 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-10-31 19:58
Up front premise: Professional performance positions, particularly in the classical space, must be filled by the best musicians irrespective of their race, gender, sexual preference or identity, or pretty much any other characteristic that could be determined with one's eyes rather than one's ears.
Second up front premise: Not for a second does my prior belief negate, unfair though it may be, the reality that while we may all created equal, that we all don't share equal opportunity. And while I am proud of the advances society has made in seeking to create a more (but by no means completely) level playing surface for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to better partake in things once near exclusive to those with advantage, from tennis to oboe lessons (and the equipment, and the free time to practice), unlike in other professions, in such performance music, where, especially as a woodwind player in a orchestra, you are on your own, where nobody's going to cover for you if you make a mistake at performance time, and only the best players can fill these positions. Still more, there in my opinion is considerable work that stills needs to be done in leveling opportunity in this space.
I am all for putting my time and money into programs that give ever greater opportunity for those from disadvantage backgrounds to be exposed to the finer things in life. And still more, let me say, that players like Anthony McGill, who is a brilliant musician, would deserve his slot if he was a Martian, let alone of African American Extraction. I'm his number one fan and his nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the beauty of his play.
These beliefs I hold about performance though do NOT translate for me to most other areas of work where a mentorship paradigm can exist that does give advantage to underserved groups to develop, sometimes while working, the skills to then ultimately compete in a pure color blind meritocracy: much that I completely appreciate that in certain areas of life, a person of color twice as competent as their Caucasian counterpart may still face endemic discrimination that doesn't make for such color blind meritocracy.
Anyone who knows me, as I would concur, would find my beliefs ones that feel the need to further right the wrongs of discrimination from the past, and that this may involve at times, sadly, as there are only so many slots in life, taking the equally or less qualified candidate of disadvantaged background over the one without such disadvantages, who did nothing to promote that unfairness.
But I have no tolerance for such an affirmative action stance in performance music because once the initial downbeat falls, there's no opportunity for a mentor to review your efforts before it becomes official work product. If there was, I would feel differently.
What do you think? Show me where I'm wrong. Hardly do I have all the answers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2025-11-01 01:10
Um, so you are saying, “may the best man win.”
I think
To that we can all agree. The part about privilege vs not, comes down to who HAS the time and energy to devote one’s self to artistic endeavors. It just happens to be those not concerned on a daily basis with where to get food or how to stay warm and dry.
It’s not about fairness. It just is.
………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim Han
Date: 2025-11-01 01:29
Some professions do seem to naturally discriminate for/against certain groups. Like pro basketball discriminates against short people(Spud Webb notwithstanding)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-01 04:41
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Um, so you are saying, “may the best man win.”
>
>
>
>
>
> ………Paul Aviles
>
..or woman, or trans or non-gendered person, or any other class with which people define themselves that I've missed but respect, but otherwise, yes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-11-01 17:03
How do different people get good enough to be candidates? That's more where the extra-musical limitations are found.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-11-01 17:41
Have I missed something? Did some event in the news or the musical world prompt this? Or is it just something you were thinking about and wanted to share? Is it a reaction to something that was posted here?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2025-11-01 18:14
Quote:
...need to further right the wrongs of discrimination from the past, and that this may involve at times, sadly, as there are only so many slots in life, taking the equally or less qualified candidate of disadvantaged background over the one without such disadvantages, who did nothing to promote that unfairness.
I don't understand the carve-out for music.
I offer the following in a kind voice of honest debate, without intending any harshness, and speaking in general - not targeted at any one person:
Which king gets to decide which pawn is victor and which is victim?
I question not only the yardstick used to measure oppression, but ask who determines the weight of each unit of measure, and what makes up each unit?
How do we learn of each candidate's level of oppression - by sight (racism/sexism)? Do we judge by neighborhood (bigotry)? How does financial shortcoming match against being an orphan, or having one's own family slain - or perhaps having battled cancer? Having lost a house to fire? Missing two fingers? Lack of housing vs lack of food? Who are we to judge/balance/weigh such items of hardship against one another? Each of these weights (and its subsequent impact) is unique to the individual who bears it...how then (and who then) can we/be judge?
