# "Let Classical Music Die Already"!?!?!



## SouthernCharm (Jan 15, 2014)

Some people just don't get it. I came across this blog on Wordpress and was appalled by this article about how Classical shouldn't be sponsored by the public anymore! See what you think.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

What do you think?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

"Prove the value of classical music by getting me to support it instead of promising me it’s valuable even though I’m too stupid to realize it."

I agree with that; I don't agree with much else though. I understand the frustration with people claiming we need to save something and they don't really understand why. And being condescending is not the way to show them why it's worth saving. But some people will never like it, and there's not a whole lot we can do about that.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, his argument boils down to "orchestras should program things that the modern audience likes (that I like), because then audiences will (I will) go and they'll become self-sufficient".

I think I've heard people around here say the same thing...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SouthernCharm said:


> Some people just don't get it.


So what exactly does the author not get?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Yes, I've never understood this strategy of programming works that the audience hates in order to reduce ticket revenues. 

And then when you ask the ushers where your seat is, they hit you with their flashlights.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Since obviously most of us here love classical music, which may influence an opinion, I think it is worthwhile to put the question in a more general way:

Is it right to decide for everybody who works and pays taxes, that part of that money is used to sustain cultural activities, which these tax payers may or may not like? Or should the people who want to experience these cultural activities pay for them? Or should the people who want to carry out these cultural activities pay for them?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

You can be appalled all you want. He is entitled to his opinion. Guaranteed by the US Constitution.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

hpowders said:


> You can be appalled all you want. He is entitled to his opinion. Guaranteed by the US Constitution.


Being appalled doesn't mean we want to take away his right to an opinion.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

From the article:



> Russin says he was compelled to write after watching the recent Country Music Awards when he realized how many more millions of fans country music has than classical.


Country music has also much more fans than economy. Governments shouldn't spend money on economy then, but on country music. How simple is that, you elitist jerks.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Tristan said:


> Being appalled doesn't mean we want to take away his right to an opinion.


Oh yeah? It's human nature to go from being appalled to "we have to do something about this!!!!"


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm a bit baffled by the article.

I'd like to know the details of the building of this auditorium. 

All the auditoriums near me were built or restored by extremely wealthy folks donated a huge chunk of money. No tax payer money was used. So was this thing a millage or something that was voted on by citizens of the county?

Most auditoriums also aren't just used for Classical Music either. I have a small auditorium in my town where I wished they played classical music since it used to be an actual Opera House. Now it's used for Plays & Theater Works, Lectures, Concerts, Stand Up Comedians, Local School Productions, Awards Ceremonies, all sorts of things. They just remodeled the whole thing back to the way it was in the 1800's when it was built. It was done by money that was donated.

Same thing with larger venues I've been too. Where I normally go to the Symphony also has a big convention center attached to it as part of a complex that has Boat and RV and Classic Car and Gun Shows.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Different music halls are financed in different ways. Disney Hall, now home of the LA Phil, cost $130 million that came entirely from private donations -- you can guess the family and corporation that gave the most. Its parking garage, at $110 million, was funded by bonds (debt) issued by LA County; the bonds will be repaid from parking revenues. So ultimately, no public money will have been used if parking projections pan out.

A new hall generally calls for a significant private fund raising effort. Some debt may also be incurred, either by the symphony's association (a private non-profit corporation) or by a city or state government. Either way, there is usually an expectation, realistic or otherwise, that the debt will be repaid from hall rentals or other fees. This means that the hall must often be planned to accommodate events other than orchestral, which don't make a lot of profit these days.


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

Wow...

I particularly like the way he responds to "sandy"'s comments. Such a great mind.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

hpowders said:


> You can be appalled all you want. He is entitled to his opinion. Guaranteed by the US Constitution.


And we are entitled to call him a prick


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> Since obviously most of us here love classical music, which may influence an opinion, I think it is worthwhile to put the question in a more general way:
> 
> Is it right to decide for everybody who works and pays taxes, that part of that money is used to sustain cultural activities, which these tax payers may or may not like? Or should the people who want to experience these cultural activities pay for them? Or should the people who want to carry out these cultural activities pay for them?


If you leave everyting to th free market you will get covered in [email protected] like reality tv. Arts simply can't excist without government funding


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

He is saying that if classical music were not publicly funded, it would die.

That is not true.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

schuberkovich said:


> Wow...
> 
> I particularly like the way he responds to "sandy"'s comments. Such a great mind.


In other words, his retort was worth as much as his article and 'insightful' viewpoints. He's just another modern narcissist that assumes anything he can't like or immediately understand is not worth knowing, and attacks people for not agreeing with him.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Orchestral music in the US receives very little public funding -- for the larger orchestras, uniformly less than three percent of costs and in many cases zero.

However, since private contributions to most orchestras are tax-deductible, some treasury revenues are lost and obviously have to be made up by other taxpayers -- or by China, as the case may be!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> And we are entitled to *call him a prick*


Nope! By choosing these words, you are indeed calling yourself that! Very low class, sir!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

stevederekson said:


> He is saying that if classical music were not publicly funded, it would die.
> 
> That is not true.


It is true that if opera houses and orchestras did not receive significant donations, they would not be able to run on ticket sales alone (because they would have to put the prices up much higher). But you're right that in the US, there is very little state/national funding for the arts in general, of which music is considered a small subset.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

hpowders said:


> You can be appalled all you want. He is entitled to his opinion. Guaranteed by the US Constitution.





Tristan said:


> Being appalled doesn't mean we want to take away his right to an opinion.


He is entitled to his opinion and the OP is entitled to report that they are appalled!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

One has only to consider the funding of Opera in Handel's day. Given the costs of singers, orchestra, the hall etc, etc it is not surprising that Opera required substantial financial support from the nobility.

People will pay £300 / $600 for tickets to a Rolling Stones concert because it is a once a year (or every two year event). They will not pay the same prices for regular concerts, yet that is the sort of price that needs to be paid to pay for running regular concerts. In fact the price may actually be higher because classical concerts are not held (usually) in large stadia.

We have come through a period when artists could make substantial sums from recordings and afford to "subsidise" concerts to an era where recordings don't generate as much money and really have become a plug for the concerts which is where the real money is - also the merchandising. We are back in Handel's era where we need to pay for artists at a rate which has become impossible for ordinary people. The only way classical music can survive is through some form of patronage.

The article makes the point that we no longer have a society which values culture and hence it is becoming more difficult to generate patronage and government funding is becoming tighter.


----------



## Chad (Jan 11, 2014)

It is true classical music is on its way out if art history is not a core study in all grade levels. sports is.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> He is entitled to his opinion and the OP is entitled to report that they are appalled!


As for me, wake me up when they are ready to hang the dude for expressing his right to free speech. Then I too will be appalled. People say outrageous things every day to provoke, which is why I simply ignore.
Anyone wishing to blow a gasket over what he wrote, be my guest. Have fun!


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

hpowders said:


> As for me, wake me up when they are ready to hang the dude for expressing his right to free speech. Then I too will be appalled. People say outrageous things every day to provoke, which is why I simply ignore.
> Anyone wishing to blow a gasket over what he wrote, be my guest. Have fun!


So, nothing ever appals you?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Taggart said:


> The only way classical music can survive is through some form of patronage.


Yes indeed. In the US, typically only 30-40% of orchestral costs are covered by ticket revenues -- the remainder comes almost entirely from private donations. If it weren't for this patronage, ticket costs would be about three times what they are now. Since the number of tickets sold would drop dramatically, obviously most orchestras would cease to exist rather quickly.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

mis-post .


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So, nothing ever appals you?


Sure!!!!

Innane debates about atonal music from haters who can't even recognize what atonal music is and identify Prokofiev and Britten as atonal composers they hate! (Lord, save me!!!) That's what appalls me!!! Yet I simply count to 10 and say "Serenity Now!! Serenity Now!!" five times and I then just go about my business. It's all forgotten.

Thanks for the great set-up line by the way!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Ignoring the writer's fallacy's and distrust of tax money being put into classical music sponsorship directly confused, I agree with him that it makes sense that people wouldn't want to spend money on what they don't like. Same here! I don't want to go to pop music concerts! I don't want to buy any pop CDs at all, not one cent of my money will go to stuff. And I'm not going to let ANYONE tell me that pop is actually valuable and I'm just too stupid to realize it! If only there were a few billion more of me... :tiphat:

I don't believe in "survival of the fittest" when it comes to the arts. I believe in "nurture of the timeless and sincere." The moment that classical musicians stepped OUT of the battle of survival of the fittest, they have become immortal.

I'd also would give that man this article and film, and _dare_ him to say "Sorry bro, you should stop doing this because no one likes it anymore" to _these _people:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joy-in-the-congo-a-musical-miracle-04-06-2012/


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Nope! By choosing these words, you are indeed calling yourself that! Very low class, sir!


I guess you can't be on pace for 12,000 posts in a year and always have something pertinent to say. That would appall me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> I guess you can't be on pace for 12,000 posts in a year and always have something pertinent to say. That would appall me.


.......Jealous......??????


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Oh yeah? It's human nature to go from being appalled to "we have to do something about this!!!!"


There's a difference between showing someone why they're wrong and telling someone they can't express their opinion.

Kinda like I'm doing now


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Is classical music dying? Ummmm...well...in this day and age it isn't the most popular type of music but it isn't the least popular either. The article seems to be by someone who wants things to be dumbed down to them because they simply would much prefer a simpler world in which you don't need a brain after school finishes. This writer is a preacher and is cherry picking information to get the rather irrelevant point across...that's what it looks like to me anyway. 

I believe classical music in the latter half of the 20th century had a new renaissance, never before has so much research gone into performance techniques, composition, sound itself etc. and since the advent of the Internet all this new information can be accessed by several billion people. Classical music has been freed from the western (European, American etc) intellectuals and the elite and brought to the public. If there are people in the world who love classical music, it simply can't die.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

A lot of folks have a negative opinion about classical music. Why take it personally? We ARE in a minority.
How many threads on TC have folks practically strangling each other over labeling styles of music and hating atonal music? There's enough intra-hatred right here!
If you guys want to show him why he's wrong, call or write him directly. Given his "philosophy", I'm sure he's not here reading any of our posts. He wouldn't be caught dead here! 

By the way, you fellas go ahead and bounce this topic around all you want. Simply leave me out of it.
I won't respond on this thread anymore.


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

Well, how about we take all those things that someone decided once that they are so important for everyone, you know - war on drugs, national days, recycling... And every person will decide where he wants that portion of his tax payment to go. I wonder if that would change anything.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Us opera fans would be Bohemed and Traviatad to death.
uugghhh


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Well, I don't really care what the author of that article thinks - I hear the intrinsic quality of classical and will continue to appreciate it. I also don't think that classical will die, since these works represent masterpieces of human creativity.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Piwikiwi said:


> If you leave everyting to th free market you will get covered in [email protected] like reality tv. Arts simply can't excist without government funding


The government does not have money except what it gets from taxes. If you are right, and the vast majority of people (and tax payers) want reality shows rather than culture, who has the right to decide that their money should be spent on something they do not want?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, his argument boils down to "orchestras should program things that the modern audience likes (that I like), because then audiences will (I will) go and they'll become self-sufficient".
> 
> I think I've heard people around here say the same thing...


Ladies and gentlmen, the revised programme will be as follows.

*DAFT PUNK* _Variations in Dmaj_
*BAAUER* _Harlem Shake Concerto_
*CYRUS* _Selections from Das Abrissbirne
_
*Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra*
*Sir Simon Rattle* conductor
*Miley Cyrus* approximatura


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Orchestral music in the US receives very little public funding -- for the larger orchestras, uniformly less than three percent of costs and in many cases zero.
> 
> However, since private contributions to most orchestras are tax-deductible, some treasury revenues are lost and obviously have to be made up by other taxpayers -- or by China, as the case may be!


Good point.
Taxpayers/consumers are always the ones who pay. They're the only source of income both the private as well as the public sector has. The money that rich donors give to orchestras came out of the pockets of consumers.

