Being a stagehand doesn't sound so bad...

[Bob]

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/arts/music/28hands.html?_r=1&ref=music

[richard black]

In a world where so many seem to earn so much for doing so little, I'm loth to say that a hard-working stagehand shouldn't be well paid. On the other hand, that does seem rather a lot, if the article is to be believed. At least they seem very nice - the one time I played there the guy looking after us was charming and helpful and didn't stand on ceremony one bit.

[Bob]

Yes, some of the points in the article made sense.  Although it still seems high.  I'm thinking those people must be married to the job a bit, esp with 80 hours/week. 

Or that the management better make them happy.  I was thinking someone could slip an extra note onto the last page of a music score out on the stage for a performer, something like, "Aren't you glad we left this last page in here?  Support your stagehand union."  There would be a lot of room for "mistakes" in a job like that where no one is to blame.

[lostinidlewonder]

I doubt these "stagehands" simply put music stands on the stage and tweak lighting etc. If they are doing major productions it is pretty much a 24 hour job 7 days a week, extremely high level of stress and infinite demands. To be paid 200k+ they must be major cogs that turn the public  performance (also the booking fees must be rather high on the expensive tickets for it to be financially viable).  "The tax returns list their average work week at 80 hours." , THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF WORK!!!!!

[birba]

Wow...

[Bob]

Yeah, the one is listed as an electrician I think.  Something like that.  And 80 hours/week is a lot.  That's living at work.

But they would have a lot of power to sway performances.  The management would have to make sure they were happy.