# Should Composers Today Writing New Music Receive More Subsidies From The Government?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Following from my rcent thread about avant-garde(*) music being "difficult" to find a viable place in society, and perhaps newly composed classical music as well, do you therefore think that composers who find it difficult to survive should receive some sort of art subsidy, more than they do now, to encourage composers to write new classical music today? (I guess it's sort of like other industries that you might read about, example the car industry in western countries that struggle).

What do you think?

(*) http://www.talkclassical.com/27860-will-avant-garde-music.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Following from my rcent thread about avant-garde(*) music being "difficult" to find a viable place in society, and perhaps newly composed classical music as well, do you therefore think that composers who find it difficult to survive should receive some sort of art subsidy, more than they do now, to encourage composers to write new classical music today? (I guess it's sort of like other industries that you might read about, example the car industry in western countries that struggle).
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> (*) http://www.talkclassical.com/27860-will-avant-garde-music.html


Well, certainly! But only if I get to decide who gets the subsidies, and am extraordinarily well compensated for my efforts. :devil:


----------



## Musician (Jul 25, 2013)

If you'll get the government get involved in this, then I say that the 'Shostakovich' effect may take place...


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

For a simpleton like me, the percentage size of the national budget that is allotted for culture is a good measure for how civilized a nation is! 

/ptr


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ptr said:


> For a simpleton like me, the percentage size of the national budget that is allotted for culture is *a proof for how civilized the nation is!*
> 
> /ptr


As in...not very?............................................

Edit: Actually, I didn't even check what country you were talking about hahaha. My bad, when I said "not very" I was thinking of my own country (USA) which has a **** poor percentage of the national budget dedicated to almost anything except blowing people up.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

You do know that simply heaps of the great music of the past we still enjoy today was made possible by a commission, which is akin to a grant, subsidy, what you will?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't think government is qualified to decide what is and what is not art.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

violadude said:


> As in...not very?............................................


Sure, remember that English is neither my first or second language, I struggle sometimes to be intelligible... :angel:

I have rephrased! ...

/ptr


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ptr said:


> Sure, remember that English is neither my first or second language, I struggle sometimes to be intelligible... :angel:
> 
> I have rephrased! ...
> 
> /ptr


I have edited my post too. Forgive the misunderstanding, it's late/early


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> As in...not very?............................................


That is generally understood when a European makes such a comment, LOL, especially when it is somehow directed at / inflected towards the situation in good ole U.S. of North America.

To them, we are 'quaint' and more than a little barbarian -- I kinda agree, but I rather like my primitive country, though it is a nation of near philistines when it comes to the arts in general -- Yeah, yeah. yeah oh baby...

and that is because what composer John Coolidge Adams did say about the state of America's culture is the harsh reality -- the country was established by religious zealots (who thought art frivolous or downright evil) and venture capitalists, who were and are never too willing to part with a penny for anything so abstract and impractical as art. Add to that that any and all those folk combined have a very extreme distrust of anything remotely intellectual, and that is very much American culture.

The above should be tempered a bit by the fact of what "we" have produced, and do produce and support by way of the arts, but it is nearly alien to our slightly over two hundred year "culture," as it is.

You can readily happen upon a busker with a guitar on the streets of, say, Hamburg, and it is not unlikely that busker will be playing classical guitar and the piece will be by Bach: simply, it is directly a part of their culture, and not directly part of American culture.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Weston said:


> I don't think government is qualified to decide what is and what is not art.


But I at least don't say that they should decide but rather only allot the money!

/ptr


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Weston said:


> I don't think government is qualified to decide what is and what is not art.


Bureaucracy and art seriously do not mix well


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I've never heard of a composer finding it difficult to survive these days. There are pros and cons to having subsidies for composers, I think it would be more beneficial for there to be more funding given to the arts in general in which case it would be more affordable for music organisations to commission new music more often.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, certainly! But only if I get to decide who gets the subsidies, and am extraordinarily well compensated for my efforts. :devil:


What money does go to fund the arts from our tax dollars is, for even the highest-bracket income tax payer, no more than what I saved re-using that unmarked postage stamp I carefully lifted off the envelope and re-used.

I somehow think your or my one-hundredth of a cent hardly gives us the right to say who gets the subsidy, or what kind of music they write.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

And sure, I understand that my statement is very feeble and that the financing of the arts have very little to do with how civilized a nation actually is, but it for sure says quite allot about the status of arts/culture of said nation! 

And BTW Petr, I did not specifically think of the US when I wrote "pointing my finger" as of above because several countries in Europe (The EU) are heading down the same tracks as have been the rule in the US (i.e. less government spending on the Arts), for me it is not about loving one's Country (which I believe most of us more or less do!) but rather disliking some of the political trends that seems to be the fad of the moment!

Sorry for getting all mushy and political!

/ptr


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Composer should have a day job and be useful members of society. They can compose on weekends and in their spare time.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Composer should have a day job and be useful members of society. They can compose on weekends and in their spare time.


A day job, like teaching, writing film scores, or selling insurance?


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

I'd say that an evening job would be more appropriate for a composer (Mahler and Bernstein agree!).

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Composer should have a day job and be useful members of society. They can compose on weekends and in their spare time.


