Klarinet Archive - Posting 001247.txt from 1998/04
From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.net>
Subj: Re: Pay analysis of Full-time Orchs
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:32:59 -0400
I just discovered that the following message never got through to the list
when I sent it last Thursday, so here it is again. It contains a financial
analysis that I have referred to in other posts:
Roger Garrett wrote:
>Contrary to
>what you may think, a major orchestra really does not have the funds to
>audition for 24 hours on one instrument only. Most often, the group
>listening to the auditionees are members of the orchestra, for which they
>often get paid overtime. It may seem to you that anything less than what
>you feel is justifiable to get your student in is less than what they
>should be doing, but it would be better to be realistic and try to
>understand their reasoning.
I assume you are speaking from experience here. Why don't you give some
specific examples to back up what you are saying. What is "their
reasoning"?
My reasoning is as follows. I assume the average tenure of a section
orchestral clarinetist in a full-time orchestra (such as National) is
probably around 8 years (someone at ASOL may be able to verify this), and
the average tenure of a principal player is probably much greater probably
15 years or more.
If those assumptions are correct (or even close to correct) then I did the
following math:
Average salary in full time orch in U.S. is approx $50,000 (or more)
Now in most businesses (such as software and publishing with which I am
familiar) the average tenure of an employee is more like two or three
years. These businesses consider a recruiting cost of 10% to 20% of the
annual salary to be reasonable.
Let's take 15% and three years for arguments sake. That means that regular
businesses are willing to pay 5% of the total salary paid as a recruiting
cost. Applying that to our orchestra player numbers we have the following:
$50,000 x 8 years = $400,000 x 5% = $20,000
So by this logic the orchestra should be willing to spend roughly $20,000
to recruit a second clarinet player. For a principal player, the formula
would be:
$60,000 x 15 years = $900,000 x 5% = $45,000
Now, if the average hourly rate of a player on the committee is calculated
at the principal player rate plus 50% for overtime then that is:
$60,000 x 1.5 / (42 week season x 40 hours) @-----.57 per hour
That means the orchestra should be able to have this many man-hours
available for auditioning:
$20,000 / $53.57 per hour = 373 man hours
With a five-person committee that comes to:
373 / 5 = 75 committee hours
So, unless all my numbers are grossly incorrect, my statement stands that
any major orchestra should be ashamed for not admitting all applicants who
properly send in an application form and are willing to show up.
As you can see from the equations above, it does not matter if the
orchestra is a higher paying or lower paying orchestra, because those
salary numbers appear in both numerator and denominator. In other words,
if the salaries are higher and you have to pay the committee more to listen
to the auditions, it doesn't matter, because it is also worth more for you
to find a higher paid player.
> Also, many people who win jobs do not stay in
>their first one for 5-10 years. A very high percentage of them move to
>another position within 3 years.
What percentage? What is the average tenure. Where are you getting your
numbers?
>
>John Yeh auditioned for Chicago at a time when it was rare for a 19 year
>old to be considered.
This is wrong. I was there. I had many 19-year-old friends who auditioned
for numerous positions in major and minor symphony orchestras. I never
heard of a single friend being turned away based on resume.
> His teachers undoubtedly had some impact on if the
>committee chose to listen to him (it is political) - and, based on what I
>have read - I would guess that you are not the political type Jonathan!
I believe this is also incorrect. I will double check with John. I think
politics in music are a bad thing myself.
Are you advocating them as a good thing? Or as a necesary evil? And if
so, wouldn't you also suggest that we teach politics to our students if
they are good, or a necessary evil?
>If you didn't call and schmooze a member or two of the committee that
>decided, or if you don't have pull with Loren Kitt (as it appears you do
>not), then your student won't be given the same chance that either Drucker
>or Yeh had if their teachers DID have pull. This is not to say that you
>should call and schmooze, I am just explaining how it often works.
Wait a minute here. You either ARE suggesting that one should call ahead
of time and schmooze or you ARE NOT suggesting. Which is it, Roger? Fess
up.
I always thought that screened first-round auditions were there for a
reason: impartiality. But if you can't even get behind the screen without
connections and schmooze, it's not very impartial now is it?
> David
>Shifrin always called in advance to see if his student(s) could be placed
>in the finals....!
Very interesting.
> I always thought that was a bit presumptious.
>However, when they were not, they were at least given the opportunity to
>audition like the rest of the pool. Marcellus was legendary for calling
>and demanding that students be placed in the finals.......and Gigliotti
>always called and politely asked to speak with the personnel manager.
Also, very interesting. I'd love to hear more about which teachers out
there call ahead to assure placement for their students in auditions.
>I am genuinly sorry that your student had to receive a form letter and
>learn what the real world is like out there. But, it might help her in
>the long run to have failed this time - before even getting there!
That's the problem she didn't fail. She was excluded, a priori. Based on
a process which GUARANTEES bias and decisions based on lies.
---------------------
Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net