When I go to concerts, my impression is that 90 percent of the audience could afford prices that were tree our four times higher. And they'd put up with it. They'd be mad, but they'd still go. Concerts are a luxury product. But prices are kept reasonable, so that nobody can be accused of shutting out those who can't afford as much. I guess this is because ofthe cultural/educational aspect of classical music, and restricting access in theses fields is something that goes against the democratic value system of the state.


----------



## Anterix (Jan 24, 2010)

I saw this article on a blog.

http://boulezian.blogspot.pt/2014/01/the-bbc-asks-who-killed-classical-music.html


----------



## concerto for cowbell (Jan 13, 2014)

Okay, new system.
From now on after calculating taxes owed for the year every citizen can freely apportion their due to the government program(s) of their choice, be that arts funding, the war on drugs, roads, drones, public schools, the NSA, etc.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> The government does not have money except what it gets from taxes. If you are right, and the vast majority of people (and tax payers) want reality shows rather than culture, who has the right to decide that their money should be spent on something they do not want?


People with a vision who know what's important for a society. The vast majority of people are idiots who don't know what the consequences of their voting behaviour are.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Piwikiwi said:


> People with a vision who know what's important for a society. The vast majority of people are idiots who don't know what the consequences of their voting behaviour are.


Though your post wont be seen as reasonable by most people, I for one completely understand your frustration with the general public.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Piwikiwi said:


> People with a vision who know what's important for a society.


Who would those be? Who in your view of the world should determine which part of the collected taxes should be spent on culture, and moreover on which sub-groups of culture?



> The vast majority of people are idiots who don't know what the consequences of their voting behaviour are.


Not a big fan of democracy?


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

violadude said:


> Though your post wont be seen as reasonable by most people, I for one completely understand your frustration with the general public.


It's a slippery slope, to be sure. Can people truly govern themselves? History says no, yet society persists, albeit in a constant state of decline. Things such as law suits, workers unions, socialism, and even democratic ideals, originally intended to protect people and their interests have been perverted: Loopholes created and power abused. Would forcing classical music on the masses improve society? That's an audacious leap, yet farcical films such as Wall-E and Idiocracy have some terrifying implications.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Ignores tonalists*



Anterix said:


> I saw this article on a blog.
> 
> http://boulezian.blogspot.pt/2014/01/the-bbc-asks-who-killed-classical-music.html


This articles still ignores the contributions of the great modern tonalists, _i. e._ Barber, Britten, Shostakovitch.

I am currently reading Henry Pleasants' book _The Agony of Modern Music_. It was published in 1955 and contains the same complaints as the article. So far Pleasants ignores the contributions of the great tonalists on contemporary music.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> Not a big fan of democracy?


And if he's not a big "fan" of democracy, it's enough to point that out and he's automatically discredited. No need to even take his arguments into consideration. Democracy is the good and if anybody doesn't like the good, he's obviously evil enemy of freedom, humanity and stuff.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, his argument boils down to "orchestras should program things that the modern audience likes (that I like), because then audiences will (I will) go and they'll become self-sufficient".
> 
> I think I've heard people around here say the same thing...


People who advocate that are thinking completely along the lines of free-market supply and demand, financial success, and are usually very happy to throw in "Cream floats to the top" as one of their prime supporting arguments for free-market supply and demand.

Trouble is, we all know what else floats to the top.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Aramis said:


> And if he's not a big "fan" of democracy, it's enough to point that out and he's automatically discredited. No need to even take his arguments into consideration. Democracy is the good and if anybody doesn't like the good, he's obviously evil enemy of freedom, humanity and stuff.


It's amazing what you think you can deduce from six words.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> It's amazing what you think you can deduce from six words.


With such depreciating, evasive reply to an argument, it takes no amazing skill to deduce the sentiment it comes from.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

What argument? That "The vast majority of people are idiots who don't know what the consequences of their voting behaviour are."? Well, I think it is hardly a valid argument to explain why tax payers money should be spent on classical music - more of a non sequitur. That said, the reason why I asked my question is that the logical consequence of the statement is that democracy is a stupid idea. Which it may well be, but it does not hurt to think about the logical consequences of one's statements.

