# Should all public funding for 'classical music' be stopped immediately..?



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

A recent question was asked here.
'Is classical music better than pop music ?'
Most said "No, they are of a similar value, just different, one is no more important than the other, what a stupid question, are you a troll"
OK, so it follows on "as pop music relies solely on the market place, why should the general public be asked to fund classical music publically via the tax system. 
Surely public funding of classical music MUST STOP.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

No.............. Besides, what public funding?


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Different countries have different funding programs. But most orchestras in the UK and the USA receive some measure of public funding. As do Opera companies.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The argument you quote isn't simply that classical and pop are of similar value, it's that they're different and therefore it's hard to compare their values. So it doesn't follow that the economics of one should be considered the same way as the economics of the other.


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> The argument you quote isn't simply that classical and pop are of similar value, it's that they're different and therefore it's hard to compare their values. So it doesn't follow that the economics of one should be considered the same way as the economics of the other.


Yes everytime you ask the liberal egalitarian's whether 'classical music' is a special case you hear "no, of course not, it is just the same, we are all the same'.... So you mention it's special funding status being taken away and suddenly it's "no no no, we didn't mean that, it's very complicated... We want our cake... Let us eat cake .....


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

WhateverDude said:


> Yes everytime you ask the liberal egalitarian's whether 'classical music' is a special case you hear "no, of course not, it is just the same, we are all the same'.... So you mention it's special funding status being taken away and suddenly it's "no no no, we didn't mean that, it's very complicated... We want our cake... Let us eat cake .....


Setting aside any question of value, popular music is, by definition, marketable and lucrative; it's what people will pay for right now. Classical music doesn't have that kind of economic clout, but for many it's an important part of our cultural heritage-worth supporting and preserving, even if it doesn't have the mass appeal of what's currently fashionable.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

WhateverDude said:


> Yes everytime you ask the liberal egalitarian's whether 'classical music' is a special case you hear "no, of course not, it is just the same, we are all the same'.... So you mention it's special funding status being taken away and suddenly it's "no no no, we didn't mean that, it's very complicated... We want our cake... Let us eat cake .....


You're trying to get at one of two things.

Either: "If classical music isn't objectively superior, then why is it being publically funded?"

Or: "If classical music isn't objectively superior, it shouldn't be funded."

Both are faulty premises.

Orchestras are being publically funded because people decide to fund them. If people all suddenly voted to _not_ fund orchestras, then they wouldn't be funded. If people started voting to fund a city-sponsored pop band instead of an orchestra, then that's what would happen.

Overall, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Out of all the lines of reasoning calling for objective superiority of classical music, this has to be one of the most contrived and silly arguments to make.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

amfortas said:


> Setting aside any question of value, popular music is, by definition, marketable and lucrative; it's what people will pay for right now. Classical music doesn't have that kind of economic clout, but for many it's an important part of our cultural heritage-worth supporting and preserving, even if it doesn't have the mass appeal of what's currently fashionable.


Yes. In the same way, people who have no interest in history may become convinced to fund a museum or a historical site if they agree that it's of importance to their local/city/state heritage. People who don't play basketball may not mind contributing a little bit of their taxes towards keeping their local team afloat.

Orchestras, basketball teams, museums, etc. all contribute to a city's cultural standing and their attractiveness to tourists, movers, retirees. I'm sure that there are popular music festivals that are in some way funded by public support.

This kind of thing is definitely not unique to orchestras, and it's laughable that the OP thinks that classical music is some kind of "special case".


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Shaw wrote an essay regarding public funding of orchestras arguing that governments were principally responsible for funding things that couldn't support themselves -- like roads, fire and police depts., public schools, etc. He included regional orchestras.
Given that the arts predominantly are not self-supporting, at least in the U.S., the NEA is a public good.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

amfortas said:


> Setting aside any question of value, popular music is, by definition, marketable and lucrative; it's what people will pay for right now. Classical music doesn't have that kind of economic clout, but for many it's an important part of our cultural heritage-worth supporting and preserving, even if it doesn't have the mass appeal of what's currently fashionable.


Yes, I totally agree with this. Classical music is part of cultural heritage and is thus funded like, say, art conservation. The fact that it doesn't bring in as much money as pop culture in general doesn't make it worthless.

The OP is also talking about "worth" in only one sense - the argument relies on the argument that pop music is exactly as "good" as classical music. Firstly, there are people even here who disagree with that premise and, secondly, the fact that we have hard time coming up with an objective way to evaluate art (and thus cannot say that X is better than Y) does not mean that X and Y carry equal or similar worth. The historical and cultural worth classical music carries is arguably more significant for our current world than that of a pop song released yesterday.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

annaw said:


> Yes, I totally agree with this. Classical music is part of cultural heritage and is thus funded like, say, art conservation. The fact that it doesn't bring in as much money as pop culture in general doesn't make it worthless.
> 
> The OP is also talking about "worth" in only one sense - the argument relies on the argument that pop music is exactly as "good" as classical music. Firstly, there are people even here who disagree with that premise and, secondly, the fact that we have hard time coming up with an objective way to evaluate art (and thus cannot say that X is better than Y) does not mean that X and Y carry equal or similar worth. The historical and cultural worth classical music carries is arguably more significant for our current world than that of a pop song released yesterday.


By the way, classical music is funded only because it has worth in the eyes of people, not because it has objective worth inherently on its own. If people stopped listening to classical music altogether, there would be no more public funding of orchestras.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

But, pop musicians also receive funding from the government in a number of countries.

One of my favourite Australian bands, The Bombay Royale, receives funding from "the australian council for the arts" and also from their home state Victoria. (Creative Victoria)


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

One doesn't exclude the other. In Denmark, there's a state-funded conservatory for "rhythmic music", that is, jazz, rock, etc. etc., and I 'm sure it exists in other countries too.

Obviously, for smaller nations, the cultural heritage and selection would be criminally reduced, if everything had to rely of short-sighted profits only.


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

MarkW said:


> Shaw wrote an essay regarding public funding of orchestras arguing that governments were principally responsible for funding things that couldn't support themselves -- like roads, fire and police depts., public schools, etc. He included regional orchestras.
> Given that the arts predominantly are not self-supporting, at least in the U.S., the NEA is a public good.


Shaw obviously hadn't read about the history of Turnpike road building in Britain... Or the history of Fire departments being funded by insurance systems... Or the history of private funding for British public schools ... You have to wonder which Shaw we are talking about here... And why he was so badly informed on history .. .???

... Was it SHAWn Penn


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, there should be public funding for classical music. The reason is simple: people naturally don't want to pay taxes. But if they're going to have to, they want to see some return on their investment. If taxes don't support things that they benefit from, then the normal, instinctive human reaction is resentment. This happened where I live recently. The city spent millions and millions on really fancy schmantzy baseball parks, skate parks, kiddie playgrounds, bike paths, supporting pop/jazz concerts and a lot of other stuff. Then a loose coalition of citizens went to the town council opposing any more bonds simply because despite all the money being spent they got nothing out of it. We still don't have a real concert hall. But they did understand and decided to support a local symphony - all volunteer. The town does pay for the music director's meagre fee, rents/buys music, provides a rehearsal hall, does the advertising and other business matters. And they paid for three dog parks. They assuaged a lot of hard feelings. No city in the US is ever going to fund an orchestra like they do in Berlin, but they should do something. The people who pay taxes need to get their "emotional m & m's" as an economics professor of mine one put it. It's up the the orchestras now to convince the public that the money spent is worth it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Classical concert tickets in the US are already heavily subsidized by tax-deductible donations, mostly from wealthy people. In contrast, tickets to big-name rap concerts are often far more expensive and are sold to an audience probably less able to bear the cost. Further, far more people enjoy rap music than enjoy classical music, which makes up only 2%-3% of the commercial music market.

Since rap concerts serve broader audiences than classical concerts, and since subsidies there would have more significant impacts on affordability, our governments (in the US anyway) should preferentially subside the costs involved in rap music, certainly not classical.


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Yes.... There is certainly no case to subsidise one form of music over another unless that music offers something of greater importance..... Most liberals here are seeming to suggest 'it doesn't'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

WhateverDude said:


> Different countries have different funding programs. But most orchestras in the UK and the USA receive some measure of public funding. As do Opera companies.


In the US there is very little direct public funding for classical music. An occasional orchestra might get a bit of local gov't funding, but they're in a minority. Orchestral costs are usually paid for by private donations and ticket sales, in that order.

However, there is some indirect public funding in that orchestras are set up as charitable non-profits, and donations can be deducted from taxable income, lowering the donor's tax bill. That shrinkage in tax revenue has to be made up either by higher tax rates or (these days) more likely by increased borrowing.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

WhateverDude said:


> Yes.... There is certainly no case to subsidise one form of music over another unless that music offers something of greater importance..... Most liberals here are seeming to suggest 'it doesn't'


Are historical buildings objectively superior or more important than industrial buildings?

If not, why are historical buildings publically kept afloat while industrial buildings are privately managed?

The entire premise of this conversation is just silly. Public/private subsidizing has nothing to do with objective greatness or importance. There is public funding for roads, schools, hospitals. There is also public funding for pop bands, like Andrew Kenneth mentioned. There is certainly public funding for all manner of music festivals, from pop to rock to jazz. You choose to conveniently ignore this fact since it doesn't fit with the premise of your silly loaded questions.

Even more silly is how your keep on talking about the "liberals" as if political stances have anything to do with it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

WhateverDude said:


> Yes.... There is certainly no case to subsidise one form of music over another unless that music offers something of greater importance..... Most liberals here are seeming to suggest 'it doesn't'


If two things are of _equal_ importance (which your straw-liberals appear to be believe) but differ in their financial sustainability, then surely funding the less-sustainable one makes sense?


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> If two things are of equal importance but differ in their financial sustainability, then surely funding the less-sustainable one makes sense?


Not if the other form of sustainable music gives the public everything they need. If classical music offers nothing greater than pop music it should be left to its own devices, surely.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

WhateverDude said:


> Not if the other form of sustainable music gives the public everything they need. If classical music offers nothing greater than pop music it should be left to its own devices, surely.


Who says pop music gives the public everything they need? Whether or not classical music offers something greater, it certainly offers something *different*--something we'd be impoverished without.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

WhateverDude said:


> Not if the other form of sustainable music gives the public everything they need. If classical music offers nothing greater than pop music it should be left to its own devices, surely.


This is a bizarre and monolithic view of culture. What form of music - or any of the arts, or for that matter, pretty much any other human activity - gives "the public" (whoever the hell _they _are) everything they need?


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> This is a bizarre and monolithic view of culture. What form of music - or any of the arts, or for that matter, pretty much any other human activity - gives "the public" (whoever the hell _they _are) everything they need?


'the public (whoever the hell they are) are who you are asking for funding from. A typical liberal politicians view.... Sustain for the public until you want their cash..... You sound like a Liberal Democrat


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> This is a bizarre and monolithic view of culture. What form of music - or any of the arts, or for that matter, pretty much any other human activity - gives "the public" (whoever the hell _they _are) everything they need?


'the public (whoever the hell they are) are who you are asking for funding from. A typical liberal politicians view.... Distain for the public until you want their cash..... You sound like a Liberal Democrat


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

WhateverDude said:


> 'the public (whoever the hell they are) are who you are asking for funding from. A typical liberal politicians view.... Distain for the public until you want their cash..... You sound like a Liberal Democrat


Not disdain for "the public". Disdain for the idea that "the public" is a single entity that will be happy with just one kind of music. I notice you didn't answer the question, though - do you think "the public" would be satisfied just with pop music? (And, by the way, there are other kinds of music than pop and classical, which also may or may not get public funding)


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Nereffid said:


> Not disdain for "the public". Disdain for the idea that "the public" is a single entity that will be happy with just one kind of music. I notice you didn't answer the question, though - do you think "the public" would be satisfied just with pop music? (And, by the way, there are other kinds of music than pop and classical, which also may or may not get public funding)


My answer to the question is simply.... But unpopular here.... My answer is classical music MUST be publicly funded because it is of more importance than pop music.... But that view is seen as 'elitist' on these liberal pages... It is seen as 'Troll like behaviour' likely to end in a warning if freely expressed


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

WhateverDude said:


> My answer to the question is simply.... But unpopular here.... My answer is classical music MUST be publicly funded because it is of more importance than pop music.... But that view is seen as 'elitist' on these liberal pages... It is seen as 'Troll like behaviour' likely to end in a warning if freely expressed


You seem to have a severe victimhood complex. One wonders if you cannot sleep at night without constantly mentioning how "the libruls" are ruining your life and tearing down civilization.


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

chu42 said:


> You seem to have a severe victimhood complex. One wonders if you cannot sleep at night without constantly mentioning how "the libruls" are ruining your life and tearing down civilization.


Those on the right of politics are always a problem to we on the left


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

WhateverDude said:


> Those on the right of politics are always a problem to we on the left


We get it, politics is divisive. What's your point?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

WhateverDude said:


> A recent question was asked here.
> 'Is classical music better than pop music ?'
> Most said "No, they are of a similar value, just different, one is no more important than the other, what a stupid question, are you a troll"
> OK, so it follows on "as pop music relies solely on the market place, why should the general public be asked to fund classical music publically via the tax system.
> Surely public funding of classical music MUST STOP.


