Donald Satz wrote:

>Musicians need to unite - call it a union or whatever you like.  They need
>to develop a system which limits eligibility to professional orchestras.
>Physicians would be a good group to look at for "pointers." It's a sure
>thing that if musicians, as one group, do not effectively eliminate its
>excessive ranks, management types will continue to walk all over them.

Well, there *are* musicians unions.  And in many ways I think they're
useful, especially where getting lawyers to help you get money that's
coming to you.  In a field where most freelance musicians DON'T work for
established companies with deep pockets I can see this being useful.

On the other hand, I'm resentful of unions - and not just musicians'
unions, ANY kind of union - for a lot of reasons.  Why is it fair that a
poor player be paid the same as a phenomenal player? Why should Billy Bob
Joe get a pay raise for doing mediocre work when Frankie Sue gets the same
pay raise for excellent, above-par work? Why is this fair? It just doesn't
make any sense to me.

To a certain degree, demanding to be paid a minimum amount of money per
"gig" is fair, but why should one person work their tail off to be the
best, only to be rewarded the same as everyone else?

-Lindsey Orcutt
[log in to unmask]