Marcus Moroney responds to David Satz:

>> "Stars" pull in audiences; orchestra members do not.
>>As an "orchestra member", I take great offence to this.

And David says:

>I state a fact, and Marcus gets offended.  There is a very limited number
>of classical musicians, conductors, and singers who have significant
>marketability as "individual" artists. ...  The fact that a well-known
>artist can command a large fee says nothing about his/her value relative
>to an orchestra member.

I've been following this thread with interest (to the extent that I can
with Dave's computer problems!:-(), mostly because I'm a trained musician
who *doesn't* make her living doing this.

I don't think it's *quite* accurate to state that orchestras don't pull in
audiences.  If the New York Phil were to show up in town, by golly I'd go
see them.  Wouldn't matter to me WHO was conducting.  The Academy of St.
Martins in the Fields is here in town this week, without Neville Marriner,
and I seriously considered going to see them too.  (It was finances, not
the choice of conductor that made my decision, unfortunatley.) My point is,
a great conductor will be able to do good things for any group, but I'm
also interested in hearing a good group of players, regardless of the
conductor.

To that end, and to continue a different part of this thread, I'm *happy*
to hear that some big name classical stars are pulling in exorbitant
amounts of money.  I think it's a good thing -- why? Because it makes me
frustrated and irritated to hear about NBA and baseball and football stars
pulling in money to run around jumping on or throwing balls.

I have nothing against sports.  I really don't.  I just don't know why
so much of the country's economy revolves around them.  When I was in
high school there was a huge controversy about money for the schools.  And
what went first when the budget cuts hit? ART.  MUSIC.  DRAMA.  (ARGH!) And
what happened to sports? Nothing.  A few years later students had to start
paying to participate in sports because eventually their funds got cut too.
But I wonder why sports - and they are important in many ways.  I realize
that - are seen as SO important in the scope of things.  Is it because - on
the college level and above - they bring in so much money?

So it's gratifying to me to see "some of our own," as it were, get some
of the dollars.  It's nice to see that there are some people who place a
higher emphasis on art than on grunt-and-snort sports teams.  I try not
to be a snob about it.  I know there's strategy, and these men/women work
out all the time and are "finely tuned instruments" and they practice and
practice.  All that is not lost on me.  But I just don't see the draw or
understand what's so great about it.

-Lindsey Orcutt
[log in to unmask]