I wish that Beethoven had spent more time doing useful stuff - how much better off we would be!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Hey, if the banks and big businesses deserve subsidies, I think people like me surely do ^_^ at least we provide something worth a damn to the world, and work hard to do it, rather than live as repulsive leeches and parasites.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

The libertarian in me can't get with this. I'm sympathetic to people who fancy themselves great composers and can't make a living at it, but no one is entitled to the career of their dreams.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> The libertarian in me can't get with this. I'm sympathetic to people who fancy themselves great composers and can't make a living at it, but no one is entitled to the career of their dreams.


I don't like libertarians. (not because I expect things to be handed to me, I don't)


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> (not because I expect things to be handed to me, I don't)


So do we agree on no subsidies then?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> So do we agree on no subsidies then?


No. A composer being paid by the government is being paid for work, rather hard work thank you very much.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> No. A composer being paid by the government is being paid for work, rather hard work thank you very much.


I don't doubt that it is hard work.

I'm wondering who would get these subsidies? Anyone with a music degree? Only certain composers? Who decides? A panel of experts in some hypothetical Ministry of Art and Culture?

Seems pretty unworkable to me.

edit: I should point out that I'm differentiating here between a subsidy and a commission. If the government commissions a piece for some specific reason, that, to me, is different from a subsidy.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Artists in the past got support from authority, whether it was an individual aristocrat, the state, or the church because they reflected those institutions of authority and represented them to the society which those authorities governed. They represented the doctrines of the church for church goers or achievements of the state for citizens of the state. Or they entertained figures of authority or represented traditional forms which were pleasing to them.

Why should modern artists, whose works are largely anti-authority or completely abstract and uninterested in authority, receive support from authorities they only ignore or undermine?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Most of the classical music life in a small country like Denmark would be errased by the absence of public funding, and we would probably never have heard from a majority of the composers that are known nowadays also internationally.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think some people here are thinking of the funding as something given to the composer to _help the composer_. If so, that funding would be similar to welfare, but that is not at all what I imagine. The question is whether society should fund the arts (or classical music composers in particular) _for the benefit of society_.

Presently governments allocate money to various groups in order to fund scientific research. The vast majority of those funds are distributed based on peer reviewed proposals. The peers are fellow scientists. While some funding is allocated specifically for military or health purposes, for example, much is for "pure" science. Basically, the government is saying, "We think particle physics or solid state physics research will benefit society, _and_ we know that particle physicists or solid state physicists are the best people to determine how the money is allocated. So here's your money. Now go do your thing."

I think it's certainly reasonable for governments to decide that the arts are beneficial for society, and further, that public spending on the arts would increase the overall well being of society. Governments could then allocate funding for classical composers and setup methods similar to what exists in the sciences to distribute that funding. Classical musicians would determine how the money gets spent - not how much money is allocated. The government's job would be to determine how much public funding would benefit the arts in general and classical music in particular.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> A day job, like teaching, writing film scores, or selling insurance?


Yes, why not? Many of us with aspirations for other things have to work to put bread on the table. I know that such a writer as John Grisham wrote his first novel in his spare time while working as a lawyer. It is the way of the world. My own son is an aspiring songwriter but has to work to support himself. We might not like it but it is harsh economic reality. There are many hardworking people who keep the economy going, pay taxes and contribute to the life of the country and have to follow their dreams in their spare time.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think it's certainly reasonable for governments to decide that the arts are beneficial for society, and further, that public spending on the arts would increase the overall well being of society. Governments could then allocate funding for classical composers and setup methods similar to what exists in the sciences to distribute that funding. Classical musicians would determine how the money gets spent - not how much money is allocated. The government's job would be to determine how much public funding would benefit the arts in general and classical music in particular.


That is pretty reasonable.

I may have to soften my anti-subsidy stance.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

Last year I read a biography of Prokofiev. As much as I enjoyed learning about someone that I had so long avoided, it just added to a dark period in my thinking. At that time it seemed no matter what films I watched or book I read, it was a constant stream of one segment of society's brutal treatment of another; or some governmental bone-headed idiocy oppressing freedom of practically anything and everything. The whole era of Stalinist control over the arts should serve as a lesson to cast a skeptical eye toward any government's involvement in that area.

Since this is largely a political topic rather than musical, it shall be my last in this thread. But this is my first post in the forum. Greetings, people!


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think some people here are thinking of the funding as something given to the composer to _help the composer_. If so, that funding would be similar to welfare, but that is not at all what I imagine. The question is whether society should fund the arts (or classical music composers in particular) _for the benefit of society_.


But the kind of art likely to be produced today is not Mozart's art or Bach's art, just as one attending church today is not likely to hear a sermon by Bossuet. The kind of art modern artists are likely to create if they are given funding is simply repulsive or uninteresting to most people because it either represents a kind of personalized anarchy or a nothingness, rather than organic social or religious structure. Mainstream society will not pay for an art which insults or ignores it.

As an aside, I find the unqualified notion that the "arts" are good for society, to be empty and ridiculous. One must specify the content of that art. Just as "books" in themselves are not good or bad--their content must be judged. It is better not to read at all than to read trash. "Arts" in the abstract is something which can have no value, positive or negative.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Logos said:


> But the kind of art likely to be produced today is not Mozart's art or Bach's art, just as one attending church today is not likely to hear a sermon by Bossuet. The kind of art modern artists are likely to create if they are given funding is simply repulsive or uninteresting to most people because it either represents a kind of personalized anarchy or a nothingness, rather than organic social or religious structure. Mainstream society will not pay for an art which insults or ignores it.


