The Death of Classical Music

[boojum]

A recent article in The New Yorker deals with the decline and fall of many classical orchestras and opera companies and the successes of others. I found it an interesting read. The synopsis: you cannot present the same music to the same audiences in the same manner and expect to succeed.

Check it out: Struggles at City Opera and Across the Country : The New Yorker

[Uncle Russ]

While the article focuses on classical music and that also is the main focus of a majority of you on this forum, my own area is jazz. And most jazz festivals are killing themselves. I wrote about that here and I hope you'll take 90 seconds to read it: (The Decline Of Jazz Festivals And Why We Have No New Jazz Stars « Westlake Records Blog).

The problem is that when audiences shrink, businesses panic. Some try to reach a new audience by modifying the program with what often is a warped idea of the newest fad; they often alienate the existing audience and fail to satisfy new people. Others (probably a majority) try to keep what remains of their existing audience by putting on the same program(s) and performers ad infinitum, an equally idiotic reaction.

Sometimes you just have to change the way you do things: Go to a smaller venue, have fewer but very high quality performances, introduce new talent, and be more open minded about the music you present. Sometimes you just have to realize your business, through no fault of your own, has become a niche and may never be what it once was. So you must work hard to make it so outstanding that you still continue to attract a trickle of new listeners.

Neither the performers in a show nor the music they play can remain static without boring an audience and killing the business.

There is no simple solution. And there are a lot of foolish or myopic event promoters.

[jmcarlock]

I think the companies need to court younger audiences and talents, and my experience in Chicago has generally been not so good.

One exception is the Chicago Shakespeare Theater, which is excellent because of their $20 tickets under 35 program. I am often in attendance here, because I can actually afford to buy a ticket, and even the nosebleeds are good. Ushers even invite you to move into better seats if they are available.

[MadforBrad]

they won't ever completely disappear as they are pretty much museums but I go as often as I can. My girlfriend does Opera and makes a good living. It isn't completely dead. A very small community of rather high brow people.

You usually get the classics but every so often you get something a little more interesting and less known.

It is rather sad with the growth of film/tv music in that so many composers just don't know what an orchestra actually sounds like or what it can do. Not to mention you hear so much more than what is on the recordings.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Uncle Russ

While the article focuses on classical music and that also is the main focus of a majority of you on this forum, my own area is jazz. And most jazz festivals are killing themselves. I wrote about that here and I hope you'll take 90 seconds to read it: (The Decline Of Jazz Festivals And Why We Have No New Jazz Stars « Westlake Records Blog).

The problem is that when audiences shrink, businesses panic. Some try to reach a new audience by modifying the program with what often is a warped idea of the newest fad; they often alienate the existing audience and fail to satisfy new people. Others (probably a majority) try to keep what remains of their existing audience by putting on the same program(s) and performers ad infinitum, an equally idiotic reaction.

Sometimes you just have to change the way you do things: Go to a smaller venue, have fewer but very high quality performances, introduce new talent, and be more open minded about the music you present. Sometimes you just have to realize your business, through no fault of your own, has become a niche and may never be what it once was. So you must work hard to make it so outstanding that you still continue to attract a trickle of new listeners.

Neither the performers in a show nor the music they play can remain static without boring an audience and killing the business.

There is no simple solution. And there are a lot of foolish or myopic event promoters.

Anything that starts off with, "When I was a kid . . . " is suspect, but here it goes. I grew up with Fats Waller and the Saturday Met opera broadcasts. I loved jazz. I was an hour from NYC. So, I went to Birdland and the Five Spot. The Five Spot was a dive then: dark, dingy and suspect. But, I heard Ornette Coleman there and Jimmy Giuffre, Rollins, and others. Birdland was the class spot and was always jumping. I never did go to the "Gate" and went to the Vanguard once, in an Army uniform while on leave with a date to hear Anita O'Day. It was expensive. Birdland and the Five Spot were not.

I was hearing good, straight ahead jazz and Coleman's avante garde stuff. One night I actually thought I understood him. Maybe it was hearing him on the violin.

