Don Satz:

>This "star performers make too much money" theme always seems to come
>from folks who are not star performers.  I consider it nothing but "sour
>grapes".  There's a market, there's supply, there's demand, and there's a
>final price/contract/income.  I can't think of a better way to go about
>determining transactional results.
>
>...  There's nothing unique about the world of Art when it comes to
>financial matters.

I know we've covered this ground recently, but I don't think the classical
music market is quite the same since it relies so heavily on subsidy.
There is certainly demand for money but there isn't the real supply to
support it.

The LSO needs 10,000 additional sponsorship per concert to supplement
income from ticket sales, support by friends and patrons, general
sponsorship and subsidy.

The Performing Rights Society in Britain had, up until their recent shake
up, been topping up the royalties paid to classical composers with cash
from pop revenue.

I don't have a problem with anyone earning large salaries.  For most people
I know its a great way for them to have a good time and to be generous to
others.  But it is ridiculously topsy-turvy when a conductor gets paid as
much in a couple of concerts as a rank-and-file violinist gets paid in
a year.  You can't equate a conductor with a Managing Director and an
orchestral member with an member of staff - they are part of an organic
whole and the contribution of both is equal.

Robin Newton