CM and _good_ art are what separates a mature society from a developing one. It shows the city has artistic senses to support good art, even in small quantities. A city without good art is a dead city without soul. That's why we need good art, not bad avant-agarde rubbish,


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

WhateverDude said:


> A recent question was asked here.
> 'Is classical music better than pop music ?'
> Most said "No, they are of a similar value, just different, one is no more important than the other, what a stupid question, are you a troll"
> OK, so it follows on "as pop music relies solely on the market place, why should the general public be asked to fund classical music publically via the tax system.
> Surely public funding of classical music MUST STOP.


That's actually a very very very clever question. I'll have to look through the thread and see if our Hypersubjectivists are prepared to put their money where their avant garde mouths are and risk having the Ferneyhoughs and Saunderses of the world have to rely on the marketplace and not professorships or government grants. After all, if it's not inherently worthier than any other product...


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

WhateverDude said:


> Should all public funding for 'classical music' be stopped immediately..?
> 
> A recent question was asked here.
> 'Is classical music better than pop music ?'
> ...


As much as the world needs doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, teachers, carpenters, plumbers, and other tradesmen; the world also needs artists, musicians, and poets. I didn't grow up dirt poor, but I did come up probably what you'd call lower middle class or working class. Nobody in my family knew anything about classical music, so apart from _Bugs Bunny_, _Tom & Jerry_ and _Lone Ranger_ reruns much of my exposure was due largely to public broadcasting.

Looking at how you've framed your question and how you've answered it, it appears that you've pretty much formed an opinion, though, so there's no point in debating the issue. Unless your trying to be ironic, satirical, or provocative; if you feel that strongly about it, you can write a letter to your congressman or congresswoman, or if your from across the pond, write your representative in parliament. Let us know how it works out for you.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Coach G said:


> As much as the world needs doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, teachers, carpenters, plumbers, and other tradesmen; the world also needs artists, musicians, and poets. I didn't grow up dirt poor, but I did come up probably what you'd call lower middle class or working class. Nobody in my family knew anything about classical music, so apart from _Bugs Bunny_, _Tom & Jerry_ and _Lone Ranger_ reruns much of my exposure was due largely to public broadcasting.
> 
> Looking at how you've framed your question and how you've answered it, it appears that you've pretty much formed an opinion, though, so there's no point in debating the issue. Unless your trying to be ironic, satirical, or provocative; if you feel that strongly about it, you can write a letter to your congressman or congresswoman, or if your from across the pond, write your representative in parliament. Let us know how it works out for you.


The question was really rhetorical, highlighting the "all music's essentially the same, none is 'better' than other kinds" mantra we're always seeing. OK, if you're convinced of that, then no kind of music is worthier of public support than any other. If classical music -- including avant garde or other modern "serious" music -- dies out, then so what? Nothing's really been lost if all is of equal value.


----------



## WhateverDude (Jun 21, 2019)

Coach G said:


> Unless your trying to be ironic, satirical, or provocative; you can write a letter to your congressman or congresswoman, or if your from across the pond, write your representative in parliament. Let us know how it works out for you.


You know, there may have been a little irony in there somewhere.... thank you for taking the time to experience it


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

consuono said:


> The question was really rhetorical, highlighting the "all music's essentially the same, none is 'better' than other kinds" mantra we're always seeing. OK, if you're convinced of that, then no kind of music is worthier of public support than any other. If classical music -- including avant garde or other modern "serious" music -- dies out, then so what? Nothing's really been lost if all is of equal value.


But it's possible to believe that
(a) no kind of music is worthier of public support than any other; and
(b) all kinds of music deserve public support if they need it to survive

Nobody says "all music's essentially the same": different music has different value for different people. Hence all kinds of music should be prevented from dying out. "Nothing's really been lost if all is of equal value" = absurd. If any kind of music dies out, it's a loss for somebody.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Nereffid said:


> But it's possible to believe that
> (a) no kind of music is worthier of public support than any other; and
> (b) all kinds of music deserve public support if they need it to survive


No, no. If public support is needed for this kind of music to survive, then let it die and be replaced by some other kind of music which is no more or less worthy.


