Letters, Feb. 26, 1934

• Share

(2 of 4)

Sirs: . . . The statement that the Bill was pigeonholed is not founded on facts. To quote the Chairman of the Committee: "Nothing has been pigeonholed, and the Committee are proceeding in the usual way. The whole matter will be considered in executive session as all such matters are considered." The Bill has not yet been presented for a vote. Over half the members of the Committee are personally in favor of the Bill, so why give out false information? . . . MARGARET SANGER National Chairman National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control Washington, D. C.

No date was set for committee consideration of the Birth Control bill which, TIME understands, will not be hurried because of strong opposition by Representatives Healey of Massachusetts, Lehr of Michigan (TIME—Letters Supplement,* Feb. 12).—ED.

Singers' Pay (Cont'd) Sirs:

I must dissent most emphatically from the view taken by a correspondent whose letter you publish in your issue of Feb. 5, that artists who refuse to sing without the stipulated compensation are "in the banking business" or do anything they need apologize for.

As the letter mentions John Charles Thomas, who is under my management and refers with caustic criticism to his recent disappointment of an audience, I feel called upon to enlighten the writer of that letter as to the circumstances under which such disappointments occur and why.

Artists, like all of us, must make a living out of the work they do. . . . An artist's season is planned long in advance. Each year he plans to give a definite number of recitals and these are "booked" or contracted for in advance by local managers who agree to pay a stipulated fee.

By this method the artist knows pretty well in advance of the season about how much his gross income will be and on the basis of such calculations he incurs obligations and budgets his own financial commitments for business expenses and otherwise. This plan contemplates that local managers become entrepreneurs. They attend to all the necessary local arrangements, sell the tickets and keep the receipts over and above their expenses. They engage in business for profit. . . .

Occasionally a local manager incurs a loss. It is one of the risks of his business. . . . What is an artist to do when without any advance notice that his fee would not be paid, he arrives in town for the recital and finds the money isn't there?

The advance sale may have been very substantial and the public support generous. The money may have been used to pay other obligations of the local manager. Or, the receipts in a particular instance may have been less than expected. In either case, what legitimate right has anyone to demand that the artist perform without pay?

If he did so in one case, isn't it obvious that he would never be sure of getting his money in other cases?

It is manifestly unfair to bring into the discussion of the subject the entirely irrelevant charge that the artist is mercenary. He is no more mercenary than any of us who expect to be paid merely what was agreed. . . .