TubeNet

I don't think bloke presented any case as to whether this funding model is bad or good, but supposing that we agree on the difference, in principle,

... do you really mean only "symphony orchestra", vs. popular music? or do you have in mind a broader category of unpopular music? Who gets to pick the unpopular music institutions that deserve public support?

euphenstien wrote: But nobody wants/can pay the ticket price to support them. Most folks don't want to pay for a ticket at all. So maybe they're not so important to the majority of society. Which makes me wonder if they are really relevant.

Is the majority of society relevant?

Back in the good old days, classical music was for the aristocracy - landed gentry and church - who had the means to support it and the education to appreciate it. It sure wasn't any more relevant to the majority of society then, but looking back at it today, it would have been kind of a shame if they had sacked the orchestra and left Mozart et al. to play hurdy-gurdy for soup money. Whatever their intention, they fostered the development of something that would be of great value to future generations, and on which future generations would build. This is not something you leave to the majority of society to carry out, or ask the majority of society whether it's worthwhile.

(Helicon Picture comes back for more.)

http://tinyurl.com/bsg88r" target="_blank

bubbacox wrote:Other forms of creative activity - like popular music (again, making broad generalizations) and movies and comic books and such - exist for the sole purpose of making money. The product generates income. This is not what artistic endeavors, in the pure sense of the term, should do.

Then by your definition, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, The ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, and Shakespeare's Hamlet are not "pure" artistic endeavors, because the men who created them do so to earn an income.

Just because something is created to make money for the creator, doesn't mean it is a less "pure" work of art (whatever that's supposed to mean).

bubbacox wrote:A government of the people has a responsibility to adequately apportion the funds of working people to support these creative activities.

bubbacox wrote:All I am saying, in broad generalizations, is that the role of a symphony orchestra - like that of a museum, art gallery, opera house, library, theater, etc. - is to allow us to experience, create, enjoy, and develop things without the need for it to make money.

In fact, I'd go a step further and say that these things should, in fact, not make money, period.

Good museums do make money. They might be a "non-profit" which allows them to earmark funds for future use which gives them tax shelter, but they do indeed stay "in the black".

The Boston Symphony Orchestra remains in the black perennially. More on that later.

It is important for a society to cultivate a proportional number of artists in all disciplines. A government of the people has a responsibility to adequately apportion the funds of working people to support these creative activities. There should be enough funding from governments and philanthropic activity that should these sources evaporate, the organizations will cease to exist.

Nah. Government should only serve as an overall means of standardization of the laws, currency, and trade, and provide for military defense of the people. Lots of people disagree. That's fine. But the more government does for us, the less we learn to do for ourselves.

Ticket sales are nice, but frankly, anyone should be able to go to their local professional symphony hall and see a concert for free, or go to the museum without paying admission, or just walk into any art gallery, every night of the year, completely subsidized by their taxes.

I don't want to support the local symphony if all they play is music I don't like. There is the issue. When orchestras, or any other "bastion of art" is freely given money without direction, they tend to make poor choices. We'd soon hear the sonic version of "Piss Christ" being played by our local orchestra.

In regards to "free" a lot of orchestras do offer "free" concerts. They aren't plentiful, but the NYPO and BSO have both given "free" concerts. Additionally, some museums (the ones that make money) will often have a "free" or "donations only" day.

However, they do need to charge admission. Sometimes that admission is there to keep out the riff-raff, or simply remind people that they are taking part of a luxury of civilized society. That makes them (hopefully) shaddup and listen, or keep their greasy fingers off the paintings.

Other forms of creative activity - like popular music (again, making broad generalizations) and movies and comic books and such - exist for the sole purpose of making money. The product generates income. This is not what artistic endeavors, in the pure sense of the term, should do. I'm not making value judgments on the artistic or musical merit of popular music; though I'm sure it comes across this way.

You are making judgments. There have been comic books (aka graphic novels) and films/movies that elevate their medium. They are art. Sometimes it is recognized and the products make money. Sometimes they don't.

There's nothing wrong with creating something for money, like a rap song or a bracelet. But to really explore the depths of human potential, we must have people willing to stretch limits of an art form and not have to worry about making a living at it.

In a trade for currency system, people are willing to trade monies for a product of equal value or of marginal utility. If a person is trying to exist, as a human in this society, they should learn and practice a skill that allows them to trade their product for currency that allows them to sustain a living that is acceptable to them. Those who "stretched" the art form prior to the affluent society (post-WWI) did so either while practicing a trade (Charles Ives) or while performing as a musician, or while being granted funding from a private benefactor. That's fine, as the decision on what to do as an "art" is either directly determined by them, or their direct flow on income.

