 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-08-06 14:24
Thanks Dave.......what a change from the days of Golshman(sp)
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-08-06 15:50
They had to go on strike just to get that much ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-08-06 16:02
But living in St.Louis has to be worth something......
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-08-06 16:11
I doubt the players in the Israeli Philarmonic Orchestra (our country's best orchestra) get even close to that, and living here is actually more expensive.... Lucky musicians!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-08-06 17:27
As far as playing in a US orchestra, the St Louis salary is near the top of what the major first tier orchestras pay.
In the bigger picture, it really isn't that good ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-08-06 20:46
Top of the Majors????
I'm used to the Majors getting upwards of $100K. I thought even Baltimore got that much.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2005-08-06 23:08
btw mr. blumberg, i too am a former student of mr. Knakal's and it made me equally thrilled to find that one of our "relatives" won such a prestigious job. Congrats to Mr. Andrews!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2005-08-08 14:06
Concerning salary:
Keep in mind cost of living. $75,000 in St Louis is probably worth more than $75,000 in NY or the Philadelphia area. I would imagine that a $250,000 house in a nice suburb of NY wouldn't be very impressive. Where I live in the upper midwest, that could get you a beautiful 5 bedroom house. Is there anyone on this board who lives near St. Louis who can speak about housing and general cost of living in that area?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-08-08 14:39
Chris - if you made $100K in Philadelphia, you would need to make $106K in St. Louis to have the same lifestyle.
Remember, I did the survey of lesson costs 
(actually on my page it has the link to Homefair for their salary calculator of city comparisons)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TonkaToy
Date: 2005-08-08 14:46
Well, a couple of things...
Yes, the cost of living here in St. Louis is on the low side. $300K-$400K will get you a very nice place, close in, 15 minutes to everything; Powell Hall, the airport, shopping, etc.
About the pay for the orchestra. Even before the SLSO had to take a pay cut several years ago they were near the bottom as far as salary went compared to their artistic peers in other orchestras. Since then they have been through the recent strike which ended poorly for the orchestra. Also, the season is no longer 52 weeks. It has been considerably shortened in the last few years. I believe that @10 summer weeks of what had been guarenteed employement has been eliminated.
As far as what Scott Andrew will be earning in the SLSO I'm not sure anyone really knows. It used to be, when I was more current on events at the SLSO, that principals could negotiate their own salarys. There was a minimum amount set out in the union contract that principals must be paid, but they were free to negotiate amounts above that base principal pay delineated in the contract.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-08-08 14:51
Tonka - have you kept up with the housing market lately?
What used to be $300k just 3 years ago is more like $475 now.
It's pretty unbelievable currently - what was $170 just 10 years ago is now more like $325.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TonkaToy
Date: 2005-08-08 15:04
Yes, I do keep up with it. My house in University City where many of the SLSO musicians live cost just under $100K ten years ago. It's a 4 bedroom, 2 bath house in a nice neighborhood. Nothing special. Regular people, professionals, teachers, middle managers, a SLSO violinist across the street. We could probably sell our house today for a little over $300K.
The $300-$400K housing price I indicated was trying to take into account different areas in St. Louis. Some, like Clayton and Ladue, the towns next to where I live are more expensive. You might be looking at $400-$800K or more for a nice home in an established neighborhood. Other places farther west in the burbs might be a little less. Even lower in price would be nice homes in historic neighborhoods in the city of St. Louis. (St. Louis is odd in that the City of St. Louis and St. Louis county are separate. The city is landlocked and cannot annex additional area to improve it's tax base. St. Louis county is Balkanized into almost 100 independent municipalities. Weird that.)
Most of the SLSO musicians that I know tend to live in the inner ring established suburbs, closer to Powell Hall. I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who lives in the far West suburbs or St. Charles county across the Missouri river where housing prices are considerably lower due to the fact that last week what is your back yard was a corn field.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: frank
Date: 2005-08-08 15:19
The cost of living in St. Louis if FAR LESS than living in Boston, which is always in the top 5 as far as expensive places to live go. Scott will probably have a better lifestyle in St. Louis. $300,000 in Boston will get you a one bedroom shack. With all the financial troubles that the SLSO has had, I would be a little weary of that choice. Scott is a great player and obviously wanted a principal spot. I would have rather been in Boston. The midwest is not where I would want to spend the majority of my life.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2005-08-08 17:43
Dave,
Since there are some less than desirable neighborhoods in Philly that would drive down the average, I purposely said Philadelphia area. I see your point: I should have been more clear. I think of the places our teachers like Mr. G. used to live. Even in Sioux Falls, that's a half million dollar house!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2005-08-08 17:55
Dave,
I looked up the calculations for the Philly area, and you're right, It's not that expensive to live there compared to St. Louis.
Wow, that's a surprise!
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-08-08 20:36
For those who would be "weary" of living in St. Louis, let me say that you would probably be surprised at how "livable" the city is compared to many others.
Aside from housing and basic amenities costs, there are many "family" aspects to the area that people have come to prefer over other areas of the country. A first rate symphony is only part of the story; the area (city and county) has many other cultural and recreational opportunities that are at hand at an affordable price.