But amending a good genre to pap so as to fit the least common denominator works for some things but not for jazz. Jazz, like classical, is just too damned intellectual for that. Your predicted loss of the old audience and failure to attract a new one is true.

Our illustrious leader, Steve Remote, works in the bowels of real jazz and has gotten awards for his skill, art and craft. Part mojo and part smarts, Steve gets the good sounds of the good musicians.

We need more Steves and fewer Lawrence Welks. There are good jazz musicians out there. High schools have lab bands which play "A Train" using the Ellington charts so the talent is there and developing. Portland, OR, has some fine jazz being played by teenagers who are devoted to their art and who are being schooled by the old pros in town. Let's hear it for PDX! It is not the only place it is happening. What happens to these guys after HS and college?? Dentistry or accounting?? Where do these young talents wind up? They have the chops; where are the shops???


Jazz, America's music and our gift to the world.

L8R

[henryrobinett]

I do think jazz, specifically needs to court younger audiences. But not by doing something other than jazz. There are plenty if fantastic younger groups who have captured the imagination of younger musicians. But adding pop acts to try to attract audiences doesn't do anything to disseminate the music. It does allow the promoter to make money however. But the two worlds never really meet.

[joelpatterson]

This may be a strange comment for someone who wears my shoes... but I do sometimes hear a little voice inside me, wondering "why are we listening to music that's 400 years old?"

It's a silly, meaningless inquiry I admit, but all the same, even though it's timeless and has proven its appeal to generation after generation, it's thrilling and moving and enthralling, it's a nagging question... and it makes me wonder.

[gingataff]

We also have poetry, theatre and art that is equally old but still considered the paradigm to which all else is measured, though much of it is consigned to museums.

That said, how many people went to see The Lion King last year compared to anything by Shakespeare?

[rcrowley]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

This may be a strange comment for someone who wears my shoes... but I do sometimes hear a little voice inside me, wondering "why are we listening to music that's 400 years old?"

Now that you ask... I was in high school in the mid 1960s when the Beatles broke on the scene. While everyone else at school was caught up in Beatlemania, my musical preferences included almost no music written in the 20th century. But then the "acceptance" of my peers meant nothing to me.

Now, 50 years later, my musical tastes include a limited selection of contemporary music, but nothing that could be called "rock" or any of the subsequent genres. I just find the music tedious, repetitious and uninteresting, not to mention the socially questionable lyrics. Sure there is dissonant "classical" music, but IMHO there is very little "beautiful" contemporary music. But that's just me.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

This may be a strange comment for someone who wears my shoes... but I do sometimes hear a little voice inside me, wondering "why are we listening to music that's 400 years old?"

It's a silly, meaningless inquiry I admit, but all the same, even though it's timeless and has proven its appeal to generation after generation, it's thrilling and moving and enthralling, it's a nagging question... and it makes me wonder.

Why do we love paintings that are several hundred years old?

People love both classical paintings and modern art - both have their place.

It's horrible to throw out the best of the old for the latest thing.

Both have value and both have their place.

Look how many modern popular songs have their roots in the classics - it's often where musicians get their inspiration and then take it to something new.

Look at the success of Queen and Freddie Mercury's love of Opera.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

This may be a strange comment for someone who wears my shoes... but I do sometimes hear a little voice inside me, wondering "why are we listening to music that's 400 years old?"

It's a silly, meaningless inquiry I admit, but all the same, even though it's timeless and has proven its appeal to generation after generation, it's thrilling and moving and enthralling, it's a nagging question... and it makes me wonder.

Because in many ways what was achieved 400 years ago is still an inspiration and has in many ways not been surpassed. With all our technological sophistication, the ability to write for symphonies, string quartets, concertos that demand the very best of what is possible, and fugues like Bach, is still a wonder. It makes one wonder where it's all gone and why the overwhelming majority prefer dumbed down folk music over the amazingly sublime. Music that was so amazing you thought it must be direct from God. Is this really human? It really challenged, and still does, the human experience.

Of course modern "classical" music exists in many varieties, shapes, colors and forms. But I think it's the McDonaldization of our culture. Not to say that there isn't rock and roll, r&b and country that doesn't have their sublime moments.

