funding the arts

[MartinC]

I have mixed feelings about it, which is a bit weird, because all the musicians I know pretty much are in favor for as much of it as possible. But I really don't see why the city , or any city, should ask tax payers to pay millions a year so elite classical musicians can get north of 100k a year for playing a season, playing in a gov funded venue in which no expense has been spared, get vacations and pensions, etc. Or for that matter, why some politically connected dance group, artist, glass blower, etc, should get a windfall while others, be they opera singers or rock musicians, get nothing. Why should some, who have learned to work the system, get support while the rest fend for themselves in the market?

I don't believe that certain art forms would cease if not supported-classical players play in community orchestras for beans all the time because they love it. Certainly, it's the case with plenty of rock bands that they will play for nothing

In SF, a hotel tax funds the "arts" if your savvy enough to get some, but I'm not even sure that is right. We all get taxed to death as it is, do we really need a 12% hotel tax so that when people visit, they have the option of seeing an art exhibit of a connected artist?

[kmart]

I dont think it's a fair assessment to paint arts funding in general as having much to do with the salaries of a tiny fraction of a percentage of the classical players at the upper echelons.

 

To use your given example (Classical music) arts funding goes towards making sure those symphonies have great venues to play in, can support all the admin staff/key organizational members, marketing, etc. needed to attract those upper echelon players, etc...and ALL of that goes towards making a given symphony have a higher profile and broader impact on their market in general, so that through a trickle-down effect, more people and more people's children appreciate and are interested in not just classical music, but have a greater appreciation of other music, and arts in general, as well.

 

Read up on any of numerous studies around how braodly arts impact & improve society in general, and I'd bet you won't have too much of an issue with it.

 

You want lower crime rates/fewer criminals?

You want your kids to do better in schools and/or to GO to better schools?

Fund the arts.

[Tomm Williams]

Martin

 

Some folks feel the same way about similar situations: why should adults without children pay school taxes? Why should someone without a car pay for road maintenance? Because it benefits us all as a whole. (IMO) If only those who were directly invoved in most any activity had to fund it, many wouldn't exist. Don't agree with the connection of arts and lowering crime. Perhaps Education/Arts/Etc.... Seen various studies concerning benefits of music, don't recall the crime issue being given that much weight.

[BlueStrat]

 

Martin Some folks feel the same way about similar situations: why should adults without children pay school taxes? Why should someone without a car pay for road maintenance? Because it benefits us all as a whole. (IMO) If only those who were directly invoved in most any activity had to fund it, many wouldn't exist. Don't agree with the connection of arts and lowering crime. Perhaps Education/Arts/Etc.... Seen various studies concerning benefits of music, don't recall the crime issue being given that much weight.

 

 

 

Well, that's kind of a weak argument, isn't it? Everyone needs streets to get around, and everyone needs our kids to be educated. But everyone needing to go see Vivaldi being performed at the opera house? Not so much.

[kmart]

 

But everyone needing to go see Vivaldi being performed at the opera house? Not so much.

 

 

It's not weak at all, but you're looking it it far too 'direct cause/effect'.

 

It doesn't work that way; it's more ripple/effect. Need to look at it more broadly in terms of how it impacts society as a whole.

 

Didn't a single one of you take even Sociology 100 in college? This is really elementary/basic 'for the benefit of society at large' stuff.

[TrickyBoy]

 

You want lower crime rates/fewer criminals? You want your kids to do better in schools and/or to GO to better schools? Fund the arts.

 

 

I think you went pretty direct cause/effect here. I see people spout this stuff and I laugh. So funding the arts lowers crime and makes schools better? Hmmm... Go somewhere like France where the schools are infinitely better than in the US and you know what, there's NO arts or athletics in the schools. You want to act or play an instrument or a sport, you join a club and take lessons - all on your own dime. IDK, I'm a pretty liberal dude, but I've always been adamantly against public funding of the arts.

[bnelly428]

I've always been adamantly against public funding.

 

Fixed

 

 

I took Soc 101, thats what we called an "Easy A" You show up and you get an A. All you have to do is answer every question against what makes sense and you will do well. That's what I did at least and I got an A

[kmart]

 

I think you went pretty direct cause/effect here.

 

 

No, no I didn't. I never said that one thing directly causes the other to happen. But if you connect the dots, that's what you end up with:

 

Found in random Google search that took all of 2 seconds...

 

"Why do our schools need the arts? Because kids who participate in the arts in school are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement than those who don't. They have better attendance, lower dropout rates, higher confidence and stronger writing skills. At-risk and special-needs students see stratospheric increases in achievement when their creativity is stimulated."

 

What do you believe those kids who don't get exposure to the arts, and who then don't go to school, who drop out, etc. end up doing? Do you think they are more likely, or less likely, to wind up criminals?

It's not about absolutes, but it sure as hell is about likelihood.

 

And you can talk about France or any other country all you want, but that's not here in the US, where the culture is completely different.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe France doesn't have arts in their schools because in France, arts/culture doesn't need to be taught?

[BlueStrat]

 

It's not weak at all, but you're looking it it far too 'direct cause/effect'. It doesn't work that way; it's more ripple/effect. Need to look at it more broadly in terms of how it impacts society as a whole. Didn't a single one of you take even Sociology 100 in college? This is really elementary/basic 'for the benefit of society at large' stuff.

 

 

 

I know, know, and I'm not opposed to funding arts when we can afford it, but when I'm paying taxes out the yang and I'm still driving on potholes and Johnny can't write a coherent sentence and calculate 10% without a calculator, I'm not too worried about the funding of the symphony or whether the crazy woman down the street making 'performance art' is getting a check.

[TrickyBoy]

 

Found in random Google search: "Why do our schools need the arts? Because kids who participate in the arts in school are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement than those who don't. They have better attendance, lower dropout rates, higher confidence and stronger writing skills. At-risk and special-needs students see stratospheric increases in achievement when their creativity is stimulated."

 

 

Ugh! But what those one sided studies completely omit and fail to address is WHY. Is it because the arts somehow make you an achiever? Or is it because achievers tend to be ones who also engage in the arts? I think you'll find it's much more the latter.

[MartinC]

I never said I wanted to do away with music education. I was writing specifically about funding performing artists. Do you think society needs to subsidize classical musicians, for example, in order to inspire kids, or would a community orchestra do it as well?

 

 

 

No, no I didn't. I never said that one thing directly causes the other to happen. But if you connect the dots, that's what you end up with: Found in random Google search that took all of 2 seconds... "Why do our schools need the arts? Because kids who participate in the arts in school are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement than those who don't. They have better attendance, lower dropout rates, higher confidence and stronger writing skills. At-risk and special-needs students see stratospheric increases in achievement when their creativity is stimulated." What do you believe those kids who don't get exposure to the arts, and who then don't go to school, who drop out, etc. end up doing? Do you think they are more likely, or less likely, to wind up criminals? It's not about absolutes, but it sure as hell is about likelihood . And you can talk about France or any other country all you want, but that's not here in the US, where the culture is completely different. Did it ever occur to you that maybe France doesn't have arts in their schools because in France, arts/culture doesn't need to be taught ?

 

[bnelly428]

I know, know, and I'm not opposed to funding arts when we can afford it, but when I'm paying taxes out the yang and I'm still driving on potholes and Johnny can't write a coherent sentence and calculate 10% without a calculator, I'm not too worried about the funding of the symphony or whether the crazy woman down the street making 'performance art' is getting a check.

 

I was thinking this exact thing this morning... 11% unemployment in RI yet we have HUGE POT HOLES in every street that I take for my commute to work. Shouldn't we be giving this job to the jobless? Oh wait we would, but then the unions would demand $50/hour to hold a flag on a work site. Nevermind, I'll just pay my taxes and shut up like they want me to

[BlueStrat]

My feeling is artists create art because it's what they do. I put all my kids in private school and the all had pretty intensive art classes. And out of three of them, only one is artistic and she was artistic long before she ever went to school. The other two, not much at all, even though they had the same classes. I'm not convinced that public funding creates artists where none would exist before. It may help some at-risk kids stay focused, and provide them with means to make art, and I'm all for that. But when all our governments are flat broke, we can't fund everything, and we have to do some sort of triage. Yes, I know, arts always gets it first, and perhaps unfairly when we have other things that are just plain wasteful that could be cut. It's what happens when we allow governments to use money as leverage to buy votes and make deals. It gets people dependent on it, and when it dries up, everyone who gets it wants to keep it, and the squealing begins, sometimes justified, sometimes not, but as times get tougher and prices start rising sharply (food is up almost 30% in the past 6 months, compared to an overall inflation rate of less than 3%) it's going to get worse. Cotton has raised in price over 100%, gas is predicted to be as much as 5 dollars a gallon in maybe a year, corn has gone up nearly 50% (and nearly everything uses corn oil, corn starch or corn sugar) while wages remain stagnant or are dropping. We can debate the benefits of public arts funding all day, but the sad reality is people are going to increasingly be in no mood to pay for stuff they view as non-essential. It's the times we live in.

[pickinatit]

I'm all in favor of kids being exposed to some art technique, styles etc. as part of a school curriculum. But I personally see that as different from supporting the symphony orchestra, Opera House or Ballet etc.

I'm not sure that art should survive by being artificially bolstered. I mean if nobody cares about a given art except the artists then maybe it should wither on the vine instead of being artificially perpetuated. My main objection to public support of the arts is that I don't believe government should be deciding what is and isn't art and what art is worth supporting and what art isn't worthy of it. Art should thrive relative to people's personal interest and willingness to support it. Some people though just LOVE to be generous and support things with other people's money.

[wades_keys]

 

I dont think it's a fair assessment to paint arts funding in general as having much to do with the salaries of a tiny fraction of a percentage of the classical players at the upper echelons. To use your given example (Classical music) arts funding goes towards making sure those symphonies have great venues to play in, can support all the admin staff/key organizational members, marketing, etc. needed to attract those upper echelon players, etc...and ALL of that goes towards making a given symphony have a higher profile and broader impact on their market in general, so that through a trickle-down effect, more people and more people's children appreciate and are interested in not just classical music, but have a greater appreciation of other music, and arts in general, as well. Read up on any of numerous studies around how braodly arts impact & improve society in general, and I'd bet you won't have too much of an issue with it. You want lower crime rates/fewer criminals? You want your kids to do better in schools and/or to GO to better schools? Fund the arts.

 

^

What he said. Good post.

[wades_keys]

 

My feeling is artists create art because it's what they do. I put all my kids in private school and the all had pretty intensive art classes. And out of three of them, only one is artistic and she was artistic long before she ever went to school. The other two, not much at all, even though they had the same classes. I'm not convinced that public funding creates artists where none would exist before.

 

I agree.

 

But public funding can provide the means for those with artistic leanings to explore their chosen art to its full potential.

 

Anthony Jackson, the famous bassist, is a great example of how public funded jazz instruction enabled him to obtain the skills that he would need to succeed as a session bassist.

[Tomm Williams]

 

Well, that's kind of a weak argument, isn't it? Everyone needs streets to get around, and everyone needs our kids to be educated. But everyone needing to go see Vivaldi being performed at the opera house? Not so much.

 

 

My point was that there are those who think you should carry your own weight as much as possible. Be responsible for your own use of resources. If people who didn't own cars didn't help with the funding, the maintenance would still take place--------don't think it wouldn't. Drivers would simply pay a bit more. Many people also take their kids to private school. This reduces the amount of money received by the public schools based on attendance numbers. (at least in CA) Yet public schools still exist. So no, my arguement is not weak at all. I think you just didn't consider it for long before reacting.

[pickinatit]

 

I agree. But public funding can provide the means for those with artistic leanings to explore their chosen art to its full potential. Anthony Jackson, the famous bassist, is a great example of how public funded jazz instruction enabled him to obtain the skills that he would need to succeed as a session bassist.

 

 

So who cares whether or not Anthony Jackson was able to succeed as a session bassist ? If you care you should get out YOUR wallet and not pick MY pocket. (I'm half playing devil's advocate here, but only half).

[BlueStrat]

 

My point was that there are those who think you should carry your own weight as much as possible. Be responsible for your own use of resources. If people who didn't own cars didn't help with the funding, the maintenance would still take place--------don't think it wouldn't. Drivers would simply pay a bit more. Many people also take their kids to private school. This reduces the amount of money received by the public schools based on attendance numbers. (at least in CA) Yet public schools still exist. So no, my arguement is not weak at all. I think you just didn't consider it for long before reacting.

 

 

To the contrary, I did consider it, and have for years. This isn't the first (or second or third) time we've discussed this topic in the past 10 years. There are differences in your argument. You're painting oranges red and calling them apples and then making comparisons. The fact is, everyone uses roads, whether they drive or not. But people with cars do in fact pay for most if it, through fuel taxes, car licensing, emissions testing and so on. And the fact is, I paid for private school out of my own pocket, but my property taxes, used to pay for public schools, did not drop a cent. In essence, I paid for their schooling twice, all my choice, but I paid it nonetheless, and I'm still paying for it. As to attendance, that doesn't determines how much money is spent on education, it determines which schools in a particular district get the most money. Which, incidentally, is the biggest reason schools pass flunking students on and won't expel bad apples. We are paying more for lower results, based on a numbers game. My kids have been out of school for 5 years, but I still pay it. And that's fine, but give me some results for it. If public schools had better results for what we pay, maybe there wouldn't be people putting their kids in private schools in droves.

 

But all that aside, you still haven't demonstrated why or how everyone paying for public roads and schools is the same thing as everyone paying for a floutist or a tympani player with the local symphony that maybe 1% of a city's population will ever even see, let alone benefit from. If your argument is that we pay for lots of other stuff we don't all use, well...like I said, it's a weak argument.

[MartinC]

Would you be in favor of supporting him now, if his sessions dry up? I got no problem with edumucation, I'm more wondering about why an orchestra player gets 100k while Mr. jackson has to fend for himself.

 

 

I agree. But public funding can provide the means for those with artistic leanings to explore their chosen art to its full potential. Anthony Jackson, the famous bassist, is a great example of how public funded jazz instruction enabled him to obtain the skills that he would need to succeed as a session bassist.

 

[wades_keys]

 

Would you be in favor of supporting him now, if his sessions dry up? I got no problem with edumucation, I'm more wondering about why an orchestra player gets 100k while Mr. jackson has to fend for himself.

 

Our orchestra is bankrupt, and if somebody doesn't come up with some funding, there will be no orchestra, not now or ever.

 

And that sucks.

 

Be thankful that you HAVE an orchestra to complain about. I for one am grateful that I was able to see the orchestra at their peak back in the late 70's and early 80's. It was an awesome experience. If you or your kids have never heard a good orchestra in full bore, you're really missing out on an awesome experience.

 

And let's face it: these guys are GOOD. Good classical players don't come cheaply because quite frankly, they're better than most. They have what it takes. They are the best musicians on the scene, bar none. They deserve IMO the pay they receive, IF the orchestra is solvent and events well attended.

 

I don't want to stir up the "elitist" arguments here, but I will say that music on that level is a meritocracy. These cats by and large have earned their bones. They are better than you and I will ever be on their instruments. A lot of jazz doublers wind up guesting with orchestras: it's a similar level of commitment required to do quality jazz session work.

 

These guys are the real musicians: excellent sight readers and refined articulation and technique. They didn't get those skills without tons of work: 8 hours a day practice, expensive music schools, slogging along in community orchestras for no pay, etc. They've earned their bones. It's a tough gig, for only the most committed of players. I'd hate to see that go away.

[cephus]

Just out of curiosity, is there something we pay for that is even less deserving than a flautist?

 

I'd be pretty surprised if the typical "elite classical musician" made anywhere near 100K.

 

What percentage of your tax dollars go toward supporting the arts?

[wades_keys]

 

Just out of curiosity, is there something we pay for that is even less deserving than a flautist? I'd be pretty surprised if the typical "elite classical musician" made anywhere near 100K. What percentage of your tax dollars go toward supporting the arts?

 

That salary is about right, actually. But that's for the real cats: the tenured players. For every one of those guys, I would wager that there are 100 others that put in the time, spent good money and time on music school, and didn't make the cut.

 

Without that kind of pay incentive, why would ANYONE even attempt to go through the process needed to get to that point? Many try: few succeed. And if you cut pay, no one will even TRY: they'll just go straight into commercial music work.

[MartinC]

You don't have to convince me-the volinist in our group has played in orchestras all over the world, and your right, he's about ten times the musician I'll ever be. But now that he's not in the orchestra, does he deserve funding? That's my quandry. It's complicated. I'm not so bent about the orchestra, it's more about the seemingly unfair way the dough gets distributed. Remember that artist whose picture of a cross in piss riled up everyone? At a certain point, wouldn't it just be better to let the market decide? Those orchestra monsters are still gonna get gigs. The guy in my group does sessions all the time, played with ray charles, etc. He ain't gonna go hungry as long as he's willing to break out the fiddle, but since he left the orchestra he has to hustle like everyone else.

 

 

 

Our orchestra is bankrupt, and if somebody doesn't come up with some funding, there will be no orchestra, not now or ever. And that sucks. Be thankful that you HAVE an orchestra to complain about. I for one am grateful that I was able to see the orchestra at their peak back in the late 70's and early 80's. It was an awesome experience. If you or your kids have never heard a good orchestra in full bore, you're really missing out on an awesome experience. And let's face it: these guys are GOOD. Good classical players don't come cheaply because quite frankly, they're better than most. They have what it takes. They are the best musicians on the scene, bar none. They deserve IMO the pay they receive, IF the orchestra is solvent and events well attended. I don't want to stir up the "elitist" arguments here, but I will say that music on that level is a meritocracy. These cats by and large have earned their bones. They are better than you and I will ever be on their instruments. A lot of jazz doublers wind up guesting with orchestras: it's a similar level of commitment required to do quality jazz session work. These guys are the real musicians: excellent sight readers and refined articulation and technique.

 

[BlueStrat]

 

Just out of curiosity, is there something we pay for that is even less deserving than a flautist? I'd be pretty surprised if the typical "elite classical musician" made anywhere near 100K. What percentage of your tax dollars go toward supporting the arts?

 

 

http://www.icsom.org/settlement/boston.html

 

http://www.yeodoug.com/articles/text/procon.html

 

"The potential for a stable career with excellent job security, salary and benefits. The base scale pay for members of the top American orchestras (Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia) is approximately $2000+/week (minimum guaranteed scale). These orchestras typically offer 10 weeks paid vacation, full medical and dental coverage, generous sick leave, a pension (after 30 years service or the "rule of 85" which provides a full pension to players whose age and years of service combined equal 85) of over $70,000/year, and many other excellent benefits. After passing an initial probationary period (of one to three years depending on the orchestra's policy), tenured members enjoy job protection and security as members of the American Federation of Musicians. Dismissal can only be made for cause which must be proven to an arbitration panel, often made up of peer members of the orchestra."