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

[DawgBone]

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.

Applying the free market system to jazz means having a singer and some danceability. That suggestion hasn't gone over well in this thread. Lol

[ruger9]

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.

You'll have to elaborate, unless you mistyped and meant "as though [we'all] AREN'T billionaires." Because none of us are.

[James W]

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.

Yeah you're right - the free market sounds like total shit, none of my favourite music would exist if it existed, which it doesn't, as I've pointed out now MULTIPLE times.

[ruger9]

Applying the free market system to jazz means having a singer and some danceability. That suggestion hasn't gone over well in this thread. Lol

Again... says WHO? Maybe jazz would be more mainstream if it was danceable; IDK. But I do know that jazz would be more popular if people liked it more. Which they don't. So why is that? It's not because of LACK of subsidies. "It's the music, dummy." (and I say that as a jazz fan). It is what it wants to be: because if it wanted to be something else [more popular], it would change to become that. But jazzers in general don't actually want to do that: they are more idealistic. It's about the ART, not the popularity.

If you want to make a good living, perhaps choose plumbing or electrical or engineering or finance, instead of playing jazz. Because you already know where that leads, financially. It's not a secret or a surprise. Or do what Kenny G, Harry Connick Jr, and Michael Buble did. You'll be rolling in cash.

[ruger9]

Yeah you're right - the free market sounds like total shit, none of my favourite music would exist if it existed, which it doesn't, as I've pointed out now MULTIPLE times.

NOW we get to it- you're a socialist. You just haven't wanted to say it. Understood.

[DawgBone]

Yeah you're right - the free market sounds like total shit, none of my favourite music would exist if it existed, which it doesn't, as I've pointed out now MULTIPLE times.

All my favorite .music was made without subsidies. You want to force someone else to fund the things you get enjoyment out of. Forced patronage lol.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Voters can decide, just like they decide in some cases to let the culture of their cities decay. Whatever people want.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Going off into corners and digging into extremes is probably unnecessary, because we don’t really have that. Both red and blue states value the arts. If it ain’t broke….

[ruger9]

Voters can decide, just like they decide in some cases to let the culture of their cities decay. Whatever people want.

I would LOVE if each voter could vote on whether THEIR tax dollars go for things: on an issue by issue basis. THAT would be "the voters deciding". Instead what we have is the "people who got hired to a job, or appointed to an office by someone who was elected, being influenced by powers-that-be (I have seen this even on a county level) and by various types of payoffs, deciding."

[mr. beaumont]

When they outlaw jazz, only the outlaws will have jazz.

[ruger9]

When they outlaw jazz, only the outlaws will have jazz.

Truth!

[DawgBone]

Again... says WHO? Maybe jazz would be more mainstream if it was danceable; IDK. But I do know that jazz would be more popular if people liked it more. Which they don't. So why is that? It's not because of LACK of subsidies. "It's the music, dummy." (and I say that as a jazz fan). It is what it wants to be: because if it wanted to be something else [more popular], it would change to become that. But jazzers in general don't actually want to do that: they are more idealistic. It's about the ART, not the popularity.

Yes the most idealistic musicians I know work as sidemen for someone else less idealistic and more business oriented. Someone not satisfied with waiting for subsidies. Tell me all about your artistry I will take a whopper and fries thanks.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I would LOVE if each voter could vote on whether THEIR tax dollars go for things: on an issue by issue basis. THAT would be "the voters deciding". Instead what we have is the "people who got hired to a job, or appointed to an office by someone who was elected, being influenced by powers-that-be (I have seen this even on a county level) and by various types of payoffs, deciding."

I get it, it’s just not practical.

[mr. beaumont]

Both red and blue states value the arts.

Unless it's books that make people uncomfortable. Then, BAN THEM!

Or David's penis.

[ruger9]

Unless it's books that make people uncomfortable. Then, BAN THEM!
.

Or Twitter posts. At least under the old guard.

[mr. beaumont]

Or Twitter posts. At least under the old guard.

There is nothing artistic about a Twitter post.

[ruger9]

There is nothing artistic about a Twitter post.