[idylldon]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

why the overwhelming majority prefer dumbed down folk music over the amazingly sublime.

Sublime is in the ear of the beholder, so that's the first issue.

I think jazz and classical have, to a certain extent, fallen victim to the pretense that is endemic in each genre. While there is a lot of truth to the notion that being educated musically enhances the listener's experience in both of these sophisticated musical genres, there is a bit of snobbishness that turns a lot of "common" folk off. Niche markets can survive in a strong economy, but when things get difficult like they are now it's hard to keep a niche market thriving.

This is just an observation I've made over many years being involved in both of these genres. Perhaps doing things to reach out to those folks who are musically uneducated, those who currently listen to "dumbed down folk music," would be the best place to start to get some enthusiasm (and crowds) back in the loop.

When you have musical genres that have evolved to the point of excluding people based on IQ, and the people involved in those genres flaunt that idea, you are prone to fail. Music can often be an intellectual experience for many of us, but we can never lose sight of the fact that at its core it appeals to us on a much more primitive and base level. It taps into what Jung referred to as the "collective unconscious."

When I attend the LA opera or symphony, the average age is up there. Where are the young people going to come from to keep those seats filled in the future? Musical education is not a part of our school curriculum anymore so we're definitely missing an opportunity there.

Maybe it's time to start being more inclusive and less exclusive. Figure out ways to be more instructive while being entertaining. It's a complex problem for sure, but if things don't change in the near future, my guess is classical music and "real" jazz will slowly wither away and become even more marginalized.

Cheers,
--
Don

[nightscope]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

it's thrilling and moving and enthralling

And quite beautiful. Good enough for me.

ns

[matyas]

This is actually something I really concerned about. A few years ago, I co-founded a chamber orchestra to explore music in a way that crosses boundaries of genre. We do transcriptions of pop music alongside classical music from the middle ages to the present. We charge a nominal ticket fee - just enough to cover expenses, and present concerts in non-traditional venues. We do this not as a gimmick, or as a way to attract new audiences, but because we're just into music in general, not "genres", and we've come to realize how many people there are out there who feel the same way.
Responses so far have been enthusiastic and positive. Really, it's the presentation, and the ticket prices, that tend to scare off audiences from classical music and jazz, not the music. A lot of indie rock fans can very easily get into this stuff (if they aren't already) when it's presented in a format they can relate to. Keep in mind that I am talking about a fairly specific group here - mostly under 40, mostly educated, generally urban, and passionate about music, just not classical music. These are the people that go to art galleries and film series and collect vinyl. In my case, I know these people, and I speak their language already. Attempts by major performing institutions to reach them tend to come across as phony and didactic at best, and pretentious and condescending at worst.
What they do want is affordable tickets, a laid-back atmosphere, and a broader range of repertoire. They don't want typical "pops" fare - that mostly comes of as corny and trite to younger, hipper audiences. A lot of them are eager to learn, but they don't want to be lectured to. And (contrary to conventional wisdom) a lot of them may actually find Steve Reich easier to digest than Schubert. (Which isn't to say that they can't eventually get into Schubert as well.)

[henryrobinett]

It's a cultural thing. I lived in Vienna back in the mid 90s. There were so many concert houses with music happening every day of the week. Whenever I went, I wore very casual clothes -- jeans and sandals. I was told by the friend I went with that was totally fine. I saw a well balanced age group. Those who wanted to dress up did, but a great majority dressed like I did and were my age and younger. And the ticket prices were cheap. It was culturally part of that society. Yeah they liked rock and roll, but they also liked Schumann. The public had easy access.

[a.e.neumann]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

I do sometimes hear a little voice inside me, wondering "why are we listening to music that's 400 years old?"

Because it's new, and fresh, and complex.

Playing Bach, or Schütz, or Byrd, or singing Monteverdi, or the Llibre Vermell de Monserrat, or the songs of Oswald von Wolkenstein (we're going back 600 years now, not just 400) is always a re-invention, a re-creation, not a mere re-discovery, let alone a re-enactment.

Also, in an age when commercial interests dictate an extreme simplification, catering to the lowest common denominator, ancient music makes one realise the bliss of complexity. Complexity as a highly enjoyable game of skills for musical craftsmen, not as an academic exercise.

On this, I agree wholeheartedly with hernryrobinett.
I therefore disagree somewhat with John Willett — his open-minded fairness is all to his credit, but it's over-generous to much of the current mould-injected, mass-produced, bandwith-swamping crap.

Of course, this does not answer the initial question asked by boojum. I'll try to jot down a few headings in my next post, without presuming to even scratch the surface of such a difficult topic.

But two things are clear:
1 - Where public culture has been all but massacred by commercial media interests, as in Italy, there is a corresponding collapse of public institutions.
2 - Whenever the public mood supports a political movement like the Tea Party, that emphasizes the [tax] price of everything, and no longer acknowledges the public value of anything, the decline of arts merely reflects the decline of public interest and public purpose. The rot has reached the root. This necessary influences the level and quality of contemporary creation.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by idylldon

I think jazz and classical have, to a certain extent, fallen victim to the pretense that is endemic in each genre. While there is a lot of truth to the notion that being educated musically enhances the listener's experience in both of these sophisticated musical genres, there is a bit of snobbishness that turns a lot of "common" folk off. Niche markets can survive in a strong economy, but when things get difficult like they are now it's hard to keep a niche market thriving.

Maybe it's time to start being more inclusive and less exclusive. Figure out ways to be more instructive while being entertaining. It's a complex problem for sure, but if things don't change in the near future, my guess is classical music and "real" jazz will slowly wither away and become even more marginalized.

Cheers,
--
Don

Well, in spite of what I just said, I don't think you can always be all things to all people all the time. "Discrimination based on IQ" is, in some ways a fact of life. Classical music has always been intellectual. (On the other hand, country music isn't intellectual.) Composers didn't discover complexity or abstraction around 1900. (Look at some of the things that were said about Bach or Mahler in their own eras.) I don't think attempting to deny that side of it will bring in new audiences - it'll only serve to alienate those audience members who are the most devoted. Some people will never be in our audience, and that's alright. I can't get into Toby Keith, and somehow I don't think that most other northern, urban, people with PhDs can either. Does that mean that Mr. Keith is neglecting our demographic?
I think what you can do, though, is cut out the didactic, almost preachy tone that surrounds most of the "introduction to classical music" concerts and lectures that major orchestras and performance organizations present.
An example from the jazz world: a few years ago, I was visiting a different city and I saw a performance by a jazz group that was meant to be an introduction to jazz for young audiences. If hadn't grown up around jazz musicians, I would have come away with the impression that jazz was dead. Later that evening, I went to jazz club which was packed with a young, hip, artsy crowd drinking microbrews. The music presented ranged from bop to avant-garde to funky fusion and the crowd loved it. My friend who brought me there said that he goes to this club several times a week, and it's nearly always crowded. When people are told "this is good for you", of course many of them will get turned off automatically. When it's presented in a fun context, people will be much more receptive.
I really think that classical and jazz musicians and presenters have a lot to learn from indie rock. Indie musicians often play to small, niche audiences of devotees and don't have major label support. But it doesn't usually bother them. We should stop idealizing an era when Duke Ellington and Toscanini ruled the airwaves. We can learn a whole lot more from _Our Band Could Be Your Life_ than from American Idol.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

It's a cultural thing. I lived in Vienna back in the mid 90s. There were so many concert houses with music happening every day of the week. Whenever I went, I wore very casual clothes -- jeans and sandals. I was told by the friend I went with that was totally fine. I saw a well balanced age group. Those who wanted to dress up did, but a great majority dressed like I did and were my age and younger. And the ticket prices were cheap. It was culturally part of that society. Yeah they liked rock and roll, but they also liked Schumann. The public had easy access.

Really? I lived in Vienna from 1998-2000! Small world! And yes, Austrian (and German) audience are the coolest, smartest, most laid-back and passionate I've come across.

[hbphotoav]

As to 400-year-old music... I'm a huge fan of "different strokes"... not the lame TV series... but recognizing that different folks have different tastes and sensibilities. I also am aware that music is, perhaps, a bit of a window into the human condition... it springs from the desire to express the range of emotions and aspirations and proficiency and so forth, that make us "human" beings. Since we all are human beings, such expression should be encouraged and, for the most part, celebrated... while realizing that not every expression "resonates" with every other human being.

A lot of my "resonance" is based on where I was (and with whom) as I was growing up... being "formed" as it were. My Dad was a huge big bands fan, he being raised in the '30s and '40s... therefore my affinity for Dorsey and Ellington and their progeny. My mother tended toward hymns... therefore a deep appreciation for Wesley and Watts and, in general, music of the church. My personal teen rebellion centered on Peter Paul and Mary, Beach Boys, Four Seasons (acceptable) and Beatles, BS&T, Chicago and the Stones (not so acceptable). From high school band came interest in Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Holst, Sousa and Rogers & Hammerstein. College days introduced me to Bird and Miles, Virgil Fox, NGDB's "Circle" album (which opened wide the doors of country, bluegrass and roots music) and, to add weekend DJ dough, a wide range of danceable pop, country, disco, funk and early rap.

So what? you may ask... Only that while I "like" what I like... and appreciate much of what I don't... all I ask is to be allowed to enjoy my preferences and not be dissed because there is no place for Beastie Boys, Beyonce, Goatlord, JZ or Snoop in my personal collection. And that I will allow the same to others...

So... it matters little to me whether my music is a day, a decade, a century or millenia old (there's nothing like a disk of Gregorian chant or plainsong to wind me down after one of "those" days... although Patty Griffin comes close)... what matters to me is that MY soul resonates and is soothed, inspired, quieted or excited by the art, craft and, often, genius... of others.

And it is my great joy to be able to preserve, in my own way, some of those expressions as I can... thanks, in large part, to the generosity of spirit and information from all y'all on this forum.

Onward...

HB

[matyas]

Originally Posted by a.e.neumann

Because it's new, and fresh, and complex.

Playing Bach, or Schütz, or Byrd, or singing Monteverdi, or the Llibre Vermell de Monserrat, or the songs of Oswald von Wolkenstein (we're going back 600 years now, not just 400) is always a re-invention, a re-creation, not a mere re-discovery, let alone a re-enactment.

But two things are clear:
1 - Where public culture has been all but massacred by commercial media interests, as in Italy, there is a corresponding collapse of public institutions.
2 - Whenever the public mood supports a political movement like the Tea Party, that emphasizes the [tax] price of everything, and no longer acknowledges the public value of anything, the decline of arts merely reflects the decline of public interest and public purpose. The rot has reached the root. This necessary influences the level and quality of contemporary creation.

I wholeheartedly agree with both of those statements.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by boojum

A recent article in The New Yorker deals with the decline and fall of many classical orchestras and opera companies and the successes of others. I found it an interesting read. The synopsis: you cannot present the same music to the same audiences in the same manner and expect to succeed.

Check it out: Struggles at City Opera and Across the Country : The New Yorker

It's generational, most the people going to shows nowadays never really listened to classical, they listened to rock , pop, hiphop music. Also there are too many orchestras and symphonies just rehashing 300 year old material. It gets boring.

Most ochestras are really just coverbands. The best show I ever saw was with John Williams w/ the Boston Pops & he played his own stuff like stuff from Indy, Jaws, Close encounters.... It was awesome. How many times can you get excited about some ochestra playing the 4 seasons for the 10,000th time? it gets old. Not to mention they charge an arm and a leg.

If ochestras started to write thier own material or do more tributes to contemporary artists they would fare much better

[rcrowley]

Originally Posted by a.e.neumann

2 - Whenever the public mood supports a political movement like the Tea Party, that emphasizes the [tax] price of everything, and no longer acknowledges the public value of anything, the decline of arts merely reflects the decline of public interest and public purpose. The rot has reached the root. This necessary influences the level and quality of contemporary creation.

While I agree with everything else Mr. Neumann wrote, I cannot let this go unchallenged. It is those very tax-supported institutions that have dumbed-down the newer generations and shifted priorities and resources away from things like the classics and the arts (not just musical). It is not money (tax, "public" or otherwise) that is the issue. We have seen examples presented in this very discussion of other countries/cultures where they spend significantly less educating kids, but produce a next generation with a broader appreciation for the culture. It is our social priorities and even sensibilities that we have allowed to decay.

Getting back to the core topic, there is some movement away from the "trendy" dissonance and other trappings of "contemporary classical" and back to the things that made "classical" music attractive. For example the post-Soviet works of Arvo Pärt et.al.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

It's generational, most the people going to shows nowadays never really listened to classical, they listened to rock , pop, hiphop music. Also there are too many orchestras and symphonies just rehashing 300 year old material. It gets boring.

Most ochestras are really just coverbands. The best show I ever saw was with John Williams w/ the Boston Pops & he played his own stuff like stuff from Indy, Jaws, Close encounters.... It was awesome. How many times can you get excited about some ochestra playing the 4 seasons for the 10,000th time? it gets old. Not to mention they charge an arm and a leg.

If ochestras started to write thier own material or do more tributes to contemporary artists they would fare much better

In classical music, there's a big divide between composer and performer. Some people do both, but not it's not really universal. That doesn't exist in pop music, or, to a large degree, even in jazz. I think that's actually one of the biggest barriers to acceptance by people who didn't grow up with the stuff. But yes, they do need to do more new music, and, to be fair, some of them are trying. See my comments above.
The symphony orchestra has always been a "cover band." That's kind of all they're equipped to do. We can talk about the problems of institutional music-making and the training process that classical musicians go through, but, if you're say, a classical oboe player, you practice Ravel's _Tombeau de Couperin_ over and over again, in the hopes that you'll someday win an audition. Studying improvisation or even composition has historically been frowned upon for those who aim to make a living playing in orchestras - it takes away from the time you'd be spending learning excerpts.
I think this is a gigantic problem, and one that many of the younger generation of classical musicians are trying to overcome.

[matyas]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

Getting back to the core topic, there is some movement away from the "trendy" dissonance and other trappings of "contemporary classical" and back to the things that made "classical" music attractive. For example the post-Soviet works of Arvo Pärt et.al.

And I can't let this one go unchallenged. Dissonance has never been "trendy." Writing 12-tone music might have gotten you tenure at an elite institution in the 1970's, but it sure didn't guarantee you a spot on anyone's program. Look at what new music was being played by the big institutions in the 1950s-80s: in the US, it was mostly post-romantic stuff like Barber, Bernstein, Roy Harris, and Shostakovich. By the way, I have nothing against any of those composers, and I do like and admire the music of Pärt.

[henry_the_horse]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

"why are we listening to music that's 400 years old?"

The same reason we keep on reading Plato, Cervantes, Victor Hugo, etc. They are classics, they are art pieces worth learning, appreciating, enjoying.

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

It's generational, most the people going to shows nowadays never really listened to classical, they listened to rock , pop, hiphop music. Also there are too many orchestras and symphonies just rehashing 300 year old material. It gets boring.

Most ochestras are really just coverbands. The best show I ever saw was with John Williams w/ the Boston Pops & he played his own stuff like stuff from Indy, Jaws, Close encounters.... It was awesome. How many times can you get excited about some ochestra playing the 4 seasons for the 10,000th time? it gets old. Not to mention they charge an arm and a leg.

If ochestras started to write thier own material or do more tributes to contemporary artists they would fare much better

On the other hand... I am awestruck every time I'm in the room at the sonic intensity of "Carmina Burana" (nice from a CD... awesome in a performance hall) or the spiritual intensity of the Beethoven 9th... or the sheer musical mastery of Lang Lang or Olga Kern (again... hearing is one thing... seeing and hearing is believing) "rehashing" the classics in their repertoire. If you haven't seen either of these artists... make it a priority. In the midst of these, Maestro Giancarlo Guerrero mixes "new" with "old"... masterfully. I don't "like" it all... but I am informed by it, and eagerly await the next concert.

