Re: Re: Re: Saving Orchestras


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Joe Baker on May 05, 2003 at 13:10:06:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Saving Orchestras posted by Neil MacQuarrie on May 05, 2003 at 11:00:03:

I'm on record here as being fond-of-but-not-crazy-about symphonic music, but hoping that it stays around. I'm also on record as believing that should happen, if it does, as a result of market forces or contributions -- not taxation. With that said, you pose an interesting assertion:

If music as culture is indeed a means of expression of a people ....

The logical conclusion to be drawn from that assertion is:

... then classical music as culture is a means of expression of the people of the 18th and 19th centuries.

So is classical music still a part of our culture? I would have to say 'no', though I wish it was (as opposed to, say, rap or the overly sexualized pop music of the day). TO MOST AMERICANS, it is a relic of a by-gone day. Which begs a question from others on the list who think the government should support orchestras: does EVERY style of music deserve to be maintained by having tax-sponsored performers in EVERY town of 100,000 or more population? Even if not enough people care to voluntarily foot the bill? Should disco be subsidized? How about rap? Square-dancin' music? Why is orchestra music considered so special?

I don't happen to think things are as dire as some do for the state of the art. I DO think the situation is bleak for employment opportunities in symphony orchestras; at best, I think they will wax and wane with the economy, just like every other kind of job. I take no pleasure in it, but it is false kindness to pretend that the facts were otherwise.

Joe Baker, who apologizes to NM for taking a tangent.


Follow Ups: