Putting my own head above the parapet: this is an entertaining discussion but, as has already been pointed out, a bit light on actual facts. Simple assertion, however personally heartfelt, is really not the same as proof. Cultivating good contacts is clearly important in obtaining engagements and such marketing approaches ought not to be scorned as, say, being below one's dignity as a great artiste. Concert promoters (and recording companies) will often, understandably, tend to favour tried and tested performers but to have mixed feelings about engaging someone with a limited personal artistic following and who might be seen as difficult. Indeed, what seems to be rather overlooked by some is that most promoters generally engage on the level of artistic following amongst potential customers and, putting it bluntly, if a performer hasn't established a decent reputation amongst wider audiences (and review critics) they are less likely to be engaged - despite their own evaluation of their personal merits or of being 'victims' of unnamed 'groups' bent on excluding them. Of course, if you're not already highly celebrated, in the first instance you'll stand more chance of being engaged at a small local community Arts centre/festival than at a large international concert hall - but expect a more modest fee....... And don't turn your nose up at jobbing work such as continuo, song accompaniment and the like. MH
From: howard posner <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 27 February 2015, 2:59 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Lute in the Future again On Feb 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Christopher Wilke <[1][email protected]> 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 OK. I've waited a few hours and taken a lot of deep breaths, so this is me being calm. Danny wrote that he did not understand statements that unnamed organizations were doing unstated things that benefitted some unnamed persons and harmed other unnamed persons. Since any such statement, however "heartfelt" or however deep in the trenches it originates, is devoid of information and thus meaningless for any practical purpose, his remark was so obviously self-evident that I wonder why he even wasted the 30 seconds it took to type it. You responded by calling him a liar. This was beneath scorn, and certainly beneath you, and I think my response was measured, inasmuch as I chose to explain the substance (actually the lack of it) and ignore the personal attack on Danny. I have no idea why you thought you could get into a credibility contest with someone who has never made an ill-considered remark in all the years he's been in the lute community, but you are way out of line. You should refrain from talking about "respect" until you've apologized to him. And don't even get me started on "if one were make such statements, they would represent an inappropriately dismissive response to the issues under discussion." You need to take a step back. To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