Good point. Funding for the arts is difficult to justify in democracies.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Logos said:


> But the kind of art likely to be produced today is not Mozart's art or Bach's art, just as one attending church today is not likely to hear a sermon by Bossuet. The kind of art modern artists are likely to create if they are given funding is simply repulsive or uninteresting to most people because it either represents a kind of personalized anarchy or a nothingness, rather than organic social or religious structure. Mainstream society will not pay for an art which insults or ignores it.
> 
> As an aside, I find the unqualified notion that the "arts" are good for society, to be empty and ridiculous. One must specify the content of that art. Just as "books" in themselves are not good or bad--their content must be judged. It is better not to read at all than to read trash. "Arts" in the abstract is something which can have no value, positive or negative.


Art has value because no matter what the content it is likely to make a person think. Art of all kinds and all styles and all subjects present and confront people with information and ideas, and that is very important to people and society. To imply that social and religious structures are inherently good is the far more ridiculous notion.


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

I think that subsidies should go to performing arts organizations (like orchestras or opera companies), rather than directly to composers. The organizations can then commission works from the composers. This allows money to go to the composers while still providing a "filter" of sorts (by letting professionals decide which composers are likely to contribute the most "funding-worthy" music that will benefit society).

Win-win. Society gets great new art/culture, and good composers can get their hard-earned money. However, the arts organizations need enough subsidies to be able to afford commissioning works on a relatively regular basis.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Art has value because no matter what the content it is likely to make a person think. Art of all kinds and all styles and all subjects present and confront people with information and ideas, and that is very important to people and society. To imply that social and religious structures are inherently good is the far more ridiculous notion.


There is nothing good about unqualified thinking in itself. If that were true then a man's contemplation of his long lost beloved would be no more exalted than the thought of having forgotten to wipe one's bottom before pulling up one's trousers. Thinking about vulgar nonsense, falsities, banalities, filth, and disorganized fluff is just as bad as not thinking at all if not worse.

And if making one think is all art need do, then that should surely require no funding from a society or government that that artist ignores or dislikes. Of course, elements of all things make an intelligent man think--no one needs art for that. He needs art to help him think high thoughts, not any thoughts at all.

If all thinking is good, why should I think about your particular art? Why not think about a dust mite instead? It's just as "thinky" a thought as any other. By the same notion, you should think my way from now on instead of yours--it has equally thoughty thoughts as your thoughts, so what's the difference?

But then there are these ideas you say we should think about--but you say "no matter what the content" it makes us think of ideas. but you can't have an idea without content, why should any ideas command our attention more than any others if any particular content is unimportant? Even further, why should we subsidize it? That sounds like a recipe for a distilled intellectual vacuity of black hole proportions.

The modern artist to society: "give me money so I can insult and ignore you, and make you 'think'." what nonsense. humbug, codswallop, bah

*in a groucho marx voice* And foithamore it's stupid, even.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Relevant: The value of a government dollar spent on arts vs military in jobs created and taxes generated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-mcmahon/military-arts-funding_b_1238206.html#!
During World War II, Britain's finance minister recommended to Winston Churchill that they cut arts funding in order to better support the war effort. Churchill's reply was, "Then what are we fighting for?"


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Lunasong said:


> Relevant: The value of a government dollar spent on arts vs military in jobs created and taxes generated.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-mcmahon/military-arts-funding_b_1238206.html#!
> During World War II, Britain's finance minister recommended to Winston Churchill that they cut arts funding in order to better support the war effort. Churchill's reply was, "Then what are we fighting for?"


Yes, but by art Churchill meant Shakespeare, not college students pooping on a canvas or composers who write silence, which is what we'd be paying for today. I'd pay the artists of the past, not the the clowns and con men we've got today.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Logos said:


> Yes, but by art Churchill meant Shakespeare, not college students pooping on a canvas or composers who write silence, which is what we'd be paying for today. I'd pay the artists of the past, not the the con men we've got today.


I think you have a narrow view of contemporary art.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Logos said:


> There is nothing good about unqualified thinking in itself. If that were true then a man's contemplation of his long lost beloved would be no more exalted than the thought of having forgotten to wipe one's bottom before pulling up one's trousers. Thinking about vulgar nonsense, falsities, banalities, filth, and disorganized fluff is just as bad as not thinking at all if not worse.
> 
> And if making one think is all art need do, then that should surely require no funding from a society or government that that artist ignores or dislikes. Of course, elements of all things make an intelligent man think--no one needs art for that. He needs art to help him think high thoughts, not any thoughts at all.
> 
> ...


The conservative longing for an affirmative art and even a prevailing cultural hegemony is understandable, but such views on the contemporary music scene don´t seem to be the result of studying its diversity. One finds a lot of seeking for beauty and meaning of life in contemporary music, if one looks for it. And what is hailed as a canon of "beauty" and "content" today was often very controversial in its days of origin.


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

Logos said:


> not college students pooping on a canvas


Well, when you gotta go, you gotta go.

But really, it is very narrow-minded to assume that there is no art worth funding today. In fact, it is probably the lack of funding that leads to kids pooping on canvases in a desperate grab for some attention.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> I think you have a narrow view of contemporary art.


Fair enough, but at best there are those who imitate things which have been done better. Then there is the weird for weird's sake crowd. Between those two groups there's a middle ground of semi-weird junk. We simply don't live in an age conducive to great art--far too disorganized socially for that. period


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> The conservative longing for an affirmative art and even a prevailing cultural hegemony is understandable, but such views on the contemporary music scene don´t seem to be the result of studying its diversity. One finds a lot of seeking for beauty and meaning of life in contemporary music, if one looks for it. And what is hailed as a canon of "beauty" and "content" today was often very controversial in its days of origin.


I would suggest that having to "study the diversity" and look further is an admission of the general darkness of the times. Nobody had to look for beauty in the great ages of art--in the florence of the medici, the age of Augustus, the age of Pericles, in music the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries etc. A man could point to towering cathedrals, frescoes, temples of the arts flooding the streets, opera houses, salons crowded with fine musicians both amateur and professional, monuments of cherished antiquity celebrated in the hearts of common and elite people alike. No one needed great art to be pointed out, he was drowning in it. It was, especially through religion, part of his normal routine existence, enriching his entire life. The fact that today we need full forensic examination to discover anything with a mere glimpse of beauty and truth in it is evidence of the poverty surrounding us.

Now a man asks where is greatness, and receives a reply, "get out your microscope". The age of Lilliputians is come


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Fair enough, but at best there are those who imitate things which have been done better. Then there is the weird for weird's sake crowd. Between those two groups there's a middle ground of semi-weird junk. *We simply don't live in an age conducive to great art--far too disorganized socially for that. period *





> I would suggest that having to "study the diversity" and look further is an admission of the general darkness of the times. Nobody had to look for beauty in the great ages of art--in the florence of the medici, the age of Augustus, the age of Pericles, in music the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries etc. A man could point to towering cathedrals, frescoes, temples of the arts flooding the streets, opera houses, salons crowded with fine musicians both amateur and professional, monuments of cherished antiquity celebrated in the hearts of common and elite people alike. *The fact that today we need full forensic examination to discover anything with a mere glimpse of beauty and truth in it is evidence of the poverty surrounding us*.


It seems to me that there is a contradiction here - you say that our age is disorganized; and also that the task of the artist is to represent the truth. Yet you also say that if artists represent this truth, the resulting art is ugly and unworthy.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> It seems to me that there is a contradiction here - you say that our age is disorganized; and also that the task of the artist is to represent the truth. Yet you also say that if artists represent this truth, the resulting art is ugly and unworthy.


Oh I don't dispute modern artists reflect the times. But the times are bad, at least for art. And so the art is bad. It is a truthful reflection, but I never said ALL truths are worthy of representation. That seems to me obviously false. "Truth" would need qualification. What truth? Just as I said all thoughts are not worth thinking, all truths are not worth telling. It is an unworthy time. Just as in biblical times the age immediately before the exile was an unworthy time.

We need either a definite culture that demands a definite art, or a definite art that demands a definite culture. However, I doubt whether we'll ever get either. And as it stands art is vacuum, just as modern society with its vast financial and technological assets is a powerful, giant, empty skeleton without flesh. All form, no content.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Well, the conclusion then really is that all contemporary music and art is bad, and our times not really worth spending any further thoughts or efforts on :lol:.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

I never said all--there's still hope. Not much hope at all really, but still some. Maybe.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

I don't live for art as an aesthete does, so I'd have to disagree that our times are not worth discussing simply because they lack great art. The Spartans never made great art, but they were great. One doesn't need art to be great.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Logos said:


> I don't live for art as an aesthete does, so I'd have to disagree that our times are not worth discussing simply because they lack great art. The Spartans never made great art, but they were great. One doesn't need art to be great.


People who indulged in infanticide great? Hmmm!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> People who indulged in infanticide great? Hmmm!


Speaking as a member of a people whose nation was founded on genocide, I try to be a bit less judgmental...


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Speaking as a member of a people whose nation was founded on genocide, I try to be a bit less judgmental...


The indians would have come over to europe on boats with guns and murdered europeans if they could build them. The only moral difference is that europeans had the technological sophistication to win and the indians lacked it.

there's no instance in history of a people having the means and motive to conquer a people and not doing it.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Logos said:


> I don't live for art as an aesthete does, so I'd have to disagree that our times are not worth discussing simply because they lack great art. The Spartans never made great art, but they were great. One doesn't need art to be great.


My point was that most contemporary artists try to deal with their times too in a conscious way, and that their art is not only egocentric utterences, isolated from society´s currents. Berio, Nono, Stockhausen, Nørgård, Pettersson, Saariaho and Schnittke are examples of composers both being formally innovative and dealing with big, collective and moral issues of our times.

Concerning the Spartans, they surely had the quality of endurance, but as you no doubt know, the more dubious aspects of their barren society is usually seen as pre-fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology). Overall I don´t agree with the sketched idylls of the past; underlying conflicts and class differences were manifest also back then. High Art was very much the means of an extremely narrow elite to stay in power. If you look back in history, realism in art, making it valuable and partly understandable for us today, has very much been a result of pressure for social reform from the rising middle classes. In a sense, the present cultural chaos is also the result of a pressure for a new distribution of wealth.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Commissions from the State of Virginia*



joen_cph said:


> Most of the classical music life in a small country like Denmark would be errased by the absence of public funding, and we would probably never have heard from a majority of the composers that are known nowadays also internationally.


