There is another, major, difference between musicians fighting for their jobs, and the ice-deliverers vs. refrigerators comparison. In the latter case, the new refrigerator was a SUPERIOR product, and the for the ice deliverers to fight progress would have been futile. In the case of live musicians vs.synthesis, musicians are fighting an INFERIOR product that the paying audience doesn't know about until they get inside, if then.

Last year we did a pops concert with aging pop singer Bobby Vinton. Some of the older charts in his book were for full or nearly-full orchestra, but the newer charts were for a very small ensemble and a combo built around a sequencer-based synth (the first time we've had a sequencer on stage with us, at least in such a prominent role). The older charts were gradually being replaced by the newer ones. I gather that this is the type combo he would use for his Vegas shows.

That combo was excruciating - sounded like a bad merry-go-round, but louder. It also had canned back-up-singers - he had only one live singer with him. At times, (not often, fortunately) both Bobby and the back-up were mostly lip-synching.

This setup was particularly stupid since we had a full symphony orchestra just sitting there while the bad electronics show would play, but no one in the audience seemed to notice or care, as long as Bobby V. sang (or "sang") all his oldies.

Somebody has to keep fighting for live music, before everyone forgets what it is.

Raymond Horton
Louisville Orchestra

Aaron Sherber wrote:

At 05:58 PM 01/30/2005, Christopher Smith wrote:
>I'm not clear on a point of semantics � what is the difference in your
>mind between "restricting" and "limiting" refrigerator manufacture?
>Because I don't see a difference.

There is no difference; I should have used the same word twice. The ice union has a right to make the request; for that matter, the refrigerator manufacturers have a right to accede to the request. But they also have a right to say no, and that doesn't abrogate any of the rights of the icemen.

My point was that there's nothing artificial about making the request (fighting for one's job) -- I'm agreeing with Darcy here. But if GE or whoever actually restricted production, that (i.e., the act of restricting) would be a way of artificially preserving jobs that would otherwise be lost.

But look, I'm not an economist, and now we're getting into detailed areas that I don't know much about. My point was just that Darcy seemed to be conflating the right to fight for one's job with the right to keep one's job, and I don't think they're the same thing.

Aaron.


_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale


_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to