Symphonies by the numbers

By Barry Johnson

Comparing the financial numbers of symphony orchestras is tedious business.  You have to go to GuideStar and look up each symphony's IRS 990 form, scroll through the form and find the right row. Those 990s have lots of good information, but they don't have base musician salaries. For those you need to go to the American Federation of Musicians and the International Guild of Symphony, Opera and Ballet Musicians. It's a pain, especially if you want to be comprehensive. And the 990s are always a couple of years behind -- the 2008/2009 numbers are now available for just about everyone.

I'm happy to report that Drew McManus at his Adaptistration blog has done all that work for you! You can compare and contrast to your heart's content. Want to know how much Michael Tilson-Thomas makes conducting the San Francisco Symphony? It's there ($1,588,816). How much does a fulltime percussionist without tenure or title make at the Boston Symphony? That's there, too ($128,180).

Of course, McManus can't speak to the actual numbers -- just the ones the symphonies reported to the IRS. And remember, this is a slice of data from two years ago. We know that a lot has changed in the symphony world since then.  Nonetheless, the numbers are fascinating, if you're trying to make sense of how symphonies operate, though many of them beg for more explanation (for example, severance packages swelled the compensation numbers of some of the music directors).

Below, I've collected a few of McManus's numbers into my own chart.  I'm in Portland, so the Oregon Symphony is in my first line. I've compared it to some geographically pertinent orchestras and others that have a similar overall budget.

Symphony Orchestra Salary Comparison/2008/2009

	Total expenditure	Music director	Executive director	Base musician
Oregon Symphony	$14,930,007	$424,000	$240,330	$45,924
Seattle	$23,760,741	$785,113	$304,253	$82,250
San Francisco	$63,732,771	$1,588,816	$480,989	$124,800
New Jersey	$15,171,040	$375,000	$204,427	$39,712
Utah	$17,788,364	$323,731	$212,176	$61,828
Indianapolis	$35,619,798	$455,856	$281,933	$79,040
Houston	$23,550,981	$359,323	$226,732	$75,735

Source: Drew McManus, Adaptistration

It's easy to start drawing conclusions from just the bare numbers. And the numbers are all over the place. For example, both Houston and Indianapolis paid their musicians about the same base salary in 2008-2009, even though the budget at Indianapolis was far larger. Seattle paid its music director more than double what Houston paid, even though their budgets are roughly equal. These are local decisions, even personal decisions, and they are made from different financial circumstances -- total expenditure isn't necessarily a good barometer of the economic condition of an orchestra. Without knowing the specific background and history of those decisions, it's unfair to comment. On the other hand, the numbers do suggest questions and in some cases should require some explanations from the symphony orchestras themselves. By the way, I suspect that Michael Tilson-Thomas is worth every penny.

The symphony: How democratic should it be? (Phone lines are open)

By Barry Johnson

One of the channelers to the Arts Dispatch post on the Detroit Symphony strike vote is Drew McManus  through his Adaptistraton blog, which linked to our original post yesterday, according to our o-so-advanced analytic system. (Thanks for the link!)

When we clicked through to Adaptistration (which we have bookmarked in any case -- McManus follows issues related to American orchestras closely and writes about them provocatively), McManus said that he didn't have time at the moment to comment on the Detroit case, but he did referred his readers to a previous essay he wrote way back in 2004. It's called "The Money Drug," and it's worth a read because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

"The Money Drug" starts with a study that revealed the unhappy condition and job dissatisfaction of symphony musicians -- compared to almost anyone else.  The study, which was published in 1994, says that "a lack of control in the musician’s workplace, both artistic and not" is "the primary source for this problem," in McManus's words. McManus then hypothesizes that the drive for ever higher salaries by musicians is directly related to the stress and lack of control they feel in their workplace. In other words, happier musicians would demand less financial compensation.

That makes sense as far it goes, I suppose. But I'm interested in the mechanics of "control": how does McManus envision the orchestra with the musicians "in control" (or at least feeling that way)? How democratic a system does he imagine? Because I believe that our ability to operate in democratic systems has been diminished by our lack of practice in them, I'm curious about what exactly McManus has in mind.

But maybe we don't have to wait, dear readers! Is McManus's diagnosis correct? If so, how would you go about fixing the problem? The comment thread is open...