I agree with your observation.

Do I have to remind our learned members of the my posts concerning premiers that my community band made? See:http://www.talkclassical.com/23209-desire-tonality-10.html#post403483 and http://www.talkclassical.com/23100-do-composers-have-any-3.html#post399371

For both of these works the money for the commissions came from the State of Virginia.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Speaking as a member of a people whose nation was founded on genocide, I try to be a bit less judgmental...


You mean Texans, right? ......


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Let's make sure the discussion remains on government's interaction with art and does not stray to pure politics. Purely political comments should be taken to the forum groups section.



Logos said:


> But the kind of art likely to be produced today is not Mozart's art or Bach's art, just as one attending church today is not likely to hear a sermon by Bossuet. The kind of art modern artists are likely to create if they are given funding is simply repulsive or uninteresting to most people because it either represents a kind of personalized anarchy or a nothingness, rather than organic social or religious structure. Mainstream society will not pay for an art which insults or ignores it.


There is much art produced today. Government funding should not be given randomly but, IMO, controlled by art committees that fund the best in contemporary art (or allow scholarships and fellowships for promising young artists or art students). Clearly some of this art will not be deemed great/good/beneficial just as much government and venture funding to private companies goes to companies that fail. We still view venture funding as enormously beneficial even though most companies fail.

I don't know what you mean by art that represents a personalized anarchy or a nothingness. The contemporary music I listen to seems far removed from either of those. Again some subsidized art may produce "garbage" in some people's views, but much funding of companies is "wasted" in that sense as well.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

*...and more specifically, contemporary composers writing new classical music, not just arts or classical music in general*. That's the question of the poll/


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Logos said:


> Oh I don't dispute modern artists reflect the times. But the times are bad, at least for art. And so the art is bad. It is a truthful reflection, but I never said ALL truths are worthy of representation. That seems to me obviously false. "Truth" would need qualification. What truth? Just as I said all thoughts are not worth thinking, all truths are not worth telling. It is an unworthy time. Just as in biblical times the age immediately before the exile was an unworthy time.
> 
> We need either a definite culture that demands a definite art, or a definite art that demands a definite culture. However, I doubt whether we'll ever get either. And as it stands art is vacuum, just as modern society with its vast financial and technological assets is a powerful, giant, empty skeleton without flesh. All form, no content.


I don't think I've ever read anything more absurd on this site. The times are probably among the best there has ever been for humankind overall, and the times for art are great. You are able to experience so much art that you never would have even gotten any chance at 100 years ago. You can experience art from throughout our collective history, and from pretty much anywhere in the world, and a ton of it is great and interesting. If you think there's no truth or beauty out there, perhaps the problem is that you just keep your eyes and ears closed all the time?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You are able to experience so much art that you never would have even gotten any chance at 100 years ago. You can experience art from throughout our collective history, and from pretty much anywhere in the world, and a ton of it is great and interesting.


The conversation is about art produced today, not historic art available to the public.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Logos said:


> The conversation is about art produced today, not historic art available to the public.


well if you think there isn't any good art produced nowadays.... then do you even know any current art?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> well if you think there isn't any good art produced nowadays.... then do you even know any current art?


Yes, I try not to know it, but unfortunately it's all over. I live in this time, I don't have to make an investigation of it to know its worthlessness. I see it every day.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Logos said:


> Yes, I try not to know it, but unfortunately it's all over. I live in this time, I don't have to make an investigation of it to know its worthlessness. I see it every day.


Poor fellow, born far far far too late after about 1880, I suspect. Must be just awful -- except for all the pop music you love, just --- nothingness.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Poor fellow, born far far far too late after about 1880, I suspect. Must be just awful -- except for all the pop music you love, just --- nothingness.


What pop music do I love?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Logos said:


> The indians would have come over to europe on boats with guns and murdered europeans if they could build them. The only moral difference is that europeans had the technological sophistication to win and the indians lacked it.
> 
> there's no instance in history of a people having the means and motive to conquer a people and not doing it.


Yeah! If only the American Indians were ruled by a tyrant like Isabella, they could have conquered Europe! :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Composer should have a day job and be useful members of society. They can compose on weekends and in their spare time.


They've already got one, or more than a few do, they compose for a living. I know, radical and difficult to conceive of concept, but there it is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Logos said:


> The indians would have come over to europe on boats with guns and murdered europeans if they could build them. The only moral difference is that europeans had the technological sophistication to win and the indians lacked it.
> 
> there's no instance in history of a people having the means and motive to conquer a people and not doing it.


"Please," (he said with all semblance of civility while stifling guffaws) the Indians would have had to shift to a hegemony to think of themselves collectively as one nation, then progress,as a nation, to a sense of sovereignty: they would have also along the way had to invent gunpowder (the westerners brought that in); ditto guns; ditto big ships, and they would have had to discover Europe & the other non-American continents.

Reading further through the ongoing spate of posts, I'm beginning to think the screen name you chose is more than heavily ironic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> They've already got one, or more than a few do, they compose for a living. I know, radical and difficult to conceive of concept, but there it is.


No problem with that as long as the job puts bread on the table for them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Speaking as a member of a people whose nation was founded on genocide, I try to be a bit less judgmental...


