What’s the point of arguing anyway? The Chorus virtually beats its chest about how egalitarian it is, but in reality it’s just as corrupt and internecine as any other volunteer arts group; if you’ve got a great voice, if you know the right people, if you’re in a position of authority you can make your own rules. Naturally you want to put on your best show, but sometimes people forget that our object isn’t to win Tonys. The Chorus is supposed to be about giving people opportunities. The larger it grows the more I feel it is losing touch with its raison d’être by stumbling towards some ill-defined goal of mainstream recognition/success.
We are working with a commercial promoter (that quite a few members are not comfortable with) because it pays well and we need the money. Yet at the same time the Small Group, whose aim was to secure the lucrative, small corporate gigs that the larger Chorus wouldn’t get offered and thus make money for the Chorus, isn’t out selling itself because it’s too busy doing high-profile gratis gigs and rehearsing repertoire to pad-out the main Chorus’ concerts to satisfy the demands of the same promoter with whom a significant minority would rather we weren’t involved. What kind of circular/backward logic is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment