Question:
How much do Classical and Jazz musicians make per year? Why are they mostly so poor?
E_J
2011-12-01 06:22:19 UTC
How much do Classical and Jazz musicians make per year? Why are they mostly so poor?
Eight answers:
Constellation
2011-12-01 20:25:30 UTC
Because nowadays, most people are only interested in lady kaka and justin beaver.
Mike
2011-12-01 11:10:53 UTC
To add to both previous answers: In the 1930s, Fritz Kreisler tried to go in the front door of the new RCA Building. The door man saw the fiddle case and ordered Kreisler to use the side entrance. "But I am Fritz Kreisler!" "I don't care if you're Dave Rubinoff, you gotta use the side door."



The story of Gershwin and Ravel the way I heard it was Gershwin asked Ravel if he could take lessons. Ravel said he'd think about it and asked someone about this Gershwin fellow. The friend explained who Gershwin was and how much money he earned. Ravel was shocked and said "I should take lessons from him."



I knew an old fellow who played in dance bands in the 1920s. He got married in 1930 and his wife, a sensible lady as it turned out, insisted he get a real job with benefits and a pension. So he did. In 1965 he retired and went down to the union hall. An old guy came up and said "Tony! Is that you? I haven't seen you around recently." The guy had done exactly what Tony's wife had worried about. He had no benefits, no security and was still hustling gigs and living from hand to mouth.



I've seen big jazz names drive 80 miles to get to a job in a bar with an audience of 40 at most. Some people go tsk tsk at musicians who "sell out" and go commercial. Tommy Dorsey was a decent jazz trombonist, and one day he recorded a treacly ballad called I'm Getting Sentimental over You. It went platinum and Dorsey got rich and never looked back. He was, after all, playing trombone to earn his living, not to make some artistic statement that would probably keep him poor. Ditto Liberace and Victor Borge who made far more money on TV than they would have had they stuck to purism.
onlyocelot
2011-12-01 20:41:47 UTC
Classical and Jazz musicians are usually part of their Musician's Union local. Therefore, they are paid scale. I don't know what that is these days. They also pay dues. Again, I don't know how much that is these days, but if you aren't playing paying gigs all the time, you just aren't going to get paid a lot.



It's not like a 9-to-5.



On the other hand, a very small number of people are being marketed by Burbank (the city is generally associated with record labels (CD's now, of course.) You may think they're making a lot of money, too, but they aren't: they're considered milche cows by their labels, forced to tour to "raise awareness" for their albums, and then charged by the label for everything: transportation, food, lodging, techs, roadies, equipment, trucks... and by the end of the tour, they get their measly part of the box-office take...which is not much.



In short, musicians don't make much at all, and your second grade teacher (who only actually works for 40 weeks a year) makes more than they do...lots more.



Why is it like this? Well, ask yourself. When is the last time you paid to see a string quartet? A jazz ensemble? How many people were in the house, if you did go? Would you pay $100 for a ticket to an orchestra concert in a hall that holds 500 people? (After all, there's on the order of 60 people in the orchestra, not counting stage manager, librarian, empresario, etc: those folk get paid too, but don't make music!) So figure: 500 people (if they're lucky) come and pay 15 bucks a ticket. 60 people play music for 2 hours. This is all the money-making they've been able to do this week, because they have to practice 6-10 hours a day to 'keep up their chops'. Do the math. If the musicians could split the take only among themselves, that's $125 each. How long could you run a household, perhaps with children, on $125/week?



So the solution to poor musicians is for people to pay, willingly, to attend concerts. And what's the first thing people cut out of the budget when the economy gets weak? Entertainment! It's so much cheaper to stay home and listen to recordings.



This is a constant problem, and a vicious cycle: if you can't afford to rent the hall and advertise and pay musicians a living wage, you can't put on concerts. If you do, you have to charge enough per seat to pay the bills...only you also have to charge what the market will bare. If you don't have concerts, no one will care when you do: they'll be conditioned to ignore it, as we all have been for a half-century.



This is why so many symphonies are closing up shop and pushing their musicians out the door.



It wasn't actually much better 300 years ago, but at least, then, there wasn't an easy replacement for live performance. With radio, TV, recordings, and pirated MP3's floating around the Internet for anyone to take.... It's amazing we have any musicians alive at all!
Janis
2016-02-27 05:34:46 UTC
Kim Richmond , Richard Torres , Joel Kaye , Steve Willkerson , Gabe Baltazar , Mary Fettig , Kim Park , Lisa Hittle , Roy Reynolds , Bill Trujillo , Bill Root , Lee Konitz
del_icious_manager
2011-12-01 06:46:10 UTC
With a very few exceptions, musicians don't get rich. This is because people today, as they have all through history, undervalue (or don't value at all!) musicians. One only has to see the number of requests we get in the section for 'free' music (both printed and recorded) by living composers. People somehow think that musicians can just 'play' without any training, investment, buying equipment or hard work. And, of course, they don't have any bills to pay, unlike 'normal' people (or perhaps all musicians composer/perform just as a hobby and hold-down proper days jobs to earn money). In the Baroque and Classical periods, musicians were seen (and treated) like servants and even had to enter the buildings in which they played through the 'workman's entrance'. That's the origination of the modern-day 'stage door'.



Orchestral musicians' salaries vary enormously in different parts of the world. In the major orchestras in the USA, musicians usually earn in low 6-figure sums per year; in the UK (where the cost of living is higher) they earn about half that. Jazz musicians have always been notoriously underpaid for the work they do (I am horrified at the pitiful money some jazz eminent jazz musicians get paid). I have known one of the top jazz composer/musicians play a concert for only £250/$350.



It's part of our socio-culturally shallow, celebrity- and mediocrity-obsessed world. If you can make yourself 'famous' (for good reasons or bad), you will probably earn a lot of money - even if you're a complete waste of space and don't actually 'do' anything (such as Katie Price). If you work hard, but remain a faceless, unknown hard-grafting musician, you will struggle.
spiderman
2011-12-01 07:06:37 UTC
George Gershwin went to see Maurice Ravel for advice on orchestration and was appalled at how little the latter earned. So it isn't always a matter of talent; as is the case in many walks of life, it is being in the right place at the right time.
?
2011-12-01 11:36:48 UTC
You really have to have either a full time job or a part time job and keep this as steady income and then on top of that try to make a career out of evening gigs.
anonymous
2011-12-01 11:30:20 UTC
Because most people out there (90%) don't have any taste in real music.Hollywood takes people who have no talent and sell them. They produce crap. Sadly, people are sheeps because they like to suck up to hollywood. May God have mercy on us all.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...