It is very easy to sit in a chair behind the computer and type that of course something you love needs to be funded from tax payers money to keep it alive. But the consequences are there and should be taken into consideration.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Rights of Minorities*

One of the concepts of democracy that many do not grasp is that the rights of minorities should be protected. That is one of the functions of the American Bill of Rights.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> One of the concepts of democracy that many do not grasp is that the rights of minorities should be protected. That is one of the functions of the American Bill of Rights.


I sooooooooooooooooooooooooo doubt that either art or artists were anywhere in consideration when that document was in the planning, or in any draft along the way to its final version


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

concerto for cowbell said:


> Okay, new system.
> From now on after calculating taxes owed for the year every citizen can freely apportion their due to the government program(s) of their choice, be that arts funding, the war on drugs, roads, drones, public schools, the NSA, etc.


Love it.

Ha haaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaaaa. If that blog writer had been young enough he would have been railing about funding state colleges, because who wants or needs a higher education?

Riiiiight -- because all those people, collectively, know whats good for the society, its economy, its infrastructure, and how to accurately assess how much we may need for defense dependent upon a general poll of how nice we all are.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> It is very easy to sit in a chair behind the computer and type that of course something you love needs to be funded from tax payers money to keep it alive.


It's not the reason, at least not in my case, why I believe classical music should be funded from public money. Similiarly, it's easy to speak that public money should go where most people want it. It's one of the delusive statements that seem to sound about right on the surface. Shouldn't things be made to satisfy as many people as possible? But then, look below that good-looking, populist surface. If through the history people in power would think only about what people wanted at that particular moment in time, rejecting the whole idea of preserving things of timeless value, they would satisfy the needs of "today" but at the same time deprive people of all the future of things they could want to have preserved for them - because the needs of today's majority will be irrelevant for them and the relevant will be neglected. Do you think that it's fine if today's majority will get public money spent on what it wants and in consequence people of tomorrow and all future ahead will possibly live in the world where large part of cultural heritage that was so far kept alive by public money will perish? Taking into consideration all future generations, which way will serve more people?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*What About the Military Bands?*

Washington, D. C. is the home of the premier bands of the U. S. Military. They all have chamber orchestras. I requently attend the concerts of the Marine Corps Chamber Orchestra and their concerts are free. You have to get to the concerts early because most of the time it is a full house.

If we take the government should not fund the arts argument to their logical end, most of these ensembles should be disbanded.

The U. S. Marine Band provides the music ensembles for events at the White House.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> Who would those be? Who in your view of the world should determine which part of the collected taxes should be spent on culture, and moreover on which sub-groups of culture?
> 
> Not a big fan of democracy?


We don't have a direct democracy in the Netherlands. We already vote for people who represent us and those people I mentioned are already in charge.

I'm a not a fan of direct democracy and I'm very cynical about the future of a representative democracy. Voting is a right people earned because they said that they could make their own well informed choices. They have responsibility to inform themselves about what to vote for. Most people are too lazy for that. The vast majority of the people is even too lazy to spend the 15 minutes to read a party program. Why should these people be allowed to vote if they apparently don't even care.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> One of the concepts of democracy that many do not grasp is that the rights of minorities should be protected. That is one of the functions of the American Bill of Rights.


While I agree with the sentiment, I think that most constitutional scholars are in agreement that the rights of the minority that the framers intended to protect do not include the right to go to the opera.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

SouthernCharm said:


> Some people just don't get it. I came across this blog on Wordpress and was appalled by this article about how Classical shouldn't be sponsored by the public anymore! See what you think.


I quite agree. If classical music fans cannot keep the genre alive, then neither should the tax payer.

But I think he is wrong in his belief that classical music is dying. Reports of its death are exaggerated, I think.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

ahammel said:


> While I agree with the sentiment, I think that most constitutional scholars are in agreement that the rights of the minority that the framers intended to protect do not include the right to go to the opera.


