intent to impose terms of employment," said Chan Teage, spokesman for the musicians.

The board's offer includes a 75 percent cut to core or full-time musicians, from $12,693 to $3,123 for the 2008-09 season. The proposal would also include the elimination of 24 full-time core positions as of Sept. 1.

The proposal has remained basically unchanged since negotiations began in August.

Board Chairwoman Margaret Elrod has maintained the symphony must move to such a payment structure to create financial stability.

"The symphony's recurring financial support is very much appreciated, but the operating costs have increased while overall revenue has not, requiring that the symphony move to the per-service structure so that musicians are paid for the time actually worked," Elrod says in a statement.

"paid for the time actually worked"

I think Im going to throw up! Are they going
to pay those musicians to practice, or will
they be sightreading the concert? Will they
be paying them for making reeds. or will last months reed do fine?

I hope that every musician in Shreveport packs up their bags and goes elsewhere, leaving this
laim board and managment with nothing!

Stay Srong!
DHP

Or perhaps what they mean is that they do not wish to pay a percussion section for a week's worth of Mozart concerts. Or a contrabassoonist (assuming they have one on roster) for multiple weeks of not having to show up.

I'm only speculating, of course. Sometimes it seems like every organization has a different definition of "per service", and I don't know what exactly Shreveport means.

When I was a per service member there it meant you got paid for each time you showed up. A typical masterworks was 3 rehearsals and two performances so you got paid for 5 services.

Some per service players were, however, guaranteed a minimum number of services per year.

The 'paid for the time actually worked' phrase comes up often, especially in the U.S.A. How can people be educated about the behind-the-scenes activities of symphony musicians? Do they believe musicians just come in, sight read the music and make it beautiful? What about the investments of the instruments and upkeep? It seems the public perception is that musicians get paid very well for only a few hours of work per week.

It's not like that everywhere. There are some well-meaning symphony boards who understand the nature of musical endeavors. Full-time symphony musicians often supplement income with teaching and outside engagements. Per-service symphony musicians often have full-time, non-musical jobs. It takes determination and commitment to keep an excellent level of playing for concerts which is what most musicians strive to do (IMO).

This hardly seems fair since the Music Dir. and the Ex. Dir both had comfortable living wages. And we ALL know that Music Directors have about the same types of schedules as the musicians. So maybe they ought to start looking at reducing the conductor's salary to a per service rate. That would be hilarious!

More like ridiculous.

Did you know that in Brahms 2, oft-played and ever-so-popular, there are 24 parts and the conductor has to know every single one? And be able to relate with the players on each of those parts who ALL are expecting him or her to know their part and how it fits, all throughout every rehearsal and concert?

Multiply the per-service rate x 24 and see what you come up with and if it is anywhere close to the salary. And that's just ONE piece. Think about a concert that has 3 or 4 pieces---that could be 75-100 parts. You play and are responsible for one.

quote:

u know that in Brahms 2, oft-played and ever-so-popular, there are 24 parts and the conductor has to know every single one? And be able to relate with the players on each of those parts who ALL are expecting him or her to know their part and how it fits, all throughout every rehearsal and concert?

Multiply the per-service rate x 24 and see what you come up with and if it is anywhere close to the salary. And that's just ONE piece. Think about a concert that has 3 or 4 pieces---that could be 75-100 parts. You play and are responsible for one.

So what you are saying is a conductor is way more important? For a professional orchestra like this one, a living wage for the musicians is a must. To have just one person getting that living wage is insulting.

quote:

Originally posted by basalin69:
More like ridiculous.

Did you know that in Brahms 2, oft-played and ever-so-popular, there are 24 parts and the conductor has to know every single one? And be able to relate with the players on each of those parts who ALL are expecting him or her to know their part and how it fits, all throughout every rehearsal and concert?

Multiply the per-service rate x 24 and see what you come up with and if it is anywhere close to the salary. And that's just ONE piece. Think about a concert that has 3 or 4 pieces---that could be 75-100 parts. You play and are responsible for one.

True, true. But the original "time actually worked" argument says that the time spent learning the music is not time spent actually working, whether you're learning one part or 24. So it's not any more ridiculous to not pay the conductor for his/her preparation time than it is to not pay the musicians for theirs.

Just sayin'.

Looking at the latest report on adaptistration.com, is it a relevant point that there are no other ROPA orchestras with a similar sized budget as Shreveport that have any full-time musicians? And that the orchestra with full-time players with the next smallest budget has a budget twice the size of Shreveport (Charleston)?

I know little about financial metrics for orchestra management but that seemed interesting and perhaps pertinent.

quote:

Originally posted by katinfiddle:

So what you are saying is a conductor is way more important? For a professional orchestra like this one, a living wage for the musicians is a must. To have just one person getting that living wage is insulting.

Nobody's saying musicians shouldn't get a living wage. Where did you get that? All I said was conductor pay is pretty fair when you consider the sheer number of parts they learn. Conductors do WAY more work than one player. You're a professional, why are you arguing that? You know what they do, and you know what they are responsible for---everybody. A conductor might learn 60 parts for one concert. Do you learn 60 parts in a year?

"Time worked" argument is a pile of crap and we all know that. Nobody is defending that stupid idea either except for those promulgating that load of garbage to those hardworking players.

I'm so sorry, but in my opinion, having such a wide distance in pay is RIDICULOUS! It is insulting and humiliating. Nobody is THAT much more important, unless maybe if they have the power to help their colleagues get living wages.

But seriously, does that conductor know each individual part as intimately as the players know their part? NO! That is a silly analogy.

A conductor does have a lot of responsibility, but so does everyone on stage with them. So I find that a load of you know what. Look at Orpheus, no conductor, but you better believe each musician knows all the parts. And in my orchestra, when the brass and perc aren't playing, 9x out of 10 they are following along with a score.

It is high time for some change. It's not just the ROPA orchs, check out the ICSOMS.....just as disgusting:
http://www.adaptistration.com/adaptistration/2008/06/2008-compensa-1.html

Oh please with the conductor garbage. Any half way decent musician can conduct a Brahms symphony! You want a conductor to try to do my job...good luck with that! At the end of the day its what comes out of my bell that people hear, not the waving of hands of conductors!

60 pieces....I wish I could go a whole season and only have to learn 60 pieces...try 4 times that! most of the time the principal conducter is on the golf course while I'm learning how to play all kinds of garbage!

Lets remember that the Orpheus Chamber
Ensemble is one of the greatest groups in the
world. You know what makes them special? It ain't the conductor!

DHP

quote:

Originally posted by DHP:
Oh please with the conductor garbage. Any half way decent musician can conduct a Brahms symphony! You want a conductor to try to do my job...good luck with that! At the end of the day its what comes out of my bell that people hear, not the waving of hands of conductors!

You might want to check that statement. If halfway decent musicians conducting were doing such a good job, would there be such a competence void on podiums everywhere? Go ahead and guide 24 parts at the same time if you think you can, hearing everything that everyone plays all of the time and know everyone's parts better than they do, so you have something of value to offer them when you stop to rehearse and you have something coherent together come concert time. You know quite well that it is much harder than anyone thinks, if it's done right.

Where are all of these assumptions coming from? Nobody said conductors were all doing their jobs WELL, all I said was that they have WAY more to do than anyone else. The section violinist who plays a concert on zero practice one week still gets full pay, hardly anyone knows, and no one is the wiser. Try not studying for a week while getting up in front of a stage full of qualified players and see how far you get. Go on then and try and say it's the same.

quote:

60 pieces....I wish I could go a whole season and only have to learn 60 pieces...try 4 times that! most of the time the principal conducter is on the golf course while I'm learning how to play all kinds of garbage!

This is the Shreveport Symphony thread. They don't do 60 pieces on their full orchestra concerts in a year. Was I talking about your obviously busy orchestra?

quote:

Lets remember that the Orpheus Chamber
Ensemble is one of the greatest groups in the
world. You know what makes them special? It ain't the conductor!

And you're not in it. And what makes them special probably has something to do with not calling the music they learn garbage. Moreover, just because someone plays in a conductor-less orchestra doesn't mean they don't respect what a conductor has to do. Why don't you go watch Gustavo Dudamel and come back and tell us that a conductor isn't all that.

Conductors don't get paid more because they work harder, they get paid more because the talent is rarer and the best ones are in shorter supply. It's simply supply and demand. I'm guessing that there are no more than 20 - 40 truly great conductors alive at any one time (if that many), so it's a seller's market in the world of the top orchestras.

A player in a major orchestra earns $100,000 or more, and his MD may earn 1.5 million or more. Does the MD work 15 times harder? Probably not. And don't forget that the 1.5 million can be for only 12 - 15 weeks, and the player works 40 - 44 weeks. Most conductors don't know what to do with all 24 instrumental lines (even if they have managed to learn them thoroughly, which in most cases I doubt); only the great ones can deal with such complexity in a meaningful way. Ever notice how many mediocre conductors comment about the flute line more than other instrumental lines? It's because that line is printed at the top of the score, so that's the one they are tracking.

Of course Shreveport doesn't have a world class conductor, so my argument about the rarity of talent doesn't really apply. It would be nice if he would voluntarily take a substantial cut, as our MD did when our organization was in trouble.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Feuermann,

All of this envy over what a conductor makes (and that is what it is) sounds a lot like the class warfare arguments surrounding what a CEO makes vs what an average worker makes. It comes from the fact that YOU aren't fortunate enough to be in that postion because god knows if you were you wouldn't be railing against the pay scale. People make what they make because the market supports it and because someone thinks they are worth it. If that's not youthen fine but the whining about how much a conductor pulls down is petty at best. Leaders of an organization always make more than the rank and file because the ability to lead effectively is a skill that VERY few have. No decent conductor can just show up and fake their way through even a first rehearsal and anyone who actually plays for a living knows full well that their colleagues are not all slaving away for hours everyday to keep up with the season. Orchestral players make **** good money for what they do and anyone who doesn't like it can go find something else to do where they'll make as much....I'll listen for the bustling exodus to other professions though i have a funny feeling I won't hear much

quote:

you know that in Brahms 2, oft-played and ever-so-popular, there are 24 parts and the conductor has to know every single one? And be able to relate with the players on each of those parts who ALL are expecting him or her to know their part and how it fits, all throughout every rehearsal and concert?

I have some problems with using this kind of logic to make the argument that a conductor deserves better pay than instrumentalists.

A conductor may have to know all of the parts, but has to perform none of them. No hours of practicing to make sure one note in a line doesn't pop out, or worrying about flubbing an exposed solo.

I know lots of musicians who know how parts are supposed to go, but this alone does not a good musician make.

As conveniently packaged as the "24 > 1" argument is, it fails to take into account the years of work that go into mastering an instrument with which music can be performed.

There may be reasons why conductors deserve higher salaries than instrumentalists, but this isn't one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by timpani_1:
As conveniently packaged as the "24 > 1" argument is,

Dont forget the finale of Brahms 2 and the unison melody. Think of all the time saved.

Awesome point Cygnus! Kinda backs up the original argument of per service pay etc.

Quote:
A conductor may have to know all of the parts, but has to perform none of them. No hours of practicing to make sure one note in a line doesn't pop out, or worrying about flubbing an exposed solo.
-----------------------------------------------

One note in a line may not pop out, but an entire line may pop out if the conductor miscues. And the conductor may flub a solo, albeit not his own, by missing a quick time signature change.

The conductor is, indeed, actively performing, and leading the performances of everyone in the ensemble.