I do in a sense. I think the lute has *way* too small a pool of performers and audience. To create a large professional class and amateur base we have to do something different, we have to make big changes. Had we started this 20 years ago, there would be 20 times more professional players, and thousands more amateurs. If people need to make money, there could be a tiered system where people get free editions, then gravitate up. Or, the model used by ensembles, where editions are supported by arts patrons. But we need more players, then everyone does better.
I make a fine living playing the lute, but many of my colleagues on violin, etc, have a much larger base to draw upon. For the lute to really thrive we need a big base. Conservatory jobs are now being cut back, and it is up to us to encourage new players. Many of my colleagues on the lute have to scramble for work, or take day jobs--nothing wrong with that, I worked some pretty bad jobs in school. And why should there be so few professional concert artists on the lute? We can change this. dt At 11:52 PM 12/9/2008, you wrote: >Am 9 Dec 2008 um 14:47 hat David Tayler geschrieben: > > > > 7. All editions should be free. We need more lute players. Thanks to > > all who make the music available. > >Yes, and all lessons likewise. And all the concerts, we need more >listeners, you see. After all >the applause is the bread of the artist... >Honestly David, do you think we all should do some "real" work and >leave the arts to private >amusements? > >Best regards, > >Stephan > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
