In yesterday's Links, there was a link to a report by Bloomberg News re info on the salaries of Peter Martins, Damian Woetzel and others during 2008. No wonder Darci doesn't want to leave. Based on what Damian's salary was after 23 years, I can only imagine what Darci's must be after 30 years with the company. A very eye-opening article.

http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...st&p=252317

With all due respect, while I'm sure Ms Kistler makes a comfortable salary, I highly doubt the reason that she is chosing to stay is for financial reasons.

Moreover, while the roughly 700K that Martins is making is certainly a commanding salary and arguably could have been cut more to sustain other jobs, it is not particularly exobitant for someone in his position in this city. Additionally, it's important to remember that part of his salary is coming from royalties.

True, and that's one of the things that gripes me about Martins' postition at NYCB. There is the relentless stream of "New Martins Works" as they are initially described. Most contain very little of value but are programmed vigorously. Martins the administrator is very, very lucrative to Martins the "choreographer".
The whole mechanism seems to be built on the premise that Martins fills the slot vacated by Balanchine. Ain't so!!

The article says that Martins "took a 1 percent cut from the previous year’s $706,000", and I think this is misleading. Based on this statement, he have taken a larger % cut in pay, but increased his royalties from other companies, or he could have had a salary increase and a serious drop in royalties, or any combination of the two.

The article also states that "Damian Woetzel, the senior male principal dancer, was paid $278,000, up 24 percent. It was his 23rd and final season with the company; Daniels said the sum includes exit pay, which long- time dancers receive." "Long-time" isn't defined, but might explain why the long-time corps member is pretty much a thing of the past.

I'm assuming that the 700K salary that has been reported for Martins in his capacities as leader of NYCB does NOT include the additional amounts that he makes as head of SAB. That's quite a compensation package.

I know that this will cause a lot of eye-rolls, but unless you make more than a million a year, you're not "rich" in this city. I'm sure he's living comfortably, but I don't consider this to be a shocking or unreasonable salary for someone in his position. Whether or not he deserves to be in that position is another argument completely and one that I am not in a position to be able to comment on. But I think the salary itself is fair.

Exactly. Martins's duties as AD are akin to those of other leaders in other fields who earn similar or higher salaries.

In a different thread, leonid posted an article on Valeri Gergiev from The New York Times. This is a job description that I think should earn this kind of money:



2,000 people -- that's huge.

From the same article:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/magazine...ml?pagewanted=1

FWIW, I took abatt's remark about Kistler as wit. I can't imagine anyone going into ballet for the money, just as I can easily imagine those artists who do make it up the scale having the sensitivity to appreciate the comforts a good income, not to say riches, can bring.

I'm also guessing that all kinds of pension goodies kick in once you have 30 years of service.

Since so few dancers reach 30 years, it's hard to imagine that 30 years is the magic number, or there would be incentive for more dancers to try and the possibility of lawsuits if dancers were "encouraged" not to meet that.

When we last ran a salary thread a few years ago, PM was earning in the $700K range from NYCB (with or without royalties not specified), and another $300+ K from SAB.

Meanwhile, Kevin McKenzie was paid roughly $325 +/- by American Ballet Theatre Foundation, covering his responsibilities for main company plus the junior company plus the JKO School.

I don't see that these salaries are in alignment, even taking into consideration that ABT's payroll includes fewer dancers.

I have no problem with the argument that McKenzie is underpaid, but he, too, took a salary cut (ten times more than one percent) to keep his dancers working.

Also, regarding the large increase (including departure pay) for Damian Woetzel, don't forget that his next-to-last year was spent largely studying in Cambridge. I think he made two appearances during that Winter Season. He didn't earn a large salary from NYCB.

I quite agree.

This is indeed the problem: Everything in NYC is bloated rents, meals, salaries. Mr Maartins is not worth more than the Governor of NYS or the president of the United States. In my opinion he should be a lot less. Thanks for the info. I will never pay for a ticket to the NYCB again.

Moreover, while the roughly 700K that Martins is making is certainly a commanding salary and arguably could have been cut more to sustain other jobs, it is not particularly exobitant for someone in his position in this city. Additionally, it's important to remember that part of his salary is coming from royalties.
[/quote]

Would PM's salary really include substantial royalty compensation? I've only seen the 2007 tax returns because that is all that GuideStar had when I last looked... but in that year PM's salary was $686,000, royalties to the Balanchine trust were somewhere around $315,000. I can't imagine PM's royalty payments being anywhere in the ballpark of what would be owed the Balanchine Trust.

In that same year KevinM earned $287.000. Even with considerable royalties, PM's number seems disproportional.

Eh, I'm not sure that Kistler's salary, when compared to the work she's been through to get it, is high enough to make "she must be in it for the money" effectively witty.

You could argue that it's those very "disproportionalities" that convey high status. That certainly seems one of the lessons we are learning from the recent history of the financial service industry. "The more I make than you, the more worthy I am than you."