September is traditionally the time when opera companies and orchestras return to their home cities from Aix, Salzburg, Tanglewood and countless other summer festivals. This is also marked (on both sides of the Atlantic) by the return of worries about how classical music is financed.
American symphonic life is Euro-centric in almost every respect except for its funding. Whereas Americans depend upon tax-deductible private donations and box office receipts to finance live classical music, Europeans prefer direct government support for the arts.
Ironically, while arts advocates in the US have long argued for adoption of the "European model" -- which has produced a rich and varied artistic life for Europeans -- Europe is being forced to change its system of support to one that depends more on private money and the box office.
Unfortunately, Europe's system of direct government financial support is falling victim to the continent's slow economic growth and budget deficits. Particularly for those countries that have adopted the euro, government spending on the arts will be constrained for some time by the requirement that fiscal deficits be kept to 3 percent of GDP.
The resulting pressure on Europe's performing arts institutions is causing concern at various different levels. Traditionally, Europe's social democracies have preferred allocating scarce goods and services like concerts and operas by queues (financed by huge subsidies to keep prices low) rather than by willingness to pay. Now, this will change.
Performing arts advocates in Europe point to the US, where among other things music directors of even major orchestras are now expected to fully participate in fundraising activities and be active in the local community on the orchestras' behalf. The same thing, they fear, will happen in Europe.
Some conductors have rejected important posts in the US for this reason, feeling that it would interfere with their art. Daniel Barenboim is rumored to have left the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in part because he objected to the fundraising demands that were being made of him.
But US experience shows that getting artistic leaders like orchestra music directors to participate in fundraising need not be bad for the artistic side of the job.
Michael Tilson Thomas in San Francisco, for example, has combined effective fundraising and artistic leadership to propel the San Francisco Symphony to the top rank of US orchestras.
It also should be reassuring to Europeans who fear that greater reliance on private money necessarily means conservative programming that the San Francisco Symphony has one of the most adventurous repertoires in the US.
If the audience has progressive tastes, private money and innovative programming are entirely compatible. A corollary is that public money makes it possible for adventurous programming even if audience tastes run on the conservative side.
This is one reason why performing artists in Europe like public money -- it liberates them from a diet of only Beethoven and Mozart. The audience may come to appreciate an adventurous repertoire the more it becomes exposed to it.
Of course, with reduced public spending on the performing arts, not only will there be greater reliance on private money, but ticket prices will have to rise as well. Some argue that this is a bad thing, because they prefer queuing to the price system and fear that higher prices will compromise future audiences by excluding young people.
But cheap prices for the performing arts do not solve the thorny problem of access for youth. First, youth may not take advantage of cheap tickets to the extent that they are not interested in going to hear live classical music at any price. Second, even if they do want to go, they may not be able to get seats, which often are not available because subscriptions stay in the same hands year after year.
What good are cheap prices -- which serve mainly to subsidize the same subscription holders -- if there are no seats? If a taste for classical music is to be subsidized, more targeted subsidies should be preferred to cheap prices.
The best way to bring youth to the performing arts is through education. Because American orchestras can't count on schools or government to provide the basic music education necessary to ensure a continuing audience, some orchestras are doing it themselves with private money.
In San Francisco, for example, the Symphony runs a US$23 million privately funded project called Keeping Score that includes a national public television series, radio shows, interactive music learning and school music programs.
This type of innovative program is relevant for European as well as American orchestras. The problem of youth and access to the performing arts exists on both sides of the Atlantic. So does poor music education in state schools. If orchestras don't look after their own futures, they may well not have one to look after.
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS