Klarinet Archive - Posting 001260.txt from 1998/04

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Pay analysis of Full-time Orchs
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 20:17:18 -0400

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
> Larry,
>
> As I stated in the post, the data was from the 1995-1996. I don't think
> that classifies it as "hopelessly outdated". It serves to make the
> necessary point. Namely, that the average salary of players in the full
> time orchestras is definitely more than the $50K I used as a conservative
> assumption. Certainly, individual numbers have changed (no doubt the
> average is somewhat higher than $66K now).
>
> There are other "major" orchestras depending on how you define "major." I
> chose those orchestras that are full-time (i.e. 52 weeks, DSO was the
> exception for the reason you mentioned). Even if you add in the next 12
> largest orchestras based on pay (which, by the way, are not full-time) the
> average scale salary circa 1996 still comes $55K, again well over my
> assumption.
>
> In other words, these numbers prove that my assumption on salary was valid.

They prove nothing. You have not included the average salary of every
full time orchestra. Major symphonies were defined in 1983 as any
orchestra with an annual budget that exceeded $5,000,000. Just because
you have assumptions based on partial figures and some estimations doesn't
make your assumptions either accurate or authoritative. On the contrary,
they are beginning to make you look (for lack of another term) somewhat
foolish.

Assumptions for salary figures (accuracy notwithstanding) show nothing
with regard to budgetary costs and line items within the budget specified
toward recruting. Even your own best defense of your earlier
assumptions (sorry Mr. Liberson) has explained that your figures are
outdated. You rely on him for what you need to explain one issue, then
you calmly tell him he is wrong for those issues for which he doesn't
agree. In fact, I haven't seen you recognize any opinion (other than your
own) except for your student being accepted when you placed the call.

Your approach to discussion appears to be that of intimidation when you
can't make a case (using real facts, real figures, and real situations).
That is unfortunate!

Roger Garrett
IWU