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

Obviously the bent most people have for pop culture will force the more refined arts to become market failures. Music today is vulnerable as it inevitably has sunk to the lowest common denominator leading to talentless trash product like American/Australian idol screeching and moaning dominating the airwaves.

Culture has been executed by drivel media and poker machines, pubs are no longer the venues for live bands, councils can no longer afford regular concerts in the park, artists cannot sell their wares on the streets.

Orchestral music is part of our heritage. More money is given to sports and I certainly dont care if we do not have an Olympic team , yet as a tax payer I support them. Motor races too are reliant on public funding , yet without complaint we are willing to forego hospital beds and education for the sake of a tiny minority of sports fans. Only Horse racing seems to be able to raise funds off its own back.

I say if we stop funding Orchestras we must stop funding all forms of entertainment including sport. But if we really want somebody to swim really fast so that all nations can see we have the capability and the will power and the resources to train somebody to swim really fast, then we must also support orchestras and all arts and entertainment besides.

As a lover of music, especially the style generally (and innacurately) known as 'classical' I would argue that the failure of music audiences to expand in proportion to population growth derives largely from the considerable cost associated with attending concerts, together with the 'intellectualising' of mainstream music. Music in essence consists of melody, harmony, rythmn, and form - something that every music student knows but it seems is largely forgotten by modern day composers. Despite the efforts of many composers to keep music intellectually accessible - ie pleasant and/or inspiring to listen to - most late twentieth century formal composers for the most part produce cacophonous rubbish masquerading as contemporary art - all for the head, nothing for the heart. Modern formal music has sacrificed both the power to inspire and to entertain, and seems to rely for its effect on its power to shock and offend the ear. Who wants to pay for that?

I love the old classical music - Beethoven etc are newbies.

The didgerido and clapsticks are about as classical as one can get.

From the article “Our nation needs its governments to broaden the appeal and reach of classical music because it will make us a better society.”

Government is not there to “make a better society” but to reflect the society which is.

Not that I am anti-classical music.

My radio is tuned to ABC FM and I enjoy and prefer “the Marriage of Figaro” over “Desperate Housewives”.

However, any fool who thinks a better society is shaped by enforced absorption of the classics is just an elitist pratt, full of self arrogance and with barely veiled contempt for the taste and likings of his fellows.

We need to give people the opportunity to discover what they like, be it classical music or modern art. That does not mean promoting one media over another it might mean withdrawing funds from the favoured few and leaving the money in the pockets of tax payers to make up their own mind on how their philanthropic bequests and cultural interests will better be made as private individuals, than being forced to subsidise political tosser of an art minister’s poor taste in playing lord or lady bountiful with tax payers funds..

Whilst Whitlam played the same game with Jackson Pollack’s “Blue Poles”, I think personally, the money would have been far better spent on a Canaletto or Botticelli or even a Barbara Hepworth. But since it was “tax payers funds” we, the great unwashed, were not consulted, just stuck with the bill.

I recall the debacle of the blue trees of Melbourne under another ex-ABC news presenter who departed her public ministerial office under a cloud (of incompetence) following a contemptible waste of tax payer resources.

Art Ministers and Tax funded orchestras are examples of the sort of "Big Government" which we would be better off without.

"Small government" leaves the cash with the individual to decide.

Another point, Pericles, is that the people who benefit most from government subsidies for opera, ballet and classical music are the well-off, who could easily afford to pay the real cost of their pleasures. I would be more sympathetic if the situation remained as it did in Victorian times, when Bernard Shaw had to travel to Germany in order to hear Wagner's music, but anyone who wants to listen to a particular classical piece these days is much more likely to find it on an inexpensive CD or a music download than played live. Concert-going these days is more of a social event than a necessary educational experience.

Hopefully government subsidies for the pleasures of the wealthy is a concept that reached its use-by date last November.

Perhaps its best to just let consumers decide, what they actually
like. They will soon vote with their wallets. Sorry, but classical
music for me is a turn off, yet Elton John playing with the
Melbourne Symphony Orcherstra sounds great IMHO. I bought the cd.

Some of the Beatles evergreens played by orchestras, IMHO sound
fantastic, but I have no taste for the old composers.

If Greg wants to listen to Brahms, Beethoven etc, well good on him,
but why should Govt spend endless money on deciding what kind of
music that people should enjoy?

There is a banquet of musical tastes out there for anybody willing to look for it.

