Klarinet Archive - Posting 000072.txt from 2008/11

From: Alexander Brash <brash@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] After Drucker
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:39:48 -0500

> "Cogent".....how about this, people don't always fail to perform to a
> particular standard at a particular age. Pretty simple. Some =20
> players don't
> fail because they are "older"....but for other reasons.

A rigorous audition process would sort that out no?

> If you've ever been a member of a "major" orchestra....you'd know =20
> that the
> work a player does everyday, is RIGHT there for God and everyone to =20=

> hear and
> evaluate. Auditioning over and over again...just isn't necessary. It's
> expensive, time consuming and simply isn't a necessary evil. If =20
> people fail
> to perform....they can and are often replaced...age related or not.

I'm not talking about failure to perform - simply someone else being =20
able to do the job better.

> You know...I really don't like folks like you trying to decided who =20=

> should
> and who shouldn't continue to perform....and for how long...and for =20=

> what
> reasons. Blanket policy regarding this kind of issue is a huge waste.

And I don't like it when an industry clothes itself in a mythology of =20=

meritocracy, but shies away from introducing repeated measurements of =20=

merit. Should not the best always be given an opportunity to =20
challenge and rise?

I've said nothing about when you should or should not retire - simply =20=

when someone else should get a crack at "winning" some of larger, =20
more prestigious, higher paying jobs away from you. I think at last =20
count in this thread, there were 30 groups total in that category?

Of course, the natural thing - an informal survey conducted tonight =20
amongst 10 friends of mine - 3 at Juilliard and 7 at the New England =20
Conservatory - all in their 20s, all universally supported the =20
thought of a "term limit" after which a new audition is called.

Universally, everyone "older" who has replied to this thread, is =20
violently against the idea.

So it seems in the end - the conclusion I make is that people are =20
basically incapable of seeing beyond their own opportunism. (insert =20
comment about Americans ;)

I'm also far from bored - I just find a lot lacking in the current =20
conduct of the "Arts Business." This is certainly my right - it's not =20=

like I'm in a position to change anything, just to share my perspective.

On Nov 9, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Forest Aten wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Brash [mailto:brash@-----.edu]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 6:16 PM
>> To: klarinet@-----.org
>> Subject: Re: [kl] After Drucker
>>
>> People seem confused about the debate of "fact as it is today" versus
>> "is this the way it should be?"
>>
>> All I pointed out was that at one point, mandatory retirement was
>> considered an acceptable practice. As of 2002, I've found at least
>> one article that mentions that both Vienna and Berlin had mandatory
>> retirement at age 65. That's fairly recent. Those are both respected
>> institutions. I'd argue there seems to be enough support for the idea
>> to merit discussion.
>>
>> And so far, I've not seen much cogent argument for why re-auditioning
>> orchestral players after, say, a 15 year contract, is a "bad" thing.
>> Likewise, I've seen no one give a cogent argument for why mandatory
>> retirement doesn't "make sense." Other than that it's personally
>> offensive to you, which frankly I don't care about. It's personally
>> offensive to many young musicians that there aren't such term limits
>> or retirement ages...so who is to say your sense of "offense" should
>> have more stature than theirs? The fact that "this is the way it is
>> right now" is not an argument.
>>
>> I'm hoping for some intellectual debate here.
>>
>>
>
> Because it's "the way" Berlin and Vienna did it....doesn't make it =20
> a valid
> way of doing things.
>
> If you've ever been a member of a "major" orchestra....you'd know =20
> that the
> work a player does everyday, is RIGHT there for God and everyone to =20=

> hear and
> evaluate. Auditioning over and over again...just isn't necessary. It's
> expensive, time consuming and simply isn't a necessary evil. If =20
> people fail
> to perform....they can and are often replaced...age related or not.
>
> "Cogent".....how about this, people don't always fail to perform to a
> particular standard at a particular age. Pretty simple. Some =20
> players don't
> fail because they are "older"....but for other reasons.
>
> You're not "na=EFve".....just bored. Most organizations, =
wherever...have
> sorted this out. It took the legal world in some cases to force the =20=

> issue.
>
> I'm taking my almost forced into retirement body to bed now. I've been
> rather busy playing lately. Started the Dallas Opera season, =20
> several church
> orchestra free lance jobs performing some very interesting =20
> music....and a
> big recital to be performed on Monday evening. Guess I should be =20
> thinking
> about "packing it in" at 57 years old...huh?
>
> You know...I really don't like folks like you trying to decided who =20=

> should
> and who shouldn't continue to perform....and for how long...and for =20=

> what
> reasons. Blanket policy regarding this kind of issue is a huge waste.
>
> ZZZZZZZZ.....
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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