> Nobody says "all music's essentially the same": different music has different value for different people. Hence all kinds of music should be prevented from dying out. "Nothing's really been lost if all is of equal value" = absurd. If any kind of music dies out, it's a loss for somebody.


If it's absurd, it's because the premises and logical conclusions of subjectivity preached by so many here are absurd. If it's a loss for somebody, it's a gain for somebody else. None is worthier of survival than any other. None can be.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> That's actually a very very very clever question.


I don't think it's a "clever" question at all; it seems to be an inane one. Problems with the premise have been pointed out multiple times by multiple people.



consuono said:


> I'll have to look through the thread and see if our Hypersubjectivists are prepared to put their money where their avant garde mouths are and risk having the Ferneyhoughs and Saunderses of the world have to rely on the marketplace and not professorships or government grants.


Where did you get the idea that Ferneyhough is getting government grants? Show me proof that most composers are being funded by federal means.

Furthermore, I do not mind if avant garde composers stop getting funded by the government, especially if they weren't getting funded in the first place.



consuono said:


> After all, if it's not inherently worthier than any other product...


This is a remarkably asinine response.

If I enjoy something, I might want it to be funded. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is "objectively superior" to anything else.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

WhateverDude said:


> Shaw obviously had read about the history of Turnpike road building in Britain... Or the history of Fire departments being funded by insurance systems... Or the history of private funding for British public schools ... You have to wonder which Shaw we are talking about here... And why he was so badly informed on history .. .???
> 
> ... Was it SHAWn Penn


It was Robert Shaw just before he was eaten by the shark. 

It's been years since I read the original - which was indeed about public support for regional orchestras. Other than road building, I may have invented the other examples.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I don't think it's a "clever" question at all; it seems to be an inane one. Problems with the premise have been pointed out multiple times by multiple people.


The only riposte I've seen is pointing out a pop group or two (of which I've never heard) that have received some kind of government funding. I don't think Motown or the Beatles were really state-funded.



> Where did you get the idea that Ferneyhough is getting government grants? Show me proof that most composers are being funded by federal means.


How does he make his living? Let's see: University of California at San Diego, Stanford University. Visiting professor at Harvard. Visiting lecturer at the Darmstädter Ferienkurse. The guy's an Establishment academic. Now show me how he makes a living solely on the sales of his music.
Rebecca Saunders: professorship, HMTM Hannover.


> Furthermore, I do not mind if avant garde composers stop getting funded by the government, especially since they weren't getting funded in the first place.


https://www.ism.org/advice/funding-for-composers
https://www.arts.gov/grants/grants-for-arts-projects



> This is a remarkably asinine response.
> 
> If I enjoy something, I might want it to be funded. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is "objectively superior" to anything else.


That's a remarkably asinine response. If you want it to be funded, fund it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> https://www.ism.org/advice/funding-for-composers
> https://www.arts.gov/grants/grants-for-arts-projects


interesting. I'm curious what MR would have said about this


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> The only riposte I've seen is pointing out a pop group or two (of which I've never heard) that have received some be kind of government funding. I don't think Motown or the Beatles were really state-funded.


Neither were Ligeti or Stockhausen, or Schoenberg or Webern.



consuono said:


> How does he make his living? Let's see: University of California at San Diego, Stanford University. Visiting professor at Harvard. Visiting lecturer at the Darmstädter Ferienkurse. The guy's an Establishment academic. Now show me how he makes a living solely on the sales of his music.
> Rebecca Saunders: professorship, HMTM Hannover.


Yes, he's got a professorship, not government subsidizing. Boo-hoo, not all artists make a living off of their music. This is not new to the avant-garde. Ever heard of the Mighty Five?



consuono said:


> https://www.ism.org/advice/funding-for-composers
> https://www.arts.gov/grants/grants-for-arts-projects


The entire premise of this thread is "why should classical music receive special government funding". These links refer to musicians of all genres, and not just classical music.

I mean, the first thing I saw when I clicked on the second link was a picture from the production of _Memphis._ Yes, extremely classical. Try harder next time.

And most of the foundations in the first link aren't even government subsidized...



consuono said:


> That's a remarkably asinine response. If you want it to be funded, fund it.


Ok...?

You asked why should I want something to receive government funding if it's not "inherently worthier". I respond that it's because I enjoy it. I soundly refuted your point. What's yours? Have anything useful to say?

(P.S.: I do help fund my local orchestra. Not that this is relevant.)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> interesting. I'm curious what MR would have said about this


I'm certainly not against public funding of the arts in general. But it seems to me that such funding is going to create art which closely reflects the political culture and outlook of the ones feeding the artists.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> Neither were Ligeti or Stockhausen, or Schoenberg or Webern.
> 
> Yes, he's got a professorship, not government subsidizing. Boo-hoo, not all artists make a living off of their music. This is not new to the avant-garde. Ever heard of the Mighty Five?


A professorship at a state school is government funding. And yeah, Ligeti was similarly employed. So was Schoenberg. But your view of the avant garde seems to stop at around 1970. :lol:



> As far as I can tell, these are nearly all privately owned and managed foundations. They do not consist of government handouts. They consist of wealthy individuals who want to help fledgling composers. How does this link help your point in any way?


Some are, some aren't. How did you show that the avant garde composers of today are making livings on their music? You didn't.



> You asked why should I want something to receive government funding if it's not "inherently worthier". I respond that it's because I enjoy it. I soundly refuted your point. What's yours? Have anything useful to say?


 :lol: You're comical.



> (P.S.: I do help fund my local orchestra. Not that this is relevant.)


Good for you.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> A professorship at a state school is government funding. And yeah, Ligeti was similarly employed. So was Schoenberg.


It's not government funding. It's school funding, because the government gives the school money and lets the school decide what it wants to do with the money. The decisions are made by the school board and the chairpeople, not the government or the public.

The school decides to pay its professors with the money. The professor decides to use this money to make a living so that he can compose music on the side.

This is very very far from the original premise:

Here is the original question:


> OK, so it follows on "as pop music relies solely on the market place, why should the general public be asked to fund classical music publically via the tax system.


So you've turned this into asking why a school should be allowed to pay its professors? The general public doesn't exactly decide what a school or a professor does with their money.



consuono said:


> Some are, some aren't. How did you show that the avant garde composers of today are making livings on their music? You didn't.


I never claimed that they did. I don't even know how this is relevant, since I could name many common practice composers who did not make a living off of their music. Being an artist isn't exactly known to be a lucrative profession, even for those considered highly skilled at their craft. Bach certainly didn't make his living from his music.



consuono said:


> :lol: You're comical.
> 
> Good for you.


Yeah, you don't even have another ridiculous rebuttal penned up. It's not looking good.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

WhateverDude said:


> Yes everytime you ask the liberal egalitarian's whether 'classical music' is a special case you hear "no, of course not, it is just the same, we are all the same'.... So you mention it's special funding status being taken away and suddenly it's "no no no, we didn't mean that, it's very complicated... We want our cake... Let us eat cake .....


I am a liberal egalitarian but not when it comes to music!


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> CM and _good_ art are what separates a mature society from a developing one. It shows the city has artistic senses to support good art, even in small quantities. A city without good art is a dead city without soul. That's why we need good art, not bad avant-agarde rubbish,


Life in the 1700s and 1800s for most people in Europe as awful compared to today. Advanced culture indicates the presence of a cultured elite or upper middle class, not something as broad as a "developed society."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> It's not government funding. It's school funding, because the government gives the school money and lets the school decide what it wants to do with the money. The decisions are made by the school board and the chairpeople, not the government or the public.


It's. Still. Government. Funding.


> So you've turned this into asking why a school should be allowed to pay its professors? The general public doesn't exactly decide what a school or a professor does with their money.


I'm not. I'm saying these composers couldn't make a living without relying on the government or the kindness of endowing strangers. They generally could not survive strictly through marketing their own music. St John of Cage probably couldn't have even pulled that off. He was a faculty member and a lifetime beneficiary of some endowment of some sort.


> I never claimed that they did. I don't even know how this is relevant, since I could name many common practice composers who did not make a living off of their music. Being an artist isn't exactly known to be a lucrative profession...


This is all another one of your idiotic red herrings anyway. The point was that no music of whatever type, none of which types are inherently superior to any other, should be given government (non-market) assistance at survival.


> Yeah, you don't even have another ridiculous rebuttal penned up. It's not looking good.


See above.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

chu42 said:


> It's not government funding. It's school funding, because the government gives the school money and lets the school decide what it wants to do with the money. The decisions are made by the school board and the chairpeople, not the government or the public.


Wow. This is even worse than *private* institutions or organizations sponsoring modern art.

"It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> It's. Still. Government. Funding.


I'm going to repeat the premise, which you seem to not have read:



> OK, so it follows on "as pop music relies solely on the market place, why should the general public be asked to fund classical music publically via the tax system.


