They want to cut pay for 35.000 to 4.000 dollars ?

shiat, who would ACCEPT to work for such a measly wage ? They'd earn more money panhandling with their instruments.

Is that their underground base or something?

Leave the aria.
Take the cannoli.

I think we're missing some context here. I don't think that they are taking a $30k pay cut, but rather that $4k number is an amount paid out per-job, and there are multiple jobs available during a year.


The GM is doing what should be done to cut costs, and is essentially saying that "this shiat isn't as popular anymore, and those who are in it should be in it because they want to be, just as much as they are doing a job."

I just hope Aida out before he gets back.

I'm sure the seven people who actually want to go to the Opera are upset by this.

// Rest of world....not so much

Rockaria! (new window)

Sad - obviously they couldn't compete with the Met, just as Opera Boston (new window) lost out to Boston Lyric Opera.

Optimal_Illusion: Rockaria! (new window)

I thought I saw the mayor there

/wasn't really sure

ArkAngel: padraig: They want to cut pay for 35.000 to 4.000 dollars ?

shiat, who would ACCEPT to work for such a measly wage ? They'd earn more money panhandling with their instruments.

FTFA:

we must transition to the model that most opera companies use: paying people only for the work that they do

These actors and singers were getting paid no matter what, even if they weren't working. Who do they think they are... Congress?

The guys on the bench in football get paid without "working" too. Poprocks Psychology: I think we're missing some context here. I don't think that they are taking a $30k pay cut, but rather that $4k number is an amount paid out per-job, and there are multiple jobs available during a year.


The GM is doing what should be done to cut costs, and is essentially saying that "this shiat isn't as popular anymore, and those who are in it should be in it because they want to be, just as much as they are doing a job."

You couldn't be more off base. The role of the GM (Executive Director) is to RAISE MONEY. That's the job. Basically they don't want to do the job, but want to be paid for it. Paid well I might add. It's been poorly managed for years: they failed to build an appropriate endowment, even in flusher times. They have wasted millions, made terrible hiring decisions in the office, on and on. It's a disgrace.

The same goes with the board. Being on the board of something like City Opera brings prestige (and connections and status etc). To get that, ya gotta pay, ya gotta raise the dough. They don't want to do that. They only want the prestige. Mr. Moneybags wants to take his fat wife to the big Opera gala, he just doesn't want to do the other stuff.

The class warfare in this country is amplified in the arts world. Mr. Moneybags doesn't want to employ singers and musicians, he wants peasants groveling for scraps. He doesn't want good opera, he wants a place to meet more Mr. Moneybags. It used to be about civic pride, having a good arts institution. Ya gotta pay for that.

/got nothin'

That's pretty unusual to pay performers a yearly salary and not per show. Sounds like an awesome gig, but yeah, I have no idea how anybody could make money on that model, especially in this economy. I don't know much about the opera world, but unless every performer on contract is involved in every show, and the shows are rehearsing or performing like 50 weeks a year, I don't see how that makes any business sense. It's nice to give the artists the stability of a real job, but they're competing against the rest of the industry that doesn't work like that.

whenIsayGO: That's pretty unusual to pay performers a yearly salary and not per show.
No, it's not. It's the standard in the top opera companies, which are very few. And it's not a yearly salary, it's a 6 month salary.

People tend to forget about rehearsals. That's where the time goes. They rehearse together at the gig and learn the scores at home, it takes a lot of hours. Non-opera people might get the impression that people are sipping Pina Coladas poolside while not working and still getting paid, and that's far from the reality. Everyone is working a lot. It's just that one particular show might require less people, but the shows are done concurrently. So, it might be one nite that someone doesn't sing, not one week.

It's very similar to football: One could say that football players work 2 hours a week, 15-16 weeks a year. Obviously they don't, it's hundreds of hours of practice, hundreds of hours of training, lifting, on and on. Same with opera: They are in a makeup chair an hour before the show. They listen to many recordings with scores, MEMORIZE in 3-4 languages, learn the orchestra parts well enough to follow along, etc. It's not like learning "Rock You like a Hurricane", it's 3 hours of incredibly complex stuff in a foreign language. That takes serious, serious time.