I was questioning whether the Spartans were 'great' not comparing them with others.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Logos said:


> Yes, I try not to know it, but unfortunately it's all over. I live in this time, I don't have to make an investigation of it to know its worthlessness. I see it every day.


You know, it might be a good idea to not just blast all modern music considering that several of the regulars on this forum are modern composers, and really mean thoughtless comments like this can be really hurtful.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You know, it might be a good idea to not just blast all modern music considering that several of the regulars on this forum are modern composers, and really mean thoughtless comments like this can be really hurtful.


If you're not overly sensitive, and I trust that as an artist you must know that you must keep the sensitivity gates open but also learn to filter nonsense out, recognize the source: then if nothing else, the contumely and ignorance is good for a sort of wry laugh.

Besides, any little bit of career in that arena, and I think most artists develop a near 100% accurate radar for those who are plainly not their audience now, or anywhere in the near future. Talking with them is truly a complete waste of time -- for both parties.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I have voted 'Yes' - composers of new music should receive subsidies. As has been pointed out above, artists, musicians & writers were supported by aristocratic patrons in the past, and they were producing new art/ music/ poetry. Today's new music becomes tomorrow's classic. It pleases me to think that as an ordinary tax payer, I am patroness of arts that will endure - some of it, anyway.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You know, it might be a good idea to not just blast all modern music considering that several of the regulars on this forum are modern composers, and really mean thoughtless comments like this can be really hurtful.


The world is an imperfect place. There will always be those who believe everything was better in the "good old day". Of course their perception of the "good old days" is a fantasy. Many actually believe that classical music would be more popular if the music they disliked did not exist.

Remember that in spite of their inaccurate observations you have many friends here.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I don't think giving composers public money can be justified. At least not directly. Subsidies should be given to musical organisations to support ensembles, orchestras and events on the condition that a certain proportion be used for the commissioning of new works. Let the musical directors of each organisation decide who to commission for new work but a balance must be struck between encouraging new work and meeting the needs of those who's money is being taken.

There are plenty of private patrons happy to support the visual arts and it is up to the composer to find their audience and patrons.

It doesn't do to be touchy about peoples' opinions of one's art. When you _know_ you have produced something good it doesn't matter if some people call it rubbish.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

PetrB said:


> "Please," (he said with all semblance of civility while stifling guffaws) the Indians would have had to shift to a hegemony to think of themselves collectively as one nation, then progress,as a nation, to a sense of sovereignty: they would have also along the way had to invent gunpowder (the westerners brought that in); ditto guns; ditto big ships, and they would have had to discover Europe & the other non-American continents.


Exactly. What precisely are you disagreeing with? I say if the indians had developed they would have conquered the europeans. You say, maybe if the indians had developed they would have conquered the europeans. You're just echoing me in a sassy way.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You know, it might be a good idea to not just blast all modern music considering that several of the regulars on this forum are modern composers, and really mean thoughtless comments like this can be really hurtful.


If I am so silly and they are confident in their art, why should they care? They should say damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> The world is an imperfect place. There will always be those who believe everything was better in the "good old day". Of course their perception of the "good old days" is a fantasy.


Then if all 'days' are equal, then it doesn't matter which day we favor or if we favor none. If I ignore therefore the modern day, what does it matter? I suppose you wouldn't have minded being born in the most barren depths of the dark ages, centuries so deeply backward one can print a full bibliography their entire worthwhile literary production on the back of a postage stamp. Would you say that the latin poets of the age of Augustus were not better than those of the 3rd century? Would you say that german literature in the 17th century was as great as that of the age of Goethe and Schiller? poppycock--some days are immeasurably better than others.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Logos said:


> Then if all 'days' are equal, then it doesn't matter which day we favor or if we favor none. If I ignore therefore the modern day, what does it matter? I suppose you wouldn't have minded being born in the most barren depths of the dark ages, centuries so deeply backward one can print a full bibliography their entire worthwhile literary production on the back of a postage stamp. Would you say that the latin poets of the age of Augustus were not better than those of the 3rd century? Would you say that german literature in the 17th century was as great as that of the age of Goethe and Schiller? poppycock--some days are immeasurably better than others.


It seems to me that Arpeggio is saying the opposite of what you extract from that post. That progression and qualitative differences exist.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> It seems to me that Arpeggio is saying the opposite of what you extract from that post. That progression and qualitative differences exist.


Yes, progression and qualitative differences exist. But so does regression. To ignore any of these phenomena would be a mistake in my estimation.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I am against the use of tax money to fund arts. Actually I am against the use of tax money for almost anything, in my political view the government must be smallest as possible. In my opinion if the composer is having problems to survive he is not creating music interesting enough for his audience. 

It is fair to give tax payer's money for a classical music composer when probably most people don't care about classical music at all? Who decide what people want to be funded or not? I don't think it is fair. I would rather reduce taxes than spend people's money against their will.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> It seems to me that Arpeggio is saying the opposite of what you extract from that post. That progression and qualitative differences exist.


Thanks. I would like to add I do not think new music is better than old music, it is just different.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Thanks. I would like to add I do not think new music is better than old music, it is just different.