I was speaking more about banning things you don't agree with, of course.

[DawgBone]

There is nothing artistic about a Twitter post.

So what do you say to the person on Twitter who disagrees with that cause they post poetry specifically to Twitter and are seeking grants to further their artistry? Lol

Ruger9 says fund em all. I say fund em none. James just wants stuff he likes funded. We are reaching an impasse, together.

[ruger9]

So what do you say to the person on Twitter who disagrees with that cause they post poetry specifically to Twitter and are seeking grants to further their artistry? Lol

Ruger9 says fund em all. I say fund em none. James just wants stuff he likes funded. We are reaching an impasse, together.

No! I say fund ALL of them OR NONE of them. No favorites, regarding the arts... meaning, ALL the arts get funded or NONE of them do. Obviously things like infrastructure need funding, as an example of a "necessary evil". But we were talking about arts funding.

I'd hate to see "music" and "art" get removed from schools, especially for the elementary school kids. But nothing is ever black or white. Actually, I would fund elementary school music and art before all others. And if that's ALL that was funded, I'd be ok with that. But now we're getting into personal "wants"... introduce kids to music and art. But Wynford don't need no more tax dollars for Lincoln Center... unless my local blues club also gets a part of the pie. After all, blues is AMERICAN music. It was born here. (yes, it has many influences, we all know. But BLUES was born here in America.) Classical music was not born here.

[mr. beaumont]

So what do you say to the person on Twitter who disagrees with that cause they post poetry specifically to Twitter and are seeking grants to further their artistry? Lol

Ruger9 says fund em all. I say fund em none. James just wants stuff he likes funded. We are reaching an impasse, together.

Yes, thank you Elon for again allowing poetry on Twitter.

[m_d]

Yes, thank you Elon for again allowing poetry on Twitter.

Or poetic justice ?

[m_d]

No! I say fund ALL of them OR NONE of them. No favorites, regarding the arts... meaning, ALL the arts get funded or NONE of them do. Obviously things like infrastructure need funding, as an example of a "necessary evil". But we were talking about arts funding.

I'd hate to see "music" and "art" get removed from schools, especially for the elementary school kids. But nothing is ever black or white. Actually, I would fund elementary school music and art before all others. And if that's ALL that was funded, I'd be ok with that. But now we're getting into personal "wants"... introduce kids to music and art. But Wynford don't need no more tax dollars for Lincoln Center... unless my local blues club also gets a part of the pie. After all, blues is AMERICAN music. It was born here. (yes, it has many influences, we all know. But BLUES was born here in America.) Classical music was not born here.

That's a fair point. I was about to say, you can't compare popular music to classical music. I despise some popular music and much of modern art which I don't consider art at all... But I love the blues and consider the flourishing of popular culture in the US especially to have been the eighth wonder of the world. So there's your paradox. Not to talk about France again, but subsidization of the arts has all but killed the arts in that former beacon of the arts, a prime example being French cinema. A little known fact is that French actors are paid more, on average, than American actors, which is ridiculous given the appalling quality and low box office success and international appeal of current French movies. A former president had an affair with an apparently sucessful actress girlfriend, and, laughably, nobody in the public knew who she was or what movies she'd been in. The levels of public funding are comparable to the former USSR, whose artistic legacy is not especially remembered. Censorship is insidious too.

[James W]

Not to talk about France again, but subsidization of the arts has all but killed the arts in that former beacon of the arts,

France has always subsidised its arts. With this in mind, how can you say subsidization of the arts has killed the arts without suffering some serious cognitive dissonance?

[Tal_175]

One is free to start a private social media company and ban anyone who is not a trans man of Guatemalan descent and were not born in February 1967. That is not a violation of anyone's birth right to free speech. Certainly not the same thing as government banning books. I hope it is obvious to everyone that this is a false equivalence.

[DawgBone]

One is free to start a private social media company and ban anyone who is not a trans man of Guatemalan descendant and were born in February 1967. That is not a violation of anyone's birth right to free speech. Certainly not the same thing as government banning books. I hope it is obvious to everyone that this is a false equivalence.

Some books are smut and obscenity which should all be banned.