So nope, the general public is not asked to fund the creation of avant garde music. They are asked to help fund schools, which do what they want with their money-part of which is used to pay professors, and the professors can do whatever they want with the money and it's no one's business.

On the other hand, government funding for literally anything else (roads, hospitals, schools) is the public's business and they vote on how to use it, or they vote in representatives who pledge to use the money in a way that benefits his/her voters.

What a professor does with his money has squat to do with the public. So no, professorships do not fit the premise of public funding, even if the money came from the government somewhere. And this is strictly professorships from public schools. Not all avant-garde composers are professors at public schools. Many of them are at private schools, like Ferneyhough currently is.



consuono said:


> I'm not. I'm saying these composers couldn't make a living without relying on the government or the kindness of endowing strangers. They generally could not survive strictly through marketing their own music. St John of Cage probably couldn't have even pulled that off. He was a faculty member and a lifetime beneficiary of some endowment of some sort.


It's true, most composers can't make much money off of their music. Avant-garde or otherwise. I don't know how this is relevant.



consuono said:


> This is all another one of your idiotic red herrings anyway. The point was that no music of whatever type, none of which types are inherently superior to any other, should be given government (non-market) assistance at survival.


Ok, so a professor at UCLA shouldn't be able to make a living on his professorship money or use it to help him compose?

That's literally the point you're making right now. Read what you're saying. It makes no sense.

You're saying professor salaries are government money, and that no composers should be taking government money. Ergo, no professors should be able to compose.

If I somewhere misinterpreted your argument, please let me know.



consuono said:


> See above. You're better at making videos or ranking obscure piano concertos.


Thanks.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Wow. This is even worse than *private* institutions or organizations sponsoring modern art.
> 
> "It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community: the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish. It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful. It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art, for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art."


If you think so, sure. I don't think composers should be getting special grants directly from the government, and nobody so far has been proving that they do. I think a professor should be able to do whatever they want with their money. If you're in favor of cutting school funding because the professor is an avant-garde whackjob, go for it. Or maybe you want to get the professors in question fired, or petition to change the curriculum taught at certain universities. I don't personally have a problem with any of this.

The original conversation wasn't even about modern art. It was about state-sponsored orchestras and classical music in general. I think consuono completely misinterpreted the premise of the thread and twisted it to suit his anti-avant-garde stances.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I'm going to repeat the premise, which you seem to not have read:
> 
> So nope, the general public is not asked to fund the creation of avant garde music. They are asked to help fund schools, which do what they want with their money-part of which is used to pay professors, and the professors can do whatever they want with the money and it's no one's business.


So what difference does it make? "The general public is not asked to..." Of course the public isn't asked. Money is simply spent.



> What a professor does with his money has squat to do with the public. So no, professorships do not fit the premise of public funding, even if the money came from the government somewhere. And this is strictly professorships from public schools. Not all avant-garde composers are professors at public schools. Many of them are at private schools, like Ferneyhough currently is.


Another deflection/red herring, not even worth the time.



> It's true, most composers can't make much money off of their music. Avant-garde or otherwise. I don't know how this is relevant.


:lol:



> Ok, so a professor at UCLA shouldn't be able to make a living on his professorship money or use it to help him compose?
> 
> That's literally the point you're making right now. Read what you're saying. It makes no sense.
> 
> ...


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> So what difference does it make? "The general public is not asked to..." Of course the public isn't asked. Money is simply spent.
> 
> It makes a difference because the premise of the entire thread is:
> 
> ...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

chu42 said:


> So if it turns out that the public _isn't_ being asked to fund avant garde music, then why is this sort of funding relevant to the thread?


The public is not being asked one way or the other; the money is just spent, and many countries spend much more on such than the US.



> It's not a deflection to say that many composers aren't even teaching at public schools. ...


But many are. The deflection lies in "but there are some in private schools too, so there! And teachers shouldn't be allowed to eat or compose?????? I am the greatest debater ALIIIIIIVE!!!!!!" 
The whole point of even mentioning the avant garde is that its fans tend to be the most Ultrasubjectivist types. So this type or that type of music being no more due to its lack of survivability should be of no consequence. Another equally worthy type will take its place.
So yeah, the OP's question is quite clever. You really are better at making videos and ranking obscure piano concertos.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> The public is not being asked one way or the other; the money is just spent, and many countries spend much more on such than the US.