(One thing that amazes many is when professional sports people decide to remain in the town after their playing days are done. Not all do this (Mark MacGwire being a recent exception), but many do despite the money to move elsewhere.
Part of the appeal is the four season aspect of the climate, but also inclusive are the small town lifestyles in the city (that "Balkanization" of the St. Louis County area into so many small cities referred to above; it's all due to the Civil War and the control of many aspects of the city by the State Legislature as a result), the relative lack of traffic, and the broad swath of cultures present that are often absent in other mid-range cities of the same size. Also, unlike most other "temperate" climate towns, Saint Louis has been there for one hell of a long time (city founded in 1767 or thereabouts).
There are lots of long-term organizations in the city that you normally only find in the ancient (and far overcrowded) cities of the east coast. Irish, Spanish, a wide variety of German and other national organizations have been active there for a hundred years or more, and each ethnicity is well represented. And, if you are Catholic, Italian or German, you'll feel more than at home. Even marginal groups like Croatians and Vietnamese have a solid support network.
At one point, Saint Louis was the number three sized city in the nation (after New York and Brooklyn NY), but those days are long gone. As a result, there are areas "close in" that are affordable, as well as plenty of stuff out in the suburbs should your desires trend in that direction. When I have lived there, I've tried both close in (in the city proper) and in the suburbs, and both life styles suited me just fine.
True, there's no Great White Way, and the local ballet and opera companies are far more marginalized. But, 'tis a great place to raise a family, it has a relatively low cost of living, and the people are relatively "friendly". You could do far worse...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-08-11 05:21
According to MSN's cost of living comparison website (other surveys might give different results, this was the first on my Google list):
http://houseandhome.msn.com/pickaplace/comparecities.aspx
using the national average cost-of-living index as a base of 100, the overall cost of living index for St. Louis is 94.4 while the overall index for Philadelphia is 100.4. A $100,000 salary in St. Louis is equivalent to a $106,356 salary in Philadelphia. While Philadelphia has lower cost of housing and cost of medical care indices, food and groceries and transportation cost less in St. Louis. The biggest individual difference appears to be utilities, which are around 50% higher in Philadelphia. Note that the average value of a house in St. Louis appreciated by 8.9% over the year, while the average value of a house in Philadelphia actually declined by around .63%.
The disparity with Boston is far greater. According to MSN, a $100,000 salary in St. Louis is equivalent to a $150,636 in Boston.
If my memory is correct, before the symphony cut back the length of its season a few years ago, the minimum salary was around $95,000, putting it up there with Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Cleveland. When the season was shortened, minimum pay was cut back to around $76,000. (I might be off by $1,000 or $2,000 here but I think I'm close.) I suspect that figure is not at the level of most, if any, of the aforementioned other orchestras.
Based on the population given and rating of public schools, I suspect that the "St. Louis" in this comparison is St. Louis City. Housing costs in St. Louis county are generally higher and the public schools much better, e.g., the school district I live in spends over $12,000 per student each year. There are very few high school dropouts and over 90% go on to college.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2005-08-11 12:22
"When the season was shortened, minimum pay was cut back to around $76,000. (I might be off by $1,000 or $2,000 here but I think I'm close.) I suspect that figure is not at the level of most, if any, of the aforementioned other orchestras."
Ouch!! That had to really hurt a lot of players. From $100k to 76K is huge!!!!
Msn's site for housing prices looks much better than the one I had referenced - thanks Jack .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-08-11 12:46
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Ouch!! That had to really hurt a lot of players. From $100k to
> 76K is huge!!!!
Looks like almost every other industry ... except the effective "number of services" has actually increased everywhere else.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2005-08-12 01:33
It's funny ... the St Louis orchestra's been one of my favourite US orchestras since I heard them play Brahms years ago on LP ... it was that funky series of LPs with newspaper print style graphics over the cover, think sepia tone. Can't remember the series of if they were re-released on CD ...
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2005-08-12 04:12
diz...
Sounds like the Columbia/Sony "Great Performances" series...and yes, at least some of those were issued on CD.
Katrina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2005-08-12 05:55
Diz,
I'm curious about what you heard. Ken Shaw (or someone else) may be able to correct me but I am not aware that the SLSO ever recorded Brahms' Symphonies. They did make wonderful (IMO) recordings of both of his Serenades for RCA.
The cover you describe does sound like the SONY "Great Performances" series but, if memory serves, that series used Bernstein's set (perhaps they used Szell's -- if they didn't, IMO they should have) AFAIK, the SLSO only made one or two recordings for SONY, released on the Odyssey label. One that comes to mind is Copland's "The Red Pony."
Prior to Leonard Slatkin and early in his tenure, the Symphony was largely restricted to budget lablels, particularly, as I recall, Turnabout (Vox). There is a very good (again IMO) set of Rachmaninov Symphonies from this period (by Slatkin). Eventually, Slatkin landed a recording contract with RCA and there are also a few recordings with Telarc. In both cases, a number of these recordings were during the infancy of the compact disk and were released simultaneously as LP and compact disk.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2005-08-12 06:26
You know, it must have been Szell and Cleveland ... damn it, hate it when I'm wrong.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