Then how do you know what is best? What is your standard besides personal caprice?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

It would be fantastic if the US government could subsidize composers , just as it would be if it subsidized
our orchestras and opera companies the way they have been in Europe for so long .
But this is a pipe dream . Congress is filled with ignorant philistine GOP yahoos unfortuntely , so to get it to 
provide this kind of help would be an impossibility .
I wish there were more support in the private sector ,too . But difficult economic times have made
the privte sector less inclined to do so . Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could trnsform the classical 
music scene in America without losing too much money , but they don't wnt to .
I remember hearing bout Bill Gates saying he did not want to help opera companies in America , but I
don't know his exact reason . He didn't mention our orchestras at all . 
Not too long ago on my blog "The horn" at blogiversity.org I wrote a post called "An Open Letter To Bill
Gates Regarding Classical Music In America, telling him how providing funds for classical music in America would be a very worthwhile pursuit
for him to undertake .


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> A day job, like [...]*selling insurance*?


Can't quite recall, but wasn't that what Ives did during the day?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Can't quite recall, but wasn't that what Ives did during the day?


Exactly.

In other, somewhat extraneous, words, that is precisely correct.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

julianoq said:


> I am against the use of tax money to fund arts. Actually I am against the use of tax money for almost anything, in my political view the government must be smallest as possible. In my opinion if the composer is having problems to survive he is not creating music interesting enough for his audience.
> 
> It is fair to give tax payer's money for a classical music composer when probably most people don't care about classical music at all? Who decide what people want to be funded or not? I don't think it is fair. I would rather reduce taxes than spend people's money against their will.


The problem is that, in the real world, things are not even remotely as linear as you think in your opinion.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

superhorn said:


> It would be fantastic if the US government could subsidize composers , just as it would be if it subsidized our orchestras and opera companies the way they have been in Europe for so long . But this is a pipe dream . Congress is filled with ignorant philistine GOP yahoos unfortuntely , so to get it to provide this kind of help would be an impossibility .


I don't have facts and figures to hand, but I'm sure many composers receive government support indirectly from universities in addition to publicly funded arts grants. Even the philistines in Congress (D & R!) haven't _entirely_ destroyed our musical culture!


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

Every composer that I know (or know of) has a couple of jobs going at the same time. All teach at university / conservatoire, or perform, but none of them live solely from their compositional activities. Personally, I'm all for increased subsidies to the relevant bodies to issue commissions left, right and centre.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

yes, I am fully for subsidies as well as for more patronage. I'd rather have my taxes go to the arts than to all the private consultants the public sector feels like hiring for ridiculous fees and little practical reasons besides nepotism.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I, for one, don't begrudge Sibelius the pension he received from the Finnish government, which enabled him to compose his magnificent symphonic cycle--and to purchase Ainola, which is quite attractive (judging from a photograph of it I keep seeing around this forum).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> yes, I am fully for subsidies as well as for more patronage. I'd rather have my taxes go to the arts than to all the private consultants the public sector feels like hiring for ridiculous fees and little practical reasons besides nepotism.


Unfortunately the same thing could be said about some subsidies of art which has little value or interest.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Unfortunately the same thing could be said about some subsidies of art which has little value or interest.


Alright David, fair enough. Let's play a little game now: by some unknown electoral machinations, you (DavidA) end up holding the governmental purse strings for arts subsidies. You are the Big Money Man, you are The Man (or Woman) to come to, cap in hand, for the next three years. Where will the money go, DavidA? And perhaps more pertinently, where will the money *not* go to?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Unfortunately the same thing could be said about some subsidies of art which has little value or interest.


except for the ridiculous fees


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Have to go practice.*



Logos said:


> Then how do you know what is best? What is your standard besides personal caprice?


Logos,

I have better uses of my time then to get into a fruitless petty argument concerning the pros and cons of contemporary music or how you are misrepresenting everything I have said. You already know the answers to the artificial questions you are asking.

I have to sign off now. I have two performances coming up were I will have to play the bassoon part to the _Sorcerer's Apprentice_, the Borodin _Second Symphony_ and all sort of other neat stuff. I have some heavy practicing to do. For now you will have to carry on without me. Have a nice day.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

aleazk said:


> The problem is that, in the real world, things are not even remotely as linear as you think in your opinion.


It may not be so linear, but I still think that the government should not fund arts.

I will give as an example what is happening right now on my country. The government is using a law created to fund arts to give money to almost every remotely well-known pop/rock band as a way to make them pro-government. Almost no musician/artist say anything against the government party anymore because they are all bought. We are having millions and millions of tax payers money going to shut up the artists. One singer received a million bucks just to create a blog. One artist named Lobão who often criticizes the government recently had a proposal to receive almost 1 million dollars out of the blue, just to shut up. He denied, but he is one in hundreds.

This is the kind of thing that happens once you give arbitrary power for the government to give money for an abstract thing as "art".


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> [...] I have to sign off now. I have two performances coming up were I will have to play the bassoon part to the _Sorcerer's Apprentice_, the Borodin _Second Symphony_ and all sort of other neat stuff. I have some heavy practicing to do. For now you will have to carry on without me. Have a nice day.


Hey, don't go just yet Arpeggio! Tell us about the bassoon part for the Dukas' _Sorcerer's_ piece! I always liked that Apprentice piece and thought it would be a super work to use for teaching orchestration (which in my experience is poorly done in the institutions I've been in). Come on, spill the beans, please.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

julianoq said:


> This is the kind of thing that happens once you give arbitrary power for the government to give money for an abstract thing as "art".


