Steven Schwartz wrote:

>Johan van Veen:
>
>>Is it so healthy that musicians are paid so much money? I don't think so.
>
>...  If these sums are so ruinous, then eventually they won't be
>paid, no matter how big the star.  ...

Many people go to concerts *because* it is common opinion that a musician
is a star.  They attend a concert because they believe they *have* to in
order to be part of the *establishment*.  For them it is as important to
be seen during a concert than to hear the music.  Many very well paid
stars in fact are *not* the top of the bill.  They don't get so much money,
because they are so good, but because they are considered to be stars (and
consider themselves to be stars) and therefore people believe attending
their concerts is the proper thing to do.  Many people attending concerts
of the late Von Karajan were just snobs.

>There are lots of good musicians out there, many of whom scrape by.  ...
>I guess my point is that there are concerts all around, even in classical
>backwaters like New Orleans, many of which will be wonderful.  You merely
>have to watch for them.

But these are exactly the musicians who don't get what they deserve.  They
are often a lot better than the well known and established ensembles and
musicians, yet they are paid a lot less.  In particular those ensembles
who do a lot of research to perform little known music or to perform early
music close to the intentions of its composer deserve more money, because
such research takes time and costs money.  But they don't get it.  So that
is my basic point:  those who need the money most don't get it, and those
who don't need that much money, and whose accomplishments are under par,
do.

>>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.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is a variation on "Classical musicians should be above
>money." This is itself a variation on "Teachers should be above money."
>Therefore, we can justify paying them a pittance.  Here's something to
>consider: some classical musicians have families.  One doesn't eat ideals.
>I often wonder how much classical music fans really love the art, since so
>many of them sound so unwilling to pay the cost.

This is a rather pathetic argument.  We are not talking about musicians
getting fair payment.  I definitely think a musician should get what he
deserves (see before).  But when an opera singer is singing aria's with
piano accompaniment, and his or her programme lasts less than an hour, does
he or she really deserve some $100,000 for one concert? That *is* the
reality.  I don't expect musicians to be totally altruistic, but I like the
principle of the Orchestra of the 18th Century, where the conductor Frans
Bruggen gets exactly the same amount of money as every member of the
orchestra.

Steven Schwartz wrote:

>Lebrecht appeals to those who want a world that runs on merit.  I would
>like to see such a world, but I happen to live in this one, where virtue
>is only sometimes rewarded.

When you like to live in a world that runs on merit, you have to fight for
it.  And indeed, staying away from the "big names syndrome" - another word
for snobbery - is the proper thing to do.  And indeed, there are signs that
the real music lovers start to resist the disgusting tendency of musicians
making money without proper accomplishments.  The crisis of the CD industry
is the crisis of the "big names" - the world of "early music" for example
flourishes more than ever.

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