# Follow up to "Let Classical Music Die Already."



## SouthernCharm (Jan 15, 2014)

The author has written a follow up to his original piece because of all the responses he received. Curious what you all think about "Let Classical Music Die Already, Part 2"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nothing much thrilling there, nor in the first. A blogger whose point of view stirred up a discussion more than unlikely to change the "situation" it addressed. It is, I suppose, "yet another device to stimulate discussion." 

Talk of and spins on those ways to stimulate discussion I think has had more than its share of the proverbial fifteen minutes in the limelight, and ditto for the import of so many of those discussions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There is, of course, more. In Yesterday's Slate:"When it comes to classical music and American culture, the fat lady hasn't just sung. Brünnhilde has packed her bags and moved to Boca Raton."

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...les_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

............


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

The Orchestra Crisis at 110 by Alex Ross


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Okay. We must stop listening because Beethoven Bach and Mozart are long dead?

Dumbest thing I ever heard of.

Yet I would defend his right to express his views and I hope he would also defend my right to listen to all this "dead" music in peace.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Alex Ross aside, the idea that orchestras in the United States are in difficulty is not illusory. In addition to salary cuts, sometimes draconian, many orchestras have reduced the number of full-time positions. Also, the number of full-season professional orchestras has shrunk over the past few years.

However, maybe we're just coming off of a "golden age." My impression is that CM organizations have always had a hard go of it. An example: Lorenzo Da Ponte, Mozart's sometime librettist, founded the first opera house in the United States, the New York Opera Company, in 1833. It folded after two seasons. It was not Da Ponte's first bankruptcy, nor New York's last.

Some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra#Recent_trends_in_the_United_States


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Nothing much thrilling there, nor in the first. A blogger whose point of view stirred up a discussion more than unlikely to change the "situation" it addressed. It is, I suppose, "yet another device to stimulate discussion."
> 
> Talk of and spins on those ways to stimulate discussion I think has had more than its share of the proverbial fifteen minutes in the limelight, and ditto for the import of so many of those discussions.


Many blogs or articles that people link to often have far less to say than one of the more thoughtful posts here. Just because something is on a blog or an article on some website doesn't automatically make it superior or important.


----------



## Sudonim (Feb 28, 2013)

starry said:


> Many blogs or articles that people link to often have far less to say than one of the more thoughtful posts here. Just because something is on a blog or an article on some website doesn't automatically make it superior or important.


For sure. John Cage could have been anticipating the Internet when he said, "I have nothing to say, and I am saying it."


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Okay. We must stop listening because Beethoven Bach and Mozart are long dead?
> 
> Dumbest thing I ever heard of.
> 
> Yet I would defend his right to express his views and I hope he would also defend my right to listen to all this "dead" music in peace.


In fairness, I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't be allowed to listen to it. They may be arguing against public support of it, or that it shouldn't be taught in schools, or just arguing that it isn't highly relevant today. But I haven't seen anyone saying you need to stop listening (I'll confess I only skimmed these pieces).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> In fairness, I don't think anybody is saying you shouldn't be allowed to listen to it. They may be arguing against public support of it, or that it shouldn't be taught in schools, or just arguing that it isn't highly relevant today. But I haven't seen anyone saying you need to stop listening (I'll confess I only skimmed these pieces).


Please re-read my last sentence. "and I hope he would...."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Many blogs or articles that people link to often have far less to say than one of the more thoughtful posts here. Just because something is on a blog or an article on some website doesn't automatically make it superior or important.


I would love it if people read vs. read into, really. Where is my "diss" of TC discussions in the above? The most one could make a case for is I think the posting of a link to that blog as a point of discussion here is a titch boring.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Please re-read my last sentence. "and I hope he would...."


Your first sentence says "We must stop listening because Beethoven Bach and Mozart are long dead?"

No one is arguing that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Your first sentence says "We must stop listening because Beethoven Bach and Mozart are long dead?"
> 
> No one is arguing that.


The opinion by Frank Zappa, and agreed to by the author, is he dislikes classical music because it is no longer relevant to today's times because the classical composers are long dead. The insinuation is there must be something wrong with us for listening to it and loving it. A bunch of weirdos.

The music we listen to is for everyone and for all time. It is immortal and will be around long after folks completely forget about Frank Zappa and the above writer......

and yet.....I would defend the author and Frank Zappa's right to have said this, even though I completely disagree with it. I'm just wondering whether folks who today are proponents of the classical music is dead philosophy would defend my right to continue to listen to it, if a petition was sent around to ban it.

The author says classical music is not the music "the people want".
He's entitled to his opinion. I wish him the best. That's democracy!

PS: Funding is another issue. If he's so against government subsidizing of classical music, which is miniscule, why isn't he also ranting about public tax money funding PBS (Public Broadcasting System) which is far from miniscule, which has more than enough money to be a private, independent entity and it should because it continually spouts a distinctive political agenda, which 50% of the taxpayers disagree with yet are forced to fund. Why, because he and his ilk fit right within the political agenda of PBS.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Some people do need to let it die.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Alex Ross aside, the idea that orchestras in the United States are in difficulty is not illusory. In addition to salary cuts, sometimes draconian, many orchestras have reduced the number of full-time positions. Also, the number of full-season professional orchestras has shrunk over the past few years.


Those would be the few years during which we've been in an economic recession, yes? Probably something to do with it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> I would love it if people read vs. read into, really. Where is my "diss" of TC discussions in the above? The most one could make a case for is I think the posting of a link to that blog as a point of discussion here is a titch boring.


I think you're making an issue out of nothing here, which is ironic as you accused me of twisting what you said but it actually seems the other way round. What I said related to yours in some way as it was on the subject of blogs, I think that's obvious, thus replying to you. Also obvious is that my words were my own and expressing my opinion not yours. Anyway I'm leaving it at that, I just wanted to set the record straight.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't have a firm opinion about this matter yet. For one side I am politically a libertarian and I think the government should not spend public money in pretty much anything except the very basic like security. In the other hand, I am not sure that classical music would survive and well, I love classical music. The perfect scenario would be to orchestras to find a way to survive only from private funding but without "selling out" playing Shakira's music. I am not sure if this is possible, so that's why I am not sure about this thing yet.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Classical music is sort of dead, and has been for a while. Going to a concert hall is more akin to visiting a museum, in the vast majority of cases.

Jazz is dead too. (Or moribund anyway.)

But all is not lost. There's still lots of great music being made. There will always be creative people doing creative things, even if it's not necessarily what people had been doing in the past.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Does not jive with my experiences*

I read the article and it still does not jive with my experiences.

I realize that this is anecdotal but I play with two community groups. None of them could survive without the grants we receive from Fairfax County and the State of Virginia.

The orchestra is struggling but our problems there has to do with the economy. Prior to the recession we were doing fine. One of the problems we have had is with the community center that we play our concerts. The management of the theater insisted that all of the members of the board be residents of the local community, even though the members of the orchestra come from all over Northern Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. This put a severe limitation on who could serve on our board. Many years ago I served on the board but because I was not a resident of the community, I had to resign. A few years ago they lightened up on this restriction and that has really helped in recruiting people to serve on the board.

The community band that I play with has a better management team and we are doing well. One of the reasons is that we have some wealthy members who have bequeathed large sums of money to the band. As a result we can sponsor a scholarship program for young students and we have been able to commission some new works for band. We currently have a commission pending with Randol Alan Bass, a noted contemporary band composer, for a new work for chorus and band for our next Christmas concert. The husband of one of our members is rich and underwrites our Christmas concert so it is free. Because the price is right, we usually play to a full house.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

What is that big grey thing in the corner of the room there. Huge ears. Long nose. Long long long nose. More of a trunk, I'd say.

Anyway, there it is.

Classical music.

To what are you (whoever you are) referring when you use that phrase.

Yeah. What is it that's dying, exactly?

What _is_ classical music?

Most of the time, it's as easy as pornography.

But not for this thread, where we're talking about dying. But turns out, there's nothing there doing any of that dying thing. Anything specific that anyone can point to is alive. There may be some things that are dying. But not a whole category of things


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

He's just some dope who reads about public money being spent on music he doesn't like. So he thinks it should die. Why pick on the tiny amounts of money supporting classical music in the US compared to the money spent on sports facilities, propping up General Motors, filling Haliburton's accounts, or any of the other ways vast sums are squandered?
Because he doesn't like the music. He expects to be called a philistine; fine, if the cap fits. Oh, but it's all just to stimulate "discussion". Self-promotion, that's what it's about. Some non-entity thinks a discussion about "classical" music dying will somehow be valuable.
Dolt.
GG


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

Read both articles (didn't previously read part one and didn't follow subsequent TC thread). He makes a general point, which I'm sure would have been made earlier - that the public's taxes shouldn't be used to fund something that the people don't want. However, he fails to establish his case convincingly - that 'people' don't want 'classical music'; or that tax payers money should be spent on things that are wanted only by a minority.

Beyond that, he seems to want to complain that nobody offered much of a coherent rejection of his argument, and that being called names is evidence for the validity of what he says.

As starry says, his blog is unexceptional, and if he were to bring his argument to TC, there are plenty who could give him run for his money. I'm presuming that the previous discussion on this didn't bother to dwell on the blog itself, but offered intelligent consideration of whether public money should be used on minority activity - or even on artistic endeavour of any kind?


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

GraemeG said:


> He's just some dope who reads about public money being spent on *music he doesn't like*. So he thinks it should die.


Patently not true. He says...



> Classical should be celebrated for its staying power and it should be preserved for its history. I am a fan. I think that the composers and producers of it add great value to our society. I think that symphonies provide an important service to the public and should be celebrated for the art they showcase,


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I still agree with his point that telling people they are too dumb to realize why something is valuable is not an effective strategy for convincing people it is! Seems obvious, but this kind of smug attitude is something that I see and it doesn't help people understand classical fans. 

The rest of it...eh...part of me knows that classical music is "struggling" (and has been for a long time) and I don't want to admit that it is...


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> We currently have a commission pending with Randol Alan Bass, a noted contemporary band composer, for a new work for chorus and band for our next Christmas concert.


He was my grad assistant when I went to University of Cincinnati.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> There is, of course, more. In Yesterday's Slate:"When it comes to classical music and American culture, the fat lady hasn't just sung. Brünnhilde has packed her bags and moved to Boca Raton."
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...les_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html


How peculiar: almost all of the most popular classical composers today ARE American, and are thriving. But let me guess: John Williams etc. don't count because they pander to the masses...



hpowders said:


> Okay. We must stop listening because Beethoven Bach and Mozart are long dead?


Yes. We should switch to Stravinsky and Schoenberg, who are not nearly as long dead. Better yet would of course be the likes of Glass, who is still with us.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Patently not true. He says...


Well, how does that square with "Let Classical Music Die Already".
Purile...
GG


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yeah, brianvds. I wonder what Frank Zappa thought of the music of Stravinsky, Boulez, etc; Couldn't use the "long dead" excuse for not wanting to listen.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Yeah, brianvds. I wonder what Frank Zappa thought of the music of Stravinsky, Boulez, etc; Couldn't use the "long dead" excuse for not wanting to listen.


I don't know, but I'm pretty sure he liked it. He was crazy enough.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> How peculiar: almost all of the most popular classical composers today ARE American, and are thriving. But let me guess: John Williams etc. don't count because they pander to the masses...


Popular wildly successful film composers are not the ones being funded, nor are they the ones being funded that those who complain about funding are talking about 

He is a wildly popular composer, symphonic music, with one or two purely abstract concert works in his body of work, those commissioned, gasp, maybe in part or whole with public funding, though the likelihood they were commissioned with funds from private endowments to a particular ensemble, maybe even from the soloist of the Bassoon concerto, is higher than having been funded from public tax monies.

Other than his abstract classical pieces, a tiny part of his entire output, Williams is a contemporary composer of popular symphonic music, not quite so readily categorized as classical. I really don't get why some people need to assign him as belonging to the classical genre, since the composer himself would say otherwise.

Why his fans seem to think that would be some promotion of status is really a puzzle.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2014)

GraemeG said:


> Well, how does that square with "Let Classical Music Die Already".
> Purile...
> GG


It squares because although he likes it, he doesn't think public money should be spent vainly trying to revive something that should have a DNR notice on the end of the bed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> It squares because although he likes it, he doesn't think public money should be spent vainly trying to revive something that should have a DNR notice on the end of the bed.


What ELSE is DNR tagged to this one individual, eh? Higher education? Art education, Literature, Maths because he took another subject as major in college? Cancer research because there is none in his family history? In brief, what else is not on his, or an imagined, selfish narcissist's list of what his tax money should not go to?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> In brief, what else is not on his, or an imagined, selfish narcissist's list of what his tax money should not go to?


In fact, in the US tax money (except in tiny amounts) does not go the classical music. Let's not get excited.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> In fact, in the US tax money (except in tiny amounts) does not go the classical music. Let's not get excited.


It is less than miniscule, agreed. So, _indeed_ whereby all the pallaver, and why is the blogger so involved with an premise built upon such an extremely exaggerated falsehood


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2014)

> The piece was inspired by an editorial in my local paper about why Classical music is still valuable and deserving of our public dollars.


So, he didn't claim that it _is _supported, but he was objecting to the idea that it _should _be. He seemed most moved by the supporting argument that



> It is obvious the masses haven't chosen Classical because people constantly have to remind us how valuable it still is.


He has a point. I love classical music, and I like to discuss it with my friends, even going so far as to try to make recommendations to an office colleague who is patently unmoved by my exhortations. But I'll not claim that as it is the lifeblood on any civilised society, it must be supported by public finance.

Cancer, on the other hand, and general public education, are altogether different.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

> Classical music is this music that was written by a bunch of dead people a long time ago. And it's formula music, the same as top forty music is formula music. In order to have a piece be classical, it has to conform to academic standards that were the current norms of that day and age …


I'm so bored by the notion that music needs to defy all "standards" and "formulas" to be exciting. If one cliché is dried-up and elitist, it's that.

Some composers wrote _within_ the standards of their time, others _re-defined_ the standards - neither approach is a guarantee for anything.

Having to prove your nonconformism in everything you do, that's really the most rigid and slavish way of conforming to an idea.

I think today's young people are _way_ past that, and it's a good thing.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Notice how he characterized classical music listeners as "intellectuals" and "hipsters"? I am certainly not the former, and hopefully not the latter; how is that not name-calling?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So, he didn't claim that it _is _supported, but he was objecting to the idea that it _should _be. He seemed most moved by the supporting argument that
> 
> He has a point. I love classical music, and I like to discuss it with my friends, even going so far as to try to make recommendations to an office colleague who is patently unmoved by my exhortations. But I'll not claim that as it is the lifeblood on any civilised society, it must be supported by public finance.
> 
> Cancer, on the other hand, and general public education, are altogether different.


I would love to know _who from_, exactly, and _where found_ is this vehement campaign / lobby of "people constantly have to remind us how valuable it still is." coming from?

Did he find this while sitting though one general humanities arts appreciation course in college? Or has he _voluntarily_ been clicking on online fora and blogs to find a collection of individuals -- not the government or school programs -- who are busy with the subject and idea of subsidy?

In brief, is this another hyper-imaginative nutter who has locked in on some non-issue and then made it "personal?" And why is anyone paying much attention to it at all?


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2014)

Ebab said:


> Having to prove your nonconformism in everything you do, that's really the most rigid and slavish way of conforming to an idea.


I'd agree - but the quote from Zappa was from way back. Telling us that 'classical' was written to a formula is true, but that period has long gone, and I don't it as relevant to today's market, nor the need to prove your non-conformism.



PetrB said:


> And why is anyone paying much attention to it at all?


Because people like to be offended and bridle indignantly?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'd agree - but the quote from Zappa was from way back. Telling us that 'classical' was written to a formula is true, but that period has long gone, and I don't it as relevant to today's market, nor the need to prove your non-conformism.
> 
> Because people like to be offended and bridle indignantly?


LOL and touché, let's add _*Cheap Thrills*_ to that


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

To some extent, I agree with his argument. I live in a suburb of Chicago, and in 1988, the owner of the Chicago White Sox, Jerry Reinsdorf, threatened to move his team to Florida (where the city of St. Petersburg would have welcomed him with open arms and a brand new ball park -- where the Tampa Bay Rays now play) unless the state of Illinois built him a new ball park. The state caved in to his blackmail, and spent $200 million on a new stadium, and gave him a sweetheart deal on the rent.

What really infuriated me was that the same year, the public schools asked the legislature for more funding, and were told there wasn't any money. Also, at the same time, the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence (I was a volunteer at a DV shelter) had its state funding slashed. I believe that education and the struggle against domestic violence, to name just two, are considerably more important than bread and circuses.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> I believe that education and the struggle against domestic violence, to name just two, are considerably more important than bread and circuses.


Well... obviously you're not the sort of person who pays for political campaigns!

Fortunately, I believe, classical music can and will continue to pay its own way in the USA. Orchestras in relatively smaller cities (especially in the rust belt) may go bankrupt, and some of the less famous orchestras in the big cities may go bankrupt, and the musicians in some of the more famous orchestras may find themselves getting paid less. All of those things really are unfortunate. But I believe classical music in live performance is going to survive. You might have to go to New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or Houston to hear it, but it'll be there, supported by the market and philanthropy.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The terrific Minnesota Orchestra may be out of business soon and they are a fairly large operation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> The terrific Minnesota Orchestra may be out of business soon and they are a fairly large operation.


The Minnesota Orchestra is back in business and has announced 40 concerts over the next few months. Even Osmo is coming back, evidently as a guest conductor. Just a big happy family, as always.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The Minnesota Orchestra is back in business and has announced 40 concerts over the next few months. Even Osmo is coming back, evidently as a guest conductor. Just a big happy family, as always.


Precarious, though for a long while.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2014)

SouthernCharm said:


> The author has written a follow up to his original piece because of all the responses he received. Curious what you all think about "Let Classical Music Die Already, Part 2"


Now that I've read this, and the earlier piece, I have to say that I hardly find it inspiring.

There is not one original idea in any of this. The author is simply telling us that he doesn't like classical music enough to want any of his tax dollars to be diverted to this area, and evidently thinks that this piece of information is of such great importance that he feels compelled to notify others of this fact, presumably in case they might feel the same way.