He who takes the King's shilling plays the King's dance...ask Haydn! Of course for him it was a given...


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

KenOC said:


> He who takes the King's shilling plays the King's dance...ask Haydn! Of course for him it was a given...


Dear Ken, please forgive me if I don't take your posting to be hermetically closed to this particular thread (rather, I take the threads here to operate on some sort of symbiosis, know what I'm sayin'? Coz' I don't.) 
Anyway (getting there, finally), those that takes the King's shilling are often grunts (sorry, I mean jarheads, sorry, I mean Navy Seals), and are therefore Uzi-bearing ballet dancers with a mean streak.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

julianoq said:


> It may not be so linear, but I still think that the government should not fund arts.
> 
> I will give as an example what is happening right now on my country. The government is using a law created to fund arts to give money to almost every remotely well-known pop/rock band as a way to make them pro-government. Almost no musician/artist say anything against the government party anymore because they are all bought. We are having millions and millions of tax payers money going to shut up the artists. One singer received a million bucks just to create a blog. One artist named Lobão who often criticizes the government recently had a proposal to receive almost 1 million dollars out of the blue, just to shut up. He denied, but he is one in hundreds.
> 
> This is the kind of thing that happens once you give arbitrary power for the government to give money for an abstract thing as "art".


Well, the same thing happens in my country (Argentina). We have a populist government who buys followers with subsidies (recently there has been a scandal because of millionaires subsidies given to pro-government filmmakers). Of course, I'm against that, since it's also a form of censure, as you noticed.
But that's a different thing with regard to this linear association between "no success at the large scale - bad artist".
Also, all this corruption in these governments is because there are no control mechanisms. Of course, a policy of subsidies would never work under these circumstances.
But, anyway, I prefer to not close the door completely to this alternative. Maybe in the future, with more serious governments.
I don't believe in the free-market as you, but also I don't believe in complete statism. Equilibrium, that's the real thing for not alienating people.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Here public funding is of course based on what we call the "arm´s length principle": politicians are never allowed to interfere with the distribution of financial means to any individual artists, and the decision-making is done by art experts only, with a limited time of service in the relevant boards. If politicians try to interfere, it causes major alarm in the press and it is not accepted. 

A number of artists (writers, composers, film makers, designers etc., currently 275) are given a very modest life-long grant as a sign of gratitude for their work´s cultural importance on a national level. This grant is based on the their income - the maximum given yearly amount is around 24000 $, a bit less than what is needed for an average existence, the minimum is around $ 2200. Currently 35 composers of music in various genres are on the list. This is out of a population of 5.6 million. So the amounts are limited, a total of $ 4,5 million or so, but can be useful for the individual artists and his/her output. Other public grants and subsidies are of a limited time-span.

As regards high-level musical education, it is free, though private instrumental education is also possible.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

joen_cph said:


> Here public funding is of course based on what we call the "arm´s length principle": politicians are never allowed to interfere with the distribution of financial means to any individual artists, and the decision-making is done by art experts only, with a limited time of service in the relevant boards. If politicians try to interfere, it causes major alarm in the press and it is not accepted.
> 
> A number of artists (writers, composers, film makers, designers etc., currently 275) are given a very modest life-long grant as a sign of gratitude for their work´s cultural importance on a national level. This grant is based on the their income - the maximum given yearly amount is around 24000 $, a bit less than what is needed for an average existence, the minimum is around $ 2200. Currently 35 composers of music in various genres are on the list. This is out of a population of 5.6 million. So the amounts are limited, a total of $ 4,5 million or so, but can be useful for the individual artists and his/her output. Other public grants and subsidies are of a limited time-span.
> 
> As regards high-level musical education, it is free, though private instrumental education is also possible.


And that's why Denmark and the other Nordic countries have such a low Gini index and a high HDI index. :tiphat: at you people.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Just came across this interesting anecdote--only tangentially related to the theme of the thread--among Stravinsky's conversations with Robert Craft:



> an English film producer, Michael Powell, came to see me in Hollywood with a project I found very attractive. He proposed to make a short film of a scene from the _Odyssey_; two or three arias as well as pieces of pure instrumental music and recitations of poetry would be required. Saying that [Dylan] Thomas had agreed to write the verse, he asked me to compose the music. Where were the angels, even the Broadway kind, and why are the world's commissions, grants, funds, foundations never available to the Dylan Thomases? I regret that the project was not realized. _The Doctor and the Devils_ film script proves, I think, that the poet's talent could have created the medium.


As I suggested, this doesn't really speak to the issue of government funding--I just regret that this strange project never materialized!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Well, the same thing happens in my country (Argentina). We have a populist government who buys followers with subsidies (recently there has been a scandal because of millionaires subsidies given to pro-government filmmakers). Of course, I'm against that, since it's also a form of censure, as you noticed.
> But that's a different thing with regard to this linear association between "no success at the large scale - bad artist".
> Also, all this corruption in these governments is because there are no control mechanisms. Of course, a policy of subsidies would never work under these circumstances.
> But, anyway, I prefer to not close the door completely to this alternative. Maybe in the future, with more serious governments.
> I don't believe in the free-market as you, but also I don't believe in complete statism. Equilibrium, that's the real thing for not alienating people.


Argentina is just one big screwed country down south.


----------