Back to the BSO as an example. The BSO makes a bunch of money. Their endowment is purely backup money right now. However, they do what is necessary to ensure future cash flow. They play popular music (i.e. Boston Pops). They play for the common folk, especially during Tanglewood. They have severely reduced prices for children's programs. They even have a couple of free concerts now and then. People love the orchestra, and concerts are sold out with young and old alike. They do play new and interesting repertoire, but they also pay attention to what the public wants to listen to. I'm sure the BSO gets gubment monies also, but only because it is essentially free money with the filing of a few forms. If that gubment money went away, I think they would be fine.

bubbacox wrote:In fact, I'd go a step further and say that these things should, in fact, not make money, period.

...

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you through my growling stomach, the rain in my face, and my throbbing chops.

Nick

bubbacox wrote:

TMurphy wrote:Then by your definition, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, The ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, and Shakespeare's Hamlet are not "pure" artistic endeavors, because the men who created them do so to earn an income.

No. I didn't say that art couldn't earn income, I said that it should not have income as its purpose of existence. It's a subtle distinction.{/quote]

And I am pointing out that these particular works of art, regarded as some of the finest in existence, were all created because they're creators were being paid to do so. Beethoven had no intention of writing the 9th symphony. He did it because he was commisioned to do so, and it was more money than he could afford to pass up. Michaelangelo painted the CIstene chapel because the Church paid him to do so. His purpose was an income.

bubbacox wrote:Yes, that's also true. I was speaking in broad generalizations to make a point about art in our society. Again,

bubbacox wrote:I believe you may be making an inference from an implication I never made.

[/quote]

I think you are not appreciating the full implication of the inference you *did* make.

bubbacox wrote:

TMurphy wrote:And I am pointing out that these particular works of art, regarded as some of the finest in existence, were all created because they're creators were being paid to do so. Beethoven had no intention of writing the 9th symphony. He did it because he was commisioned to do so, and it was more money than he could afford to pass up. Michaelangelo painted the CIstene chapel because the Church paid him to do so. His purpose was an income.

Okay. Well, subtlety is lost on some.

I guess it is. I'll be more clear. In the past, ALL great works of art for produced for money. The idea that artistic endeavors should not be undertaken with money as the primary goal is a modern fantasy. Art is a business, just like anything else. Always has been.

The problem as I see it is what constitutes "elevating the art form". Your elevation is my noise, and vice versa. So, how do you make the choice? By the will of the people? No, that's how the market works, and that isn't good enough. By the will of arts intellectuals? Who gets to be one of those, and for what purpose? How do you ensure that they do their work in good faith and not to impose some hidden agenda?

In the past, orchestras were funded by rich people as an act of noblesse oblige. Supporting the arts was one of the responsibilities of their station in life. That concept of the responsibility of wealth is pretty much gone these days, of course.

The monarch of pre-modern Europe supported orchestras as an outgrowth of noblesse oblige. As the most aristocratic of aristocrats, they had and (in enlightened countries) understood their responsibility.

As such, orchestras were concerned with pleasing aristocrats (or, in the modern day, making sure that the Symphony League ladies were kept happy).

But outside of an aristocratic oligarchy, the notion that such funding should be state-supported brings a whole host of issues. You tell me how those might be resolved in a way that doesn't force your aesthetic down my throat or cause me to pay higher taxes for something of no value to me, and I'm all ears.

Rick "not opposed to government funding, just opposed to all the mechanisms by which governments select the fundee" Denney

bubbacox wrote:Yes, thank you. This is exactly the point. Your example is that the BSO is not doing anything to elevate an art form, it's just playing what the people want to hear. Therefore, it makes money.

How is introducing classical music to new audiences and playing new repertoire not "elevating the art"? How is increasing it's subscription base, and therefore the audience of classical music attendees not "elevating the art"?
How is playing familiar repertoire with a new interpretation or to a higher level not "elevating the art"?

I think it's sad that you think that experiencing great art is a luxury.

It is. If you think "great art" is required to survive, then you must not be familiar with the idea of people living over 2000 years ago.

Overall, I think that this thread has done nothing more than to reinforce the notion that the OP should make a wise investment in a dictionary as his next item for reading material.

Rick does an excellent job of articulating my point. I will go further, as I assume he believes, in pointing out that the intrusion of the government on spending for the arts is the exact reason why many of the upper class no longer support the arts as they did in the past. Why should efforts be duplicated? If the government is going to take their money and redistribute it as they see fit, the upper class will keep what is theirs and no longer spend it on the arts.

Again, the government often does a lousy job of redistributing public funds, regardless of political affiliation. Why should they be the ones to decide what constitutes art and what doesn't. It is bad enough as it is right now that we have politicians deciding economic issues when they have only an elementary understanding of economic principles.

I guess the main question is:

Do you feel comfortable allowing the government to decide what is art and what isn't? If so, you might want to read up on some history books as to the societies that felt the same way.

The ultimate in government-subsidized musical groups are the military bands.

Does anyone want to make the argument that military bands promote forward-progress in the development of new musical styles, genres, etc., the way privately-funded groups, like those who performed new works by Mozart and Beethoven, did?

I don't.

bloke wrote:well...

Many symphony orchestra musicians who talk to me seem to believe that medical doctors should not charge for their services, so maybe you have some sort of point here...??

