Wynton Marsalis on the importance of aggressive inspiration in education ...

[DawgBone]

My point was not that public funding for the arts should not exist. My point was WHO chooses that art? I notice there was no rock, pop, or blues on your list. Why not subsidize shows at a local blues club? Or jazz club? Or rock club? That art is every bit as valid as chamber orchestras and theatre companies. That's my point.

I would argue public finding for arts shouldn't exist. Either your work stands on its own legs financially or it can't. No doubt there is a whole class of musicians living high on the hog thanks to public funding. Get a real job. Every other musician who can't get enough work has to. What makes classical and opera so special? Background noise for rich people parties. Let them pay for it themselves and stop shaking everyone else down for it.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I'll go with an easy example, someone many jazz fans seem to resent or dislike - Diana Krall. I personally love her and think she's a great musician. We went to see her with my wife two or three years ago and are going again in a couple of weeks. My wife is that average person who thinks of jazz as purposely awful music. Yet she adored Diana's concert the last time. Joe Lovano and Marc Ribot were on stage with her and it wasn't all easy listening. Lovano didn't hold anything back. Well my wife happened to love Joe Lovano's playing as well. I was really suprised. That didn't turn her into a jazz listener, but how do you explain that? To me it's because of Diana's talent for connecting with the average listener - for reconnecting with the music's popular roots. It may well be that what jazz needs is not one but fifty Dianas - then there would be less talk of jazz being on life support.

The average person walking down the street doesn't go in big for instrumental music - of any style. (especially we Americans)

Most prefer to have a singer tell them a little love story, and tolerate some brief and good instrumental playing to complement it. In other words they have time for pop - and not much else.

[DawgBone]

Jazz guys don't want to make danceable music that much is pretty clear. it's below them. Hence a need for public funding like every other elite art form with no connecton to the real world anymore. Classical, opera, marching band, orchestral, etc. Taxpayer genres, lol.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

How is it elite? It didn't cost me more to see The Mask of Orpheus than it did to see Herbie Hancock or my ticket for Shakti.

All the trappings. The music hall. The educational profile of the audience (just a guess). The dress code. The formality and performance requirements of the orchestra. The size, scope and sophistication of the composition.

And last but not least, and not that all are equal - but - the unparalleled required performance capabilities of the singers.


And at The Met - the dinner! (should you choose to go that route). Recommended. :0

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I would argue public finding for arts shouldn't exist. Either your work stands on its own legs financially or it can't. No doubt there is a whole class of musicians living high on the hog thanks to public funding. Get a real job. Every other musician who can't get enough work has to. What makes classical and opera so special? Background noise for rich people parties. Let them pay for it themselves and stop shaking everyone else down for it.

I'm OK with it, as long as it's reasonable. I'd be OK with it for jazz too. That might set an example for kids to go for jazz music, and might yield a number of good - and even great - new players!

I'd be OK with that.

[mr. beaumont]

Yes, all those rich jazzers in NYC waiting tables and teaching.

[DawgBone]

Yes, all those rich jazzers in NYC waiting tables and teaching.

While not plainly written in the job description a side gig is often a part of the musical career path. There isn't enough funding to throw cash at every guy with a guitar leaned in his corner.

Austin is offering a 5k grant right now to area musicians. I already received the covid relief funds since they effectively ruined my career for two years. .Maybe I can qualify for this one. If they keep up the grants maybe I will make up all that lost income but I would've rather just made the money working. The same people who claim to support live .usic in Austin are the same people who damaged live music in Austin because of the pangolin sniffle. Not a worthy excuse IMO.

[ruger9]

I would argue public finding for arts shouldn't exist. Either your work stands on its own legs financially or it can't. No doubt there is a whole class of musicians living high on the hog thanks to public funding. Get a real job. Every other musician who can't get enough work has to. What makes classical and opera so special? Background noise for rich people parties. Let them pay for it themselves and stop shaking everyone else down for it.

I don't disagree. I'm a big free market person. My point is, IF you think it's a good idea to subsidize art with taxpayer dollars, you can't pick and choose some art and not others- it's bigoted and elitist.

[ruger9]

Jazz guys don't want to make danceable music that much is pretty clear. it's below them. Hence a need for public funding like every other elite art form with no connecton to the real world anymore. Classical, opera, marching band, orchestral, etc. Taxpayer genres, lol.

And that's interesting, since that's where jazz CAME FROM. From New Orleans in the 20's, through the big band era and into the 50s, jazz was always about dancing and partying.

[James W]

My point is, IF you think it's a good idea to subsidize art with taxpayer dollars, you can't pick and choose some art and not others- it's bigoted and elitist.

Nope, it's cognisant of the fact that some kinds of music/art don't need a subsidy, e.g. pop, whereas others do.

You remove state-funding from things like opera and they become even more the preserve of the rich and wealthy. THAT is elitism.

The so-called free market dogma is simply a race to the bottom. Capitalism indisputably needs the state to keep it running, that's a fact.

[ruger9]

Nope, it's cognisant of the fact that some kinds of music/art don't need a subsidy, e.g. pop, whereas others do.
.

Again... "says WHO?" If not enough people like opera to keep it going in a free market system, then it's time for it to die. And that goes for ANY art form.

State funding is a sticky wicket, because it's all a matter of political identity and opinion (at least with the arts; with many other things it's all about grift.)

Maybe the state should subsidize punk? Because it certainly can't survive on it's own. Or Gregorian chant- it definitely needs a state subsidy. Bluegrass certainly has a tough time of it, except for a select few at the very top... it needs a govt subsidy!

[RLetson]

The arts don't need public support or subsidies? How about libraries and museums? Why not go back to private schools? And do football teams really need tax breaks to build their facilities?

Or, if even-handedness is the issue, how about a grant in support of Taylor Swift's latest tour? Maybe offer her a tax break if she'll include our town. . . .

Gas-law libertarianism is fun in the debate club, but it's a gnarly bugger out in the world.

[DawgBone]

I don't disagree. I'm a big free market person. My point is, IF you think it's a good idea to subsidize art with taxpayer dollars, you can't pick and choose some art and not others- it's bigoted and elitist.

Par for the course! For the covid relief grant they asked all sort of intrusive questions like my age, my gender identity, my preferred pronouns, my sexual preferences, my race, and whether I had access to banking services. Almost like they wanted to make sure no straight white males with a functioning debit card received funds or at least move em to the back of the line. The hell any of that has to do with anything? Oh we are trying to serve marginalized groups first. I'm playing blues here and I can't even afford to live in your shifty city so let's talk about marginalized. I thought marginal was something you spread on your toast in the morning. I just checked "prefer not to say" cause I never answer dumbass questions like that.

[RLetson]

Bluegrass certainly has a tough time of it, except for a select few at the very top... it needs a govt subsidy!

Actually, the grants I write for the folk society would cover bluegrass. (I think the Benedictine monastery down the road might have Gregorian chant covered.)

[DawgBone]

The arts don't need public support or subsidies? How about libraries and museums? Why not go back to private schools? And do football teams really need tax breaks to build their facilities?

Or, if even-handedness is the issue, how about a grant in support of Taylor Swift's latest tour? Maybe offer her a tax break if she'll include our town. . . .

Gas-law libertarianism is fun in the debate club, but it's a gnarly bugger out in the world.

None of those things deserve any subsidies. In fact I can't make sense out of .asking childless people to fund public schools either. If I shoved a bunch of stuff you didnt want in your Wal mart cart and made you buy them you would feel violated but somehow funding some other crap with my money that I don't want is ok. They never ask for less just more more more. Subsidies are akin to an organized crime racket except they have force of law behind them.

[James W]

Again... "says WHO?" If not enough people like opera to keep it going in a free market system, then it's time for it to die. And that goes for ANY art form.

Putting aside the rank philistinism of this comment, you've demonstrated the lie of the 'free market' - it simply doesn't exist, and never has. Hence your need to use the word 'if'.

[mr. beaumont]

The music of a free market system:

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Nope, it's cognisant of the fact that some kinds of music/art don't need a subsidy, e.g. pop, whereas others do.

Yep. Another name for "Clasical" is "European Art Music". Art.

It is Art because it was intended to be. And it is old. More than a few people believe that it is intrinsically valueable enough to warrant support - for the long haul. Pop, on the other hand is meant to be temporal, have "a hook", catch on big, and is targeted to teens to early 20-somethings. A one hit wonder can make millions.

So the question here is, what about jazz? Is it long lasting? Is it rendered with artistic motivations beyond temporal servings to snot-nosed brats? Capital Records thought so. That's why they paid Miles way more than they would make in the short run. They weren't thinking about months of sales, they were thinking about decades. And they were right.

[jameslovestal]

I would argue public finding for arts shouldn't exist. Either your work stands on its own legs financially or it can't. No doubt there is a whole class of musicians living high on the hog thanks to public funding. Get a real job. Every other musician who can't get enough work has to. What makes classical and opera so special? Background noise for rich people parties. Let them pay for it themselves and stop shaking everyone else down for it.

I can agree with no public funding for the arts as long as there is also no public funding for any religious institutions.

Each should be able to stand-on-their-own and if an art-form or religious institution does not have enough private funding to survive, it dies.

[jameslovestal]

Putting aside the rank philistinism of this comment, you've demonstrated the lie of the 'free market' - it simply doesn't exist, and never has. Hence your need to use the word 'if'.

While there is a lot of folly associated with the term "free market", lets get back to the fundamental question; Should tax payer funds be used to support the arts or music? I say no. Same goes for languages. If there are enough people that care about certain art or musical forms, or specific languages, they will continue on. If not, they die.

[DawgBone]

The music of a free market system:

Actually no. The billboard hot 100 charts have been and always will be payola. A completely rigged game for the "chart topping" artists. The opposite of free market. There is an eye opening Tom Mcdonald video where he goes into great detail about how it's operated.

[ruger9]

Putting aside the rank philistinism of this comment, you've demonstrated the lie of the 'free market' - it simply doesn't exist, and never has. Hence your need to use the word 'if'.

haha right. You'll need to explain exactly how my "use of the word if" proves the free market system to be a lie.

Without govt subsidies (NOT a free market system), where would opera be? And much of classical? And even SOME jazz? It wouldn't. You do understand that "state subsidy" is the OPPOSITE of "free market", right? If there's a demand, there will be a supply.

[ruger9]

I can agree with no public funding for the arts as long as there is also no public funding for any religious institutions.

Each should be able to stand-on-their-own and if an art-form or religious institution does not have enough private funding to survive, it dies.

Is there public funding for religious institutions? Because if so, I am unaware of it. I know religious institutions have certain tax benefits... perhaps THAT is what we should do with the arts, instead of funding them?

[James W]

While there is a lot of folly associated with the term "free market", lets get back to the fundamental question; Should tax payer funds be used to support the arts or music? I say no. Same goes for languages. If there are enough people that care about certain art or musical forms, or specific languages, they will continue on. If not, they die.

And you would therefore welcome the idea of public schools scrapping their arts and music programs, which is surely an example of tax payers supporting those things?

As I've already pointed out, if you remove funding for these things they don't die, they just become more the preserve of rich or at least wealthier people.

It's funny for me reading these posts going on like society doesn't exist. Whingeing about having to pay taxes as though y'all are billionaires.

[ruger9]

While there is a lot of folly associated with the term "free market", lets get back to the fundamental question; Should tax payer funds be used to support the arts or music? I say no. Same goes for languages. If there are enough people that care about certain art or musical forms, or specific languages, they will continue on. If not, they die.

Well, as I said: I'm FAIR. If SOME arts are to be funded, ALL arts should be. If SOME arts are excluded, ALL arts should be.

I can tell you this: I'd rather fund arts than foreign countries. Or more wars. Or a hundred other things. Rockets to Mars? Look- I love space flight as much as anyone, but we don't need to spending ANY taxpayer funds to try to colonize mars. Let's stop sending billions (trillions?) overseas (and shooting it into space) and instead put it to work here.