This ignores the fact that tastes and technology have moved on. It could be that orchestras are dinosaurs kept alive by public funding. Their standard repertoire bring back a certain crowd who listen politely to the modern pieces but can't wait for their classical favourites. Apart from the expense of the orchestra they also exclude sonorities to which the modern ear has now been attuned for half a century; these include the guitar and electronic effects. If Mozart were alive today he would probably be writing pop songs. Music has evolved but the orchestra is a relic. Dare I say with an ageing audience and tough economic times ahead Australia might only be able to justify two or three professional orchestras in the long run.

Much as I love music, any sentence that starts "the government ought to..." followed by a plea for taxpayers' money going to a cultural destination raises my hackles.

This goes equally for theatre, visual arts, writers, poets, street graffitists, buskers... I fervently admire their talent and totally impressed by the dedication that artists bring to the cultural table, but I cannot for a second justify spending our collective taxes on one rather than the other.

The government-subsidy industry is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If I choose to spend my money on opera, then that is my right. However, there is no reason on this earth why I should expect someone who prefers abstract art or live poetry or Cirque du Soleil or Andre Rieu to subsidize my particular cultural preference.

There is a natural order in these things that has been totally fractured by the arts-lobby industry, aided and abetted by governments who think it is their responsibility to edjerkate our cultural taste-buds.

The result is a bun-fight, where every would-be Damien Hirst or Tracey Eminem sticks out their hand, and are handed funds with absolutely no insight into the artistic merits or otherwise of the projects themselves.

This is supply-side thinking, and presumes that some career bureaucrats following a procedure manual can second-guess what is good and bad. Only the people can decide that.

Art - and I accept this is a sweeping generalization - has a history of flourishing despite a lack of cash. And when a benevolent State deigns to throw a few bob in one direction or another, the result is not necessarily positive.

At one end of the spectrum we have totally state-driven art - the Soviet Union would be a pretty good example of where that path leads. At the other we have individual sponsorships, and while we no longer have the Ludwig of Bavarias or Emperor Josephs of previous centuries, the modern equivalents are the wealthy companies who would be happy to be tapped for a quid pro quo, if government money is not available.

I have long bemoaned the fact that the only music schools present, in public at least, is pop music. You suggest children be exposed to Mozart and Beethoven et al... but then ruin your argument by proposing we encourage modern composers. As Taswegian implied, no one likes modern ‘classical’ music. It is atonal, brash, noisy, unpleasant, unmusical, cacophonic........ That’s why audience numbers are dwindling.
I sincerely hope that none of my tax money is going to prop up any contemporary composer I've heard! And I wish none went to any of the ‘visual artists’ whose daubings deface so many art gallery walls.
I admit to bias, finding it next to impossible to enjoy music not composed in either the 18th or 19th centuries, and any painting made after around 1920...
The great composers are dead so they don’t care. Record companies are still making a mint out of the popular ones... Let modern composers, writers, artists... suffer the consequences of their ineptitude. If they can find a patron – good luck to them, but it shouldn’t be the taxpayers.

Generally speaking, I agree. The public expense of funding a full orchestra for an appreciative few has long been a subject of debate and musical taste and styles will continue evolve indefinately. This should be a case of pure 'laisse faire' inasmuch as if any given orchestra fails to either justify its existence by excellence or by public subscription, its only future direction is as a private enterprise accountable to its shareholders. However, the pursuit of excellence in this area of the arts demands a very considerable investment in time on the part of the practitioners involved, which may be compromised by the removal of public funding, particularly if exemplified by a reduction in the available training resources, scholarships etc for musicians. Personally speaking, I would prefer that a single, fine example prevailed than be obliged to listen to more regular and mediocre performances.

Pericles
Normally I’d agree with you 100%, but in this case I think Greg has a point. He’s not calling for subsidies to orchestras or the reprehensible handout system that supports the arts, both of which I agree are unjustified and even counter productive. Rather, he’s calling for activity in areas where governments can make a positive difference – education and awards.

Dear fellas,
I think you all are missing the main point - it's not about old classical music vs neo-classical music, if you don't like the works of today's composers simply don't listen to it, but please do not say it is rubbish, just because it's not to your taste. What you are showing here is ignorance and arrogance at the same time.
And this brings us to the main topic here - people with a decent(broader) music education will appreciate the music for what it is - MUSIC and that will likely also broaden their views on many other things around us.
The number of crossover projects over the last 25 - 30 years will be a good example of music collaboration between old and new music, styles, etc. There is no other art form that can stir people's feelings and emotions better than music.
To finish, music has always been part of humans life, long before the written word. Even if we forgot how to read and write song and dance will still be part of our lives and that's why music education is essential.

Stan