His "arguments", or rather mere assertions, are highly simplistic, and as old as the hills, and no higher in intellectual content that one might expect from a very junior group. He doesn't show the slightest awareness of any of the arguments that have been advanced to support the arts, in terms of "public goods" or "externalities" and such-like considerations.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Popular wildly successful film composers are not the ones being funded, nor are they the ones being funded that those who complain about funding are talking about


Well, yes: they compose music that can compete on the open market. Classical style music. Which goes to show classical music is not dead or dying. It has changed quite a bit, mind you.



> Other than his abstract classical pieces, a tiny part of his entire output, Williams is a contemporary composer of popular symphonic music, not quite so readily categorized as classical. I really don't get why some people need to assign him as belonging to the classical genre, since the composer himself would say otherwise.


Well, it sounds pretty much classical to me, but of course, your results may vary, especially since there isn't, as far as I know, any clear definition of what exactly classical music is.



> Why his fans seem to think that would be some promotion of status is really a puzzle.


I am not, incidentally, all that much of a fan of Williams. I am not saying film music is particularly good, or just as good as Beethoven, or anything like that. I am saying that in effect, film music is part of today's classical music, and just about all its most famous and successful exponents are Americans, which indicates that the idea that classical music is dead in America may be an oversimplification.

It is probably true that Americans are not flocking to concerts of Schoenberg, or 16th century lute. But then, nowhere in the world has that kind of music ever attracted more than a small audience. This has not killed it. The fans of that sort of music are few in number but tend to be very loyal.

Well, perhaps they are an aging crowd, and in another generation such music will really be dead. So be it then. Nothing lasts forever. We all survived the demise of stone tools too, as beautiful as they are.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Partita said:


> The author is simply telling us that he doesn't like classical music enough to want any of his tax dollars to be diverted to this area...


One can like classical music quite well and still object to tax dollars (which is to say, other people's money) being diverted to support it. Issues of public policy are, hopefully, addressed on other than selfish grounds. At least sometimes.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The guy's favourite composer is Vivaldi. Only two kinds of people would ever contemplate Vivaldi as their favourite composer: people who know absolutely nothing of Classical music beyond The Four Seasons, and extremely experienced Classical fanatics who have a penchant for the extraBachliar Baroque. I'm guessing he's not the latter.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

thats all I feel deserves to be said about these dumb articles.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Museums and Parks*

It appears that the objection of public money supporting classical music is bogus.

As I stated above, the community orchestra and band that I play with could not survive if is was not for the grants we received from the County of Fairfax and the State of Virginia.

If people object to public funds supporting the arts then maybe we should disband the military music organizations.

The museums of the Smithsonian are supported by the tax payers. These museums are free but the attendance of some of them are low: http://newsdesk.si.edu/about/stats

In 2013 it is estimated that there were 30 million visitors to these museums. Only about two million (7%) attended the following:

Anacostia Community Museum 38k 
Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum 122k﻿ 
S. Dillon Ripley Center 198k 
National Museum of African Art 216k 
Arthur M. Sackler Gallery 217k 
National Postal Museum 288k (Since Issa is trying close down the US Postal Service, we have to close down their museum.)
Freer Gallery of Art 396k 
National Museum of the American Indian Heye Center (New York City) 595k
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden 645k

Heck, the National Zoo only had two out of thirty millions visitors.

Without public support the fees to visit the above would probably be so high then only people of means could afford to visit them.

Then there are the parks with the bike trails that are maintained by the county of Fairfax. I don't ride a bike. Why should my tax money support those bike trails?

I am sure that we could come up with an entire list of institutions that only a small portion of the public benefits from that survive because of public funding.

I can understand it if fans of Kiss complain about public support of classical music. I find it puzzling when classical music fans object. Maybe if orchestras only played the music they approved of the objectors would cease to object.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> It appears that the objection of public money supporting classical music is bogus.


Bogus even more so. The latest figures I have for the top twenty orchestras in the US show public money funding less than three percent of costs. Arpeggio's band is fortunate!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Really, if this guy is so upset at taxpayer money being squandered, there's an ocean of other things to complain about before going after the pittance that is thrown the way of artists and performers. How about the bloated military budget, that is beyond ridiculous? How about the drug war, which wastes money, and harms innocent people, and does nothing to help people with drug problems? How about money that gets spent on the interests of private groups, like the entertainment industry? This sounds like the same kind of person who will complain about teachers making anything over slave wages, or that fights against poor people having any chance at healthcare. Basically, a scumbag.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

Partita said:


> There is not one original idea in any of this. The author is simply telling us that he doesn't like classical music enough to want any of his tax dollars to be diverted to this area, and evidently thinks that this piece of information is of such great importance that he feels compelled to notify others of this fact, presumably in case they might feel the same way.


Much like the many exchanges on TC. The compulsion to tell others what we're thinking is presumably what drives you and me to post here. I wouldn't claim originality in anything I've posted - except that it is original to me, and I'm entitled to think and post such things for _my _first time, even if others have thought it, heard it, read it, said it, got the T-shirt...

