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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS