Income in Classical Music and Jazz (Britain)

[ahinton]

I doubt Carter's view of what constitutes a "living" has much to do with most people's reality, composers or not.

On what specific grounds do you doubt that? Do you have documentary proof of precisely what he means by it which would illustrate for most of the rest of us that it differs widely from most other people's views of "reality" in such matters?

"Elliott Cook Carter Jr. is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning American composer ... He later held teaching posts at the Peabody Conservatory (1946–1948), Columbia University, Queens College, New York (1955–56), Yale University (1960–62), Cornell University (from 1967) and the Juilliard School (from 1972). In 1967, he was appointed a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In 1981, he was awarded the Ernst von Siemens Music Prize, in 1985 the National Medal of Arts." And so on. Actually I bet he's made a handsome living from composition and related activities, through commissions, prizes, prestigious academic posts etc.

There are two flaws in what I presume to be your argument here. Firstly, at the earliest date that you mention here (1946), Carter was already 37 years of age and his earliest known extant work dates from almost two decades before that. Secondly, payments to him in respect of his work within the seven academic positions that he held from 1946 until he retired from Juilliard were all for teaching, not for composition per se. Whilst the prizes that you mention were indeed all awarded for his activity as a composer, he was already in his 50s when he received the first of his two Pulitzer prizes and several years beyond what might be regarded as state retirement age when he received the Siemens prize; I do not know whether the National Medal of Arts or the Légion d'Honneur carry with them any payments, but he was 76 when he received the form and 103 when awarded the latter. Like other composers, his income from composition has had to depend largely on commissions and royalties. In his early days before he took on academic work, he no doubt made more money from writing about music than writing music.

Multitudes on this planet barely subsist.

Whilst that is a sad and obvious truth, it has almost no bearing upon the categories put forward for discussion at the beginning of this thread, so your reference to it, whilst grave beyond all argument, is seriously off-topic.

Millions in this country barely scrape a living http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml. Almost all of them aren't composers.

Panjandrum has already answered your latter sentence; as to your former one, the vast majority of those in Britain (and also in Carter's America, no doubt) who barely scrape a living are in that parlous position because they can't get enough work or, in many cases, any work at all, whereas composers are likely to derive very little income from their composition however hard they might work at it and/or at promoting it. I don't doubt what you write about poverty but, again, it's not only outside the scope of what's being discussed here but it is self-evident that the fact that well over 10% of the world's population is so poor that it has no direct and reliable access to decent sanitation, potable water, adequate food supplies, acceptable (or in some cases any) healthcare, &c. is hardly a direct consequence of the overpayment of certain conductors and soloists...

[ahinton]

Very few authors, poets, playwrights at al whatever et al is make a living from writing. You do have some peculiar ideas.

I didn't suggest otherwise. I was not referring to that but to some people's rather different perception of expectations between whether composers should derive a living from their composition and whether authors, poets, playwrights et al should do so; I'm not even suggesting that such perceptions are correct or justifiable - I merely point out that I have encoutered them on all too many occasions. You do have some peculiar ways of interpreting what you read - sometimes.

[JohnSkelton]

It is hard to see how the system could easily be reformed given that soloists and conductors are presumably freelance/self-employed musicians. It is not like a company where a general rule that no-one should earn more than 10 or 20 times the income of the lowest-paid worker could be enacted.

Surely it could be reformed by just not paying the fees (I don't mean booking them and then not paying, of course ). It may be true with some musicians that a majority of the audience books exclusively because Abbado, say, is conducting; but do they do that with Jonathan Nott? (I think Nott's a very interesting conductor, so in fact I might. But that's not really the point). I suppose a piano recital might be a bit different; but people must also go because of the repertoire.

The C18 case is different if only because (a) many cultural institutions like orchestras receive public funding (b) that funding is threatened, so it's worth asking if the cuts are being shared around or if those at the top are untouched by them. Nono for me is an immensely great composer (I could happily live without Carter's music) but he, as I'm sure is the case with Abbado and Pollini, never wanted for anything.

