I think I'll be tempted to semantically simplify Chris' tirade:
There are a few musicians who get the lion's share of business, win all
sorts of awards etc.
Coincidently they more often than not make a less than pleasurable
listening experience.
There is a small consolation in knowing that in his day Hasse got a lot
more gigs than Bach.
So things will work out in the long run.
RT
On 2/26/2015 4:33 PM, Christopher Wilke wrote:
Howard,
I'll be frank. You are having way too much fun tearing apart the
sincere, heartfelt confessions of musicians who - quite unlike yourself
- are struggling to simultaneously make a living and art in a difficult
environment. I could counter-refute your semantics, but I don't think
that would be productive as I suspect that you're really more
interested in playing "gotcha" logic games than advancing the
discourse.
You are free to disagree and contribute to the discussion in a
constructive way, of course. I would ask, however, that you consider
replying a bit more respectfully to those of us down in the trenches to
whom topic is a more personal one than it will be to someone such as
yourself who holds no real stake in the matter.
Chris
[1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
At Feb 26, 2015, 2:45:07 PM, howard posner<'howardpos...@ca.rr.com'>
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Christopher Wilke
<[2]chriswi...@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Keeping one's mouth shut and pretending there is no dysfunction in
the early music industry is absolutely unhealthy. We should ALL be
keenly aware of that in the wake of the recent Philip Pickett scandal.
(For those who aren't aware, Pickett was a long time professor of early
music at the Guildhall School of Music who, just convicted of raping
several students, is currently serving an 11-year prison term.
Sickeningly, the school administration was informed of his behavior and
responded by telling the students to simply switch schools.) I'm not
suggesting that anyone else
except Robert King
> is involved in such horrible activities,
nor are you being clear about the connection between it and what Ron or
Danny wrote
> but those who use their influence to squash the deserving deserve to
be called out.
Isn't "calling them out" anonymously a contradiction in terms?
I do understand that if you think the Powers That Be will be squelch
those they disfavor, you don't want to make them angry by naming Clyde
Grevitz of the Rural Upstate New York Art Snobbling Council by name and
Social Security number as a deserving-squasher. On the other hand, I
don't know what "our certain incorporated non-profit organizations" is
meant to tell me, other than that Ron doesn't like the way
someone/thing somewhere is conducting its affairs. I can't make a point
of directing my next multimillion-dollar contribution to someone other
than the offending organization if I don't what it is. And I'm sure Mr.
Grevitz and the RUNYASC would assume that the complaints don't apply to
them, since, in their view, they don't squash anyone, but merely ignore
the undeserving.
To get on or off this list see list information at
[3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
References
1. https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS
2. javascript:return
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
