your smarminess, in this,and just about every other matter you shriek about (whether or not there;s even a scintilla of truth in what you screed) brings to mind Mary McCarthy’s slam against Lillian Hellman..”EVERY word she says is a lie…including..”the” and “and”..”

Sorry..that’s the way you come across….

Which numbers? Every number I’ve stated is correct. Little bearing in reality? Really? When they are right there in front of your face? Um, okay.

As a native New Yorker…and as someone who has lived in all five boroughs at one time or another–yea, NYC is a VERY e xpensive city, no question at all about that.(not as mind-boggling over-priced as San Francisco, though)..but Manhattan isn’t the be-all/end-all –even for a performer—though Brooklyn by and large priced itself out-in “trendy” areas-large swatches of the other boroughs are still affordable for an individual making WELL under $100,000–and I still contend your numbers have little bearing on reality–

By this and any other New York standard, the NYCO chorus couldn’t even be called poverty level. NYCO chorus makes in the thirties, and that’s the regular, core chorus. Staff members make less.

Got it?

“A PERSON LIVING IN MANHATTAN NEEDS TO EARN $123,322 A YEAR TO BE CONSIDERED MIDDLE CLASS, the equivalent of a $72,772 salary in Boston and a $50,000 salary in Houston, the study says.”

So, the amount one needs to make to even be considered part of the middle class is substantially MORE than I initially said. In other words, the low six figures does not equal middle class in New York City. Has this been made clear enough for the detractors now? Thank you.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/luxe-life/2009/2/9/it-takes-6-figures-to-be-middle-class-in-new-york-city.html

By the late 1980s more shows were being scored or adapted for synthesizers, which meant that one or two keyboard players could (with minimally acceptible results) replace most of the orchestra. Local 802’s position was that the producers should hire the full complement of players per the contract; it was up to the producers to decide whether to use them or not. Eventually, over the course of the 1990s (a very profitable time for Broadway) new contracts were negotiated that allow concessions in most cases for new shows coming into Broadway. Meanwhile, the producers discovered that there is a fairly strong market for revivals of classic shows that use a fuller, more acoustic orchestra (e.g., Gypsy and South Pacific) which balances out the demand for orchestra personnnel.

It should be stressed that the “walker” situation was temporary, lasting only a few seasons, and that even when there were walkers, part of that responsibility lay with the producers. These musicians were available to play for performances had there been parts for them.

It should also be noted that in the early 1990s, the nut for a big musical was around $300K weekly. During that time the salary of an orchestra member for a show was just about $1K weekly. So the reduction of an orchestra by as many as six players would reduce the nut by only a couple of percentage points. (The biggest cost, as always, for running a Broadway show, is theater rental, an item that skyrocketed during the early 1990s while producers were complaining about how those greedy musicians were bleeding them dry.)

Not going to pointlessly argue. Unless you live here, you simply don’t know.

I still follow this blog for the considerable knowledge and discernment of La Cieca and some of the other commentators. However, these comments have confirmed my impression that overall the “community” here loves opera not nearly so much as it loves to make vituperative comments about singers, instrumental musicians, and everyone else who actually creates a performance.

Yes my dear, that’s exactly what I’m telling you.

Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. YEe, you are right that AGMA can not guarantee work for a minimum number of it’s entire membership.