Klarinet Archive - Posting 000619.txt from 1996/04

From: "Christopher H. Rohrs" <chrohrs@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Amateur players and paying gigs -- a little mean here ;)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:45:14 -0400

Nate Burk said the following on 4-20-96:

>...In my not-so-humble opinion, if I'm good enough to get a gig, then it
>shouldn't make a difference whether I'm pro or not; union or not; "fun
>money" or not. People would hire me to play good music, and if I can play
>it, then I don't see why a union member should have any "priority" over me...

>...The professionals are the ones who choose to make a living by playing, a
>choice I have a lot of respect for. But in making that decision, they must
>accept any and all competition, including amateurs. Competition is a fact of
>life, and if I beat a pro out of a part, I shouldn't feel responsible for
>their income....

I have some questions to ask you. Read on.

By your logic, I detect the following premise:

(1) Whoever is most qualified for a job should get it, without exceptions.

You may be right here, but that is an issue of philosophical and ethical
nature which I do not wish to discuss here.

But if you agree with this premise (1), then it follows that:

(2) If an employer is just, he will always chose that worker which is most
qualified for the job, regardless of other modifying factors.

This seems plausible, though debatable, like (1), but we can assume it is true.

But not every employer is just in our world! There are crooked employers in
the music business, like every other business. So it is not necessarily
true that all employers will hire those who are most qualified for the job.
This makes sense, given human nature. If, for example, I am directing a
show, would I hire an amateur who can do mediocre work for 1$ per show or a
professional who can do truly great work for 3$? I might be tempted to
chose the former. This seems unjust. And if one accepts (2), it is
definitely unjust.

I think I can safely say (though I cannot validate this logically this late
at night) the following:

(3) So if one wins a job, one was not necessarily the most qualified applicant

So let me ask you this: how fair was the competition you described above?
Let us say for example, that you win a gig. Do you really think you were
the most qualified applicant? Probably not. It was probably your low, low,
non-union rate which made you look good.

If this is is true case, you have violated your original premise (1).

Ok, that's my $.02 Do you see where I'm headed?

Flame on!
Christopher "Fingerschmerz" Rohrs

PS: Pardon the quasi-mathematical and very convoluted nature of this
argument. This is rather hastily assembled. And to you logicians out
there: I'm not interested in a rigourous examination of it. Not now. Kind
of a neat topic, though, isn't it?
***********************************************************************
Christopher Rohrs
chrohrs@-----.edu
"I have nothing to say and I am saying it." -John Cage
************************************************************************

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org