Kevin Sutton wrote:

>All right, I think that we are getting carried away with (from? - IC) what
>my real point is.

Undoubtedly.  Like many threads, this one has wandered some distance from
where it started (and Kevin's original point doesn't have much obviously
to do with "Listening to a Personal Collection"!) Our temporarily absent
Moderator insists on a thread's name remaining unchanged, no matter how
the content develops.  This has some advantages from the archival point of
view, but I've argued before that we should have a way of changing the name
once the content becomes completely detached.  Other lists insist on that!
However, this is Dave's list and his rules apply.

>I'll state it again: IN MY OPINION, persons should be engaged in a field
>because they either love it and would be miserable doing anything else ...

Of course they should.  But it isn't always easy to change when you know
you really should.

>I took a substantial risk and an even more substantial pay cut to do what I
>love.

I genuinely find that admirable.

>> And what of soloists, chamber groups and even conductors? They all tend to
>> "perform" much less often than orchestral players - perhaps that is a
>> necessary consequence of the need for them to be more fully engaged in
>> their work?
>
>I don't think that I agree with this. Many big name soloists are out there 3-4
>nights a week and travel a great deal in between.

Any generalisation like this is going to be riddled with exceptions,
whichever side of the line the truth is on.  I've had several private
responses agreeing with this idea.  But perhaps I should have written "Many
of them" rather than "They all".

Ian Crisp
[log in to unmask]