Today I received an email from Jim Nauls about a concert at Bridges Auditorium on January 22. While I can think of better uses of my time, I can also think of better uses of our money.
I have nothing against singer, Ryan Adams. I even like his music, but I have serious reservations about his visit to the Claremont Colleges. For starters, I am not entirely comfortable with bringing a singer to an academic community. It's one thing to use our largess to attract politically controversial or informative speakers. It's quite another to bring a singer to the Claremont Colleges.
True, the tickets will be only $37.00, but like with all music promoters, I'm sure that the Claremont Colleges have guaranteed a certain economic return for Mr. Adams. What amount of money are we doing paying to bring him here?
Mr. Adams's invitation to speak at the Claremont Colleges comes on the heels of Pomona's decision to not invite former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales due to cost.
The questions this invitation of Adams presents is why are we paying to bring Adams here, but not paying to bring Alberto Gonzales. Why is a school bringing a singer to sing? Why is there a 5 college campus wide program that pays to bring singers, but no campus wide program that pays to bring speakers? What is a school doing bringing singers? Can't the good students of the colleges find, attend, and pay for their own concerts on their own time?
If the schools are going to spend the money they get from tuition and from the endowments, don't you think they ought to bring only academic, informative, or political speakers?
The Student Life recently ran an editorial critical of Claremont McKenna for bringing Bono or Bill Clinton to Claremont and not inviting Pomona students. Today we use their facilities for our speakers and while we may throw them some money, we're not being good neighbors. Instead, we should invite them to help us pay for our speakers and work to build a program. There clearly is a desire for that kind of a partnership.
I don't see that kind of desire or support for a 5-C entertainment program for a singer that few will learn from, most won't attend, and some dislike.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
What Are We Prepared To Pay For?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
3 comments:
Ryan Adams? Geez. With all that money, why not bring someone entertaining, like Tulane did with Lil' Wayne? That way, you could pay an exorbitant fee of $50 to see a rapper and his posse crunk out ill rhymes and shiznit, and afterwards you and your Gs can check out their custom Lamborghinis with 25" rims.
Or not.
$37 is a lot. previous singers/bands we brougth were cheaper, with BIG name comedians (dave chappelle, margaret cho, carlos mencia) were even less or the same price ($10-$25 in the past). Id rather see Alberto Gonzales than Ryan Adams, but at least with singers/comedians the school usually breaks even with ticket sales (they never make money, bridges too small a venue im sure), but since they wouldnt charge for gonzales, thats $40k gone.
Well to be fair in this case, the entities that invite speakers and entertainers such as Adams are not really comparable. Nauls has a much smaller budget and is able to invite these entertainers based on the return he would get from ticket sales. So it works out because he estimates how many students would come, regardless of their quality, genre of music and would price accordingly.
We can't hold the body that decided against Gonzales accountable for getting Adams at an equally hefty price. These decisions are not related. It's just a difference in management and strategy. One is obviously more student oriented.
As a final note on the Gonzales issue: Maybe its better that Pomona did not invite the speaker. Their last debate was a disgrace with protesters. Here's my problem: If there is a speaker you oppose and you go protest, one can see the rationale behind something like that. But if there is a debate (regardless of the quality of both sides) and each speaker is given a chance to voice their opinion, then why protest? The purpose of debate is to arrive at a better solution through constructive dialogue and make people aware of the various positions on an issue. Also, a silent protest is still acceptable, but ranting slogans during the debate was completely unnecessary. Security should have escorted them out.
Post a Comment