[ahinton]

But that could be said about plenty of other professions or skilled types of work, not just composers. And it could have been said equally well of C18 composers. What are today's composers, or indeed the soloists/conductors supposed to do about it? They are working within a system which disproportionately rewards the (successful) single performer compared with orchestral musicians. Even ostensibly radical performers like Pollini, who has long been a supporter of the left in Italian politics and has worked (with Abbado and Nono inter al) to bring music to workplaces as well as the big concert halls, have not AFAIK publicly attacked the fee system for concert performance or its disproportionality.

It is hard to see how the system could easily be reformed given that soloists and conductors are presumably freelance/self-employed musicians. It is not like a company where a general rule that no-one should earn more than 10 or 20 times the income of the lowest-paid worker could be enacted.

Could that be enacted? Would it be? I doubt it! But that's largely beside your point. One way in which composers could be a little better rewarded than they are is if more of the royalties generated by performances, recordings and broadcasts of their work actually ended up in their pockets; I refer here rather less to the commission + VAT that might be taken out of some of those royalties than to those royalties that never get paid at all but should get paid.

[ahinton]

Surely it could be reformed by just not paying the fees (I don't mean booking them and then not paying, of course ). It may be true with some musicians that a majority of the audience books exclusively because Abbado, say, is conducting; but do they do that with Jonathan Nott? (I think Nott's a very interesting conductor, so in fact I might. But that's not really the point). I suppose a piano recital might be a bit different; but people must also go because of the repertoire.

The C18 case is different if only because (a) many cultural institutions like orchestras receive public funding (b) that funding is threatened, so it's worth asking if the cuts are being shared around or if those at the top are untouched by them. Nono for me is an immensely great composer (I could happily live without Carter's music) but he, as I'm sure is the case with Abbado and Pollini, never wanted for anything.

I agree with much of what you write here. In some cases, however, some people go to listen to some soloists just because they are playing rather than because of the repertoire that they are performing, which is often a great pity and, to some extent, an indictment to the superstar / sleb klucher wherewith we are plagued these days (although, in so saying, I do obviously also accept the point that some people will with good reason take the view that it's probably worth going to listen to soloist, A, B or C whatever they may be performing).

I could only unhappily live without most of Carter's music but that, too, is beside the point here!

[aeolium]

Surely it could be reformed by just not paying the fees (I don't mean booking them and then not paying, of course ).

You mean not paying the high fees that are currently charged for certain conductors and soloists, instead paying a lower standard fee? That's a possibility, though if it only happened in the UK then those performers could confine their work to where they could get better money (outside the UK). The same kind of thing could well happen with football if the Premiership clubs had to drive down wages e.g. because of a ruling that clubs could not exceed a certain level of indebtedness - there might be an exodus of footballers to Spain or Italy or wherever. Which might all be beneficial in one way, but I'm not sure that, returning to the musical scene, any benefit would necessarily accrue to the underpaid orchestral musicians - if concert-going declined because people wanted to see 'the big names' then there might not be any great saving and there might be a loss.

[JohnSkelton]

Yes, offering something like a standard fee with a 'name' differential. Cuts to arts budgets aren't only happening in the UK, so I'm not sure the football model applies (and in any case the absurdist amounts paid to footballers are not only obscene but have damaged football clubs and forced longstanding club supporters away from watching their team in the Premier League and some of the Championship at least).

Would people stop going to concerts if Maestro X stopped turning up? Or would they go to hear the music anyway? Dunno. Maybe the whole thing isn't worth the candle and public funding should be directed elsewhere.

[Osborn]

I vaguely recall that many years ago the London orchestras rather naughily agreed that they would not engage Anne Sofie Mutter at her agent's new asking price of £10,000. But it might have been good business sense to do so.

For example, if you engage Barenboim to conduct or play the piano with his Berlin Staatskapelle or West Eastern Divan orchestra you will:
1) Be able to charge more for seats
2) Sell all seats
3) Make a 'profit' (compared with lesser mortals)

Herbert Breslin (closely associated with Pavarotti) said "Noone ever loses money by hiring Luciano Pavarotti". Probably true.

[gradus]

I was recently told that many pro jazz groups play for £500 a night, not much for 3 or 4 fine musicians who also have to pay for their own transport to the gig.

[vinteuil]

Very few authors, poets, playwrights at al whatever et al is make a living from writing. You do have some peculiar ideas.

Milton and his heirs received £18 for 'Paradise Lost'. In today's money, perhaps £1,000?

[ahinton]

Milton and his heirs received £18 for 'Paradise Lost'. In today's money, perhaps £1,000?

Fair enough, but we are talking principally about the here and now and, again, my reference (to which JohnSkelton's response seems to have missed the point) is not about how many literary writers do or don't make a living from their writings but about the difference in certain public perceptions in this regard between whether they might expect to make a living out of their work and whether composers might do the same.

Incidentally, another factor that could make it a little easier for composers (since this question was asked earlier) would be a hands-off attitude towards them and their work on the part of internet pirates and, whilst we all know and appreciate that the cyberthieving fraternity concentrates most of its efforts on far more "commercial" stuff, there is nevertheless a vast quantity of recordings and scores of copyright works out there on Youtube and heaven knows how many other internet outlets that generate not a cent for their composers and likely interfere with the already pitifully small amounts that they might expect to receive by way of royalties; fat chance of an agreement on that, though!

[amateur51]

Very few authors, poets, playwrights at al whatever et al is make a living from writing. You do have some peculiar ideas.

Paul Bailey, award-winning novelist and twice short-listed for The Booker Prize, relates the author's lot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/07/google-writers-ebooks-publishing

[ahinton]

Paul Bailey, award-winning novelist and twice short-listed for The Booker Prize, relates the author's lot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...oks-publishing

Indeed - which is why it's perhaps something of a wonder that more people don't seem to realise that the author's lot and the composer's are not so very different to one another and the only reason I can think of for his lack of understanding is that people think it's all J K Rowling, Jeffrey Archer, John Grisham and their ilk and the queues at Waterstones' tills on the one hand and - er - um - can't remember who on the other hand, hence the sense in the minds of some that the world of contemporary "classical" music composition is more of a ghetto than that of contemporary literary writing.

[Lateralthinking1]

I am reading through this morning's debate with interest. Can I just bowl in an observation which has already been commented on elsewhere. The first 50% of the Proms that were sold out were a mixture of big names, events based principally on hype, popular pieces of music and "I wonder why on earth that one sold out so quickly". I don't know how to read this.

[RobertLeDiable]

Fees for conductors and soloists vary widely from country to country. Generally speaking, British fees are considered to be on the low side, whereas I think in countries like France and probably also Norway and Sweden, they tend to be quite a lot higher. So a low profile conductor (i.e. one that gets a reasonable number of guest engagements but not usually with top flight orchestras) might get £1500 for a concert in the UK but £2500 in France. If such a conductor has a principal conductorship with a lowish profile provincial orchestra they might have a salary of £100K. So I suppose you could be looking at annual earnings of around £200K? That's if they're fairly busy and not sitting around for weeks at a time with no engagements or having to fill in with some youth or community orchestra work or teaching. But conductors and soloists are freelance in a market where the bigger names might fill a hall or secure recording deals or foreign tours for the orchestra, so putting a price on what they earn in different contexts would be very hard indeed. Compared with the top footballers it would be surprising if any of the top conductors earns anything like as much. Levine must be one of the highest paid and what was it he got from the Met last year? $2.1 million? Messi or Rooney and a whole host of lesser names would earn that in a few weeks just for sitting on the bench.......