quote:

Originally posted by CounterPoint:

I have seen this argument many times on the topic of compensation and I don't think it is effective logic. If you're going to use the comparison to salaries in other fields, why is a doctor, lawyer or accountant more applicable to a musician than say a teacher, a social worker, or a civil servant?

I would hardly think a lot of musicians would assume they'll get jobs that pay over $100k, I think Weiner was using Dr/lawyer jobs as an example. Just to get a full-time job (& sometimes even a decent part-time gig, depending on the instrument) is hard enough. Many of us are obviously not in it for the money anyway or we WOULD be pursuing other jobs that do pay over $50k-$100k+ a year. I've talked with many individuals who have opted not to pursue music full-time because of well, too many varying factors. But, musicians are in it because that's what we/they chose to do, & if we're good enough (& lucky enough), we should be entitled to make a living at it just like anyone else in a non-music field deserves. To get an orchestra gig at a substantial pay scale is really just icing on the cake.

quote:

Originally posted by weiner2:
(Althouth I think anyone that actually gets a paying orchestra job is probably in the top 25% of all the musicians out there trying.)....

I agree with Weiner on this one.

I'm not claiming that all musicians are worthy of jobs over a certain amount; although if you ask me, perhaps a lot of them should be, considering how much sports players, actors, pop singers/entertainers (dare I call some of them musicians?) get paid, but that's another story altogether that we can't do anything about (demands of society, etc etc). But I still think it's not fair, right (whatever word one wants to use) for salaries to get cut when it's already a rat race for musicians to get another job at a similar pay-rate to begin with. If school teachers get cut from a school (like what was mentioned earlier about arts education being cut from a school's curriculum/program), a teacher could at least find another job that's close to the same rate, & they wouldn't have to fly all around the country to do it. If a musician gets cut, orchestra folds, player doesn't get tenure (etc), they're stuck back at the bottom of the pool along with people who have just graduated, are still in school, ones who have taken audition after audition, you get the picture. Granted, some of them may be good (& lucky) enough to get another job, but this is rarely the case. I realize pretty much everyone that comes into this forum understands all of this, but unfortunately, not a lot of outsiders do. Even when I was a music student, sometimes people would ask "so, what do you really want to do?", like playing music for a living is some unattainable rock-star dream.

I really does go back to what Redtrombone said:

quote:

Originally posted by redtrombone:
I completely agree that in order for the situation in the arts to improve, people need to learn to appreciate it's value. But that just brings me back to teachers and the importance of education.

It's bad enough to not value what musicians actually do for a living, but also to not value it in the school systems.

quote:

Originally posted by CounterPoint:
Cygnus, since we agree on point one, not to make comparisons to salaries in other fields, let's move on.

Actually, I'd like to address your point if I may. While no one will argue the practical social value of a doctor over an elite professional musician, it's worth pointing out that the number of years of specialized training is comparable (actually, musicians probably have the edge in that respect). It certainly far exceeds that of civil servants, social workers and teachers (to use your examples). This, I think, is the jist of the argument - not that the jobs are equal in social value.

quote:

Originally posted by RWhite:

quote:

Originally posted by CounterPoint:
Cygnus, since we agree on point one, not to make comparisons to salaries in other fields, let's move on.

Actually, I'd like to address your point if I may. While no one will argue the practical social value of a doctor over an elite professional musician, it's worth pointing out that the number of years of specialized training is comparable (actually, musicians probably have the edge in that respect). It certainly far exceeds that of civil servants, social workers and teachers (to use your examples). This, I think, is the jist of the argument - not that the jobs are equal in social value.

I'd like to preface my response by saying I am not for a moment taking sides with the Columbus board on the matter that precipitated this discussion.

I've read these forums for years and have up to now resisted joining the discussion, because I have seen how those who do not tow the party line can sometimes be treated. I hope we can discuss openly, disagree or agree as it may be, and be civil to each other.

The main purpose of my response was that comparing one's salary to that of another is not a compelling argument. It does not gain sympathy from those you hope to convince, be it managers, board members, or the general public. By continuing to rely on this comparison argument in making the case for higher wages, you actually weaken your position. Why? First, because there are so many easy counter arguments as to why the logic is a flawed one. Secondly, it is a real turn off.

Whether we like it or not, it is the business community and private donors who support us. Our artform cannot survive without subsidy. To that supporting public, "pay me what a doctor earns" seems obnoxious. It conveys a "the world owes me something" attitude. Business people don't go in for that at all.