Not sure if that was aimed at me, so I will make my point clear if it wasn't.

I never thought doctors shouldn't charge for their services, so I must not be one of those musicians (as a matter of fact, I ain't an orchestral musician--have yet to get my first "Pictures" gig).

Anyways, I think, as music is my career, I would like to have an income with it. As a matter of fact, I think it's highway robbery that people think a professional musician should be paid $50-$100 a gig and expect to live off of that. I remember talking to a guy at a gig who asked me what else I do, and I told him only music. It got on the subject that I had a steady church gig, and he told me he lost all respect for me, because I should be at least volunteering my services to the church, even if I was too selfish to do it elsewhere. My immediate comeback what "well, I think God wants even me to eat, too."

Right now, I live paycheck to paycheck, always hoping that phone will ring for another gig on a free night, or another student wants lessons, or another composer wants me to typeset some scores for him. Eventually, I want to have the freedom to choose my gigs, turn down the crappy ones, and still make a decent living. And, no, I do NOT want to flip burgers by day and play by night. I need to spend my days where most professional musicians do. Right now my days are spent in the woodshed on whatever instrument needs to be worked on, and nights are saved for teaching. Afternoons are where I put students if there are any for the day.

So, yeah, I WANT to make money from my craft. I spent almost 20 years so far working my butt off, and I hope to get another 20 years of financial support from my chops. I want music to give me food and a place to sleep.

Nick

bubbacox wrote: I am going to assume that you're not any more familiar with people living over 2000 years ago than I am.

I am just waiting to hear how being exposed to great art is not a luxury, but required as part of the human condition, as you insinuate.

I think it's cute how you like to portray yourself as an intellectual but then you make childish, snide remarks like this.

No worse than your thinly veiled attempts at doing the same. Nice name, by the way. Nothing childish there.

You should make your own points.

I do. Is there anything wrong with pointing out that he has helped further the conversation? I think, at this point, you are really doing nothing but feeding your own sense of self-worth via the internet.

Can you indicate where I said that I would be "comfortable allowing the government to decide what is art and what isn't?"

I didn't. That is more in the idea that that is what will happen. Although you point to peer review, that system is highly flawed as well. I see "entertaining the masses" as much a part for government funding (and I have been a part of this application process) as any "elevating the art" component. Moreso, I would think that the "entertaining the masses" has a much higher impact when getting approved for public funds. Mainly because the "peer" in peer review is a fallacy.

bubbacox wrote:In the example given, the BSO is a jukebox of classical music pieces that people want to hear because they have heard them a million times before.

Nice that you can make that statement in anonymity.

They have at least 3 premiers listed this season. How many works are you going to premier this year?

http://www.bso.org/bso/mods/series_deta ... omRenewal=

The only thing I'm missing is why this thread isn't locked already.

All I see is a political argument.

Uncle Buck wrote:The ultimate in government-subsidized musical groups are the military bands.

Does anyone want to make the argument that military bands promote forward-progress in the development of new musical styles, genres, etc., the way privately-funded groups, like those who performed new works by Mozart and Beethoven, did?

I don't.

Developing music as an art form is not the purpose of military bands. The fact that this sometimes happens anyway is a bonus.

Lauronie wrote:

Uncle Buck wrote:The ultimate in government-subsidized musical groups are the military bands.

Does anyone want to make the argument that military bands promote forward-progress in the development of new musical styles, genres, etc., the way privately-funded groups, like those who performed new works by Mozart and Beethoven, did?

I don't.

Developing music as an art form is not the purpose of military bands. The fact that this sometimes happens anyway is a bonus.

I agree 100% - which is partially why I don't believe any government subsidized forum will be the best avenue to develop music as an art form.

*Edit* - for clarification, I am NOT saying that government subsidized music does not serve good, useful purposes, and I am NOT saying that it should not continue. I am just saying that I believe "music as an art forum" develops better in other venues.

bloke wrote:It's called "capitalism". Fortunately, you can't force me to hire you to play music at "your" price, and I can't force you to hire me to take dents out of your instrument for "my" price.

No, not capitalism. Free enterprise. Capitalism is a form of distributing shares of ownership in an enterprise in return for capital (money) for the purpose of putting that money to productive (and therefore remunerative) use. Free enterprise is what you mean when you say that you can choose to sell anything you want for any price, but I as the buyer am also free to choose to buy and pay only what I think it's worth.

Communism attacked both principles by having only state-owned enterprise and by making stuff according to central planning rather than market demand.

The difference between price and cost is often a hard lesson for those who have spent years perfecting a craft. Not all crafts are well-paid just based on the expertise of the artist. For example, I doubt that anybody (including you) is willing to pay, say, a Morse-code telegraph operator, even though this was a good line of work 75 years ago that required the development of finely tuned skills. At the end, the few who are interested in something both specialized and archaic pay each other to demonstrate it, or learn it as a hobby.

Rick "a practitioner of several non-remunerative crafts" Denney

--