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
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS