More About an Evening With Perlman

Did I say I loved the concert? Yes I did. Again and again I loved the concert, and at the risk of giving the W-S Symphony an excuse to raise ticket prices, I would have paid more to attend that concert.

However, they stiffed the band. This is a near paraphrase: We are thankful that the orchestra is volunteering their time this evening so that we may have Itzhak Perlman. It sounded as if, if they had not played for free, we wouldn't have had Perlman at all.

I just read this article in the Winston-Salem Journal. The notable passage is this: "... Wachovia Wealth Management - which took the unusual step of paying Perlman's hefty fee - is also making his concert one of the attractions that its clients will see in a two-day event called 'Artsfusion.'" So I stand corrected about the sponsors. In my previous post, I questioned where they were, when the band had to play for free. They were there front and center making sure we could get Perlman. For this I thank them.

But symphony management, what happened that caused you to lie to the concert goers, and to lean on the orchestra? I realize that most of those musicians would play for free to have the opportunity of playing with Perlman. But did they have to? I understand jacking up the ticket prices. You just charged what the market would bear. I understand why Perlman gets a "hefty fee." He has earned it.

But is the W-S Symphony in such dire financial straits that you needed to pocket the money normally earned by the orchestra? I would guess that you had the biggest box office take in many a year for that concert. You didn't even have to pay the star! And the orchestra had to volunteer to get Perlman? I don't believe it. If you have an explanation let us hear it.

BRB is Write (and loved the concert)