Income in Classical Music and Jazz (Britain)

[JohnSkelton]

.

[Panjandrum]

In a socialist society things will, of course, be very different

I'd forgotten but thanks for reminding me how well off artists were in Mao's China and Stalin's Russia. Good to be reminded of what the alternatives are.

[JohnSkelton]

`

[amateur51]

They weren't socialist societies.

Have you ever written anything on this message board which contributes in any positive, constructive or conversational way to any of the discussions?

Perish the thought!

[vinteuil]

... all that I can add - was my feeling of embarrassment, after a serious career abroad, spending a few years as an Arts Council funded administrator, dealing with musicians who were 'giving' so much more than I was - and who were earning, for their efforts, a pittance compared with my tidy salary. And there were, then, many arts administrators who were earning far far more than any of the 'artists' they were 'administrating'

[Tony Halstead]

RobertLeDiable:

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

This is a way-over-the-top estimate... more like £350-£500 per concert INCLUDING EXPENSES!

[LHC]

Its worth remembering that although artists are paid per performance, they are not generally paid for rehearsals and preparation time so a portion of the fee has to cover that as well as living expenses and agents fees.

In 2009 Roberto Alagna suggested that he just about broke even on opera performances and only really made money from one-off concerts:

"I’m well off but nothing like as rich as people think. I live in Switzerland but I pay my taxes in France. I don’t know exactly how much I’m worth because I’m not a businessman. For a gala concert, I'm paid 60,000 euros. If I need money, I go to Abu Dhabi or Japan, where I can get 100,000 euros. I get 25% (or 25c ?) on CDs, but nothing on DVDs or live cinema broadcasts. For opera, I get a flat 13,000 euros per night. But at the end there’s nothing left. Half goes in taxes. The rest pays my agent and my living costs. [For Carmen] the apartment I rent near Covent Garden costs £1,500 a week. My only luxury is somewhere comfortable to stay. At the Met, my whole fee goes in living costs."

"When I left EMI, I bought my back catalogue for £800,000. I paid for it with what I had in the bank and the advance on my Sicilian album. In classical music, you’re happy to sell 20,000 CDs worldwide."

Apparently opera house managers talk to each other regularly, compare fee rates and agree what they will pay. Although the stars like Netrebko and Gheorghui can make astronomical sums for singing in concerts in the Middle East or Japan, they need the prestige provided by their opera performances, which is why they continue to appear, even though they make relatively little money from these shows after expenses and taxes have been accounted for.

[Resurrection Man]

Perish the thought!

Ah, I see the schoolyard bully is at it again.

[Lateralthinking1]

RobertLeDiable:

This is a way-over-the-top estimate... more like £350-£500 per concert INCLUDING EXPENSES!

There is quite a difference between the figures of RLD and Waldhorn and it would be helpful to have further thoughts. There is though a picture building here. As in other areas - ie football - there are big differences in income between people doing similar things but the ceiling doesn't appear to be in the stratosphere and there are also sharp distinctions in incomes according to role.

A golfing friend was a millimetre away from professional status but, being not quite good enough, he became a green keeper in Dover. There are probably tens of musicians every year who don't quite make it, if not hundreds, and end up becoming hobbyists. Arguably a year or two on from crucial assessment in competitions, their levels of excellence can be higher than those who do. It seems such a waste. The markets as operated then skew the perceived difference and deprive them and us of a broader palette.

There is much talk of not wanting the best to move abroad but in the arts demand doesn't move too. The public will always want composers, conductors, orchestras, even risque comedians. Some move on, some move in to their spaces, and to deny the usefulness of that fluidity when it is based on choice is bogus. I feel that the markets buck the markets to promote stasis.

Do we know yet what a R3 presenter earns?

[RobertLeDiable]

RobertLeDiable:

This is a way-over-the-top estimate... more like £350-£500 per concert INCLUDING EXPENSES!

Oh sorry! You're obviously talking a lot lower profile than I was. By 'lower profile' I'm thinking of a youngish up-and-coming conductor who might be conducting, say, the Bournemouth Symphony or Halle as opposed to a more established 'name' appearing with the Philharmonia or at Covent Garden.

[RobertLeDiable]

Do we know yet what a R3 presenter earns?

Again, I think they are freelance so it's bound to vary. And it must depend on how much they do and maybe whether they have to write their own scripts, do their own research etc. Doubt if it's that much - probably not more than a doctor anyway.

[Panjandrum]

Ah, I see the schoolyard bully is at it again.

Don't worry about Tiddles, RM. He's got nothing better to do, poor soul.

[ahinton]

Or: if it wasn't for being on YouTube the work wouldn't be anywhere and would therefore be forgotten.

Why would that necessarily be the case in all instances or even the majority thereof? If a record company (such as Mode, to which you draw attention) has made and released a recording of copyright work at its expense, the product is available for sale, but those sales are indeed likely to be affected adversely if it's then been pirated, with consequent financial disadvantages both to the record company and the composer. In the case of scores, no one would have been able to upload any of them into cyberspace unless copies had been provided legitimately first and, if the composer concerned self-publishes and this unauthorised activity turns out to be one of the consequences of that, the same disadvantage applies.

Your complaint only makes sense if someone would have paid the composer cents, gone down the copyright route, had it not been for YouTube. Do you honestly think that's the case? What would you prefer - strict adherence to copyright or people actually hearing your stuff? (I appreciate the position of people like Mode Records who complain that they've incurred the expense of making a recording and believe that 'piracy' affects sales. It may do, but it may also not do. If someone hears something they like they might buy the CD or download. Together with a few other CDs or downloads, possibly, if they are feeling flush and have just made a killing on their new collection of short stories or erotic limericks).

Let's take this one a piece at a time. It doesn't only make sense in the circusmtance that you describe, as I've indicated above; few record companies the composer a fee for his/her work that they're going to record (i.e. the "cents" to which you refer) and they expect that he/she will instead derive a royalty income from sales of its product. What I would prefer is both (i.e. "strict adherence to copyright" AND "people actually hearing [my] stuff") and there's no obvious reason for these to be regarded as mutually incompatible, so it's not a case of wanting to have my cake and eat it. The "if someone hears something they like they might buy the CD or download" is an oft-cited argument but, in my experience and that of all those with whom I've ever discussed it, it doesn't usually work in practice because the people who might consider doing that are very much in the minority compared to those who believe that they have a divine right to hear and see everything for free, regardless of the time, effort and money put into it by the composer and/or anyone else involved in the usually illicitly uploaded product.

Most artistic work is done by people who do not make significant amounts of money out of it (or any at all).

But does that make it right? - and does it accordingly reduce the general public expectations of the work that those people do in the way that would not apply to attitudes towards the work of other professionals? As to "most artistic work", I don't in any case think that most people would expect orchestral players to perform for free in venues made available and run for free.

They do something else to make ends meet.

...which inevitably takes time and energy away from their artistic work; is that a good idea?

It doesn't mean they aren't proper artists or writers or anything.

Of course it doesn't!

It just means the sole or main or any source of their income isn't their art.

Indeed - assuming that they can derive other sources of income.

In a socialist society things will, of course, be very different.

I fear not, on several counts, not least that
(a) I do not see such a society coming any time soon,
(b) there'd be no guarantees of its long-term sustainability or even its short-term survival even if one did so,
(c) not everyone agrees or is indeed ever likely to agree on the same set of definitions for what might constitute such a society and, last but by no means least,
(d) even if I could find it in myself to advocate a socialist society (which, as I imagine you already know, I could not), I would still have scant confidence that it would in any case be likely to favour composers any more than would any other kind.

I even receive the occasional complaint that I have the temerity to charge for supplying copies of my scores, on the trumped-up "grounds" that I should be providing them for free (which would effectively mean at my own expense, although funded by quite what I have no idea and, oddly enough, thosse who expect them for free never tell me); the expectation that scores and recordings in particular should be provided for free has undoubtedly increased considerably since the internet age took hold, although I do not at all blame these technological advances for the rise in this kind of attitude - au contraire, they make prepartion and supply a great deal easier.

[amateur51]

Ah, I see the schoolyard bully is at it again.

You seem to have problems with praise and criticism, ResurrectionMan

The former gets ignored

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?5577-quot-Universe-of-Sound-quot-at-The-Science-Museum&highlight=Science+Museum

the latter gets pounced on, even when it's not directed at you

I'll say no more.

But I bet you will

[amateur51]

Don't worry about Tiddles, RM. He's got nothing better to do, poor soul.

Panyan, you've been rumbled for trolling so often even you must be bored with it