Klarinet Archive - Posting 000076.txt from 2008/11

From: Alexander Brash <brash@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] After Drucker
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:50:33 -0500


> I am 100% sure that someone could do your job better than you....

As am I! However, my company employs an "up or out strategy" Either I =20=

outperform the people on the next level and get promoted, or I don't, =20=

and get laid off, and replaced with a fresh college graduate. Simple =20
as that.

>
> So....lets make it the task of this list...to compare your life's =20
> work and
> if just by chance on a particular day....say 15 years from =20
> now...someone
> shows better work....fire you and discount all that you've done up =20
> to that
> point. Oh...you know...that guy's work that "beat you out" in the =20
> evaluation
> wasn't all that much better...but the consensus was you're out.
>

Neither here nor there - my field is information technology, with a =20
focus in security. The demand for my skillset right now far outweighs =20=

the supply. If I had chosen a field where the supply far outweighed =20
the demand - I would actually think it only fair that some kind of =20
rotation would occur. I don't think that I'm "owed" anything for what =20=

I "put into" something, and in fact I'd argue that that's a dangerous =20=

way to approach life.

On Nov 9, 2008, at 1:43 AM, Forest Aten wrote:

> I am 100% sure that someone could do your job better than you....
>
> So....lets make it the task of this list...to compare your life's =20
> work and
> if just by chance on a particular day....say 15 years from =20
> now...someone
> shows better work....fire you and discount all that you've done up =20
> to that
> point. Oh...you know...that guy's work that "beat you out" in the =20
> evaluation
> wasn't all that much better...but the consensus was you're out.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Brash [mailto:brash@-----.edu]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 12:40 AM
>> To: klarinet@-----.org
>> Subject: Re: [kl] After Drucker
>>
>>> "Cogent".....how about this, people don't always fail to perform =20
>>> to a
>>> particular standard at a particular age. Pretty simple. Some
>>> 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
>>> that the
>>> work a player does everyday, is RIGHT there for God and everyone to
>>> hear and
>>> evaluate. Auditioning over and over again...just isn't necessary. =20=

>>> It's
>>> expensive, time consuming and simply isn't a necessary evil. If
>>> 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
>> able to do the job better.
>>
>>
>>> You know...I really don't like folks like you trying to decided who
>>> should
>>> and who shouldn't continue to perform....and for how long...and for
>>> what
>>> reasons. Blanket policy regarding this kind of issue is a huge =20
>>> waste.
>>
>> And I don't like it when an industry clothes itself in a mythology of
>> meritocracy, but shies away from introducing repeated measurements of
>> merit. Should not the best always be given an opportunity to
>> challenge and rise?
>>
>> I've said nothing about when you should or should not retire - simply
>> when someone else should get a crack at "winning" some of larger,
>> more prestigious, higher paying jobs away from you. I think at last
>> count in this thread, there were 30 groups total in that category?
>>
>> Of course, the natural thing - an informal survey conducted tonight
>> amongst 10 friends of mine - 3 at Juilliard and 7 at the New England
>> Conservatory - all in their 20s, all universally supported the
>> thought of a "term limit" after which a new audition is called.
>>
>> Universally, everyone "older" who has replied to this thread, is
>> violently against the idea.
>>
>> So it seems in the end - the conclusion I make is that people are
>> basically incapable of seeing beyond their own opportunism. (insert
>> comment about Americans ;)
>>
>> I'm also far from bored - I just find a lot lacking in the current
>> conduct of the "Arts Business." This is certainly my right - it's not
>> like I'm in a position to change anything, just to share my =20
>> 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" =20
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> respected
>>>> institutions. I'd argue there seems to be enough support for the =20=

>>>> idea
>>>> to merit discussion.
>>>>
>>>> And so far, I've not seen much cogent argument for why re-=20
>>>> auditioning
>>>> orchestral players after, say, a 15 year contract, is a "bad" =20
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> limits
>>>> or retirement ages...so who is to say your sense of "offense" =20
>>>> 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
>>> a valid
>>> way of doing things.
>>>
>>> If you've ever been a member of a "major" orchestra....you'd know
>>> that the
>>> work a player does everyday, is RIGHT there for God and everyone to
>>> hear and
>>> evaluate. Auditioning over and over again...just isn't necessary. =20=

>>> It's
>>> expensive, time consuming and simply isn't a necessary evil. If
>>> 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 =20
>>> to a
>>> particular standard at a particular age. Pretty simple. Some
>>> players don't
>>> fail because they are "older"....but for other reasons.
>>>
>>> You're not "na=EFve".....just bored. Most organizations, =20
>>> wherever...have
>>> sorted this out. It took the legal world in some cases to force the
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> I'm taking my almost forced into retirement body to bed now. I've =20=

>>> been
>>> rather busy playing lately. Started the Dallas Opera season,
>>> several church
>>> orchestra free lance jobs performing some very interesting
>>> music....and a
>>> big recital to be performed on Monday evening. Guess I should be
>>> thinking
>>> about "packing it in" at 57 years old...huh?
>>>
>>> You know...I really don't like folks like you trying to decided who
>>> should
>>> and who shouldn't continue to perform....and for how long...and for
>>> what
>>> reasons. Blanket policy regarding this kind of issue is a huge =20
>>> waste.
>>>
>>> ZZZZZZZZ.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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