[victoro0]

I don't get what the author is complaining about. That there are too many aspiring musicians? That there is not enough public demand?

I see the meritocracy working perfectly here, on average the richest students had the best training and equipment, and as such developed into the best musicians (and without the injuries mentioned), therefore they have the most merit to make a career of it.

No one is born knowing how to play a viola, what careers are there where your training is not reflected in your merit?

[chmod775]

> on average the richest students had the best training and equipment, and as such developed into the best musicians

That's not a meritocracy.

[d4mi3n]

Sure it is, GP is just pointing out that attaining that skill is not a thing of equal opportunity.

All one is guaranteed in a meritocracy is that the most skilled person available reaps the benefit. However, a pure meritocracy does not guarantee who and how those skills are developed.

IIRC this is one of the big criticisms of meritocracy as a form of governance—a system of skilled individuals is not necessarily a fair one.

[chmod775]

In a meritocracy the most talented, hardworking child would have received the best training and equipment, not the richest one.

A pure meritocracy doesn't even guarantee that a child could be wealthy without having talent. As soon as someone with wealth but without merit is able to obtain economic goods (such as the highest quality training and equipment) that are not obtainable by those with merit, whatever system you have ceases to be a pure meritocracy.

It's not a meritocracy.

[Nasrudith]

Meritocracy is a spectrum really. Essentially if it looks only at current merit regardless of the circumstances it is still technically meritocratic even if it is unfair.

If only the best fighters can be knights but those raised in wealth have a vast advantage but any peasant outliers can become one it is more meritocratic than one which only allows those of noble birth but selects from canidates within. The fact the nobles compete is the only thing which gives a scintilla of meritocracy.

A system of commissions for officers based entirely on wealth would ironically be less meritocratic than the nobles only pool because it doesn't factor merit in at all.

The adhectives eglataran and meritocratic are technically two separate aspects. Although they are synergistic in that the aspects are stronger together than apart. Equal opportunity of resources would be more meritocratic than a "pure" meritocracy and more meritocracy undermines "gatekeepers" which may emerge among eglatarans where merit isn't what determines advancement.

[np_tedious]

It's eventually meritocratic, but the part that considers solely merit starts late enough that some have had far more opportunity to develop their talents than others

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's worse than that. The system is actively destructive of talent.

Someone with talent from an average background is going to be "out-merited" by someone with average talent from a privileged background - because the privileged person will have the resources to develop their skill, while the other person won't.

In fact not only will they not have the resources, they'll have extra costs - in the form of forced time spent working away from music to pay the bills, college debt, and so on. And of course limited access to physical and social benefits - good instruments, lessons, practice facilities, and ultimately choice of college and the resulting class network.

Apart from the obvious financial implications, those distractions will saddle the victim with a huge extra cognitive load.

A lot of people will be crushed by it, no matter how talented they are.

[nine_k]

Please remember that work, by definition, has a negative utility. We only do work for its side effects.

And the merit here is producing great music; working hard is not a merit. It can command respect, though, and indicate a future growth potential.

A child is never wealthy; the child's family may be. Being born into a wealthy family is a privilege. I child who doesn't waste that privilege, and makes the best of the somehow elevated starting position, deserves as much respect as a hard-working child that achieves impressive results starting from a worse position. It's pretty easy to just coast and achieve nothing if your parents already give you everything.

[chmod775]

> And the merit here is producing great music; working hard is not a merit

The usual textboook definition of merit in the context of a meritocracy is "talent, effort, and achievement".

> A child is never wealthy;

That's just somewhat true in our particular flavor of society, and even there children may be wealthy independently of their caretakers.

In a meritocracy where merit is essentially equivalent to wealth or currency, a child may very well be considered wealthy just on its own.

[sverige]

Then there's the example of Florence Foster Jenkins, who gives the lie to both the idea that wealthy people are going to succeed artistically, and that wealthy people (viz., her audience at the time) have superior taste.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcs9yJjVecs

[amelius]

Yes, we need a fair-o-cracy, but nobody so far invented the rules for it.

[coldtea]

Well, the rules are simple:

Nothing besides talent should ensure you get better music schools, training opportunities, teachers, or more time to practice.

[KC8ZKF]

Is it fair to some are born with more talent than others? Is it fair that a 5’8” hard working talented basketball player will never be as successful as Lebron James?

[wallflower]

Not a fair comparison. Most NBA players will fall short to Lebron James because of his brain.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james-gr...

[Spooky23]

Looking at the pinnacle of performance is distracting. I coach little league. Every year I see kids with amazing talent drop out or not scratch the surface of potential due to a variety of factors, most of which boils down to lack of time.

[coldtea]

If it's beside human intervention, then yes, it's humanly fair.

The universe might not be fair though, but I'd say the universe does not give a f...

[squarefoot]

Not doable in the current economic system. Many schools would be more than willing to invest in training, should a very promising although very poor, talented kid knock at their door. But how this kid could have been introduced to classical music or any other activity requiring costly training if his/her family had to struggle every day with temporary underpaid jobs to pay the minimum necessary (clothes/health/food/school etc.)? Potential talents do exist everywhere; I'm pretty sure there are at least a dozen potential pro golfers among the homeless in any country, but they should have been grown in a moderately rich family that allowed them to start practicing at least until someone discovered them. Our economic system however is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor, so I don't think this is going to change anytime soon.

[jacquesm]

I disagree. Talent is one component that gives you an advantage, but it is no guarantee for success.

Take this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PyYcnXQZJY

And tell me if up front you'd have recognized his talent and given him the opportunity that you felt he deserved.

In your world perseverance and grit count for nothing, in the real world a bit of talent and a ton of perseverance will outweigh any amount of talent if it isn't coupled with a substantial amount of grit and perseverance as well.

As nice as those theories are the entrance examinations and the judges are swayed easily by things other than talent which we can not measure objectively anyway.

Fortunately instruments are affordable (for some value of affordable) and if you can spare the time then practice is the differentiator. I've seen talented musicians fail due to a lack of discipline and I've seen moderately talented people succeed through endless hard work and everything in between. Of course the talented individual with discipline will always be at an advantage. But fortunately the world is large enough that more people than that handful will get a chance and some of those will succeed way beyond our expectations.

And all that besides the fact that talent as such isn't a static thing either.

[sverige]

Working that out in a practical way is not simple, though. There's the rub.

[ssalazar]

> I see the meritocracy working perfectly here, on average the richest students had the best training and equipment, and as such developed into the best musicians

Theres a lot wrong with this analysis, one point being that the "best training and equipment" is hardly the only factor for being a better musician. Are the best programmers the ones with the best laptops who went to the best schools? No, of course not- its not an apples-to-apples comparison but great musicianship is not simply a matter of money spent. In some cases no amount of training or quality of equipment will result in professional success.

Wealthy students/early-career musicians can also better weather career hardships that are intrinsic to pursuing a career in the arts. Being able to live with family while working or having a fallback if a risky career move doesn't pay off are luxuries that underprivileged musicians often don't have.

This also ignores the value of a wealthy families personal network- being on an advisory board for an arts institution, as many wealthy parents are, usually means you can pull some strings. These factors have nothing to do with merit.