Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is he?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Joe Baker on June 16, 2000 at 15:40:52:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is he? posted by Jay Bertolet on June 16, 2000 at 15:02:09:

Sounds like there are basically three points:

1) "For one, I do not oppose amateur musicians playing concerts! Except where it
costs working musicians their livelihood."
I have a garden in my backyard, where I grow some vegetables. Should I be prohibited from this because I am depriving a tomato farmer of his livelihood? I also fix my own car. Should the law prevent this in order to provide greater income for professional mechanics? I am a computer professional. Suppose I got the legislature to prevent you from installing software on your own computer, because it deprives computer professionals of their livelihood. Tomato farmers, mechanics, and computer professionals all have to compete with amateurs. I have faith in musicians to do likewise.

2) "... competition is important in our economy. It keeps the best quality products on the shelves and it sustains businesses that do a good job. This logic does not apply to symphony orchestras! Why? Because orchestras cannot turn a profit."
So, why do they have to be non-profit?? Let them be for profit. Find out if audiences are really committed to the music. If so, the symphony will want to attract fine musicians so they can charge a higher ticket price. Some people will balk, and some orchestras will not survive, but the climate for those that DO survive will be much better, especially for the best players (that just sounds SOOO right!).

3) "Everybody is entitled to pursue their own happiness. But the potential for abuse of these recreational musicians by cost cutting managements is very high and it is one place where some union control would be beneficial to all sides. This is how I see things working in states that are not right to work. Or maybe the pure professional musician is a dinosaur waiting to become extinct. Which do you think it is?"
Okay, you asked, remember?? I think management in any organization has to decide what the goals are. If the management decides that the goal is to be a top-flight orchestra, they will pay the money to have the best musicians. Then the patrons will either pay the ticket price, and the orchestra will succeed, or they will not, and the orchestra will fail (every business has to make this decision). If it decides that the goal is to have music and a ticket price in the $5-$10 range, they will have to sacrifice quality. As you say, most listeners will never know the difference, and there SHOULD be opportunities for people who can't afford $50 tickets to hear good (if not great) music. But is that abuse?? I don't think so. I am wearing Walmart bluejeans right now, because they are cheaper. They are not as good as Wranglers or Levis, but they meet my needs and are cheaper. Does that mean I am abusing the makers of Walmart jeans by paying less? No, my very good friend, this is just competition. And Levi Strauss and whoever makes Wranglers aren't doing so badly, by the way.

As to your last musing, the end of the 'pure professional musician', hardly. Just as there are thousands of guys playing basketball at all levels of skill, and millions of fans watching it for tickets ranging from free to $$$, NBA players make more money than ever. The universality of the game just makes it more popular, educating fans and increasing the demand. I think this is where symphony orchestras have made their mistake, BTW, and the union as well. The emphasis should be on developing a 'fan base', not eliminating competition.

- Joe "no malice intended" Baker




Follow Ups: