funding the arts

[wades_keys]

 

This basically describes anyone who went to college and did extra curricular activities to ensure they got into college/a leg up on people who didnt participate in those extracurricular and then got a job. But everyone who went to college does not get Gov't funds. I fail to see how that deserves public funding.

 

I ain't buyin' it.

 

Most college kids, as soon as class let's out: they're doing other things. They do their homework, sure.

 

But you can't compare that AT ALL to the work needed to get the skills a classical muso has. I know, because my old piano teacher ran a program that required, after grade 6, a MINIMUM of 4 hours A DAY practicing the material. That's how she got her doctorate in performance, and that's why she was the go to organist for the Louisville archdiocese.

 

She was probably the best piano teacher in Louisville at the time. And no, I didn't do the routine: dropped out after grade 5. And I was probably one of her more "average" students: didn't have what it takes.

 

Seriously dude - don't knock it until you experience it. It's NOTHING like playing rock and roll on a stringed instrument. This is SERIOUS {censored}ing work I'm talking about here, and BRUTAL recitals. I've seen kids reduced to tears after level 3 recitals. I was one of em, actually. It's {censored}ing brutal. And that's JUST STARTING OUT. The real pros - they continue on and it only gets TOUGHER and more competitive. You don't think that there are others gunning for you? Hell yeah there are. It's brutal.

[kmart]

Well, sure enough, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I was responding to this: Since he said 'elite classical musician", I posted the salaries for them. A trumpet player for the Oregon Symphony in Portland gets this: Compensation for the current 2004-2005 season is $51,671, including EMG and instrument maintenance allowance. Current CBA benefits include: year round medical and dental insurance, LTD, AFM pension plan, paid parking. Still not a bad gig, since Portland is relatively inexpensive to live in compared to NY or LA or Boston. And I'm sure it's gone up some since '04.

 

 

Fair enough; I thought you were trying to imply that symphonic players overall were making that kind of scratch.

[Dancebass]

But you can't compare that AT ALL to the work needed to get the skills a classical muso has. I know, because my old piano teacher ran a program that required, after grade 6, a MINIMUM of 4 hours A DAY practicing the material.

 

 

I just remembered you're in Louisville, my wife's Aunt was recently laid off by the Louisville Symphony Orchestra. I think, maybe she was let go when they filed for bankruptcy this most recent time. She was there for 30 years though and JUST recently it all came to an end.

 

She's brilliant too! Went to Julliard, has a Stradivarius, the whole works! It is a shame no doubt. I can't deny that. I don't even LIKE saying this, but part of me thinks "well.....you're playing 300 year old covers, what did you think was going to happen!!!!".

[wades_keys]

 

I just remembered you're in Louisville, my wife's Aunt was recently laid off by the Louisville Symphony Orchestra. I think, maybe she was let go when they filed for bankruptcy this most recent time. She was there for 30 years though and JUST recently it all came to an end. She's brilliant too! Went to Julliard, has a Stradivarius, the whole works! It is a shame no doubt. I can't deny that. I don't even LIKE saying this, but part of me thinks "well.....you're playing 300 year old covers, what did you think was going to happen!!!!".

 

Yeah, the orch is bankrupt here.

 

Lou had a damn good orch too, and a lot of good instruction out of Bellarmine and from private folks.

 

Damn shame. Hope your Aunt lands on her feet.

[kmart]

I think that this fuzzy math might lead someone to believe that if we didn't support the arts, then we'd all all pay $10,000 less in taxes. Cutting out the NEA won't make the tiniest bit of difference in what you pay in taxes. It won't be re-allocated to something more deserving. I am happy that the US is about more than wal mart and macdonalds. We have great symphonies and great artists and great businesses. What we also have is a bunch of people who think we deserve more for our efforts and don't owe anything to the environment that has been created for us to excel in.

 

 

I agree with this 110%.

 

I can't recall the exact numbers, but the allocations for 'the arts' in the last stimulus bill was something along the order of a fraction of a percent...

$80 mil or somewhere along those lines TOTAL.

 

Yeah, in the abstract, that sounds like a lot of money to you or me as an individual, but in context of the entire country, it's negligible at best.

 

There are a LOT of areas we, as THE PEOPLE, should expect cutbacks in government support before we look to the arts. Out of respect to everyone else's opinions, I won't say what areas I personally think, but I will state before a SINGLE additional mega-sports stadium gets built in part with taxpayer funding, I'd personally hope that 'the arts' are flush for a couple decades...

 

My company was directly involved with a major amount of the infrastructure in it, and the sizeable revenue it brought in helped us keep things solid through the recession, but I'd have been much happier to see Jerry Jones drop $1.15 BILLION into 'the arts' than to make the completely unnecessary monstrosity that is...http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

[wades_keys]

^

Exactly.

 

Good post.

[ZombieCat]

I am all for funding the arts through taxes dollars as I consider art that important. There I said it. When you get down to it, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts is so tiny cutting it to zero would not make a tiny fraction of a dent in the Federal deficit.

[Dancebass]

I'd have been much happier to see Jerry Jones drop $1.15 BILLION into 'the arts' than to make the completely unnecessary monstrosity

 

 

Then become Jerry Jones and you can spend his cash as you see fit.

[wades_keys]

 

Then become Jerry Jones and you can spend his cash as you see fit.

 

This is why we have taxes. If we (the country) allowed this to happen across the board, we'd have a wasteland surrounded by gated communities.

 

Like Rio De Janeiro.

 

Human nature dictates that each of us look after our personal needs first and foremost. It takes coercion in order to get "us" to contribute to the common good.

 

I don't think we have to worry about "confiscation" anytime soon. That's a bit overblown. We're not a socialist state.

[Dancebass]

Hope your Aunt lands on her feet.

 

 

I just hope she doesn't land at my house!!! Ha!

[kmart]

Everyone says that about their concerns though. Obviously you care more about music than the average Joe or you wouldn't be here.

 

 

If I told you that I don't own/drive a car and still agree that public funds need to be allocated to upkeep those roads, would that matter to you at all? I care more about music than roads, that's for sure, but I'm not close-minded to the point that I can't see the importance of BOTH.

 

This isn't an either/or proposition, nor is funding of the arts (or not) something that only impacts artists.

[Dancebass]

This is why we have taxes. If we (the country) allowed this to happen across the board, we'd have a wasteland surrounded by gated communities. Like Rio De Janeiro.

 

 

Brazil isn't really a good example of CAPITALIST insanity. Sure, I get what you're saying. I just think taxation is a necessary evil that should be used to fund a government operating within it's constitutional restraints. We just disagree about where exactly those lines are.

[bnelly428]

I ain't buyin' it. Most college kids, as soon as class let's out: they're doing other things. They do their homework, sure. But you can't compare that AT ALL to the work needed to get the skills a classical muso has. I know, because my old piano teacher ran a program that required, after grade 6, a MINIMUM of 4 hours A DAY practicing the material. That's how she got her doctorate in performance, and that's why she was the go to organist for the Louisville archdiocese. She was probably the best piano teacher in Louisville at the time. And no, I didn't do the routine: dropped out after grade 5. And I was probably one of her more "average" students: didn't have what it takes. Seriously dude - don't knock it until you experience it. It's NOTHING like playing rock and roll on a stringed instrument. This is SERIOUS {censored}ing work I'm talking about here, and BRUTAL recitals. I've seen kids reduced to tears after level 3 recitals. I was one of em, actually. It's {censored}ing brutal. And that's JUST STARTING OUT. The real pros - they continue on and it only gets TOUGHER and more competitive. You don't think that there are others gunning for you? Hell yeah there are. It's brutal.

 

 

I have no doubt that the people playing in orchestras are busting their asses. However, there are more people busting their asses and not getting any help from the gov't.

 

And the school analogy works. Ever apply to Med school nowadays? Need to take the MCATs and score Higher than the average for that year or you will not be considered (how many HOURS will be spent studying for it? And you basically have no idea what is on it). You have to have some type of internship or practical experience ie EMT or volunteer at a hospital (a significant amount of time, not one of those "I went there once a week" volunteer jobs). And they also want to see diversity in the way you spent your time, not all school/study/medical stuff all the time. They want "well-rounded". Thats about an 80 hour week right there. Are the doctors at the best hospitals getting public funding directly to their salary?

[Dancebass]

but I'm not close-minded to the point that I can't see the importance of BOTH. This isn't an either/or proposition, nor is funding of the arts (or not) something that only impacts artists.

 

 

Sure, I understand that as well. I think you're wrong though to label people as being "close-minded" when they have a different take on it. If they look at their kids and think ok, Johnny owes $20,000 in debt to the Chinese already and he's in the 4th grade. Let me see, under these circumstances, clearly infrastructure like roads and pleasantries like music are NOT the same!

[troyguitar]

I'm undecided on funding the arts, but IMO the solution to our budget problems is simple: raise taxes and/or reduce military spending. We've got one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world and we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Helping out classical music is not bankrupting the nation, trying to take care of the entire world on 30% of the wealth of 5% of its inhabitants is.

[pickinatit]

Yeah, the orch is bankrupt here. Lou had a damn good orch too, and a lot of good instruction out of Bellarmine and from private folks. Damn shame. Hope your Aunt lands on her feet.

I wish his Aunt well too, but you know what? I didn't even feel a ripple in the force when the Louisville Orchestra declared bankruptcy.

[pickinatit]

I agree with this 110%. I can't recall the exact numbers, but the allocations for 'the arts' in the last stimulus bill was something along the order of a fraction of a percent... $80 mil or somewhere along those lines TOTAL. Yeah, in the abstract, that sounds like a lot of money to you or me as an individual, but in context of the entire country, it's negligible at best. There are a LOT of areas we, as THE PEOPLE, should expect cutbacks in government support before we look to the arts. Out of respect to everyone else's opinions, I won't say what areas I personally think, but I will state before a SINGLE additional mega-sports stadium gets built in part with taxpayer funding, I'd personally hope that 'the arts' are flush for a couple decades... My company was directly involved with a major amount of the infrastructure in it, and the sizeable revenue it brought in helped us keep things solid through the recession, but I'd have been much happier to see Jerry Jones drop $1.15 BILLION into 'the arts' than to make the completely unnecessary monstrosity that is... http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

 

 

And that's exactly why government shouldn't be involved...because YOUR priorities aren't MY priorities. The government should butt out of BOTH businesses. Justifying a missuse of public funds on one thing (the arts) by pointing a finger at another missuse of public funds isn't a very good argument IMO.

[pickinatit]

This is why we have taxes. If we (the country) allowed this to happen across the board, we'd have a wasteland surrounded by gated communities. Like Rio De Janeiro. Human nature dictates that each of us look after our personal needs first and foremost. It takes coercion in order to get "us" to contribute to the common good. I don't think we have to worry about "confiscation" anytime soon. That's a bit overblown. We're not a socialist state.

 

 

There's a very fine line between confiscation and coercion. In fact just try to buck the coercion by not "voluntarily" paying your taxes and you will quickly discover that confiscation is alive and well in America.

[BlueStrat]

 

If I told you that I don't own/drive a car and still agree that public funds need to be allocated to upkeep those roads, would that matter to you at all?

 

Only if you didn't use the roads at all ( riding a bus, a taxi or a passenger in someone else's car), and benefit directly from their upkeep.

[kmart]

Only if you didn't use the roads at all ( riding a bus, a taxi or a passenger in someone else's car), and benefit directly from their upkeep.

 

Ok, so theoretically, let's say I don't, at all: I inherited a large sum of money from a relative live entirely off of my self-sustaining farm and am a hermit, so I stay on my property 24/7...

Do you think that should absolve me from paying taxes used for upkeep of roads?

 

Or let's use one of your examples: you chose to put your kids through private school, and all are out now, and you raised the question about how right/wrong/appropriate it was for you to have to pay taxes for public schools, IIRC.

What happens if you decided to adopt a grade-school aged kid TODAY, and wanted the OPTION to put them in public school tomorrow?

That kid benefits from you, me and everybody else paying taxes into a system that supports public schools day-in and day-out, regardless of the fact that we have kids using those schools right this very moment or not.

[kmart]

And that's exactly why government shouldn't be involved...because YOUR priorities aren't MY priorities. The government should butt out of BOTH businesses. Justifying a missuse of public funds on one thing (the arts) by pointing a finger at another missuse of public funds isn't a very good argument IMO.

 

But that's not the argument or the point.

 

Simply put, there's value in funding things that only a portion of people find value in when that MOST/all people reap the benefits.

[badhabit]

Referring back to city symphonies, I think the general consensus is that the community at large benefits to some degree. Local businesses like restaurants, hotels, taxis, and others, benefit from the folks that go to the concerts when those same attendees also use those other services. Part of it is about civic pride as well. Cities like San Francisco that are big tourism cities most likely believe that a quality local symphony is a draw to their city, not unlike their museums, parks, stadiums, zoos and other cultural centers. I also have to believe that not all the support for city symphonies comes from tax money. They have benefits, charge a premium to attend and receive plenty from philanthropic trusts. Cities and counties support many various ventures through their redevelopment agencies, from private to public ventures. Funding comes from many sources, and not all tax dollars. In general, the financial effect on the individual, tax wise, is most likely quite small. I believe the community at large, benefits more, by having various leisure and cultural centers, whether it is an opera house, a city park, a baseball stadium or a zoo.

[kmart]

BH-
I agree with all the above completely.

[MartinC]

I agree. It's a matter of degree, and that is why I wrote the OP. If we all agree(and I realize we don't) that the SF symphony should be supported, at least in part, by tax dollars, what about the avant garde dance group? The punk rock club on Haight? Why not them too? Everyone who has ever visited me wanted to go to Haight st. Surely, they contribute to tourist dollars. I'd hate to see the symphony go, but I sure as {censored} don't want the 49ers(of whom I'm a huge fan)to get tax money for a stadium for millionaires to throw a ball around in. At that point, I think you have to at least consider the idea that the market should determine what is truly of value to the community.

Referring back to city symphonies, I think the general consensus is that the community at large benefits to some degree. Local businesses like restaurants, hotels, taxis, and others, benefit from the folks that go to the concerts when those same attendees also use those other services. Part of it is about civic pride as well. Cities like San Francisco that are big tourism cities most likely believe that a quality local symphony is a draw to their city, not unlike their museums, parks, stadiums, zoos and other cultural centers. I also have to believe that not all the support for city symphonies comes from tax money. They have benefits, charge a premium to attend and receive plenty from philanthropic trusts. Cities and counties support many various ventures through their redevelopment agencies, from private to public ventures. Funding comes from many sources, and not all tax dollars. In general, the financial effect on the individual, tax wise, is most likely quite small. I believe the community at large, benefits more, by having various leisure and cultural centers, whether it is an opera house, a city park, a baseball stadium or a zoo.

 

[BlueStrat]

Ok, so theoretically, let's say I don't, at all: I inherited a large sum of money from a relative live entirely off of my self-sustaining farm and am a hermit, so I stay on my property 24/7... Do you think that should absolve me from paying taxes used for upkeep of roads? Or let's use one of your examples: you chose to put your kids through private school, and all are out now, and you raised the question about how right/wrong/appropriate it was for you to have to pay taxes for public schools, IIRC. What happens if you decided to adopt a grade-school aged kid TODAY, and wanted the OPTION to put them in public school tomorrow? That kid benefits from you, me and everybody else paying taxes into a system that supports public schools day-in and day-out, regardless of the fact that we have kids using those schools right this very moment or not.

 

 

Yes, you are right. And for the record, I never addressed the rightness or wrongness of still paying property taxes and paying for private school as well. I thought I made it clear that it was my choice to do so.

 

However, I just don't see the benefit, direct or otherwise, to taxpayers paying for a symphony that perhaps less than 1% of the population will even see, let alone benefit from. These kinds of arguments always want to compare maximum benefit shared responsibilities like infrastructure to things like arts, which are great to have but not even close to being the same necessity that infrastructure is. So far, the pro-public funding of the arts side seems to have three overriding point to their argument- 1, that we all pay for other stuff we don't use every day; 2, we pay for lots of more frivolous and wasteful stuff; and 3, it isn't that much anyway. All of which may be true, but they're hardly compelling arguments.

 

For the record, as a libertarian, I believe government is involved in all sorts of things they ought not be funding in the first place. Arts ought to be like anything else- if there's a demand for it, someone will pay for it. If there isn't, why compel people to? I could make the argument that more people will benefit directly from weekly helpings of broccoli than from a local symphony. Why not subsidize broccoli for every household in America? I realize it's a silly argument, but it isn't anymore silly to me than being told I have to subsidize musicians or sculptors for the public good.

 

I also realize it's not an argument we'll settle here, and i really do understand and respect your viewpoint... even f I just did trivialize it!

 

 

Originally Posted by badhabit Referring back to city symphonies, I think the general consensus is that the community at large benefits to some degree. Local businesses like restaurants, hotels, taxis, and others, benefit from the folks that go to the concerts when those same attendees also use those other services.

 

Well, if that's the justification, why not forget the symphony and have a monster truck rally, stadium rock concert, or some other even that will draw 20 or 30 thousand people at a pop every month?

 

My brother in law is artistic director at a small theater here. They're struggling, and he has said many times how much he wished they could get a federal grant. I asked him why they didn't just host benefits, hire a press spokesman, and produce a few more plays per season more people want to see instead of these avant/garde and off-off Broadway productions no one has heard of for the entire season? So he did take my advice and had a benefit- advertising only on NPR, with no auction items and the highlight being a sit-down Q&A with theater staff and Patty Duke, who lives here. And couldn't figure out why they only had 100 people show up and made less than 1500 dollars.

 

If these guys are going to run the theater like that, why would I want to subsidize failure with tax dollars?