A better tactic? How about asking, what can we do to help? Offer to attend a lunch or a prospect meeting with a donor. Sincere energy and passion for the artform creates the best chance of a sale, and who better to express that than someone who has devoted their life to it? Not your job? Fine. Then what about how you look, what you convey on the concert platform? Get your tails dry-cleaned and pressed once in a while. Sit up straight. Try not to look as if you're miserable. During the applause, face the audience and SMILE. Remember that the music isn't the only thing speaking at a concert.

I'm sure this will offend some to read, but until we realise that we are yes, in part, responsible for the future of orchestra, (not just the development director), then the cycle of doom and recovery that haunts so many organizations will continue on.

quote:

Originally posted by CounterPoint:
I've read these forums for years and have up to now resisted joining the discussion, because I have seen how those who do not tow the party line can sometimes be treated. I hope we can discuss openly, disagree or agree as it may be, and be civil to each other.

.

Surely, glad you are posting. For the record, I had no idea there WAS a party line here. If I happen to agree with anyone, its sheer coincidence. I'm not one to tow any line, I speak my mind and that's that.

quote:

A better tactic? How about asking, what can we do to help? Offer to attend a lunch or a prospect meeting with a donor. Sincere energy and passion for the artform creates the best chance of a sale, and who better to express that than someone who has devoted their life to it? Not your job? Fine. Then what about how you look, what you convey on the concert platform? Get your tails dry-cleaned and pressed once in a while. Sit up straight. Try not to look as if you're miserable. During the applause, face the audience and SMILE. Remember that the music isn't the only thing speaking at a concert.

I am not sure how this relates to Columbus but I will play along. Yes, any working stiff has to do his/her job right, even those who dig ditches. I have never seen or heard the Columbus Symphony. I can only speak of the ones I have been in over the last zillion years, and that stuff was rarely a problem. It was the exception and not the rule.

quote:

I'm sure this will offend some to read, but until we realise that we are yes, in part, responsible for the future of orchestra, (not just the development director), then the cycle of doom and recovery that haunts so many organizations will continue on.

I have never seen a symphony fold that was properly managed. Maybe some others can chime in on this too. I do agree with you, but I would have a different approach: we need to take back our bands. The suits work for US. Somehow, that got reversed and that is ridiculous.

As it stands, we have very little control. We dont pick the tunes, we dont pick the guests, and we dont pick the boss. Can symphony players try harder? Sure, we all can. Morale goes a long way. When people are treated well, they give a lil more. I can only imagine what those 31 people will sound like after watching 22 friends lose their careers, possibly their homes, and the 31 take a $12,000 ( a guess) pay cut.

If orchestra players are guilty of something, it is usually lack of backbone. Managements ask them to bend over and they say "How far?" They take pay cuts when the office people dont (aka THEIR employees). They sign over their artistic rights to board members who cant tell Bach from Bartok. They blindly give unions thousands of dollars and get nothing in return. They pay for their union reps benefits when often they have none. They lose their jobs and dont get so much as a sympathy card from the union, just a reminder that their last quarter dues are tardy, even though there is no work. They let rich old ladies hire conductors based on who is the best schmoozer at cocktail parties. They watch while said conductor works 10 weeks and makes 17X as much money as them, yet raises very little. They survive on peanuts while some chump in the office makes a good wage and their sole qualification was a few arts management blowoff courses at some crappy college.

As for Columbus: I'm sure everyone over a certain age has heard the horror stories of their infamous conductor in the 80s and some of the events that took place. If any of that is even remotely semi-true, ya gotta wonder why an entire SYMPHONY (and their management) would actually put up with that.

I don't think any musicians in the Columbus Symphony are telling the public "pay me what a doctor earns" and they would be idiots if they did such a thing. They know better than that and they don't need public "advice" to refrain from doing so. This kind of public advice, unintended or not, only serves to put words in the musicians' mouths.

One should not assume that the musicians of the Columbus Symphony have not done anything to help alleviate this mess. They have done a lot, already, and that is why they are so upset.

Almost all of the men on stage have their tails dry-cleaned and pressed regularly. There will always be a couple of men that don't get around to it. Don't dwell on them. Dwell on the ones that do have some nice clothes on. Don't try to look miserable? That look is not misery. It is the look of quiet intensity and concentration. It's the look one would expect from a soldier or an athlete.

quote:

Originally posted by doublebass:
I don't think any musicians in the Columbus Symphony are telling the public "pay me what a doctor earns" and they would be idiots if they did such a thing. They know better than that and they don't need public "advice" to refrain from doing so. This kind of public advice, unintended or not, only serves to put words in the musicians' mouths.

One should not assume that the musicians of the Columbus Symphony have not done anything to help alleviate this mess. They have done a lot, already, and that is why they are so upset.