Yes... I enjoy evenings of "memorable" film score music. But to be introduced for the first time to Copland or Bernstein or Villa-Lobos or Handel is, perhaps, even more memorable. Nashville ("Country Music USA") is blessed with functioning (and profitable) opera, symphony and ballet companies (and a top-drawer regional theatrical company) because of (1) major private donor support; (2) the support of thousands of season ticket holders; and (3) local government support through the Metro Nashville Arts Commission.

I've been doing archival photography for the NSO for the better part of 25 years... through highs (the recent building of the Schermerhorn Symphony Center) and lows (the 1988 season truncated by bankruptcy and rebuilt, slowly, over the next seven years... see: Orchestra Spotlight - Nashville Symphony Orchestra) all the while, being season ticket holders. It is a wide-ranging partnership... government alone can't do it... the players alone can't do it. A commitment to education, outreach, excellence, inclusive programming and sound business decisions can make it work.

My $.02US. From my limited vantage point...

HB

[matyas]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

While I agree with everything else Mr. Neumann wrote, I cannot let this go unchallenged. It is those very tax-supported institutions that have dumbed-down the newer generations and shifted priorities and resources away from things like the classics and the arts (not just musical). It is not money (tax, "public" or otherwise) that is the issue. We have seen examples presented in this very discussion of other countries/cultures where they spend significantly less educating kids, but produce a next generation with a broader appreciation for the culture.

Also, I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but which other countries are you talking about? Henry mentioned Austria, but other than Italy (which was cited negatively) I haven't seen any other countries referred to in this thread. The data on Austria disagrees with the above. In 2008 (the most recent year for which I could find statistics), the federal government in Austria spent 766.24 million Euros on the arts. The provinces spent another 929.7 million Euros. Individual communities (excluding Vienna, which is a province as well as a city) spent another 722.69 million Euros. Source: STATISTIK AUSTRIA - Kulturfinanzierung
In the USA, by contrast, in the same year, the NEA spent a total of $144,706,800. I couldn't get statistics on individual state and local spending on the arts in the US, but even if you compare spending at only the federal level, it's clear that Austrians are spending a lot more on the arts. (Source: National Endowment for the Arts Appropriations History)
Take what you want from these numbers.

[rcrowley]

Oh please. The NEA is not "the arts" in the United States. I am sick to death of government- (or even quasi-government) sponsored anything. They have run us right into the ground. Over and out.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

Oh please. The NEA is not "the arts" in the United States. I am sick to death of government- (or even quasi-government) sponsored anything. They have run us right into the ground. Over and out.

You may be sick of it, true. But one of the reasons that "the arts" are so freely available in Europe is that they are heavily subsidized by the state. I see it as a pattern from when royalty supported the arts. Nationally we eschewed royalty for merchants. Merchants and corporations have few legal obligations and not enough artistic interest to equal what is available abroad. Look at the example above about Vienna. Look at the BBC. We are the poorer in my opinion.

And that's what makes horse races happen. Fortunately this forum does not get as heated as others. Thank you, Steve! Thank you fellow members for being so civil and congenial.

Cheers

[matyas]

Originally Posted by rcrowley

Oh please. The NEA is not "the arts" in the United States. I am sick to death of government- (or even quasi-government) sponsored anything. They have run us right into the ground. Over and out.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. I brought that up to point out an error in your reasoning (namely that the arts are better appreciated in countries which spend less government money on arts and education), not to argue politics. For what it's worth, my organization isn't government-sponsored, and I don't think that more government spending on artistic organizations in this country, even it were to happen (which I'm pretty sure it isn't) would solve the problem.
The question then becomes that if the market isn't going to support it, and the government can't or won't, then who is?
In some countries, the people have made the decision as a society not to let the classical art forms die. In South Korea, for example, master practitioners of traditional classical arts are classified as "Intangible Cultural Properties." For better or worse, we don't have anything like that in the USA and never will. So, if you care about classical music, realize that the current market situation can't support it, at least in the way that it has existed in previous decades, don't trust government support (which is limited in any case), than what are you going to do?
(By the way, I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm really enjoying this thread.)