# Historically, how were musicians and composers paid?



## Sol Invictus (Sep 17, 2016)

More specifically, in terms of salaries and royalties?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Probably badly, unless they had some sort of name. And even then... No such thing as royalties.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Depends. The primary model in English orchestras for a long time was per service - and not too well, either. Elgar complained a lot about the over-worked, under-paid musicians who would travel far just to make a few shillings for a rehearsal or performance. Composers were mostly paid by the publisher for a work and who then owned it. Elgar wrote Salute d'Amor, sold it to Novello for a couple of pounds and they in turn made huge income from it. In the US, the ASCAP was founded by people like Sousa and Victor Herbert and then buying a work did not guarantee performance rights - that was separate. Copyright laws were really important to getting composers paid. In opera, even in 19 c Europe, there were contracts written so that the composer got paid for each performance - it made men like Verdi, Puccini, Leoncavallo, Mascagni, Rossini and others quite wealthy. And it prompted others to write operas (now largely forgotten) to try to get on the gravy train.

A full study of how musicians have been paid over the last 200-300 years could be quite interesting. Nowadays, I know composers who won't ask for a dime; all they want is to hear their music played by someone.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

In the classical/early romantic era you'd be paid a flat fee by a publisher if you were lucky enough to have any work published at all - and they could pick and choose what works to accept.

Unless you had a wealthy patron/admirer who would be willing to back you, or be paid a generous yearly pension by the nation, or be offered a nice, juicy commission on a regular basis by an opera house/concert hall the only way to earn a steady income was to be a composer-in-residence/kappelmeister (like Haydn was with the House of Esterházy), although the workload was usually heavy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Historically, no royalties unless you could negotiate that with your music publisher. I've not heard of that being done in those times.

No salary unless you had that kind of job. Examples are Bach in Leipzig and Haydn at Esterhazy -- both were paid for jobs that involved (actually required) writing music. Royal courts often had paid orchestras and might also have Kapellmeisters, who would be paid to compose. These steady-paycheck jobs were much sought after; even Beethoven accepted a Kapellmeister position with Napoleon's brother, but reneged.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here are some of the ways composers have made money. I’m sure there are others!

Writing on commission. Commissions can come from individuals, performers, orchestras, or even governments.

Writing for publication (common in all periods). The music publisher pays for the right to publish the music.

Writing for one’s own performance (Mozart, Beethoven). Used to be a popular practice among composer/performer types.

Writing for concerts (Handel, the older Haydn, many others). Profits (if any) come from the excess of ticket revenues over concert costs.

Writing as part of a job (Bach, Haydn at Esterhazy, Shostakovich). Many composers would love to have the steady paycheck.

Writing to please patrons. Just don’t try to brain your patron with a chair, like Beethoven did.

Writing to support an academic career. Seems to be more common today than in earlier times.

Ongoing revenues may come from continuing sales of scores and sheet music, recitals and concert performances by others, sales of recorded media, and pittances from streaming. Nowadays composers can also get paid for conducting, giving master classes, and probably a lot of other things.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Three interesting factoids:

When Haydn was in England on one of his two visits, after a particularly profitable concert he wrote in a letter, "Three thousand gulden in one night. Only in England!"

For Beethoven's very first professional opus, the Op. 1 piano trios, the publisher paid him enough to live nicely for half a year. The contract, which was somewhat complex, is detailed in Cooper's biography. Obviously his well-planned campaign to make his reputation in Vienna had worked.

Beethoven was always bothered by the uncertain income from his writing. In 1808 he accepted an offer to be Kapellmeister to Napoleon's brother in Cassel. So three noble friends guaranteed him a lifetime annual stipend to remain in Vienna, no strings attached. He was not required to write even a single work. Beethoven accepted. However, one friend died falling from a horse and another stopped paying because of financial problems. The stipend was ravaged by inflation as well.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Generally considered more difficult music, Bartok was in pretty bad shape financially. His situation did improve near the end when he wrote warmer music.

http://mek.oszk.hu/03700/03723/03723.pdf


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

As I understand it Mozart did well financially but had a taste for gambling. I think Handel also made good money. I'm less sure about others but feel sure that, except for big stars, performers were poorly paid for much of our history.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

The musician gets a cut of the bar scam. All that fiddling is a great distraction...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> As I understand it Mozart did well financially but had a taste for gambling. I think Handel also made good money. I'm less sure about others but feel sure that, except for big stars, performers were poorly paid for much of our history.


That's why he ended up in a poor man's grave.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

That is my understanding.


----------

