Don Satz speaks:

>The composer Ned Rorem provided an article in a recent
>Gramophone.  I found
>some of his statements very interesting:
>
>"The performer has become the star - the recreator is more important
>than the creator.  Itzhak Perlman lives across the street from me -
>he seems very imperious and self-satisfied and not an adventurous
>performer - but he makes in one evening what I make in five years."
>
>Do you think there's something wrong with this situation, or is Rorem just
>having a case of "sour grapes"?

It simply reflects how art is sold in this culture.  The publisher
can sell copies of scores and the right to perform them.  The performer
can sell performances.  The composer, unless he publishes himself, has
very little to sell, other than a manuscript.  Usually, a composer is so
desperate to sell, usually for the sake of spreading his music, he allows
himself to be cheated or at least to be paid less than his time is worth
even at minimum wage.  Does this situation stink? In my opinion, it stinks.
The artists who make money are mainly those who sell tickets or objects.
Someone who deals exclusively in "head work" has a very tough row to hoe.
This is one reason why I have trouble sympathizing with people who sigh "if
only classical composers wrote what people wanted to hear." I can't name
too many classical composers who got rich from their music.  If you can't
make a living even by pandering, you might as well write as you please.

Steve Schwartz