Eric Chapman,
 Lincolnshire, IL

Fritz Reuter, Jr.
Lincolnwood, IL

Jaak Liivoja-Lorius
and Marily Emerson
Ottowa, Canada

Congratulations to Susan Barbieri on here excellent article confronting teacher commissions ("An Elegy for Ethics?" May/June 2002): I would offer several additional points:

1. Students should understand that if they study with a known "tenpercenter," they're not likely to be offered the best instruments via the teacher because the best instruments don't need "help" from teachers.

2. Most teachers generally do not have anywhere near the violin expertise ascribed to them by students or their parents. Few teachers could find a sound post crack.

3. If conservatory administrations were so inclined, they could put their foot down and stop faculty from taking kickbacks. Unfortunately, most administrations know exactly what is going on and refuse to step in and put a stop to it.

4. How does a student come to suspect that a teacher is receiving kickbacks? One sign is that all the instruments being presented to the student come from on shop. In fact, there are many good shops and no one has a monopoly on quality.

5. How does the student protect against commissions? Select the instruments yourself or have the shipped directly to you. If you refuse to tell where the instrument comes from, the teacher should get the idea that only an objective assessment is being solicited. Cover the bridge stamp if necessary. This will prevent the teacher from calling the shop after the sale to request a commission.

I am impressed by the courage that led you to publish Susan Barbieri's excellent article "An Elegy for Ethics?" in your May/June issue. However, there is a matter I wish to query. California music educator Bernard Chavalier is quoted as claiming: "Compared to my students, I have superior knowledge... Compared to a violin salesman, with my decades of practice, I have vastly superior playing and demonstration ability. Why should I not be paid a fee for lending [the dealer] my expertise to sell his product?"

In reply, I want to ask him two questions: First, to purchase an automobile, would I be better served by asking a driving instructor about his preferences, or should I seek a professional car mechanic's advice? Second, if I want to become a race car driver, should I seek out experienced driving instructors, or consult an automotive engineer to get technical information about race cars?

You will see the parallel. Master violin makers who are also dealers in stringed instruments and bows are experts in the field: repairing, restoring, appraising, certifying, and especially making stringed instruments. Because of extensive training, they are uniquely competent--without an under-the-table OK of a teacher--to help others with their instrument purchases and other related services. How to play the violin is a professional teacher's field of competence, for which students or parents pay.

Mr. Chevalier may be an excellent violin teacher--a master at playing and teaching. But his "superiou knowledg" will be useful only in a general music store, when dealing with a salesman of mass produced and cheap violins. For the same knowledge is ignorance in comparison to the expertise of a trained violin maker and dealer--a master at making and adjusting.

This is not a minor distinction. As suggested by Carla J. Shapreau--a California violin maker, lawyer, and coauthor of Violin Fraud: Deception, Forgery, Theft, and Law Suits in England and America--teachers and dealers would be wise to familiarize themselves with the statutes and laws that prohibit kickbacks or commercial bribery. For example, see section 13[c] of the Robinson-Patman Act, section 17045. A likely reason no court cases have been logged in this area thus far is that teachers have dealers over the proverbial barrel. The practice of payments to teachers is rarely known to the buyer. It's hidden, yet law is public.

Now that the practice has come to light, lawyers may well decide to recover ill-gotten gains--from dealers and teachers.

The timely article "An Elegy for Ethics?" could not have been better titled. No matter how one tries to rationalize the matter, the "teacher commission:" is an unethical problem and within the violin business can rarely be viewed as anything other than a dealer-offered bribe.

Most shops appear to have been forced into adopting a marketing system of "buying their sales" because of escalating business costs. And then there is the competitive situation. More shops exist now than ever before. This abundant marketplace of violin shops has created much sales anxiety. Thus, the teacher-commission system conveniently diminishes the unpredictability of those badly needed sales.

Still, it seems obvious that in a system where the teacher/consultant acts for both the buyer and the seller, a conflict of interest is unavoidable. On the one hand, the student trusts the teacher who, on the other hand, has his or her hand out for a secret commission or finder's fee.

In truth, these commissions have been around for so long that most dealers have come to accept them as normal business practice. When pressed, dealers admit to not liking the practice but often refuse to discuss it, especially in print. But the solution is clear: Continue putting the issue out in the open, beginning with the discussion that if a teacher consultancy fee is required (and a very good case can be made for such a fee) then should the buyer be informed about it and pay the bill? For only then will the buyer know that his or her best interests are being served.