Klarinet Archive - Posting 000663.txt from 1996/04

From: Fred Jacobowitz <fredj@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: Amateur players and paying gigs -- a little mean here ;)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:25:34 -0400

Nate,
I have no problem with your contention that as a non-union player you
should be able to take the occasional job. However, to sell your services
for less than market value doesn't reflect well on anyone. And it DOES
devalue the skills which you bring to the job, and which you also worked
long and hard to acquire (and still work hard on to keep up).
That being said, tho, I wish to take you to task on some rather
outrageous misrepresentations you made in the letter below. First, the
fact is that the Union has NOT "screwed over" its members. We are the
union. It is not some big-brother organization in which we are drones. If
the local branch doen't work for its members it is up to them to deal
with that. To condemn the A.F. of M. for these ineffective locals is
truly to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think you'll find
precious few musicians who believe they would be better off without the
Union.
You state that the fact that musicians are losing jobs to
synthesizers proves your point. It proves nothing. Did the auto workers
who were replaced by machines lose their jobs because the Union
asked for too much money? Fat chance. They lost their jobs because even
if they worked for virtually nothing the machines would be cheaper. Just a
little factoid for you: In Los Angeles, studio musicans are making a
strong comeback because producers are finding out that while synthesizers
are cheaper if they know exactly what they want, it is extremely
time-consuming to re-program the synths to try out new sounds/effects,
re-score, etc. A conductor can ask the horns to play stopped in 5
seconds. That same sound might take up to an hour with a synth and time
is money, considering studio rentals, production schedules, etc. So much
for synths being "better" (not to mention that anyone who really cares
about sound - and these directors do - wants the real thing, not canned
music). Synthesizers are simply boring.

Fred Jacobowitz
Local 40-543 in Baltimore

On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Nate Burk wrote:

> >When an amateur gets
> >> paid to pay, they are taking work away from a professional player that
> >> would like to work for a living as a musician. . If you want to get
> paid for
> > playing, join the
> >> musicians union and compete against professional - if you get the job fine,
> >> congrat! But at least don't undercut someone for "fun" money.
>
> Do you mean to tell me non-union, non-professional players are less
> important than pros?
>
> 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. If I get a paying gig, I can use the money for whatever I want
> -- whether it's to go to the movies or to put food on my table. It's my
> money, and it's nobody's business what I do with it.
>
> At the risk of sounding cheesey, this is America, "the land of opportunity"
> -- not "the land of opportunity provided you're a union member." It's called
> "fair employment" -- not "fair employment, except for non-union musicians."
> I'm sorry to sound like such an asshole here, but I don't want to join the
> union just for a couple of gigs. I don't think I should be penalized for that!
>
> I'm not as educated about the musicians union as I should be to make
> comments like this, but I think the union has screwed over musicians instead
> of helping them in many situations. Fewer and fewer jobs are out there for
> musicians because they're too hard to hire. Proof of that is the fact that
> so many parts have gone to synthesizers. If I produced musicals, why would I
> pay hundreds of dollars for percussionists if I could invest the same amount
> of money in canned drums that I can use over and over again? [Please feel
> free to set me straight here, since I really don't know what I'm talking about
.]
>
> Once again, I'm sorry this such a nasty posting. Amateurs getting payed
> playing opportunities w/o union "credentials" is something I feel very
> strongly about and something I think is important for people to consider; no
> offense to anyone in particular is intended.
>
> --Nate
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Never let school interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain
> nathan@-----.com/~nathan
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>