Subject: Re: Attendance Requirement
From: Kevin Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 22:44:55 EST
There are a number of items here, among them as to the function of a
If the object is to have one's work heard, web posting and other
means of distribution may be more effective. At a conference, the
work is heard once, by those in attendance.
Doing a concert series can be a bit different as there is
(frequently) a reduced overhead. Conferences are often "bigger"
affairs and have costs which have to be covered, somehow, usually by
How many people would pay the registration fee to go to a conference
where few (or none) of the composers are present?
What are some of the options given the harsher economic realities.
At 10:10 -0500 2005/01/24, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
>At 09:11 AM 1/24/05 -0500, David Mooney wrote:
>>And financial. While I do understand the value of having
> >composers in attendance, for those of us who are self-supporting and
> >not attached to an institution that may provide some assistance
>for attending these sort of work related/professional development
>events, the requirement to attend is severely limiting.
>I'll loudly second that, especially as I sit in -15 weather (-26C)
>in Vermont. I look with some measure of envy at all the conferences
>that seem so well-attended -- many by the same 'names' -- with
>professional development support funding from their institutions (or
>at least a continuing salary and time off to attend). Subsidized
>travel and accommodations set aside for independent,
>non-institutional artists would be most welcome.
>(And while we're on the topic, there's the bias toward presenting work only
>where one's own performers are provided for live+EA pieces. It's like
>having to buy a booth at trade shows!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST