Re: The Future of Art Music

In article <MP6Je.2762$vD.1878@trnddc05>,
"Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Nightingale" <singer@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42f4eace$0$18650$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> cross post killed for me.
>
>
> > Other things, like sports & certain business interests, get financial help
> > of various kinds (welfare, although not usually called that), but music
> > has to pay it's own way? Doesn't seem fair to me.
>
> Yes, but people want to watch people abuse each other for fun (sports) and
> like to make money doing it, advertising it, and selling it, (business
> interests).


well, the problem here is that once you've established the principle
that the government can tax to fund culture, then the culture that will
be funded will be mass culture, because that's where the most votes can
be bought. There's a limited constituency for art music, and people
aren't going vote to be taxed for something they don't enjoy. In fact,
the subsidy principle has been bad for art, because it's sucked money
out of the system that could otherwise go for patronage. Most of
America's great cultural institutions were founded during the golden Age
of Capitalism (frequently slandered as "the age of the robber barons").

> There's only one way to change that - change people's taste.

It's the only way in a subsidy system. Has it worked in Europe?

Unfortunately,
> that's hard to do (and as the old adage goes, you can't legislate it, though
> it seems everyone's always trying). One solution is education, i.e. why
> watching a symphony concert is better than watching two steroid enhanced
> males beat the *** out of each other - but first you'd have to get everyone
> to agree that is in fact better. You and I may think so, but we're not
> everyone. Another solution is money. In America, capitalism reigns. If you
> can't make a profit off of it, people don't care about it (OK, not that they
> don't care, but that they don't have the time to mess with it). Unless you
> can prove to the execs at HBO (who own Cinemax) that showing Live from
> Lincoln Center will get them that downpayment on the new Yacht they've been
> eyeing, they'd rather show a documentary of Janet Jackson's breast exposure
> incident.
>
> So it may not seem fair to you, but little Billy's dad who thinks music is
> "sissy", or "a waste of time" will think it's unfair to involve Billy in
> something that might A make him gay - like drama class (I'm speaking for
> Billy's father here, not my views), or B, not train him to make money, like
> music class. (little Billy's dad aspires to Billy managing the trailer park,
> not just being a tenant - ooh, I probably shouldn't say stuff like that).
>
You shouldn't; it's classist. And SOMEBODY has to manage the trailer
park.
.

Loading