3 ms·

> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs. A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a

> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs. A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a major symphony orchestra in the United States makes $250k-400k a year. These are extremely competitive jobs and they are paid well. Certainly enough to live on if you wanted to. These people often teach, but not really because they need a "side-gig." If you ask them, they will likely tell you they feel a certain duty to prepare the next generation, they like teaching, and their rehearsal/performance schedule affords them the time.

dofm 25d ago
There are about twenty of these people, though. I said "approximately nobody". At a first approximation, no musician who does it for money makes a living out of it. Classical, pop, rock, whatever. Nobody in music, basically, makes real money. Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. Perhaps another twenty five of each other instrument. A few international soloists in other instruments. But musicians in those jobs are often burning as much money as they are making. (Even Anouskha Shankar has a portfolio career). This is essentially nobody. Everyone else in classical music is earning just the same way as popular musicians — and society doesn't "support" popular musicians at all! The perception that rock musicians make money touring, for example, is just that: perception. The vast majority of tours either just break even or lose money. Working in music production and staging makes better money than musicians make. Everyone else, essentially, has another job. > (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
- encomiast 25d ago
  I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude. But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well. > Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.
  - dofm 25d ago
    But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA. Corporate sponsorship pays the bigger amounts: that is a side job with its own commitments. Prize money: by definition not available to most. Directed pay is a tiny fraction of it (stipend level), even at the highest levels. Athletes have other jobs. Again: a bad model for mathematicians. None of them are going to be signing merch deals. Most aren’t winning prizes. I am afraid that mathematicians are just going to have to keep doing all the other jobs they already do.
    - Someone 25d ago
      > But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA. At least some countries have programs where (candidate) Olympians get professional support and a stipend. See for example https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-uk-sport-funding-works https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-u..., https://www.dosb.de/en/themen/athletes/services-for-athletes https://www.dosb.de/en/themen/athletes/services-for-athletes
    - contubernio 25d ago
      A country like Spain has a formal system of grants and awards for athletes designated as "elite" and supports them roughly at the same pay as it supports junior university professors.
  - analog31 25d ago
    Oddly enough I'm one of those parents. Yes, I cringed, but at the same time I would also have cringed at watching them go into something they hate just for the money. I've seen that too. An observation I made is that the tournament career system is supported by the entire cadre of players and families, of the kids who won't win one of the prize jobs. One reason is we just don't know which 18 year olds will rise to the level needed to win a symphonic audition a decade later. I've always been ambivalent about this, but don't have a good idea for how to reform it. I majored in math and physics. My parents didn't cringe, at least quite so much. I became, quite honestly, a mediocre physicist at a time when you had to be a research superstar to apply for a tenure track job at a third rate college. The consolation for me was that a mediocre physicist could still earn a decent living doing something in industry, and I'm now at a late stage of a satisfying career. I also work on the side as a jazz bassist.
- pclmulqdq 25d ago
  Most of the major orchestras have a union and they negotiate salaries in the $100-200k range for everyone. It’s a lot more people than you might think (70-150 people on payroll in each orchestra). There are also a lot of touring soloists in the world compared to what you expect. It’s a very stressful life, but it yields somewhere between $100k and $1M per year, and many of your living expenses are fully paid for on top of that. There are at least 20 such orchestras in the US alone, not to mention all the orchestras in Europe and Asia. There’s also a very long tail with compensation down to $50k for players. The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
  - dofm 25d ago
    > The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52. So. Not a living then, for most.
    - rowanG077 25d ago
      $40/hour is $83,000 per year, that is more then livable in the US, and by definition of the median half make more. So I can't agree that it's not a living wage for most.
      - frikskit 25d ago
        Assuming they work 40 hours a week. Do they? Maybe I’m just off the mark but this doesn’t seem like the kind of job you clock in at 9 and stay till 5.
        rowanG077 25d ago
        I would expect much more hours when performing and less when not. I would expect it indeed would be approximately a fulltime job.
- bananaflag 25d ago
  > There are about twenty of these people, though. In Germany every small town has a (state-funded) orchestra. I know someone who plays the violin in such an orchestra, he has a solid salary, big house etc. He has a side gig, he has a quartet with some friends of his, but it's for fun, not for money.
- groestl 25d ago
  > Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living Coming from Vienna, that can't be right. This city alone breaks that assumption with it's largest 4 orchestras combined.
  - bjelkeman-again 25d ago
    It is still a very small number compared to all that practice music, and which they could live of it.
- StilesCrisis 25d ago
  So if I go and see Hamilton or something at the theater, your claim is that the orchestra, to a man, each of them has a second job? What sort of job would that even be? It's a traveling show so they can't even work a normal job--they're in a new town every week.
  - bad_haircut72 25d ago
    when the show finishes they lose their gig and go back to tending bar or whatever until they get their next one.
- losvedir 25d ago
  This is confidently presented, but seems incorrect based on other commenters. > Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary I think it's useful if you are, in fact, talking out your ass. It's hard to tell given your confident phrasing, but saying something which gives away that you don't actually have meaningful experience in the subject is worth calling out. It sounds like your interlocutor has a better sense of the state of the music world, and that was a way for them to indicate it.
- 1718627440 25d ago
  You need hundreds of them to make an orchestra and every big city want's an orchestra to be competitive.
- Kon5ole 25d ago
  >Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. This has to be off by at least two orders of magnitude. The Reykjavik symphonic orchestra in Iceland alone employs some 30 full time violinists. The nation's population is less than El Paso, tx - which also employs some 80 musicians in their symphonic orchestra. Your main point might still have merit, but this forum is one where missing the numbers by so much will distract many readers. It distracted me, at least. :) Pop musicians have fewer options and need to chase gigs, but the payoffs are also larger if they make it. One-hit wonders drive Ferraris.

dofm 25d ago

There are about twenty of these people, though. I said "approximately nobody". At a first approximation, no musician who does it for money makes a living out of it. Classical, pop, rock, whatever. Nobody in music, basically, makes real money. Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. Perhaps another twenty five of each other instrument. A few international soloists in other instruments. But musicians in those jobs are often burning as much money as they are making. (Even Anouskha Shankar has a portfolio career). This is essentially nobody. Everyone else in classical music is earning just the same way as popular musicians — and society doesn't "support" popular musicians at all! The perception that rock musicians make money touring, for example, is just that: perception. The vast majority of tours either just break even or lose money. Working in music production and staging makes better money than musicians make. Everyone else, essentially, has another job. > (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary

encomiast 25d ago
I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude. But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well. > Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.
- dofm 25d ago
  But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA. Corporate sponsorship pays the bigger amounts: that is a side job with its own commitments. Prize money: by definition not available to most. Directed pay is a tiny fraction of it (stipend level), even at the highest levels. Athletes have other jobs. Again: a bad model for mathematicians. None of them are going to be signing merch deals. Most aren’t winning prizes. I am afraid that mathematicians are just going to have to keep doing all the other jobs they already do.
  - Someone 25d ago
    > But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA. At least some countries have programs where (candidate) Olympians get professional support and a stipend. See for example https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-uk-sport-funding-works https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-u..., https://www.dosb.de/en/themen/athletes/services-for-athletes https://www.dosb.de/en/themen/athletes/services-for-athletes
  - contubernio 25d ago
    A country like Spain has a formal system of grants and awards for athletes designated as "elite" and supports them roughly at the same pay as it supports junior university professors.
- analog31 25d ago
  Oddly enough I'm one of those parents. Yes, I cringed, but at the same time I would also have cringed at watching them go into something they hate just for the money. I've seen that too. An observation I made is that the tournament career system is supported by the entire cadre of players and families, of the kids who won't win one of the prize jobs. One reason is we just don't know which 18 year olds will rise to the level needed to win a symphonic audition a decade later. I've always been ambivalent about this, but don't have a good idea for how to reform it. I majored in math and physics. My parents didn't cringe, at least quite so much. I became, quite honestly, a mediocre physicist at a time when you had to be a research superstar to apply for a tenure track job at a third rate college. The consolation for me was that a mediocre physicist could still earn a decent living doing something in industry, and I'm now at a late stage of a satisfying career. I also work on the side as a jazz bassist.
pclmulqdq 25d ago
Most of the major orchestras have a union and they negotiate salaries in the $100-200k range for everyone. It’s a lot more people than you might think (70-150 people on payroll in each orchestra). There are also a lot of touring soloists in the world compared to what you expect. It’s a very stressful life, but it yields somewhere between $100k and $1M per year, and many of your living expenses are fully paid for on top of that. There are at least 20 such orchestras in the US alone, not to mention all the orchestras in Europe and Asia. There’s also a very long tail with compensation down to $50k for players. The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
- dofm 25d ago
  > The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52. So. Not a living then, for most.
  - rowanG077 25d ago
    $40/hour is $83,000 per year, that is more then livable in the US, and by definition of the median half make more. So I can't agree that it's not a living wage for most.
    - frikskit 25d ago
      Assuming they work 40 hours a week. Do they? Maybe I’m just off the mark but this doesn’t seem like the kind of job you clock in at 9 and stay till 5.
      - rowanG077 25d ago
        I would expect much more hours when performing and less when not. I would expect it indeed would be approximately a fulltime job.
bananaflag 25d ago
> There are about twenty of these people, though. In Germany every small town has a (state-funded) orchestra. I know someone who plays the violin in such an orchestra, he has a solid salary, big house etc. He has a side gig, he has a quartet with some friends of his, but it's for fun, not for money.
groestl 25d ago
> Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living Coming from Vienna, that can't be right. This city alone breaks that assumption with it's largest 4 orchestras combined.
- bjelkeman-again 25d ago
  It is still a very small number compared to all that practice music, and which they could live of it.
StilesCrisis 25d ago
So if I go and see Hamilton or something at the theater, your claim is that the orchestra, to a man, each of them has a second job? What sort of job would that even be? It's a traveling show so they can't even work a normal job--they're in a new town every week.
- bad_haircut72 25d ago
  when the show finishes they lose their gig and go back to tending bar or whatever until they get their next one.
losvedir 25d ago
This is confidently presented, but seems incorrect based on other commenters. > Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary I think it's useful if you are, in fact, talking out your ass. It's hard to tell given your confident phrasing, but saying something which gives away that you don't actually have meaningful experience in the subject is worth calling out. It sounds like your interlocutor has a better sense of the state of the music world, and that was a way for them to indicate it.
1718627440 25d ago
You need hundreds of them to make an orchestra and every big city want's an orchestra to be competitive.
Kon5ole 25d ago
>Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. This has to be off by at least two orders of magnitude. The Reykjavik symphonic orchestra in Iceland alone employs some 30 full time violinists. The nation's population is less than El Paso, tx - which also employs some 80 musicians in their symphonic orchestra. Your main point might still have merit, but this forum is one where missing the numbers by so much will distract many readers. It distracted me, at least. :) Pop musicians have fewer options and need to chase gigs, but the payoffs are also larger if they make it. One-hit wonders drive Ferraris.