Excuse the boldness, but not be time to choose a global level in the world, 
selfishness implies monetized and start thinking of giving a more human and 
social economics, arts, music and the interdependent relationships of all human 
beings a global scale? Yes, I think it is time that everyone realizes where you 
are going humanity and seek the change of all these petty issues and not make 
the gregarious nature of our human condition.
Fraternally
Silverio
Argentine Patagonian
SudAmerican


      

All this lofty discussion doesn't answer the fundamental question I  
had hoped to raise: if anybody involved in this deal is getting paid  
or profiting in any way, then why are the musicians singled out not to  
be paid? I rather doubt the bar tenders are working for free, that the  
utilities are free, that the whiskey being sold was donated etc. What  
makes the musicians different? My problem with this type exploitive  
situation is that is is invariably the musicians who are asked to play  
for free, while everybody else gets paid. Something about that doesn't  
pass my smell test. I would trust that someone can explain the  
discrimination against musicians in terms I can understand.




On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Silverio Potenza wrote:

>
> Excuse the boldness, but not be time to choose a global level in the  
> world, selfishness implies monetized and start thinking of giving a  
> more human and social economics, arts, music and the interdependent  
> relationships of all human beings a global scale? Yes, I think it is  
> time that everyone realizes where you are going humanity and seek  
> the change of all these petty issues and not make the gregarious  
> nature of our human condition.
> Fraternally
> Silverio
> Argentine Patagonian
> SudAmerican
>
>
> 

Simple.  You seem to confuse us jam session participants as being employees when in fact we are not in the employ of the club owner at all.  Nor are we a vendor (as would be the whiskey purveyor or the electric company in your referenced example).  We are, in fact, customers who get the novel side benefit of being able to play in front of people for the sheer joy of it.  We are ourselves entertained by being able to do so and by the camaraderie of our fellow players.  That is our received value.  Not a stitch of discrimination in the deal.

When I was out there playing for money, most all of the guys I had the honor to share the stage with were old enough to be my father or grand father.  They came up in a time when big bands and small jazz groups were the popular music of the day.  They would tell me their "when I was your age" stories as long as I would sit there and listen and these were some of the most precious memories I have as a musician.  Anyways, they often talked about their gigs, but they always talked about the jam sessions that they would go to AFTER their gig.  Not that the gig wasn't important and enjoyable, but the jam session is where they really had their fun.  They spoke of those sessions with such reverence...you could see the twinkle in their eye when they spoke.  I assure you, they never felt a sense of discrimination (in a musical regard anyway).

So I'll head back to my day job now.  I've already clogged up "the mouthpiecework" group too much.  =Sorry Mojo ;-)

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:
>
> All this lofty discussion doesn't answer the fundamental question I  
> had hoped to raise: if anybody involved in this deal is getting paid  
> or profiting in any way, then why are the musicians singled out not to  
> be paid? I rather doubt the bar tenders are working for free, that the  
> utilities are free, that the whiskey being sold was donated etc. What  
> makes the musicians different? My problem with this type exploitive  
> situation is that is is invariably the musicians who are asked to play  
> for free, while everybody else gets paid. Something about that doesn't  
> pass my smell test. I would trust that someone can explain the  
> discrimination against musicians in terms I can understand.
> 

Enuff guys.  Take it somewhere else.


      

you're more than welcome to take it to our general saxophone  
discussion forum at www.nationofmusic.com.....we talk about this sort  
of issue on a regular basis


On Oct 8, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

>
>
> Enuff guys.  Take it somewhere else.
>
>
>