When you return home after a hard day's work and get off the subway train, you sometimes have to walk for a long time to the exit or change trains. Suddenly, there is some music in the noise. These are street musicians. You take a coin out of your pocket and drop it into your hat or tool case. These musicians bring color and life to the city streets. Street musicians are people between the ages of 17 and 30. Some of them are men, some are women. They play classical music, pop or folk music, old and new songs. Many musicians are former University students or professional musicians. Andrew Hayne, for example, once studied music, but dropped out and became an artist. Now he's playing underground because he doesn't want to forget how to play. His girlfriend is also an artist. She helps him raise money. Another street musician, David Mcnell, tells new players “ " Learn new songs all the time, otherwise you will have fewer and fewer listeners. Wear bright clothing to attract attention. Make sure that the places where you decide to play are warm. The best places are bridges and, of course, the metro.” Hyde Park is the best place on Sundays, as speakers address the public. Street musicians do business with the many tourists who visit the Park. Weather is one of the most serious problems. It's not easy to play the violin or guitar on a rainy November day in London and try to smile. The police are a much worse problem. They come in from time to time and the musicians are moved to another place. However, they are not often fined. One musician told me: "The policeman asked me what I was doing. I said I was just practicing. Some money just fell out of my pocket into a guitar case and I was told to leave my seat. I don't think it's fair
Поделитесь своими знаниями, ответьте на вопрос:
Перевести ! when the public mood changes, the realisation can take time to sink in. behaviour that was once acceptable can overnight come to be seen as outrageous. the board of glaxosmithkline, a big pharmaceutical company, has found itself at the sharp end of such a mood change. its shareholders voted to reject the company's remuneration committee reptrt, which would have paid jean pierre garnier, its chief executive, $35m if he lost his job and treated him and his wife as three years older than they actually are for the purpose of increasing their pensions. the vote is purely advisory, with no binding force. but it leaves the company in a sort of legal limbo. more importantly, it leaves boardrooms everywhere in a difficult position. the message of shareholder discontent with large executive pay packages and poor corporate performance has never been so clear. company bosses have been slow to understand the new mood of outrage among shareholders. shareholders have for years accepted that "fat cat" bosses paid themselves more or less whatever they liked. so it is uncomfortable to face criticism. but behind the criticism is a strong feeling that many chief executives are living according to quite a different set of rules from everyone else. although the value of most large companies has fallen considerably over the last few years, bosses have continued to pay themselves more. the value of their pensions has increased and they have struck lavish deals in the form of "golden parachute" sebverance deals to cushion their fall if they leave. some of the aspects of mr garnier's package that most irritaed the shareholders were ones that appeared to reward not superior performance but simply being there. lots of bosses have such components in their pay. of course, companies may set up deals with bosses they no longer want in order to encourage them to go quickly and without a legal fight. but a generous advance promise to reward failure is no way to encourage success. like the "guaranteed bonus" and the lifetime free dental treatment, it offers chief executives a one-way bet. if the gsk vote makes companies cautious about such deals, that is welcome. the market for chief executives is far from perfect. there is no rate for the job, positions are often quietly filled rather than openly advertised and boardroom search committees rarely ask, "could we get someone equally good even if we paid a bit less? " if the board now has to defend its compensation decisions publicly, it may be easier to say "we'd love to give you a golden parachute but the shareholders would make a fuss." more fuss, please, from shareholders. it's their company, after all.