In other words, the fact that his argument is not on an original subject is not good enough grounds (or grounds at all) for rejecting it.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> Really, if this guy is so upset at taxpayer money being squandered, there's an ocean of other things to complain about before going after the pittance that is thrown to way of artists and performers. How about the bloated military budget, that is beyond ridiculous? How about the drug war, which wastes money, and harms innocent people, and does nothing to help people with drug problems? How about money that gets spent on the interests of private groups, like the entertainment industry? This sounds like the same kind of person who will complain about teachers making anything over slave wages, or that fights against poor people having any chance at healthcare. Basically, a scumbag.


This thread has perhaps to some extent run away with us. There are two separate questions here: is classical music dying out; and should public money be used to sponsor it?

Those two question are perhaps somewhat linked, but they are not the same.

Anyway, both sides make good arguments. There is certainly something to be said for the libertarian view that government should not sponsor ANY arts, parks, or anything of the sort. Let them all compete on the open market and stand or fall by their own merits and popularity.

On the other hand, as you point out above, government already has a huge budget, of which the arts make out an absolutely minuscule fraction. We are not going to save any significant public money by government abandoning the arts. In any nation that can afford to spend trillions on various pointless wars, it seems very silly to complain about a few million for symphony orchestras.

There is another thing to keep in mind here too. It is simply not true that the government is not sponsoring pop music, because government funds not only maintain many of the venues where pop music is played, it also enforces, with tax payers' money, the whole copyright system that enables a pop musician to retire on the proceeds of a single hit song. Last but not least, classical and pop music are not two completely different, independent worlds that never have anything to do with each other. At least some pop music exists thanks to classical music, and government sponsored classical training systems.

Personally I do not really have any particularly strong feelings about government funding classical music. As I point out above, the amounts of money are too small to get very excited about, and I am not sure it actually makes much of a difference one way or the other. If people lose interest in classical music, it will die whatever the government does. And if people don't lose their interest, they'll make a plan to make it survive, with or without the government.

Perhaps a good compromise is some sort of government-sponsored retirement plan for classical musicians, most of whom do not make a fortune.

I saw an interview with Philip Glass in which he argued against state sponsorship; he felt that it basically makes composers lazy and reduces their creativity. He may or may not have a point.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Much like the many exchanges on TC. The compulsion to tell others what we're thinking is presumably what drives you and me to post here. I wouldn't claim originality in anything I've posted - except that it is original to me, and I'm entitled to think and post such things for _my _first time, even if others have thought it, heard it, read it, said it, got the T-shirt...
> 
> In other words, the fact that his argument is not on an original subject is not good enough grounds (or grounds at all) for rejecting it.


The author of this piece did not post his opinions here. As far as I understand the situation, it was someone else who referred to it by means of link, asking for T-C members' opinions on the subject matter.

My opinion is that the blog contains nothing new on this topic and his reasoning is simplistic. I do not accept his argument. Contrary to what you allege, I did not say that the blogger has no right to blog his opinions, or that the OP has no right to refer to the blog, merely because it is not original.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

Partita said:


> Contrary to what you allege, I did not say that the blogger has no right to blog his opinions, or that the OP has no right to refer to the blog, merely because it is not original.


Contrary to what you allege, I didn't allege that.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Contrary to what you allege, I didn't allege that.


I don't understand the point you are trying to make, unless you are deliberately nit-picking over a tiny issue.

In my original post I stated that: _'There is not one original idea in any of this._' But, importantly, I then went on to explain that the blogger's assertions are highly simplistic, and do not show any of any of the usual arguments that have been advanced to support the arts. By clear implication the latter was the reason I do not accept his argument.

You then decided to pick me up on my comment about lack of originality by stating: _'In other words, the fact that his argument is not on an original subject is not good enough grounds (or grounds at all) for rejecting it.'_

As ought to be clear from my original post, I was not rejecting the blogger's opinion merely because it is not original. Therefore your post doesn't seem to be relevant or appropriate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

Partita said:


> I don't understand the point you are trying to make, unless you are deliberately nit-picking over a tiny issue.
> 
> In my original post I stated that: _'There is not one original idea in any of this._' But, importantly, I then went on to explain that the blogger's assertions are highly simplistic, and do not show any of any of the usual arguments that have been advanced to support the arts. By clear implication the latter was the reason I do not accept his argument.
> 
> ...


That's right. You made two points. I was objecting to the first on the grounds that it was irrelevant and inappropriate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> That's right. You made two points. I was objecting to the first on the grounds that it was irrelevant and inappropriate.


