minimal viability

Right now, much of the classical music professional field seems to be in a race to the bottom.  Many musicians will take gigs for little to no pay. In the past, I have asked musicians to do that (and have done so myself).  However, work at no cost to anyone does a disservice to ourselves and to the broader music field. First, we provide our time and labor at a loss to ourselves.  Second, we make it so that performances are possible at such a low cost that those who put on concerts assume such low numbers in their estimates. Musicians take gigs for less and less pay, resulting in a race to the bottom to see who can be cheapest.  It starts in college when musicians represent their university (typically) for free at performances not directly related to the completion of their coursework. Then, after focusing so much on completing their degree and keeping their teachers happy, we suddenly notice that we need employment.  In our desperation, we take any jobs are offered. Of course, the challenge is that it’s up to us what’s worth what pay. We may take a gig in order to break into a particular network. Whatever the reason, the end result is basic economics: workers are willing to work for less pay, so the average wage goes down.  What happens when we win the race to the bottom? How do we stop? Should colleges stop asking their students to represent them? The answer will require creativity--and fortunately, our field has that in great supply. I would suggest we need more engaging ensembles that are “minimally viable” (make just enough to keep their respective audiences happy and their musicians gainfully employed). While working to generate more LA/ NY Philharmonics is one solution, I would propose that having more micro-ensembles that target very specific audiences and meet this minimal viability would help strengthen and expand the ecosystem that is classical music by embracing the diversity that is modern music, modern musicians, and the modern audience.