Don Satz riffs on my comment:

>>He has written two books, one claiming that classical music will die
>>because star performers make too much money....
>
>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.

Neither can I.  However, *I* wouldn't have paid James Levine x number of
millions to take over Munich, either.  Participation in the market means
some people will pay too much.  It seems to me that too many in charge of
hiring trust to hype rather than their ears.  To me, the only difference
between James Levine and James Paul (other than last name and income) is
that the latter is far more musical.

>Would you really prefer and consider reasonable that a star performer take
>less than he/she can get for some artistic or altruistic reason? Would you
>be willing to do this?

Not at all.  I'm a firm believer in "the laborer is worthy of his hire."
I *hate* it that people, in effect, expect artists to subsidize their art.
This is just one reason why I think Lebrecht is talking through his hat.
There's nothing shameful about being poor, but there's nothing noble or
virtuous about it either.  I speak from experience.

Steve Schwartz