I don't know why you bothered. It doesn't seem to add anything of importance to the thread. The fundamental issues involve issues of the economics of public subsidy in the Arts, not the minutiae of other people's manner of expressing themselves with regard to how they choose to tackle the subject.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

BurningDesire said:


> Really, if this guy is so upset at taxpayer money being squandered, there's an ocean of other things to complain about before going after the pittance that is thrown to way of artists and performers. How about the bloated military budget, that is beyond ridiculous? How about the drug war, which wastes money, and harms innocent people, and does nothing to help people with drug problems? How about money that gets spent on the interests of private groups, like the entertainment industry? This sounds like the same kind of person who will complain about teachers making anything over slave wages, or that fights against poor people having any chance at healthcare. Basically, a scumbag.


Very good point It's possible that this same guy may have written similar blogs on all manner of issues involving his disapproval of the use of public funds to support various activities, some of which may inevitably be uneconomic because they're "public goods": defense, basic school education, health-care, social security.

This reference to classical music may therefore only be the tip of an iceberg. If that's the case we ought to know more about where this guy is coming from in general terms. Merely taking pot-shots at his views on classical music could be highly irrelevant.

It could be rather like trying to comment upon the views of someone like Robert Newman with regard to Haydn and Mozart. Once it's appreciated that this same person believes things like the fact the Moon landings by Apollo were all faked in some Hollywood studio that one realises what a complete waste of time it is trying to debate things like whether Mozart or Luchesi was the real creator of the Jupiter Symphony. It's an utter waste of time, forget it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Much like the many exchanges on TC. The compulsion to tell others what we're thinking is presumably what drives you and me to post here. I wouldn't claim originality in anything I've posted - except that it is original to me, and I'm entitled to think and post such things for _my _first time, even if others have thought it, heard it, read it, said it, got the T-shirt...
> 
> In other words, the fact that his argument is not on an original subject is not good enough grounds (or grounds at all) for rejecting it.


I don't think it's about originality, it's more about thoughtfulness v originality. For instance I could say, ok you think it's dying what is the evidence? Or I could say is what you see as dying more about transformation rather than disappearance? I would see that as a more thoughtful approach, probably not original but I don't care. At least on forums you have to answer your thoughts more. Making some superficial points in a blog or article without developing them or discussing with others in a meaningful way isn't arguably that much of a contribution.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

starry said:


> ... At least on forums you have to answer your thoughts more. Making some superficial points in a blog or article without developing them or discussing with others in a meaningful way isn't arguably that much of a contribution.


I especially agree with this comment. I suspect that in some cases the author of the blog in question and the T-C member who provided the link to the blog are the same person. It is difficult to take seriously a blog article with no hope of engaging the bloggers here on T-C, but I'm as guilty as the next one for getting myself dragged in at times against my better judgement.

This practice of referring to an external article, whether a blog or a newspaper article of some description relating to classical music, is very common on one other classical music board. In fact, it tends to be one of the main ways of introducing new threads. Typically, a member posts a link to some blog and then says nothing more at any stage during the ensuing discussion, thus giving no indication of whether or not that member agrees or disagrees with the message in the blog or any of the comments made by the members.

I tend to find that kind of thing somewhat infuriating, as it seems like a waste of time raising a thread if the opinion maker is not available or prepared to defend his/her views. I realise that this is not possible with newspaper or journal articles, but I would expect the OP to chip in now and then to state whether or not they agree with the contents of the article being quoted. Often, however, all you get is a stony silence from the OP, and they often tend to disappear after the thread has passed its sell-by date.

There was a thread here on T-C a few months ago, linking to some blog where the main theme was that it is not possible to rank any of the great composers, as they are all equally great. In that particular case, I don't doubt that the member who provided the link and the author of the blog itself were separate people. Since there was no other way of engaging the blogger in question, I decided to place my opposing viewpoint on the blogger's own blog site. It was a waste of time as I received hardly any useful feedback either from the blogger or from any of the apparent half-wits who had provided their pathetic contributions to the thesis under discussion.

This matter simply demonstrated to me what I already suspected that many of these these bloggers would not dare put their views down here on T-C because they realise that they would probably face a tough time if they tried to advance any contentious ideas of the type in question. For those of us who do present our opinions here, we all face potential criticism of those views, and need to be thick-skinned at times, and in some cases to be tolerant of those who seldom have anything of value to say on anything but who nevertheless chip in quite conspicuously at times.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For those of you who insist on writing telephone book-sized posts, my eyes glaze over, usually about at line 4! 

Sorry!


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

What I write attempts to be informative and helpful. If you can't be bothered to read any of it that's your problem.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

Partita said:


> I don't know why you bothered. It doesn't seem to add anything of importance to the thread. The fundamental issues involve issues of the economics of public subsidy in the Arts, not the minutiae of other people's manner of expressing themselves with regard to how they choose to tackle the subject.