Life, liberty and the *pursuit of happiness* - sounds like opera to me!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

However societal decisions are made, I think most people believe that money should be spent on things that benefit society, and more money should be spent on things that benefit society more. One can make estimates of the benefit of police, the military, roads, the judiciary, etc. and determine how to allocate funds. The problem comes with things such as the humanities, of which music is a part. How does one value the humanities? We on TC all value classical music, and many of us may value other humanities as well (literature, philosophy, history). But how does one make a strong argument estimating the value of classical music such that a certain amount of funding ought to be spent on classical music? It's not impossible, but it's much harder.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I am currently reading Henry Pleasants' book _The Agony of Modern Music_. It was published in 1955 and contains the same complaints as the article. So far Pleasants ignores the contributions of the great tonalists on contemporary music.


Actually, he doesn't. He just lumps them in as being equally part of the "problem" of modern music.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

> But how does one make a strong argument estimating the value of classical music such that a certain amount of funding ought to be spent on classical music? It's not impossible, but it's much harder.


I'm not sure if it is harder. How does one measure the value of, say, the second engine for the F-35? It's not like the whole US military would cease to function without it.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, he doesn't. He just lumps them in as being equally part of the "problem" of modern music.


Maybe I should not have said anything now since I have have not completed reading the book.

My point is the arguments against modern music have not changed in over fifty years.

Sorry.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Maybe I should not have said anything now since I have have not completed reading the book.
> 
> My point is the arguments against modern music have not changed in over fifty years.
> 
> Sorry.


No, it's fine. It's just that I've read other responses to that book saying "well, he's basically right, but these are the good guys", whereas in his view, they're _all_ bad guys.

Your point is, of course, one I agree with.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

maybe if they let more "modern"/popular ensembles like rock bands (the better ones at least) play classical chamber music rather than letting orchestras play popular music it could help
I must admit I only really got into classical music via muse, who used melodies and little influences of rachmaninov and chopin and liszt


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> What argument? That "The vast majority of people are idiots who don't know what the consequences of their voting behaviour are."? Well, I think it is hardly a valid argument to explain why tax payers money should be spent on classical music - more of a non sequitur. That said, the reason why I asked my question is that the logical consequence of the statement is that democracy is a stupid idea. Which it may well be, but it does not hurt to think about the logical consequences of one's statements.
> 
> It is very easy to sit in a chair behind the computer and type that of course something you love needs to be funded from tax payers money to keep it alive. But the consequences are there and should be taken into consideration.


I think parts of democracy are a bad idea, not that I know ANYONE who lives under one. I, an American, live in a republic which has some of those buffers where 'the people' do not nearly have as much direct say as some seem to think.

"Supporting and promoting what is thought of as your nation's high culture," along with a few other elements of a nation's workings, I think (public; education, highways, transportation, and social security in the states are anything but democratic in either principle or practice) are better kept out of the collective control of one man one vote systems, which don't exist anywhere that I know of.

In comparison to Americans, Europeans pay income tax up the wazoo throughout most of Europe (starting at much lower income levels), and just about everything they consume but food (and interestingly, books and art) has a very high value added tax on it -- those revenues supporting many social services, public schooling, transport, health services and the arts.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

lupinix said:


> maybe if they let more "modern"/popular ensembles like rock bands (the better ones at least) play classical chamber music rather than letting orchestras play popular music it could help
> I must admit I only really got into classical music via muse, who used melodies and little influences of rachmaninov and chopin and liszt


The problem is finding rock musicians with the viruosity to play those pieces.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> The problem is finding rock musicians with the viruosity to play those pieces.


true, but im sure they exist


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

That was nothing yet. The other day I have stumbled over a website of a German Asatru (Germanic/Norse heathen) group, where they wrote that classical music is dead and nobody listens to it anymore. One would expect at least _those_ people, if not the average internet idiot, to have some understanding and respect for their own culture....


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

It seems odd that the post starts off in vehement opposition to being patronised and then goes on to suggest that Orchestra's should patronise him.



SiegendesLicht said:


> One would expect at least _those_ people, if not the average internet idiot, to have some understanding and respect for their own culture....


One wouldn't expect neopagans to have much understanding of anything, really.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have to say one more thing: Nobody in the mainstream cares one whit about classical music. It's like a stomach bacterium. You know it's there but are not particularly conscious of it.

The last thing I would expect someone in mainstream culture to exclaim with a megaphone is:
*LET CLASSICAL MUSIC DIE ALREADY!!*
Because, sadly, nobody cares.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I have to say one more thing: Nobody in the mainstream cares one whit about classical music. It's like a stomach bacterium. You know it's there but are not particularly conscious of it.
> 
> The last thing I would expect someone in mainstream culture to exclaim with a megaphone is:
> *LET CLASSICAL MUSIC DIE ALREADY!!*
> Because, sadly, nobody cares.


I don't think it really matters. All that matters, to me at least, is the effect music has on those who care to listen. A great piece can allow me to have enormous spiritual moments of immersion that others are not able to experience without drugs.

Out of every life experience, the greatest of pieces listened to in the perfect circumstances is the closest to heaven I will ever get. Neither sex, love, travel nor philosophy have been able to take me to such places.

Whatever happens in the world I know that _I_ will continue listening. I know others feel the same way, and as long as that is the case, classical music will not die.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I have to say one more thing: Nobody in the mainstream cares one whit about classical music.


Maybe things have changed, but Richard Nixon wrote a piano concerto:






Well, I didn't say it was good. His favorite music was the score to "Victory at Sea," which shows he at least had good taste.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Maybe things have changed, but Richard Nixon wrote a piano concerto:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I heard Nixon in 1974 wrote a big festive score for wind band, called the Watergate Musik, inspired by John Dean's copy of Neville Marriner's performance of something or other by Handel.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2014)

stevederekson said:


> Out of every life experience, the greatest of pieces listened to in the perfect circumstances is the closest to heaven I will ever get. Neither sex, love, travel nor philosophy have been able to take me to such places


That's a shame. I guess you've just not yet had the right travelling companion!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Did he really have to put Musicology between quotation marks?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

No one is born cultured. You have have to introduce it to them.

Over here, the major orchestras are subsidised. We'll do 1 concert a week and the remaining time is for rehearsals and social work. The attitude here is that it's not enough to be available at a concert hall. You have to get out there and engage the public and introduce them to something new. Hence the social work. The orchestra is part of the public service. 

The orchestra is split into smaller ensembles and we're sent to various places. Schools are common but we also frequent places like hospitals. The consensus being that patients/staff could do with a little cheering up.
Tickets are handed out wherever we go. They turn up because it's free. They may come again, or they may not. It's not our concern. The receipts aren't part of our budget (we don't even count them). Our job is just to provide music as a service. 
We don't really do the "rush tickets" thing because you can book a seat for €10-60 any time.

Yes, it's costing the taxpayers but they will always be compensated whilst music remains rewarding.

I realise that I'm preaching to the converted on this forum


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Us opera fans would be Bohemed and Traviatad to death.
> uugghhh


_You are anyway and already!_


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

And they love it!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> Did he really have to put Musicology between quotation marks?


Those of us who can not really write well have to resort to at least the satiric quotation mark, the likewise satiric single stroke 'air quote,' and emoticons.

If a writer has any pretensions at all that their blog is an earnest one to which many should pay attention, but the reader sees the presence of any of those gimmick crutches within any part of the text, then the reader can pretty much be dismiss the entire blog and all its contents without consequence, and in future, safely ignore it completely ~ i.e. other than making another mark on the wall to keep tabs on how many witheringly blank souls are out there.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

hpowders said:


> mainstream


What's with all these mainstreams you keep referring to, including mainstream classical listeners? Are you aiming to be classical music hipster or what?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Maybe things have changed, but Richard Nixon wrote a piano concerto:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and it wasn't really a "Concerto," now, was it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> What's with all these mainstreams you keep referring to, including mainstream classical listeners? Are you aiming to be classical music hipster or what?


Hipsters go out of their way to be non-mainstream, including reaching so far as to go far beyond their actual personal tastes to appear hip. That can take the form of being retro-progressive as a sort of flip-side of the Hipsterism coin... i.e. fashionably unfashionable.


----------

