Posted by Rick Denney on July 02, 2003 at 17:15:29:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: "How to Kill Orchestras" - NY Times posted by Socialist on July 02, 2003 at 15:29:58:
I don't think I want music linked with science. Science museums don't do much predicting, actually. They don't really point the way. They just tell non-scientists where the scientists have been. In that vein it is a purely educational institution. If classical music is to be considered only education, then it will surely die.
The Smithsonian does offer live historically informed musical performance, attended by, well, a few folks.
But music is art, not science. As art, it must communicate with people at a level beyond educational. They must receive some artistic emotional impact. When I see the word "important" applied to music, I want to turn and run. I don't need music to be important, but I do want it to be powerful. When composers think they are doing something important, they are usually impressing only themselves and their sycophants. And when I listen to something otherwise unlistenable because I think I'm doing something of importance (or even educational), I usually regret it. Composers who don't care if their music conveys an artistic emotional punch to anybody but themselves are just engaged in intellectual masturbation. It makes them go blind.
Visual arts are a much better metaphor. What do you see when you go to the National Gallery? You'll see photography, painting, sculpture, and a host of other visual arts media. You'll see examples of art from Egypt through Pollack. People will laugh at the Pollack, but they will only spend ten minutes looking at it for their two hour museum visit. Most of their time will be spent looking at the things they enjoy looking at. If there are none of those things present, they won't come back. People go to museums because they want to. They support museums because they see the value in them. Members of Congress don't get turned out of office because they vote for Smithsonian funding, because the Smithsonian enjoys broad support among the people doing the paying for it. Orchestras don't get that kind of broad-based support. When you go to the Smithsonian and see all the programs they have targeted to all kinds of people, you'll see why they have that support.
Orchestras, on the other hand, have not been trying to please the broad public, or have forgotten how to. Many of them have only Rembrandt, and bore those who might be moved by Pollack. Many have only Pollack, and offend most people who might otherwise pay to hear a bit of Rembrandt. They never consider why people don't show up, and instead blame their lack of interest on poor education and declining social values.
I assure you that leaders of the Smithsonian Institution spend every minute of every day thinking of ways to build support for their program by making sure it has a broad appeal and that it gives a good value for the entertainment dollar. When 2.6 million tourists come to hear the Symphony every year, then that government subsidy will not be hard to get.
Rick "unpersuaded" Denney