Johan van Veen replies to me:

>>...  If these sums are so ruinous, then eventually they won't be
>>paid, no matter how big the star.  ...
>
>Many people go to concerts *because* it is common opinion that a musician
>is a star.

This is probably true.  Do you think anything can be done about this?

>Many people attending concerts of the late Von Karajan were just snobs.

And many people were probably genuinely moved.

>>There are lots of good musicians out there, many of whom scrape by.  ...
>>I guess my point is that there are concerts all around, even in classical
>>backwaters like New Orleans, many of which will be wonderful.  You merely
>>have to watch for them.
>
>But these are exactly the musicians who don't get what they deserve.

There's an old saying (I don't know if there's an equivalent in the
Netherlands): "If we all got what we deserved, who would escape hanging?"
Besides, deserve in what sense? Artistry's a subjective notion after all.
We constantly see on this very list wildly varying opinions on this or that
pianist and on this or that composer, and so on.  Deserve in the sense that
they make a return for the people who invest in them? Probably that's not
what you mean, but it seems to me an easier criterion by which to judge
deserts.  If the impressario makes $100,000 profit on a concert and the
artist gets $8,000, this isn't particularly fair, although one can
certainly say that the artist's fee is a hefty one.

>They are often a lot better than the well known and established ensembles
>and musicians, yet they are paid a lot less.  In particular those ensembles
>who do a lot of research to perform little known music or to perform early
>music close to the intentions of its composer deserve more money, because
>such research takes time and costs money.  But they don't get it.  So that
>is my basic point: those who need the money most don't get it, and those
>who don't need that much money, and whose accomplishments are under par,
>do.

I believe we're making much the same point.  My main difference with you
is that I don't see a practical step to take.  Furthermore, I don't believe
that all stars are artistically undeserving or subpar.  In my opinion,
Mutter, Perlman, Kremer, and Pollini deserve artistically everything they
get.

>>I'm sorry, but this is a variation on "Classical musicians should be above
>>money." This is itself a variation on "Teachers should be above money."
>>Therefore, we can justify paying them a pittance.  Here's something to
>>consider: some classical musicians have families.  One doesn't eat ideals.
>>I often wonder how much classical music fans really love the art, since so
>>many of them sound so unwilling to pay the cost.
>
>This is a rather pathetic argument.  We are not talking about musicians
>getting fair payment.

I thought we were.  Sorry.

>I definitely think a musician should get what he deserves (see before).
>But when an opera singer is singing aria's with piano accompaniment, and
>his or her programme lasts less than an hour, does he or she really
>deserve some $100,000 for one concert?

If he or she makes the return on the investment, why not? If a great less
than an hour, why not?

>That *is* the reality.  I don't expect musicians to be totally altruistic,
>but I like the principle of the Orchestra of the 18th Century, where the
>conductor Frans Bruggen gets exactly the same amount of money as every
>member of the orchestra.

The reality is that it's Bruggen's name that draws people to buy tickets.
If that's what he wants or needs to do, that's up to him.  But I really
doubt most people in the audience of those concerts come because of any
other member of the band.  So essentially Bruggen indulges his sense of
what's fair.  However, if he made twice as much as any other member, is
this unfair? After all, he's selling the tickets.

>>Lebrecht appeals to those who want a world that runs on merit.  I would
>>like to see such a world, but I happen to live in this one, where virtue
>>is only sometimes rewarded.
>
>When you like to live in a world that runs on merit, you have to fight for
>it.

Again, what are you fighting for exactly? A system where everybody gets
what they deserve? How does a group of people with quite contrasting
notions of merit and fairness come up with a procedure to apportion the
wealth.  How do you practically go about it?

>And indeed, staying away from the "big names syndrome" - another word
>for snobbery - is the proper thing to do.  And indeed, there are signs that
>the real music lovers start to resist the disgusting tendency of musicians
>making money without proper accomplishments.  The crisis of the CD industry
>is the crisis of the "big names" - the world of "early music" for example
>flourishes more than ever.

No argument about the crisis of the CD industry, as far as it goes.  But
I suggest that the big-name syndrome applies to lots of things other than
performers - repertoire, for example.  CD companies will re-record the
Eroica because it has a track record of good sales and because most people
into classical music at all recognize the name Beethoven.  Now there are
classic recordings already from big names of the past, which the new
recordings must compete against.  A Mengelberg or a Furtwaengler comes
along very rarely and it's unlikely that a new recording will artistically
come anywhere close to one by either.  The major record companies haven't
really twigged to the fact that most of their releases of already available
repertoire isn't going to sell.  A classical-music fan very likely has at
least one Eroica in his CD collection.

As for giving up big names, I'm sorry, but the Berlin Phil, the Chicago,
the Cleveland, the New York Phil, the LPO, and the Concertgebouw play at
an extraordinarily high level that I'm unwilling to give up.  As far as
I'm concerned, they deserve every penny they get, at least if we talk
about an artistic level.  Yet, they are undeniably big names.  Maybe
they're big names for a valid reason.  I love many early-music groups.
I hope they make money (especially Jeannette Sorrell).  But I think the
rich-but-evil/poor-but-noble dichotomy a bit simplistic.  You go because
they're good, not because of how much money they get - and that works both
ways, not merely in favor of the people who don't receive much money.  If
you're angry at the people who go to the mediocre stars, what are you going
to do about them? What are you going to do about the people who'd rather
pay money to see a tractor pull (or Metallica) than a classical concert
at all?

To quote Shakespeare: "Dost thou think, becuase thou art virtuous, there
shall be no more cakes and ale?"

Steve Schwartz