There's talent. There's thousands of dollars to purchase instruments. There's thousands of dollars in lessons over a lifetime. There's thousands of hours practicing (and not making any money while you practice).

It's not as simple as showing up and playing a 90 minute program. A lifetime of work and expense is behind those 90 minutes on stage.

I assumed it was more of a starving-artist thing. Instead, it compares favorably to top high-tech software engineering salaries at top companies.

Talent-, experience-, effort-, and scarcity-wise, I guess the BSO salaries make sense.

Then, looking at the salaries, I begin to wonder how much of their funding is from public money, and what the public gets for that. According to their Web site, 60% of their costs (surplus unknown) are earned, and the remainder is covered by donations from "individuals, companies, foundations, and government agencies." Anyone know what the public cost is in terms of public funds and tax deductions, and what the public gets for it?

Garvey's reasoning is ill-conceived and exposes his lack of knowledge of the international musical scene in which the BSO exists. The BSO is one of the five best symphony orchestras in the US. I would hazzard an opinion that right now there isn't a better orchestra in the U.S.

Given the scarcity of musicians who can play at this level and the expenses they incure (priced a good violin recently, Thomas?), their salaries are not high at all. Also, the life of a top level orchestra musician is not all cakes and ale. Lots of practicing and rehearsals on a very rigid schedule.

I'd bone up on the facts of the industry first before taking pot shots like this.

Thomas Garvey here. Regarding "that talent thing," as a frequent attendee at other local symphonies, I can assure you the BSO is not, actually, the only game in town, or indeed the most exciting or interesting game in town. It's simply the most expensive. For sheer technical finish, it's true they're hard to beat. But of course they're subtly wrong for classical music prior to Beethoven, and their interpretations and dynamism aren't always that interesting for later classical music (Zander does Mahler far better, for instance). The musicians are superb - but they often fail to cohere under guest conductors, they're grumpy, and they often look bored. And there are many other musicians in town just as superb as they who are simply scraping by. Indeed, the BSO employs these freelancers regularly - so apparently they are, in fact, quite good enough to play in the BSO! They're just paid less than half as much to do so, with no benefits.

I'd be intrigued to see how "bostonartslover" worms his way around THAT one. He seems to imagine that there is "a scarcity of musicians who can play at this level." But actually, there's not, not really, given the market. The BSO has a list of replacement players for most instruments that's sometimes several names deep.

And while it's true that instruments can be very costly, etc., that's true of many, if not all, serious musicians, not simply the players in the BSO.

My larger point - which these commenters don't seem to have grasped - is that during this downturn, the BSO players are actually doing quite well, better than most of us. So there's no reason to support them with your donations. Unless you feel like giving your hard-earned dollars to people who make more money than you do! If it's classical music you want to support, you can still give your money to wonderful artists who are merely scraping by, if not starving, by contributing to the Handel and Haydn Society, the Boston Philharmonic, the Longwood Symphony, or even the Boston Classical Symphony, as well as local chamber groups such as the Chameleon Arts Ensemble. But don't contribute to the BSO, unless you simply feel like coughing up bucks to support salaries that are essentially about bragging rights, not musical quality.