Donald Satz wrote:

>This "star performers make too much money" theme always seems to come
>from folks who are not star performers.  I consider it nothing but "sour
>grapes".  There's a market, there's supply, there's demand, and there's a
>final price/contract/income.  I can't think of a better way to go about
>determining transactional results.

I haven' read Lebrecht's books, but I have seen a number of reviews.
I gathered that Lebrecht's point is not that musicians make too much money,
but that a number of them get more than they deserve.  Some have such a
reputation that they believe they can do whatever they like.  Because
they are considered to be big stars, they get away with almost everything.
There are some opera singers who concentrate on singing leight-weight
stuff, sometimes outright garbage, to make money, and who prefer to appear
in popular talk shows rather than concentrate on serious singing.

Is it so healthy that musicians are paid so much money? I don't think so.
Everyone knows that it isn't easy to attract young people to classical
music.  Do you think they can afford a lot of money to go to a concert?
When an artist has to be paid a lot to perform, than in the end the
audience has to pay for it.  Those musicians who ask ridiculous sums
of money to perform, are in fact undermining the efforts to attract new
audiences, and therefore could well destroy their own future (or that of
the next generation of performers) in the long term.

Your comparison between the world of art and that of real estate services
or comparable branches of economic activity shows exactly what is wrong
with the music scene right now.

Johan van Veen
Utrecht (Netherlands)
[log in to unmask]