TubeNet

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:22 pm**

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal- ... try-n92986" target="_blank

Posted: **Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:37 pm**

Maybe 'Lincoln Portrait' narrated by Tommy Chong.....

Mark

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:39 am**

bloke wrote:sure...

...and why not have some of the younger, more attractive members of the orchestra "twerking" during their rests?

The article does mention a guild that has "organized balls", which is pretty impressive (not quite as impressive, perhaps, as organized spleens or gall bladders, but not bad at all) ...

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:21 am**

I'd like to see an irrational ruckus raised at the next wine and cheese fund raiser for a symphony orchestra. But that as all legal in the obliviously blissful 1950s when a generation's ideas of norms were being indoctrinated, so I really don't think that I should hold my breath. What a dangerous time that was.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:36 am**

So... in addition to buying pot, they have to buy tickets as well? Both are expensive already, they think people are going to buy BOTH now? If they can only afford one of the two, I have one guess which one they will pick.

What's next, the Winston-Salem Orchestra hosting a cigarette-themed concert series? This is NO different.

If this "sticks," then CSO is to orchestras as Hooters is to restaurants. Not illegal, but tacky as all hell. A bad image is a lot harder to improve than poor revenues.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:23 am**

tuben wrote:Did you read the article? These aren't marijuana-themed concerts...

Ok, maybe not "themed" per se, but come on... it's called "Classically Cannabis: The High Note Series".

The bad image is only in the mind of those with some moral opposition to marijuana. Trust me, there are plenty of people in this country with the same sort of moral opposition to alcohol (i.e. my Mother), and it's their choice to stand on their morals. But the number one rule of business is survival, so good for that management team for trying to locate new ways to survive.

I'm not "morally opposed" to it, I just think it's a bad idea. I've been to Colorado Orchestra concerts before, and it's a very good group. I just think they are better than this, and this makes them look cheap. Anyway, I don't even live in Colorado, so it's really inconsequential to me. I'll wait until the NY Phil does this until I really get fired up, no pun intended.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:28 am**

Content of article: new industry in the state is courted as sponsor for symphony.

When people say they want to live in "free country", sometimes they actually get the right.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:52 am**

bloke wrote:yes, bort...

(again) The Colorado Symphony becomes the equivalent of the piano player down in the parlor of the whore house.

Those are your words, not mine, and it's certainly not what I meant.

My comparison was that for Hooters, sex sells wings and beer. Take away the sex and see how the sales will do. (And even for that, your comparison is many steps beyond what I'm saying.) For the Colorado Orchestra, I wouldn't want it to become that pot is the draw for their audience, where when you take away the pot, the audience goes away as well. This is just a publicity stunt. It's not like the lack of pot was keeping people away in the first place.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:45 pm**

I prefer this to sponsors like oil companies and even cigarette companies.

I'm really enjoying the responses to the 420 subject. I know of several well respected orchestral musicians (and some even tuba players!) who enjoy a little green. The stigma, unfortunately, will be long-lasting. Prohibition is sometimes slow to die...

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:05 pm**

Hey, if it's good enough for the girl scouts.....FYI..mark

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -79397515/" target="_blank

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:59 pm**

bloke wrote:
tuben wrote:It's hilarious to see people that I know are right-leaning, free-market supporters get in such a tizzy.

What would you prefer? The CSO management do nothing and ultimately let the orchestra fail, OR, pursue what seems like an awful lot of newly available (and legal) money to further their musical mission?

Like it or not. It's a legal industry in Colorado, and it's going to happen everywhere soon for one reason. MONEY.
tuben,

The issue is "order of operations". You might remember from algebra that if you don't solve the problems inside the parentheses first, the result is bad.

In this case, the parentheses are "transfer payments".
FIRST, all coerced confiscation and *transfer payments should be put to an end.
THEN, (sure) all substances (alcohol, cocaine, heroin, meth...why not...??) should be made completely legal (yup: no regulation / no taxation) for - well, at least - anyone old enough to serve in the military.

If the "order of operations" is done in the correct order, the "problem" will solve itself. Those who die in the gutter due to their addictions will serve as examples to others who are too weak to otherwise resist addictive mind-altering substances without some strong deterrents (i.e. stark examples), and (sure) if sob sisters *choose* (rather than being coerced, as with transfer payments...i.e. "charity") to spend their *own* money to try to bail people out of the addiction trap, they would be completely free to do so as well.

Finally (without any transfer payments safety nets in place), very few people (even though completely free to do so) will migrate to mind-disabling substances, because...well...they will clearly see that others who have disabled their minds via these substances don't have very much food, shelter, or clothing.

Moreover, *liberty* (not "right-leaning"...well, unless "left-leaning" = "tyranny" ) is the answer.

fwiw, orchestras changing their definitions of what they are and (only feigning on the surface their former purposes and - in this case - functioning as background music for a bunch of addicts getting their fixes) whoring for money (at least, imo) is not the answer. Yes, dissolution would be better than that.

bloke " ' don't like my 'political' responses? Don't make 'political' comments. "

_______________________________
*and sure, this includes state governments' convenience store gambling dens - where states create multitudinous gambling addicts in order to defacto convert *federal* transfer payments from the higher-income-earners to lower-income-earners into *state* transfer payments from lower-income-earners to higher-income-earners.

I do not agree with everything the government does, but these substances are illegal for good reason and allowing the floodgate to open would only rehash the lessons we learned from the past decade/century (these were all legal before, and now they are not).

Making an item illegal does not make it disappear, but instead makes it harder to obtain. In this, the dangerous substance is regulated so that innocent people will not be harmed.

But hey if you were ever curious what it would be like to live in the more violent parts of S. America please be my guest.

Sorry, but it's hard for me to put Darwinism into humanity... guess that's just the humane part of me.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:51 pm**

Curmudgeon wrote:
jonesmj wrote:Maybe 'Lincoln Portrait' narrated by Tommy Chong.....
Mark
"Abe's not here, man..."

And this is what he said, he said "Watch the road."
"OK, where's it gonna go?"

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:57 pm**

So, are they playing to a Baroque pitch of A=420?

Marty "who doesn't smoke anything stronger than a set of Michelins"

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:57 pm**

I think we should try getting high before coming to TubeNet!

Not that anyone asked, but to prevent assumption: I support marijuana prohibition for strictly moralistic grounds, based entirely on personal experiences I had as a young(er) person. I admit these grounds are illogical, but I will stand by them. If I'm outvoted, so be it; therein lies the risk of illogical behavior.

Posted: **Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:04 pm**

Biggs wrote:I think we should try getting high before coming to TubeNet!

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 5:40 am**

The larger issue presented here is really the lousy marketing/long term strategy and promotion done by classical music organizations. It is for the most part amateurish and poorly thought out in both it's short and long term effect. Something like this is likely thought of by most of their regular core audience as a gimmick that diminishes the music. Whether some or all of the musicians use pot is immaterial. They risk losing part of their core audience with stunts like this. You see this a lot in organizations that decide their audience is or is getting old so they decide to think outside the box (as soon as any group decides to think outside the box they're in trouble and there usually is a consultant involved who pretty much has no idea of what they are doing). The last thing a failing business should do (and lets face it most symphonies are in various stages of failure) is alienate their current customers. While they need new customers they can't afford to lose the current ones. Unlike a regular for profit business symphonies are also highly dependent on donations and for the most part those come from the very core audience that will have many who are not going to find mixing with a bunch of pot heads to be high on their list of things to do or good in their mind for an organization that they have loyally supported. And while they may pick up a sponsor or two from the pot growers they will risk losing current sponsors who want no part in being associated with a controversial subject and like it or not pot is still controversial.

If they really want to appeal to the lowest common denominator why don't they install some poles in the hall and have a subscription series of pole dancing to the classics.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 12:39 pm**

tuben wrote:What would you prefer? The CSO management do nothing and ultimately let the orchestra fail, OR, pursue what seems like an awful lot of newly available (and legal) money to further their musical mission?

Like it or not. It's a legal industry in Colorado, and it's going to happen everywhere soon for one reason. MONEY.

So, should the orchestra take money from Donald Sterling?

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 1:08 pm**

To our positive supporters, thank you. Remember this we are performing music for wine and food pairings. This is topic is HUGE in Colorado. A FOR those of you opposed, it might be best to do a little research on Jerome H. Kern before making a post calling him stupid. He's a brilliant man with a resume to match, he works for 2 dollars a year, and he is a major donor as well. We're playing Mahler 7 with Litton this weekend, no there won't be any pot in the hall. This Cannabis series is an attempt to think outside the box, some should keep their personal politics to themselves. All I have to say, the next time your orchestra plays Symphony Fantastique are you boycotting?

Justin Bartels - Principal Trumpet Colorado Symphony

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 1:28 pm**

Stereotypes of cannibis users as freaks at outdoor rock festivals are far outdated.
I have no evidence other than personal friendship with musicians in many areas and genres, but I'd make a guess that easily 30% of classical musicians are pot smokers. How many of them are in orchestra settings? I dunno.
Ever thought that maybe a concert in a venue that allows TOBACCO use might be a good draw? And note that the concerts won't have smoking inside the hall.
I don't smoke anything. Tobacco scares me after seeing far too many illnesses directly related to tobacco use. Pot, I have few issues with. There are many varieties, apparently, with very low amounts of hallucinogens. Those are bred to have great medicinal qualities. Reportedly they are effective.
If these concerts bring 1 new donor to the orchestra, or 1 season ticket subscriber, they will be successful. Even if they bring 1 person to another concert, not of this series, it's a winner.
Concert goers are offered wine, spirits, beer, whatever, by the orchestra in most venues. Colorado will not be selling, just allowing use in a separate area. Is there any difference?

In my mind, nope. Obviously, not to folks in Denver.

Posted: **Thu May 01, 2014 2:03 pm**

eupher61 wrote:Colorado will not be selling, just allowing use in a separate area. Is there any difference?

The main difference is that pot is illegal everywhere except for Colorado. But even though it's legal, it doesn't mean it's a good idea -- there are plenty of things that aren't illegal that aren't good ideas. What's done is done, and the CO will have to see how it works out for them, just like the rest of Colorado will have to see how it works for them.

I wonder if the state of Northern Colorado will allow it?

TubeNet

Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)

Re: Colorado Orchestra CEO (broke, desperate and stupid)