Skip to comments.Two Maestros (Orchestra Conductors) now earn over $3 million
Posted on 06/13/2018 7:46:19 AM PDT by nwrep
Consultant Drew McManus has put together the pay scale for music directors, taken from 2015/16 orchestra accounts. Its a grim read.
Jaap Van Zweden continued to make an absolute killing in Dallas can New York Philharmonic even afford him?
Riccardo Muti crossed the $3 million threshold in Chicago and Michael Tilson Thomas is doing well in SanFran with his long-service bonuses.
Heres the score that really matters: what maestros make in annual compensation in the top 10 Orchestras in the US
1 Dallas Symphony: $3,642,804
2 Chicago Symphony: $3,046,137
3 San Francisco Symphony: $2,600,275
4 Los Angeles Philharmonic: $1,983,314
5 New York Philharmonic: $1,793,837
6 Cleveland Orchestra: $1,406,143
7 Philadelphia Orchestra: $1,339,333
8 Boston Symphony: $1,301,000
9 Saint Louis Symphony: $1,041,851
10 Pittsburgh Symphony: $918,550
(Excerpt) Read more at slippedisc.com ...
Dallas of all places! Oil money behind that?
Bob, the conductor of the symphony in my adopted home town of Toadsuck, Arkansas gets a coupon for a dollar off at the car wash.
Eiji Oue doesn’t make what he should.
Can we just be done with the “profit”/”nonprofit” fiction—and end the different tax treatments?
Tax them all, tax none of them, or split the difference.
But let’s stop with this stupidity.
(And the arts will be better off for getting the thumb of government off the scales of their work.)
Yes...I agree...it’s become a form of “virtue signalling”...”I give to the Food Bank”...or whatever...well LaTiDa...I WORK TO ELECT CONSERVATIVES
All this for an arm waver
I don’t go to concerts anymore.
Too much sax and violins.
The CSO is on the list.
The top orchestra in the US in 2015-16 was the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra; not even close.
He is more of a performer in charge of a performance (like Barnum and Bailey) so it is hard to say...
Thats because the MOO is in the pits...
My preference is for the law to deny “non profit” status to any outfit that charges fees for what it does. That will leave “non profit” as anything that is ONLY supported by donations or dues of its members (like any membership outfit).
That would remove the fiction that the outrageously expensive Ivy League colleges are “non profit”. They’d be taxed just as the honestly titled “for profit” schools are. It would also remove hospitals that are not charity hospitals (like St Judes) from the “non-profit” list. It would remove the arts venues that charge the handsome ticket prices they do to see their performances. Why should they be treated any differenly than a “paid” concert by a contemporary artist at Madison Square Garden.
I say - you charge fees for services, you’re not “non profit”.
Oh, yes—to discourage virtue signalling would be a great thing!
One byproduct of that would also be to stop the denigration of those who are in the “for profit” world, providing products and services that people actually are willing to pay for.
Instead of that being seen as dirty money-grubbing, it could once again be seen as noble. (More noble than providing that which would only be supported with tax deductions.)
Mostly off-topic and not meant to hijack the thread, but does/has anyone watch/ed Mozart in the Jungle on Amazon?
It’s a great show and I adore the Maestro - both of them really. Wonderful scenes of what goes on behind the scenes and I bet it’s pretty spot on.
Long ago before bad nerve damage in my hands I dreamt of playing in an orchestra. Cello or double bass. Took lessons right up til 31 when I couldn’t anymore.
(please don’t tell me what any of the actors have done on the liberal side because it is literally the only new show I still watch and enjoy)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.