I'm not referring to Columbus. I am responding soley to the arguments made on this board, in this discussion topic and countless others, that cite salaries in other fields as reasons that musicians should be paid more. (And I do so without disagreeing that musicians should be paid more.)

quote:

Don't try to look miserable? That look is not misery. It is the look of quiet intensity and concentration. It's the look one would expect from a soldier or an athlete.

I woundn't dream to suggest that musicians should be smiling vacuously while playing, but during the applause, absolutely!

If anyone wants to make the argument that musicians bear zero responsibility for the artistic or financial health of the institution they work for, go ahead. I just think that attitude doesn't serve to benefit musicians or orchestras.

quote:

The main purpose of my response was that comparing one's salary to that of another is not a compelling argument. It does not gain sympathy from those you hope to convince, be it managers, board members, or the general public. By continuing to rely on this comparison argument in making the case for higher wages, you actually weaken your position. Why? First, because there are so many easy counter arguments as to why the logic is a flawed one. Secondly, it is a real turn off.

I don't see the flaw in logic. Also you haven't yet clearly shown us what any of the "so many" counter arguments are other than a kneejerk "how dare you compare yourselves to doctors!?" response - which isn't an argument as far as I can tell.

As I recall, you cited civil servants, teachers and social workers as comparable fields in terms of what our salary goals should be. I pointed out that none of those fields require even close to the amount of training that playing professionally in a symphony orchestra does. Also, I should point out that in many communities with beleaguered orchestras (Charlotte, Jacksonville, etc.) the base pay is significantly below THOSE fields too!

When players present these points, it's not to say "pay me what a doctor earns" - it's to throw the disparity into the spotlight in the hopes of illustrating what sort of progress could be made. Furthermore, managers make these VERY SAME points when presenting visionary strategies to boards (i.e. showing LEADERSHIP). Witness the trajectory of Nashville's base pay (up almost $20K over the course of about a decade). That doesn't happen without a board that believes the players deserve to earn that much and more.

As to whether it's a turn off - business people always cite their own performance record when asking for a raise. Why should it be a "turn off" when we do it?

In summary, I think the argument can only be called obnoxious or logically flawed if one isn't understanding the argument. Maybe they're just not listening? Which is more obnoxious?

quote:

I woundn't dream to suggest that musicians should be smiling vacuously while playing, but during the applause, absolutely!

Note to self: smile vacuously during applause.

quote:

Originally posted by CounterPoint:


If anyone wants to make the argument that musicians bear zero responsibility for the artistic or financial health of the institution they work for, go ahead. I just think that attitude doesn't serve to benefit musicians or orchestras.

A symphony player's job is one of the most specialized out of any profession. He/she has to play a musical instrument well. If they don't, they aren't doing their job, just like any other profession. You are correct in that the artistic health of the orchestra is largely up to the players hitting the right notes at the right time. Their job is to make a product, much like an auto worker, an instrument maker or a chef.

The finances? No can do, not our gig. Marketing directors put people in seats. Development directors hit up Mrs. Moneybags, Suits pick programs and guests that actually might attract an audience. Joe CEO applies for grants. Its quite clear to me that the people doing those jobs in Columbus suck at them. And yet those are the very people who came up with the iea of firing half the band to save their sorry butts.


When you look at the other orchestras in their budget range, why is it possible that they succeed and Columbus wants to fire half the band? That would be the question I would ask the board if I could. I doubt it is the local economy, its a Capitol with an uberschool and lots of white collar gigs. If others do it, why can't they? Bad leadership is the answer.

My comparision with doctors, lawyers and such was because of the amount of training, schooling and preparation before one can even get a job. The worst paying full-time careers in one of those certainly pays more than the worst paying full-time orchestra job - AND - those playing that job are in a higher % of cabible people to do the job as there are thousands of musicians that would die for the low paying job - I don't think that is true for these other professions. Needless to say...

I wanted the discussion to be about solving the problems and how. It seems that there are some common thoughts one of which is that musicians need to take more control. I agree, but the problem is that most musicians are terrible business people. Maybe part of the solution shoulc be changing the circiculum at music schools to include management, development and artistic administration classes so that of the way too many musicians out there struggling to survive performing, they would be on a good start (knowledge wise) to help the orchestras and such. If the orchestras became self managed many would die as we know only how to play our instruments to such a high level and we are lacking in the ability to administrate. On the other hand, I have met many business savy musicians - some get involved with their orchestra - some don't out of fear of retaliation (sp?). And unfortunately I have witnessed a particular orchestra management go after a particular player that was particularly vocal about contracts and everything in them.

Clearly change is needed....how?

Oh yeah - I will smile while recieving applause.
W2

One other problem that is unique to us. If we strike or something to that effect and don't have a union or other outside organization to help keep out the scabs - what would happen:
The young guns who can and will play for nothing will take our seats and we will never get them back.
I agree that we need to do something about keeping the tenured players playing up to par, but that is a separate issue. Unique to us is that if all the orchestras in this country were to fold there would be enough musicians willing to play for nothing and/or bad conditions to start up twice as many orchestras.

Now a great surgeon would never have that problem - or a great lawyer or....... this is where I'm coming from. We spend literally our whole life training yet we know that there are at least 5-10 others just waiting to do our job, and for less, and some of them are just as good - or better - and some are worse.

What are we to do? Comments????

quote:

One other problem that is unique to us. If we strike or something to that effect and don't have a union or other outside organization to help keep out the scabs - what would happen:
The young guns who can and will play for nothing will take our seats and we will never get them back.
I agree that we need to do something about keeping the tenured players playing up to par, but that is a separate issue. Unique to us is that if all the orchestras in this country were to fold there would be enough musicians willing to play for nothing and/or bad conditions to start up twice as many orchestras.

A strike is the option of last resort, and perhaps is the hole card that players rely on too much. I think that strikes have their place, but they often do more harm than good. Ask most musicians who struck how long it took to recoup their missed wages - it often offsets any gains they might make as a result of the strike action.

What musicians need, more than ever, to do now is to be proactive: open lines of communication with their managers, board, and supporters. Find out what their supporters want from their orchestra, and work hard to educate management and board members about those needs. You'd be surprised how many board members don't know a thing about what audiences want, or what their own orchestra organization needs.

Orchestra members, as Cygnus rightly points out, don't have development or organization expertise (for the most part, anyway), but they do have an awareness of what's going on in their communities and the ability to push the board and management to do their jobs properly. This stuff needs to happen not just when it's contract renegotiation time, but all the time, constantly, and without fail for some organizations to keep on the path of viability.

I have to plead ignorance about the workings of most symphony boards, but what if more musicians attended board meetings, not just someone from the players' committee? Or if musicians aren't allowed to attend, why not? Could you push to make this possible? Perhaps more interaction that way could lessen the perception that musicians are just zoo animals who don't know what's good for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by ulmitriba:
I have to plead ignorance about the workings of most symphony boards, but what if more musicians attended board meetings, not just someone from the players' committee? Or if musicians aren't allowed to attend, why not? Could you push to make this possible? .

Musicians are usually not invited.

I can only speak of the board members I have been involved with: many (not all, but many) have the attitude that an orchestra player is an employee and a hack, while a conductor or soloist is a great "artiste". I have been on artistic committees that met with boards, and it was eye opening. Several had a noticable contempt for us. Granted, not everyone is there for altruistic reasons, some do it as a business connection as lots of monied people are on boards.

I dont fault the board members, that's like literally biting the hand that feeds you. They do a great service and give lots of moola. The problem is that they only hear one side of the story. The suits in the office are the ones who dont want musicians involved, that way they can use them as scapecoats and the board never hears who is really at fault.

Actually, here in Columbus, we usually have at least one of our orchestra committee representatives (two if possible) try to attend the board meetings. Though, apparently when they go, the board will break off into an "executive board" meeting, which they're not allowed to attend anyway. But, we are present at board meetings - not that it helps all that much.

And I have to comment on Counterpoint's post a ways back. We HAVE tried to help. You have no idea how many times numerous musicians here in Columbus have tried to give ideas to management and board members. We have given them countless ideas about raising money, different approaches to marketing, different programming options, different series, the list goes on and on. And year after year we see none of these things implemented. Its extremely frustrating for us that WE seem to keep coming up with all of these ideas that may work and they won't even TRY!! Its like screaming at a brick wall. And then they say they can't raise any money! Very disheartening....

The notion that musicians should "help" with their organization's efforts is an interesting topic for discussion. Here's my take: musician's have contractual duties, and duties as agents of the employer. That already offers more assets and protections to the employer than most symphony managers know what to do with. Most musicians I know also feel a duty to their art, community, colleagues, organization, etc. that provides additional value, sometimes a quite tangible value, to the symphony-employer's efforts. It's admirable that musicians give such efforts. But it is the employer's resonsibility to cultivate such attitude and action, not the musician's to give same. And the way for symphony manager/boards to cultivate the expression of their musicians' good faith and best efforts is for those same symphony manager/boards to act in good faith and with their best efforts.

Robert Levine of the Milwaukee Symphony has some interesting thoughts on the notion of musician "input", too.

http://theafmobserver.typepad.com/abu_bratsche/2008/01/...ians-and-i.html#more

Reading the article today on the NWS makes me think they are doing a lot of things right. They are innovative and superior in fund-raising. I think some of the professional orchestras should take a look. There might be something to learn from MTT and his group at NWS.