So tell me-what's your point? That this shouldn't be done? If this is all you're getting at, then we have no disagreement.



consuono said:


> But many are. The deflection lies in "but there some in private schools too, so there! And teachers shouldn't be allowed to eat or compose?????? I am the greatest debater ALIIIIIIVE!!!!!!"
> The whole point of even mentioning the avant garde is that its fans tend to be the most Ultrasubjectivist types. So this type or that type of music being no more due to its lack of survivability should be of no consequence. Another equally worthy type will take its place.


I certainly don't mind. I already said this:


> Orchestras are being publically funded because people decide to fund them. If people all suddenly voted to not fund orchestras, then they wouldn't be funded. If people started voting to fund a city-sponsored pop band instead of an orchestra, then that's what would happen.


I don't know why you would think your point would affect me at all. I don't even listen to a lot of "avant-garde" music. I've already said multiple times that I believe that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest composers of all time. The fact that I can believe this and still agree with subjectivity in music says a lot about my impartial view on the subject.



consuono said:


> So yeah, the OP's question is quite clever. You really are better at making videos and ranking obscure piano concertos.


It's not clever. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity of music. You've already ignored many points on why classical music should continue to be kept alive outside of market demand:



> Yes. In the same way, people who have no interest in history may become convinced to fund a museum or a historical site if they agree that it's of importance to their local/city/state heritage. People who don't play basketball may not mind contributing a little bit of their taxes towards keeping their local team afloat.





> Orchestras, basketball teams, museums, etc. all contribute to a city's cultural standing and their attractiveness to tourists, movers, retirees. I'm sure that there are popular music festivals that are in some way funded by public support.





> One doesn't exclude the other. In Denmark, there's a state-funded conservatory for "rhythmic music", that is, jazz, rock, etc. etc., and I 'm sure it exists in other countries too.





> Obviously, for smaller nations, the cultural heritage and selection would be criminally reduced, if everything had to rely of short-sighted profits only.





> Yes, there should be public funding for classical music. The reason is simple: people naturally don't want to pay taxes. But if they're going to have to, they want to see some return on their investment. If taxes don't support things that they benefit from, then the normal, instinctive human reaction is resentment. This happened where I live recently. The city spent millions and millions on really fancy schmantzy baseball parks, skate parks, kiddie playgrounds, bike paths, supporting pop/jazz concerts and a lot of other stuff. Then a loose coalition of citizens went to the town council opposing any more bonds simply because despite all the money being spent they got nothing out of it. We still don't have a real concert hall. But they did understand and decided to support a local symphony - all volunteer. The town does pay for the music director's meagre fee, rents/buys music, provides a rehearsal hall, does the advertising and other business matters. And they paid for three dog parks. They assuaged a lot of hard feelings. No city in the US is ever going to fund an orchestra like they do in Berlin, but they should do something. The people who pay taxes need to get their "emotional m & m's" as an economics professor of mine one put it. It's up the the orchestras now to convince the public that the money spent is worth it.


All address the premise without touching even a little bit upon subjectivity or objectivity. People will fund what they want to fund. If people felt like pop music really needed non-market support, they would vote to fund it. If people felt like an R&B festival would really boost their tourist numbers, then they would fund it. It's not about objectivity and it's not about classical music in particular. Much less avant-garde music, which wasn't even mentioned in the premise of the question.

Again, my apologies. Your grand trap really failed to spring.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Again, my apologies. Your grand trap really failed to spring.


There's no attempted "trap". You and other Subjectivists trap yourselves all the time. As for the rest of that screed, not interested. YT's your thing, dude.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

consuono said:


> The whole point of even mentioning the avant garde is that its fans tend to be the most Ultrasubjectivist types. So this type or that type of music being no more due to its lack of survivability should be of no consequence. Another equally worthy type will take its place.


I just had to make another post to point out the plain stupidity in this line of reasoning.

Let me put it to you in baby words:

Ice cream flavor preference is subjective, right? But if your favorite ice cream flavor was _strawberry_, and _strawberry_ started dying out on the market, you'd possibly care about it even though you don't think it's an "objectively greater" flavor.

You would care because you enjoy the flavor. You enjoy it more than other flavors so it's a loss to you if it disappears.

It's the same with music. If a type of music that you enjoy starts to disappear, who cares if it's "objectively greater" or if its "equally worthy" or whatnot. You enjoy it so you want it to survive.

Is it rocket science to understand that "subjectivists" can have personal tastes? Isn't that what subjectivity is?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm closing this thread for now because discussion has become heated (which is fine) and personal (which is not). To be continued.


----------

