Vocalist.org archive


From:  Ingo Duckerschein <ingo_d@y...>
Date:  Fri Apr 14, 2000  5:54 pm
Subject:  Off topic: Artist pay and welfare states (was: Pavarotti)


Caio wrote:
>Mirko, I didn't complain about his price. I complained about his voice
>assuming it was actually that bad as the critic said ). Regarding his
>contribution to singing in the past, people are paying to hear him
>sing NOW, not remember the past. That would be the same as that person
>who opened a bag of chips next to you at Pav's concert say that it was
>no big deal, since you could always listen to his cds!

Until you figure out a way of paying performers for their actual
ability to perform on any given night you will not be able to change
this. Artists and athletes are frequently paid on past accomplishments
because they were _underpaid_ during their prime. Find a solution to
paying these folks what they deserve when they are at their best, then
you can stop overpaying whey they are "over the hill". (I don't mean
to imply that Pavarotti is "over the hill" at this point in his career.
I haven't heard a live performance of his in quite a while, so I'm not
in a position to argue either case.)

Mirko wrote:
>If you were as wealthy as Pav, you too
>would spend your energies helping out the less fortunate.

Caio wrote:
>No, I wouldn't. I'm against charity, for good salaries. Against
>philanthropy, for welfare state. Against seeing the world through
>colored glasses, for reality shock and consequent action.

Hm, sounds like most of Western Europe to me, especially Scandinavia,
German, and France. But let's have a reality check on that welfare
state. My father complains regularly about employees who no longer
work to their abilities because the welfare system and drive for
equality means that you get paid the same, no matter how well you do
compared to your colleagues. Schools are no longer promoting the
brightest, instead teaching to the common demoninator, or even worse,
the dummest in the class. Innovation is shunted because their are no
rewards, after all, why risk everything (i.e., your job and status in
society), when forming a successful company which creates jobs doesn't
have an equivalent reward. Last time I checked job creation in the US
was much higher than Western Europe, and no, their not all at
McDonald's, Burger King, and Wal*Mart.

Please don't try to convince me that Scandinavia, France, and Germany
are poor examples of a welfare state. Their pretty much the closest
thing to it, and as you say, we have to deal with reality.

Caio wrote:
>BTW, in my ideal world, where I would be rich, of course, I wouldn't
>be THAT rich anyway: in that realm of mine richness would be
>highly taxed to support the welfare state. :-)

And I'm sure you're convinced that you would be very happy with that
set-up. Well, I do hope that you become "rich" in a welfare state with
high tax rates. Let's see if you would be so happy with a 50-60% tax
rate. If you should be, then I admire your moral fortitude. Somehow,
however, I think you'll be just as human as the rest of us (ok, 99.9%
of us) and complain about the tax rate and try to shelter as much of
your wealth as possible.

Ingo

__________________________________________________

emusic.com