With the dust starting to settle on this thread, there are two primary
divergent views which have been expressed.  One is that professionals
in the music field should be compensated based on the principle of merit
(you get what you deserve).  The other view is that the market, although
imperfect, allocates incomes better than any other methodology.

What it comes down to is whether you prefer to see incomes based on
subjective criteria or on the more objective market basis.  I have argued
strongly for the market approach, at least in part due to my having majored
in Economics.  As a student and professional in this field, I am convinced
that of all the known economic systems in a pure form, the market system
(capitalism) has the best capability of providing high productivity and
economic prosperity to a nation.  Of course, politicians go out of their
way to adulterate whatever economic system is being used, and it can be
very difficult to judge a system under those circumstances.

One thing we can probably all agree on is that the "merit" system will
never be prevalent.  Utopian ideals do not translate well in the real
world.  But, the "star" system is with us indefinitely as is the tendency
to treat orchestral musicians as dispensable.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]