How do we explain the historic over-comer? The underdog who prevails over and over again throughout history. We can't leave them out.
Neither can we leave out the possibility that some hardships might have been the result of life choices by the individual. Shall we punish the one who - when faced with those same choice - chose the better path?
It would seem to me that unjustly punishing one in favor of the other is evil, bigoted, and presumes a god-like superiority. Somehow transferring the remarkable achievement/victory of the over-comer to ourselves.
In nature there is no sector of equality of opportunity or equity of outcome. It does not exist.
I believe the best we can do (as individuals) is love everyone, and be the best influence we can for those we are close to.
We can place our support where we feel it will have the most impact - but if we start claiming there are times when it is justifiable to punish quality or success - and reward (what we define as) disadvantage, then I believe we become the bad king, the unjust god, wrecking lives on our whim.
Philip said:
Quote:
How do different people get good enough to be candidates? That's more where the extra-musical limitations are found.
To which I agree. The fix is from the bottom...not the arbitrary use of our thumb on the scale at the top.
Just my thoughts,
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-01 18:54
kdk wrote:
> Have I missed something? Did some event in the news or the
> musical world prompt this? Or is it just something you were
> thinking about and wanted to share? Is it a reaction to
> something that was posted here?
>
> Karl
Hi Karl:
The motivation for this thread came to me after a discussion, during a midway break from a symphonic band session, where my fellow musicians, a fair number music teachers in underserved areas (wonderful people of which I am not one) politely debated where the line needs to be drawn in the performance arts: perhaps one of the highest meritocracies out there, to combat the wrongs of the past and today, as it relates to how much those from underserved backgrounds. because of their backgrounds, might deserve the spotlight even in lieu of better artists not (through of course no fault of anyone's) from such compromised upbringings.
Nothing in the forum inspired this. I have no definitive answers, just beliefs, themselves subject to change should someone present what *I see* as the right argument. It is with regret that I accept that in the brutally competitive classical stage only the most talented can occupy it.
This is an uncomfortable reality for me that finds me donating my time and money to create a less uneven playing field in opportunity, but not tolerate accepting anything other than the best players to an ensemble, even if (I hope not) everyone's ancestors (speaking in metaphors) came to this land on the Mayflower. The brutal competition for these slots and the discipline to achieve placement finds it intolerable for me to have a better player turned away because of some need, in theory, to fill a quota.
As mentioned, I hold the opposite belief in many other professional disciplines despite the realization that affirmative action programs, for all their good intent, seek to correct imbalances with the side effect of counterbalanced imbalances, making it harder for those not from disadvantaged background, who often played no role in the "sins of their fathers."
Take corporate opportunities for example. In such places the possibilities of mentors reviewing the work product of those who are part of such affirmative action programs, before consumed by the masses, and where learning can occur, exists in a way that can't exist "at measure 30," when the oboist has a solo and it's "sink or swim."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2025-11-01 19:10
Fuzzy wrote:
>
> I don't understand the carve-out for music.
I think you mean to ask why I believe in affirmative action in other professional disciplines of life. My answer, despite
* all the the imperfections of judging candidates, or
* how hard their life has been, or
* how many have risen above despite this, or
* the extent to which personal choice played a role in this hardship, like you validly sight, and
* all the flaws of affirmative action programs, and the
* counterbalanced discrimination they inflict upon the privileged (whatever that means), most of which aren't responsible for such affliction....
that at the end of the day nobody's built a better mousetrap yet that I can find to level the playing field, and that as a product of these programs we are seeing more people escape poverty from them.
>
> We can place our support where we feel it will have the most
> impact - but if we start claiming there are times when it is
> justifiable to punish quality or success - and reward (what we
> define as) disadvantage, then I believe we become the bad king,
> the unjust god, wrecking lives on our whim.
>
If our support is directed at the disadvantaged, doesn't it by definition means it isn't going, or going as much to those not disadvantaged (again, whatever that means) and those the latter group IS effectively being punished?
> How do different people get good enough to be candidates?
> That's more where the extra-musical limitations are
> found.
>
...by equalizing opportunity, which is no easy task. In addition to the lack of instruments and teachers, many underserved populations can't afford the time to practice, instead needing to hold occupations out of necessity.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
