Don Satz wrote:

>>There's an alarming trend on this list.  All of a sudden, list members
>>are referring to conductors as "maestro".  Sorry, but I can't abide a
>>designation that has a larger than life or royal aura to it.

Bob Kasenchak refers to:

>our democratic, anti-royalist tendencies that are our birthright.

All other societies are aware of, and respect, these attitudes in
americans, but some of us feel that they are taken beyond sensible bounds,
and not always consistently.  When "foreign" royals visit the USA, they
are seldom treated as nonentities.  There are other attitudes, possibly
deserving similar respect.

There are two kinds of titles.  "Doctor", "Nurse", "Captain", "Corporal",
all have values which imply achievement but do not debase the user.
"Duke", "Earl", "King", etc are the kind that offend Don.  Can Don be quite
certain which kind of title "Maestro/a" can be classified to.  Surely
anyone who gets to hold a baton in front of an orchestra has achieved
something, perhaps something deserving respect, even if you do not like the
result.

Long ago, when I was a schoolboy, my classmates and I called all male
teachers "Sir" and all female teachers "Miss".  (Yes - I know - but we
were kids - what would we know?).  This saved us having to remember names.
Orchestral players have much greater numbers of different conductors than
we had teachers.

Give us a break, Don, old mate, let us do things our way while you do
things your way.

Alan Dudley
<[log in to unmask]>