Klarinet Archive - Posting 000056.txt from 2008/11

From: Alexander Brash <brash@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] After Drucker
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:59:03 -0500

Correct, I never heard Harold Wright, except on recordings.

> I believe that the longer a group of wind players have to play as
> an ensemble together, the better those sections are in an
> orchestra. Even the change of one player can completely change the
> balance and sound of that sections, or sometimes the entire brass
> or woodwind section. I recall when the principal trumpet was
> changed in the 1980s, and it changed the entire tone of the brass
> section, taking about 1-1/2 years to come back into balance, to my
> ears.

A perfectly fair belief! And I don't entirely disagree with it.

> The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967. Most
> orchestras did practice some form of mandatory retirement age
> before then, though it was bent and molded to match their
> preferences for a particular member most of the time. These were
> internal decisions, and they had far less oversight at that time by
> the AFM, who stepped in to enforce the ADEA in the early 1970s,
> helping several people win cases against their former employers, so
> today US orchestras no longer have such wording in their contracts.
>
> I understand that the Berlin Philharmonic still has a mandatory
> retirement age of 65, which they believe keeps their orchestra
> "young," but whether that improves it or not cannot be known. As
> far as other orchestras in Europe, I don't know their specific
> policies. On the other hand, in most countries in Europe your
> retirement years are not so financially precarious as they are
> likely to be here.

So what this is saying, is that my previous posts were 100%
completely correct in terms of facts. Mandatory retirement did once
exist, and still does in some European orchestras. Therefore, I'd
humbly submit that this is a legitimate idea which deserves
discussion, and not ad hominem attacks on my naiveness? :)

On Nov 8, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Penny Sprynet wrote:

> The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967. Most
> orchestras did practice some form of mandatory retirement age
> before then, though it was bent and molded to match their
> preferences for a particular member most of the time. These were
> internal decisions, and they had far less oversight at that time by
> the AFM, who stepped in to enforce the ADEA in the early 1970s,
> helping several people win cases against their former employers, so
> today US orchestras no longer have such wording in their contracts.
>
> I understand that the Berlin Philharmonic still has a mandatory
> retirement age of 65, which they believe keeps their orchestra
> "young," but whether that improves it or not cannot be known. As
> far as other orchestras in Europe, I don't know their specific
> policies. On the other hand, in most countries in Europe your
> retirement years are not so financially precarious as they are
> likely to be here.
>
> It also sounds as though Alexander Brash came to Boston too late to
> have been afforded the pleasure of Harold Wright's consistently
> brilliant playing, and whether one likes Drucker's playing or not,
> there is no doubt that he could still "play rings around" most
> younger players from a strictly technical point of view.
>
> I believe that the longer a group of wind players have to play as
> an ensemble together, the better those sections are in an
> orchestra. Even the change of one player can completely change the
> balance and sound of that sections, or sometimes the entire brass
> or woodwind section. I recall when the principal trumpet was
> changed in the 1980s, and it changed the entire tone of the brass
> section, taking about 1-1/2 years to come back into balance, to my
> ears.
>
> Penny Ward Marcus
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Brash"
> <brash@-----.edu>
> To: <klarinet@-----.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [kl] After Drucker
>
>
>> And I should add, I'm fairly certain that several European Orchestras
>> still practice mandatory retirement? Though the entire model there is
>> different. Please correct me if this is mistaken.
>> On Nov 8, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Alexander Brash wrote:
>>
>>> I hope we realize there was a time when 65 *was* the mandatory
>>> retirement age for orchestral players in this country. Unless we
>>> expect that our forebears were all notoriously evil, immoral men,
>>> and we have now far surpassed them in "correctness" - then a
>>> mandatory retirement age is a perfectly acceptable thing to
>>> consider. The societal "norm" today may consider this age
>>> discrimination, but it's perfectly reasonable to posit that in some
>>> areas, it's warranted. The number of available jobs is tiny, the
>>> number of people seeking jobs each year is enormous. There is
>>> certainly a sense of "fair play" in letting someone else have a go
>>> of it - or at least forcing a reaudition of the position (remove
>>> lifetime tenure - restrict to 10 year terms, or something like
>>> this).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------