And yet you engage in exactly the same thing yourself. I offered a criticism of what you said, not the manner in which you said it. It is you who now criticises others for their posting style!

As for the 'fundamental issues', I've already offered a view. Once I've done that, I see no reason why I shouldn't look to see what others are saying and comment on that. How else does one make conversation round here? Or are you of the opinion that we are merely supposed to take turns on the soapbox and lecture?

For someone who dismissed the blog as valueless, you don't mind wasting column inches!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Partita said:


> What I write attempts to be informative and helpful. If you can't be bothered to read any of it that's your problem.


Yes, that's more like it! Keep it nice and pithy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> And yet you engage in exactly the same thing yourself. I offered a criticism of what you said, not the manner in which you said it. It is you who now criticises others for their posting style!
> 
> As for the 'fundamental issues', I've already offered a view. Once I've done that, I see no reason why I shouldn't look to see what others are saying and comment on that. How else does one make conversation round here? Or are you of the opinion that we are merely supposed to take turns on the soapbox and lecture?
> 
> For someone who dismissed the blog as valueless, you don't mind wasting column inches!


Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

I have simply argued that the author of the two blogs has not made out a satisfactory case for allowing classical music to die in the absence of any state subsidy. All he has said is that he personally does not consider it is worth the burden on the taxpayer. This is an opinion to which of course he is entitled but it is hardly sufficient evidence that in the aggregate consumers' welfare may not be increased by a judicious use of state funds to support certain parts of the Arts, classical music included.

I am not saying that there is any clear such evidence of an overall welfare gain, only that the author's simplistic opinions do not even get close to providing a satisfactory form of analysis. Arguments for and against subsidies to the arts have been exhaustively reviewed in the economics literature. Most of this discussion has considered whether the arts produce "external benefits" or can be described as "public goods".

I am not going to say much more on this topic because it is somewhat complex and specialised, and some knowledge of "welfare economics" would be helpful. To give only one example of the kind of issue that economists have looked into is whether there is anything in the notion that human beings have a craving for excitement, adventure and stimulation. While the arts can potentially satisfy this craving, it may also be satisfied by gambling, violence or crime, perhaps more easily than by appreciation of the arts. If the arts were to become more widely popular, perhaps with the aid of a little pump-priming at the appropriate stage in peoples' lives, they would tend to displace these more obnoxious outlets for this craving, and thus achieve an overall welfare gain from the point of view of society as a whole. There are many other aspects that have been looked into. I cite this one merely as an example, and am not suggesting that there is necessarily any substance in it.

In a nutshell, my main objection to the two blogs is that they are way too simplistic to carry any weight. The mere assertion that taxpayers' money should not be used to finance the arts in any way is nothing new, and of itself does not get us anywhere. I hope that this slight elaboration of what I wrote earlier may help you in case you are still struggling to grasp the fundamentals here.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Avner Dorman, Martin Grubinger & Frozen in Time*

Another anecdotal example that proves audiences hate contemporary music. 

Last Thursday my wife and I attended the National Symphony (We were celebrating our forty-fourth wedding anniversary which fell on the 25th)

Eschenbach conducted Dvorák's Symphony No. 9, Mozart's "Haffner" Symphony, and a recent work by Avner Dorman, _Frozen in Time_, featuring the NSO debut of young Austrian percussionist Martin Grubinger. Although it was not a serial work, it was still very contemporary.

We found a You Tube of the _Frozen in Time_ performed by Ms. Delia Stevens a young percussionist who won a concerto competition:






After viewing the video my wife and I decided what a fun piece. We have to attend this concert.

The NSO was playing to a full house. Mr. Grubinger received a rousing five minute standing ovation. There were a handful of sourpusses who refused to stand. After the concert there was a panel discussion concerning the work with Maestro Eschenbach, Mr. Grubinger and Mr. Dorman. Several hundred members of the audience stayed behind and participated in the discussions. I thought that the observations of the audience were very perceptive.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Perhaps the tenor of these discussions should change to "why doesn't the general audience hate this music as I much as I do?"


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

Partita said:


> I have simply argued that the author of the two blogs has not made out a satisfactory case for allowing classical music to die in the absence of any state subsidy


And if you'd read my first post in this thread, you would know that we agree.

http://www.talkclassical.com/30228-follow-up-let-classical-post594669.html#post594669


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> Another anecdotal example that proves audiences hate contemporary music.
> 
> Last Thursday my wife and I attended the National Symphony (We were celebrating our forty-fourth wedding anniversary which fell on the 25th)
> 
> ...


There's always a few like that. Hey I could say on TC I like Beethoven's 5th Symphony and 10 posters will come and argue with me.
Thanks for being thoughtful enough to provide us with the video.


----------