I can offer a little background as a former member of the American Federation of Musicians, who also has some friends on the "arts management" side of things.

Goodness knows what the $35K/$4K thing means---the opera/symphony orchestras with the deepest pockets can afford to have lots of players on some kind of a "full time" contract; others have a smaller "core" of players with such contracts (this would vary from "schoolteacher pay" to "easily six figures" depending on whether we're talking Fort Wayne or the NY Phil), and then pay others "per service."

I'd guess that the latter is the direction the NYC Opera wants to go....a small "core" chorus, with the additional singers added as needed (for a larger-scale work); likewise, it's quite an expense to have the Tuba player on salary, when a great many operas don't use the instrument at all.

The best concert musicians have put years and lots of money (training, instruments, etc.) into their field, and surely deserve good $$$$. Still, there is a whole "oversupply" issue, with our conservatories and university music departments turning out more than the market needs. Next time there's a trombone opening at a major-league orchestra, there'll be no shortage of very capable players lining up, hoping to get even a shot at an audition. Even the New York Times, IIRC, commented on the subject a few years ago, i.e., "if there's such a surplus of good players lining up for each vacancy, how can the 'market' sustain the salary level involved?"

/I'm not takin' sides----just trying to provide a little context for the article without (hopefully) confusing things.

The principal reason why world-class musicians with advanced degrees in music line up to audition for the U.S. Marine Band (not the various fleet Marine bands; the Marine Band, "The President's Own", in Washington) and sign an enlistment contract if selected, is the over-abundance of them, coupled with the secure 3-year job (renewable, to boot) and decent full-time salary,

There simply isn't a sufficient market for symphony-calibre classical musicians. You can bemoan "cultural decay" all you want, but that's the reality.

kenny's mom: I can offer a little background as a former member of the American Federation of Musicians, who also has some friends on the "arts management" side of things.

Goodness knows what the $35K/$4K thing means---the opera/symphony orchestras with the deepest pockets can afford to have lots of players on some kind of a "full time" contract; others have a smaller "core" of players with such contracts (this would vary from "schoolteacher pay" to "easily six figures" depending on whether we're talking Fort Wayne or the NY Phil), and then pay others "per service."

I'd guess that the latter is the direction the NYC Opera wants to go....a small "core" chorus, with the additional singers added as needed (for a larger-scale work); likewise, it's quite an expense to have the Tuba player on salary, when a great many operas don't use the instrument at all.

.
The old saying is that "The only thing more expensive than opera is war". The trouble with looking at the arts as a business: they aren't. Opera is impractical: It's about excess, grandiosity, hubris. It's spectacle on a grand scale.

The problem with "a small core" and bringing in other as needed"= they won't be brought in or needed. Some suit will decide that having 7 kids as villagers will be plenty, or bringing in a dog instead of an elephant for "Aida" will work just as well. And "screw all those string players, we just need a string quartet." It's the time-tested kiss of death and a guarantee for failure. It's like putting sumo wrestlers on a crash diet and being shocked that nobody wants to see them any more.

Turning City Opera into a "small intimate company" is like having "some sex". You can't, it's all or nothing. It's not much different than having 6 players on the field in a baseball game, it just doesn't work like that. If the board wants grandiose opera, they need to raise grandiose money. "Part-time" (which they basically already are) aint gonna cut it. People don't sing well after working at Midas Muffler all day.

There are solutions:
1. Share the management with other companies
2. Gut the GM's and staffs pay. Hey, people go to see the fat lady sing, not the suit in the office.
3. Build an appropriate endowment.
4. Share wardrobe/sets/ carpenters/makeup artists with others.
5. Stage better operas that will attract both steady yet diverse operas
6. Merge with another company in a place like Baltimore
7. Anything. Anything except what they are doing.

Make no mistake, this is another Union-bustin, class warfare, nonsense situation. It's not much more than that.

Hey whatever as long as people stop trying to force "hip hoperas" down the collective music buying's throat, ok?