TubeNet

Thank goodness! When I first saw the title of this thread, I was afraid someone had a contract out on Tubby the Tuba!!!

windshieldbug wrote:Thank goodness! When I first saw the title of this thread, I was afraid someone had a contract out on Tubby the Tuba!!!

Tommy Johnson died of natural causes a couple o' years ago...

Can't put out a contract on someone who is already dead...

DANG IT!!! I wanted to buy that!

bloke wrote: Typically, a church, civic group, government entity, or some other sort of organization will pay 50% of the cost and the musicians union pays the other 50% for a "make-work" gig. I believe there are stipulations as to what types of gigs these must be. It is a great device to (by giving musicians back a small portion of what they paid in) fooling them into believing that the union is generating jobs. Does it sound like a familiar scheme?

To be the Devil's Advocate:

It also could be said that it's a way to get some organizations to use live music rather than some sort of electronic device. Not such a big concern in 1978 but it sure is now.

That is a Ponzi Scheme.

bloke wrote: ....

It is a great device to (by giving musicians back a small portion of what they paid in) fooling them into believing that the union is generating jobs. Does it sound like a familiar scheme?

I am no fan of the AFM at this point but it is important that non-union-members understand that the union makes no assertion that it will "get jobs" for it's members. The supposed purpose of the union is to protect the jobs and the working conditions we have.

This post is not about how well the union is doing that job, I wouldn't defend them for money, but no union official will ever assert that the union will get you a job. The late, great tuba player and union organizer, Lew Waldeck would have convinced any thinking musician of the value of the union but would never have promised you a job.

I rarely play a job where my paycheck includes a payment to the R&T fund sooooo, the few green sheet jobs I have played have more than paid me back. It's the full-time symphony members and session players who are paying the way on this scheme. Kind of a "redistribution of the wealth" plan.

bloke wrote: Its a racket where a small portion work dues collected from successful musicians (who get called to work) are redistributed to either of the following:

- mediocre or low-demand musicians who rarely get calls
- the same more successful musicians who paid the money to the union in the first place

bloke wrote: It is a great device to (by giving musicians back a small portion of what they paid in) fooling them into believing that the union is generating jobs. Does it sound like a familiar scheme?

Bloke,
While most of your assertions (matching funds, etc) are correct, it should be made clear that funds for Music Performance Fund performances do not come from the work dues of AFM members, but actually from the sales of sound recordings. Here's a link to an article that talks about the history of the fund, and how digital downloads (not covered in the agreement between the AFM and the recording industry) threaten the existence of the MPF:

http://www.horndogblog.com/2008/10/send ... art-i.html" target="_blank

To the poster who asked about Tubby's availability:

The music is readily available in its band arrangement edition. When I did my senior recital in college, I played Tubby the Tuba. The university I went to didn't have its own band then (it does now), so I used the town band to provide the accompaniment (this was also how I received credit for being in band... a requirement for tuba majors!) Since I was the only tuba player in that band, I had to play both the solo and band tuba parts. One minute the narrator would say (as Tubby), "Listen to me sing!" Then I would play some extremely difficult lick. When I wasn't playing the tuba solo, the band tuba part was typical "oom-pah" stuff. It is a very difficult piece to play (for the soloist) and the band parts are fairly average, but fun.

As I recall, the band and orch versions are not in the same key(s) - with the highest notes in the orch version ranging maybe a step higher. No big deal unless you've memorized the wrong part.

to further the derailment of this thread, but back to the second track (or third, maybe?) the Music Performance Fund is in trouble these days. With the huge leap in illegal P2P file trading, and the perfectly legal and intelligent self-publishing of recordings, there just isn't as much income from RIAA affiliates as there used to be.
As a result, MPF (formerly MPTF) aka Green Sheet jobs are disappearing. At least here in KC, about the only things that will be considered any more are long-standing public concert series and educational institutions. Shopping malls are all but out of the equation, as are nursing homes. That means less exposure to professional musicians who, because they're trying to make a living at it, do the best possible performance.