It's also a symptom of modern culture that most people are happy to eat only at McDonalds.

What makes you so sure that it's "a symptom of modern culture that most people are happy to eat only at McDonalds"?

Where's the evidence that 100, 200 or 300 years ago culture was sufficiently different that "most people" preferred haute cuisine, fine art or "art music"?

More on topic, I generally accept that because we lack of the tradition of wealthy benefactors supporting the arts, a certain amount of government funding will always be needed to ensure we don't lose valuable cultural traditions and the opportunity to create art of more lasting value than the latest #1 single. This includes modern orchestral music - those here who believe it is all atonal/harsh noise need to get out more: Australia in particular has a wealth of composers who write very accessible music - Ross Edwards, Richard Mills, Nigel Westlake to name a few (I actually studied composition at University, and there's still a part of me that would like to make a career out of it, even if only part-time). Further, don't forget that there were those who classified such ground-breaking works as Beethoven's 3rd symphony as discordant and unmusical when it was first performed. However, accepted, it's now nearly 100 years since Rite of Spring, a work that perhaps most listeners still find challenging on first hearing. Atonality and lack of steady rhythm appear to be important "thresholds" that were crossed in the 21st century, with little indication that listeners can adapt well to the result. For all of human history, popular music has been invariably highly tonal (often sticking to no more than 3 or 4 basic chords), and dominated by strong, regular beats. I would be surprised if there wasn't a strong physiological reason for this.

How does that work Jon J?

>>Another point, Pericles, is that the people who benefit most from government subsidies for opera, ballet and classical music are the well-off, who could easily afford to pay the real cost of their pleasures.<<

Logic says that the opposite is true. If we assume that subsidies - of any kind, government or private - have the effect of reducing admission costs, then it would result in the concert or whatever being more accessible to the less well-off, would it not?

Or have I missed something?

I hope not, because the more expensive projects that involve major venues, large and highly talented casts of musicians, singers, dancers etc. will always need some form of subsidy. It is the nature of the beast, that in order to ensure that wages may be paid to the performers whatever the impact at the box office, some form of patronage is essential.

In my view, a business that can assess the success of their investment on a number of different criteria, ranging from "was it really popular" to "did it enhance our image as a corporate citizen" is a far more appropriate source of support funds than a government.

Because it never is "the government" that makes the decisions, but a bunch of public servants following a series of procedures that are themselves the result of, in all probability, electoral commitments made to various lobbyists and pressure groups. A sure-fire way to waste our money on a never-ending search for the lowest common denominator.

The cultural benefits of art, whether in a gallery or in a theatre, cannot be underestimated, in my view. They act as a civilizing factor in times where there are far too many de-civilizing forces at work. But allowing governments to further their political agenda as they spray our money at "the yartz" is the wrong approach.

Pericles says:

"Logic says that the opposite is true. If we assume that subsidies - of any kind, government or private - have the effect of reducing admission costs, then it would result in the concert or whatever being more accessible to the less well-off, would it not?...Or have I missed something?"

Two points here: firstly, even with subsidies, the high price of ballet, opera and concert tickets bars admission to most of the working class, even those who want to attend; and secondly, it's usually only the (relatively) wealthy who WANT to attend. The government doesn't subsidise football teams, for instance, although the average income of those who attend football matches is considerably less than the income of those who attend the ballet.

"I hope not, because the more expensive projects that involve major venues, large and highly talented casts of musicians, singers, dancers etc. will always need some form of subsidy. It is the nature of the beast, that in order to ensure that wages may be paid to the performers whatever the impact at the box office, some form of patronage is essential."

As with any other business, wages can be paid from commercial loans, and loans can only be obtained for projects which are genuinely financially viable. Large scale cultural productions - Cats, Chicago, The Producers - can and often do make money, if they are created with that goal in mind, not merely as a means of spending taxpayers' funds. Any art form that can't survive financially on its own merits should cut its costs, quietly shut itself down or move somewhere else.

Mr. Barns neglects the SIGNIFICANCE of the cutbacks breathing new life into similar reactionary enforcers. These attacks are based on profiteering and sharpened up at the time of the first criminal invasion into Iraq. The war required a corresponding culture of lies, backwardness, attacks and rule through fear. The war focalised the war on Arts and social services. Art/culture was squeezed put to the sword in the "new world order". Unless it was "ASSET CREATING". Ruthlessly with deadly consequences, asset creating and war was declared a priority over illness in the hospitals and wards.
Between 1996 and 2001, the Howard government with the full backing of the ALP slashed $100 million from film and television funding. The sledgehammer was used on the ABC: The message was 'fall into line and support the war on terror. Governments called cuts "savings" and content became "dumbing people down".
The socialist writer David Walsh explains. "There is little doubt that the audience for classical music is shrinking, and aging. But this is not some natural process; it is the product of definite social conditions. First, one has to take into account the virtual elimination of music and arts education in the public school system. Moreover, a taste for Mozart or Verdi is something that must be cultivated, like an interest in physics or chemistry. It is the responsibility of society to educate the young in mankind's great achievements. A society that undermines the possibility for such an education is intellectually and morally bankrupt."
Most of the artists have suffered too, whether they have signed on for the so-called "the war on terror" or not. They could play a bigger role through their artworks, recognising the climate that is being fashioned. Cutting artistic content, artistic truth and the production of terribly limited works devoid of fresh insights into life. What is genuine and needed today is not modest work but insights and the artists special visions of the world. Rudd carried out so many attacks on arts and social services in Queensland he was called Dr.Death and he is set to ratchet up the attacks.

Not convinced, Jon J. On either score.

>>even with subsidies, the high price of ballet, opera and concert tickets bars admission to most of the working class, even those who want to attend<<

Different issue. You first argued that the only beneficiaries of subsidies are the well-off. Now you are saying that subsidies are pointless anyway.

But you are talking about operational, not financial issues. With a given amount of money, a venue has many options as to how it is divided. They may, for example, use the entire subsidy to set aside 200 tickets a day with a price point of $10, or even jack up the price of the posh seats and spread the load that way. I can assure you that as soon as my company is large enough to get in the patron game, I'll make sure that such rules are part of the deal.

>>and secondly, it's usually only the (relatively) wealthy who WANT to attend. The government doesn't subsidise football teams, for instance, although the average income of those who attend football matches is considerably less than the income of those who attend the ballet<<

I'm not sure how to take this. Are you saying that your enjoyment of ballet (which, incidentally, I can't stand), opera, orchestral concerts or simply the theatre, depends on the weight of your wallet? Isn't that just a little on the snobbish side?

As for soccer, take a look at the prices paid by soccer fans in the UK. A Category 2 (behind the goal) ticket for West Ham's next match against Fulham in a couple of weeks, will set you back Stg 119 - that's $270. If you want to wait until 29th to see them play Liverpool, the same ticket will cost Stg 159 - $360.

Did you want a decent seat? Add between 25% and 50%.

http://www.topticketshop.com/

Or would you prefer to see The Nutcracker at Covent Garden?

http://esales.roh.org.uk/tickets/reserve.aspx?perfid=1541

It would appear that the average income of the soccer supporter would need to be considerably higher than that of a ballet-lover.

It is nonesense that the ABC caters to the rich. The ABC reaches out to all Australians. The media in Australia has been a huge and complete failure. The Commercial television stations and FM radio stations all cater only to the feral population in Australia. The fact that ferals are by their crude and backward nature intolerant of anything that is alternative to their narrow life view will mean that the ABC and indeed any public support of arts or culture.

Let them whinge and complain it is their nature , they have enough dancing with the stars , big brother and Australian idol , too much electrictity is wasted on the drivelling shock jocks and mindless yobism of FM breakfast shows. They have watched every episode of the simpsons a dozen times and they still find it entertaining. They will complain no matter what, they are why we are world renouned as whinging Aussies.

Meanwhile the funds which go to classical music , alternative rock , theatre ect are more than covered by the taxes of the people who use them, so stop your whinging.

And to Stans point I feel I must add that classically trained musicians are the great writers of the new music. Also lets also not forget that most "pop" music these days is only economically generated as it is easier for companies to buy the rights of a song and stitch it to some half concocted tune. We may be paving the way of exterminating western music for the sake of economy and also endangering our modern'classics' to become nothing more than jingo's.

There are many ways that government can support the arts, some worse than others.

I’d agree that direct subsidies to orchestras or venues only provide (upper) middle class welfare and are regressive and unnecessary.

But the article is not calling for this kind of support, it’s calling for education and awareness raising, both of which I believe are more justifiable activities of government, as individuals or entertainers in isolation might not be able to provide or access such activities.

Training young people to understand, appreciate, play and write music may not be quite as important as teaching them to read and write, but it’s not far behind. With a solid education in music they can go on to create and appreciate whatever forms of music they relate to in later life, whether classical, pop, jazz, alternative or some combination. But without that education their chances of enjoying good music, still less of writing or performing it, are much less; just as someone who can barely read or write and has little familiarity with literature is unlikely to become a bookwork, still less an author.

I don’t think this would preference some forms of music over others, necessarily.

wizardofaus,
What I was trying to say is that there is now more musical listening choice available than ever before but this is seldom explored by most people, who tend not to go past the usual top 40 stuff or stay completely (and comfortably) within a particular genre.

Appreciation of "atonal" or challenging works require some effort on behalf of the listener. As you suggested, it took me a couple of tries before I appreciated Stravinsky but it was worth it. Perhaps the 3-chord popularity is part of our desire for instant gratification with minimal effort?

I agree totally with your comments about the need to maintain our skills in this area. I've always wondered what use some of the classical composers could have made with the aid today's digital audio technologies as well as the freedom to work outside the demands of their patrons.

I'm also envious of your studies.

Most people do tend to stick with what they know, in most areas of life. I suspect this is just human nature (and, apologies for getting political, is probably the main reason that conservative parties attract a significant percentage of voters). You seemed to imply that this phenomenon is more extensive now than in the past - I think the opposite is true: we are gradually getting more progressive and becoming more prepared to explore outside our comfort zones.

I also don't accept that atonality is inherently more "sophisticated" or "advanced" than tonality. Atonality is like a "special effect" - it works because of its contrast to tonality, which is the default musical construct that holds across all cultures. There is virtually no extended piece of music that is wholly atonal that I would choose to listen to. Even Rite of Spring is at least 80% tonal.
And of course many modern Composers (such as Edwards, and most minimalists) write music that is not only completely tonal but is often restricted to just a single harmonic fundamental for an entire work.

Johncee1945 “Art/culture was squeezed put to the sword in the "new world order".”

The “New World Order” has been evolving since the reign of England’s Charles I / Cromwell / Charles II, When the “Divine Right of Kings” lost favour, noting, of course that Henry VIII fractured the authority of the Pope. This may seem a long way from your assertion of “new world order” but musicians like Bach and Mozart were commissioned / sponsored by the organized Church (Bach) and Royal patronage (Mozart).

The common-folk could barely afford to eat, let alone bother with the niceties of music or culture.

As Yabby mentioned before and I wholly concur with “Perhaps its best to just let consumers decide, what they actually like.”

I enjoy classical music and am prepared to pay to see it performed. I do enjoy roaming art galleries and so forth, reviewing sculpture and paintings etc.

As for “Most of the artists have suffered too,”

Tell me by how much was Picasso “subsidized” by public funds and how much by private purchases of his work?

Being an “artist” holds no special right to subsidy from the public purse than does being a “plumber”.

No “Work of Art” is enhanced by government funding.

As for “Cutting artistic content, artistic truth and the production of terribly limited works devoid of fresh insights into life.”

Who is to say what is “art” or “artistic truth”.

What qualifies “terribly limited works” and

who decides what provides “fresh insights into life”

I pay taxes to fund what I cannot fund myself as a private individual.

I can choose to buy as much “culture” as I need. I do not want my taxes to be used in supporting “cultural pursuits” which I would not choose to support as a private individual. It is an abuse of the tax system and displays contempt for the ability of the electorate to choose for themselves.

Wizofaus Edwards, and the “minimalists” should live by merit, not through the taxpayer subsidy. What they produce sounds like the sort of crap I would never pay for.

Back to the beginning. Yes, there should be musical education and appreciation of universally accepted great works, and art education and appreciation of universally aggreed on great and significant works, and the reading, discussion and appreciation of great literature in schools. But who would teach it? Our educators only know pop artists, as that is all they have been exposed to.
If the 'arts' received the same funding as sport, then we would have music, art and literature academies in every large town and a public that supported them. [to digress: If the money spent on training a few elite athletes were given to local authorities for facilities for all young people, then the health and fitness of the nation would rise]
Perhaps it is too late. The Pandora's box of USA TV pap has been opened and there's no shoving the crap back in.

The question of "arts education" is an interesting one.

Is it really necessary to "educate" people to appreciate art?

Is it the responsibility of the artist to reach me, or is it my responsibility to "learn" about art in order to appreciate it?

Surely, having someone explain what is "good" in music, art, literature etc. to you, in order that you can "appreciate" it, takes away the whole purpose?

Did Beethoven call for "more music appreciation" when he confounded the listening world with the Eroica? No, he simply created a work of art that set new standards, and forced the world to either come to terms with it or reject it.

The acceptance of the Impressionists wasn't the result of increased funding, or more education, but a growing realization amongst the public that here was a new, and valid, way of looking at the world. Picasso didn't evolve his style by satisfying government inspectors that he was creating something that the public would somehow benefit from.

To me this is the nub of the issue. If art cannot come to terms with simply being happy that it is art, then we shouldn't waste our time chasing after it.

Pericles,

The bigger question is simply where are the limits of funding to be drawn? Public parks, for example, require a great deal of expertise and expense to set up well, but there are plenty of people who never set foot in a park. Should all public parks be user-pays? I dunno. Maybe. What do you think? National parks? The flag pole on top of Parliament House that cost $6 million?

One person says parks are good. Another dislikes parks but enjoys art galleries. Another likes flag-poles but not art galleries. Another likes opera but not skateboard ramps.

So where should the line between user-pays and publicly-funded be? Don't governments and councils already try to keep everyone happy? Isn't that one of their main tasks? Isn't funding of music and arts, museums and galleries, libraries, etc. what most people want, along with sports ovals, horse-riding tracks and clean beaches and harbours?

Col, not that there is much point trying to convince someone of your political persuasion that there is anything at all worth spending taxpayer dollars on, but I challenge you to spend a few days getting to know works such as Ross Edward's Maninyas concerto, Richard Mills' trumpet concerto, or Nigel Westlakes' Antartica Suite and tell me with a straight face that such art is massive waste of government funding (and note that probably less than 0.5% of your paycheque goes towards commissioning new orchestral music, vs at least ten times that much that is wasted on ill-informed Defence purchases).

Pericles, these composers do not spent their time "satisfying government inspectors" that their art is worthwhile. They gain a reputation through their ability to compose works that music lovers recognise the value of, and are consequently commissioned by orchestras and other arts groups that have a very limited amount of funds to spread around.

Interestingly, a composer who did have to spend a lot of his time "satisfying government inspectors" is Shostakovich. Some might argue his art suffered from it, but he was able to be enormously imaginative and creative even within the restrictions placed upon him by a totalitarian regime. OTOH, the world where there are virtually no restrictions on what can be created - that of pure electronic music - has produced very little of lasting value.

I actually had Shostakovich in mind when referring to State funding of the arts, wizofaus. To be in fear of your life because your boss a) happens to be Stalin and b) is offended by your opera is not a particularly encouraging place to be.

Would Shostakovich have been a "better" composer without political pressure? No idea. It is impossible to argue. Don't forget though, that his livelihood and his standard of living was dependent upon his status as a Soviet Composer.

>>...these composers do not spent their time "satisfying government inspectors" that their art is worthwhile<<

But surely this is exactly what Shostakovich did with the Fifth Symphony, and why he did not allow the Fourth to be played until 1960?

Australia is not communist Russia, and in no immediate danger of becoming so. I don't see the relevance.

BTW I suspect my 0.5% was a gross overestimate. The total tax revenue collected in 2006-2007 was $231 billion, of which perhaps 33% of your income contributed to. 0.005 / 0.33 * 231 billion is 3.5 billion dollars. I would doubt more than 70 million is spent in a single year on commissioning new orchestral music, which would equate to about 0.0001% of your paycheque, or $10 a year - less than 3c a day - if you earn $100000 annually. Is this really what everybody is whinging about?

Even if I'm out by an order of magnitude (entirely possible), my thinks those here objecting to government funding to support the continuation of our classical music tradition doth protest too much.

wizofaus says:

"Even if I'm out by an order of magnitude (entirely possible), my thinks those here objecting to government funding to support the continuation of our classical music tradition doth protest too much."

But the same argument applies to protesting against any waste of public money -- military spending, pork-barelling for marginal electorates, the incredibly expensive offshore 'solution' to refugee immigration, NSW government contractual dodges, etc. The only way our elected representatives can be brought to know what they should spend our taxes on is by all of us making as much noise as possible when they -- in our view -- waste it. Surely this is the only way to achieve an acceptable consensus on ANYTHING.

Pericles asks whether it is necessary to educate in order to appreciate art. Of course it is! Is it necessary to teach people how to read? Is it necessary to teach people how to compute? Great art, music and literature are complex intellectual creations that do not open themselves easily to observers. As a lecturer in the history of Renaissance Art, I was confronted each year by a room full of students whose sole visual experience had been film, TV, comics, magazine photography and advertising hoardings. When confronted with a masterpiece they saw nothing they were used to and became almost angry when asked to talk about what they saw. By the end of the year they could ‘read’ a painting as well as they could read a novel. They had learned to appreciate techniques, the subtle psychology of placement, composition, colour and balance, the use of symbols and other iconographical tricks, the historical context and the relative importance of that work to the development of art and human consciousness.
G M Hopkins’ poems seem like nonsense to the uninformed reader; however after a good teacher has discussed his works, they become haunting, beautiful expositions of English. The same is true of music. The audiences for Beethoven, the impressionists, Jane Austen et al were educated, informed and had been brought up in families where music, art and literature were discussed. They were not ignorant consumers of pop pap. There is nothing intellectually demanding in pop music, so listeners learn nothing about how to unravel the intricacies of ‘great’ art.
Many students returned sometimes years later to tell me that learning about art was the most important experience of their senior school years, because like all art, it deals with the great human questions.

Wizofaus “to convince someone of your political persuasion that there is anything at all worth spending taxpayer dollars on,”

Certainly no point at all, when the dollar could be left in the pocket of the consumer/taxpayer to decide for themselves.

I would note, “discretionary income”, which the taxpayer has if he is not taxed, versus the tax he might otherwise pay, represents the removal of “choice” between the consumer/taxpayer and the service supplier (the “artist”).

From your statement I presume you are arguing some “merit” is derived by politicians and public servants determining which artists should be favoured with public subsidy and which should not.

I await your detailed argument but only so I can destroy it.

So bring it all on wiz. but expect a good shredding, as you can probably guess, I have done this before.

Re “reputation through their ability to compose works that music lovers recognise the value of,”

Then let them rest on their “reputation” and enjoy their earnings from paying “music lovers” noting,

they would be entitled to copyright fees and possibly royalties

(however , that will not even pay for a meal if you can only find say 10 “music lovers” to part with their discretionary income) and expect no subsidy from scarce public funds.

As for “"satisfying government inspectors" is Shostakovich.”

From my reading and understanding, Shostakovich was more concerned about a visit from Stalins KGB than “government inspectors” (suffering two official denunciations of his music, in 1936 and 1948)

Although I do commend you for mentioning him, the “romance” from the movie score “the gadfly” is among my personal favourites.

“Stalin” prescribed one of the most oppressive forms of “cultural control” by any state at an time in history. As bad as Hitlers “degenerate art” exhibition.

So, since you so opportunely brought the topic up (“satisfying government inspectors”)

“Stalin's government inspectors” and Hitlers “degenerate Art” are the best reasons why “culture” should never, ever be a function of state funding and why it is always better left to the “philanthropic choice” of the individual consumer.

Accepted Jon J - and I'm trying my best to convince people that a few cents a day is a fairly small price to pay for something that is likely to last for centuries.

In fact - I just got off the phone with Symphony Australia, and they estimated the actual funding that goes directly towards commissioning new works is more in the order of 50 thousand a year, rather than 70 million. That's less than 1c a year! In contrast, total military spending is in the order of $2000 dollars a year out of your paycheque.

No doubt, money is wasted on propping up various artistic endeavours of questionable value, but to decry all funding for new compositions simply because you personally find it difficult to appreciate them is a bit precious.

The poster ybgirp has dealt with the matter of arts education pretty well. It's not just some 'cultivation of a particular taste'! While educators will always tend to have certain tastes which they will consciously or unconsciously pass on to their students, the studies go far beyond that. Studying music, art and literature develops parts of the brain that would otherwise be left to turn to mush.

Public funding outside of the school system is a different (although related) topic -
Col Rouge said:
"I would note, “discretionary income”, which the taxpayer has if he is not taxed, versus the tax he might otherwise pay, represents the removal of “choice” between the consumer/taxpayer and the service supplier (the “artist”)."

Doesn't the same apply, then, to parks, beaches, public concerts, town festivals, elaborate public buildings and so on? You want choice, Col. Fine. So where is the line to be drawn when it comes to public spaces , for example? Is every fountain and sculpture in the public spaces of every town and city across Australia a waste of money?

You might be happy to pay to go into a park full of old, manicured trees and fountains. Such a park might be more pleasant without alcoholics and junkies hanging around. Take the Chinese Garden in Darling Harbour as an example. Very pleasant. But about 10 bucks to get in.

Col, you are very proud and confident of your consumer/supplier 'model', but does your model work when it comes to the details?

Dr Livingstone ”Col, you are very proud and confident of your consumer/supplier 'model', but does your model work when it comes to the details?’

The Guggenheim example of “private patronage” (http://www.gf.org/broch.html#top) or the New York Metropolitan Opera (which enjoys private patrons and audiences without a tax subsidy), works better than the Hitler and Stalin models.

Please explain why you support the “fund it through the state” perspective (of Hitler and Stalin), Doc?

As for “Doesn't the same apply, then, to parks, beaches, public concerts, town festivals, elaborate public buildings and so on?”

If we consider the camouflage mausoleum on Flinders Street, Melbourne I would say bring back the gas and fuel towers.

Simply scaling up a dried out dog turd would look better.

An “artist” is no different to a plumber, electrician, auto assembly worker or me. The plumber, electrician, auto worker and me all have to justify our existence to our client / employers.

Paying for “art” through taxes removes the free choice of the purchaser / tax payer and replaces it with a “political” decision, no different to the dictates of Stalin and Hitler.

I would note, Mozart existed on private patronage. Handel too. Leonardo Da Vinci and Canaletto (my favourite painter) were both supported by private patronage. I do not recall Picasso ever receiving a “sub” from the rates.

When I commissioned a metal sculptor, I did not negotiate with the local council to “chip in” for what now decorates my home.

Public concerts, charge for their performances, the MSO at the Victorian Market concert cost my partner quite a few bucks when we went.

As for parks and gardens, there is a hell of a difference between maintaining public spaces and shaping cultural values.

I can and have been prepared to pay for my “cultural interests” I can spot a Hepworth at 50 meters and a Moore at a hundred but still prefer Cellini.

Some politician will never achieve a better job at satisfying my "cultural taste" through taxes.

And I pay for the police to jail the alcoholics and junkies.

Col, so basically your position is that you aren't prepared to forgo a few cents a year of your paycheque because you believe that the James Packers and Joe Sixpacks of this world are better judges of our national composers' artistic merits than professional conductors and artistic directors like Edo de Vaart or Richard Tognetti.

Glad to have cleared that up.

(BTW, Fed. square cost orders of magnitude more than what is spent on supporting new orchestral music in Australia, can only be appreciated by those who live or happen to travel to Melbourne, and can't realistically be avoided by those who do live here but don't care for it. On that basis, I would be willing to agree it wasn't perhaps the best use of taxpayer funds, although again, there's hundreds of other questionable uses of such funds that I would rather see addressed before I was worried about whether governments should be subsidising modern architecture).

Col>: "As for parks and gardens, there is a hell of a difference between maintaining public spaces and shaping cultural values."

You are very wrong. Public spaces play a very large role in shaping cultural values. That's why we pay professional architects, town planners, landscape architects, engineers and sculptors, etc. to work together to create successful public spaces which enliven our towns and cities. However, many people are not interested is using them, so why should they have to pay for them? Every day in Martin Place in Sydney there are free performances. Isn't that unfair for people who prefer to work through their lunch-breaks?

Col>: "And I pay for the police to jail the alcoholics and junkies."

No you don't. You pay the police to arrest those who are breaking the law. The courts decide who goes to jail or not.

Col>: "I would note, Mozart existed on private patronage."
People like Mozart and da Vinci were largely supported by patrons who WERE the government (noblemen, churchmen, courtesans). Your comparison is a dud because they had totally different power systems back then. Our society is based on negotiating compromises between various lobby groups in order to benefit the largest possible number of people.

I beg to disagree, ybgirp.

>>Pericles asks whether it is necessary to educate in order to appreciate art. Of course it is! Is it necessary to teach people how to read? Is it necessary to teach people how to compute? Great art, music and literature are complex intellectual creations that do not open themselves easily to observers<<

You are saying that music, art, literature etc. are such "complex intellectual creations, that they are by definition inaccessible to us morons who haven't attended lectures?

You know of course, being an academic, that Shakespeare only allowed PhDs into the Globe, in case the hoi polloi got the wrong end of the stick about Hamlet.

And that before writing Die Entführing, Mozart insisted Emperor Joseph attend a course in the intricacies of German Singspiel.

What a load of utter nonsense.

I am sure that understanding better the building blocks of art, the "subtle psychology of placement, composition, colour and balance, the use of symbols and other iconographical tricks", or the architecture of a symphony or a concerto, or the structure of a novel, enables someone to make a better fist of being an artist themselves.

But I genuinely fail to see how it is a prerequisite for the audience.

In a less generous moment I would suggest that such an attitude is elitist, condescending, arrogant and - ultimately - self-defeating.

Of course it is necessary to read, in order to get value from literature, in the same way that it helps not to be blind when confronted with a painting or deaf when attending a concert.

Interestingly though, and significantly for the analogy with art, there should be no requirement to "teach people to compute", since it is the job of the programmer is to make the necessary computation accessible, not the user's task to learn the programmer's craft.

There should be no onus on the general public to "learn" what artists use to create their works, any more than it is necessary to understand the mechanics behind a conjuring trick, or sawing the lady in half.

Pericles - who said anything about lectures? The best musical education starts at home: early exposure to great classical music is almost essential to the ability to enjoy it fully as an adult.
I owe my love of classical music almost entirely to my parents, their record collection, and especially the extensive "The Great Composers" series of cassettes and accompanying booklets that was bought for me. They certainly didn't teach me music theory or history directly, but that was my 'education', and it happened well before we even had music classes at school.

Until a significant percentage of the population receives such an education, there will never be enough interest from the general public to sustain the classical music tradition on ticket sales alone.

Despite that, I'm also supremely confident that the vast majority of Australians, if asked "Do you mind that a few cents a day out of your paycheque goes towards supporting classical music in Australia, ensuring that we all have the opportunity attend such performances or listen to them on the radio?" would agree that this wasn't an issue to them.

Wizofaus “forgo a few cents a year of your paycheque”

That is you twisting words.

Individuals are better at making choices with their own resources than government is. government manipulation ranges from political influence peddling to paying back favours with taxpayers money.

Re Fed Square, that “non-building” has no discernable lines, no form and thus is basically camouflaged from view, making it instantly “avoidable”.

My opinion is not singular. Every architect I have spoken with feels similar.

Dr Livingstone
“Public spaces play a very large role in shaping cultural values. That's why we pay professional …. to work together to create successful public spaces which enliven our towns and cities.”

That is your excuse for Mary Delahuntys “blue trees”, the congestion on the Westgate and tunnels (poor town planning), the “yella terror” (had to be hidden from public abuse), and the non-building in Fed Square.

Somehow the promises of “expert” townplanners and their associates, with noses in the public trough, has failed to generate the utopian aspirations which you presume.

“Every day in Martin Place in Sydney there are free performances. Isn't that unfair for people who prefer to work through their lunch-breaks”

I agree, you are supporting my view. User pays, not tax payers.

“You pay the police to arrest those who are breaking the law.”
The pedantic nit-picking of someone who has lost a debate.

“People like Mozart and da Vinci were largely supported by patrons who WERE the government (noblemen, churchmen, courtesans).”

None the less, a private patron decision and I would say paying for the privilege.

Nowadays “government” is a more “democratic” process where the electorate decides.

I am suggesting you extend the choice to fund “art” is no different to the right to select a government representative but you are arguing against that.

Strange idea of “democracy” you have.

I note in my last post, I made a direct challenge for you

I repeat it now

“Please explain why you support the “fund it through the state” perspective (of Hitler and Stalin), Doc?”

I await response.

Culturally, "Private Choice" always betters "Political Patronage".

Why must the arts be singled out? Sports recieve massive public subsidies , the charity that football , Rugby league and Cricket rely on to have a venue to pay is never recouped by clubs and yet are allowed to profit from private sponsorship. Small local clubs and sports fields are totally dependent on local council subsidisation. A tiny minority of people use these places and yet they cost Australians many millions. Church organisations also recieve public subsidies for the benifit of almost nobody. Employers reciever subsisies for workers they can easily afford ,private schools also recieve subsidies at the same time making profits, companies recieve subsidised water and power. The money music in Australia recieves is insignificant compared to any other sector. Lets either get rid of all subsidies or stop complaining.

Col, how is it twisting words? It's just the practical outcome of your unprovable and subjective judgement that "Individuals are better at making choices with their own resources than government is". Which in itself is twisting the reality - the only thing the government decides is what tiny amount of money to give to the arts. The decisions about exactly what music should be supported are made, as I said, by professional musicians and educated music-lovers.

Ultimately your position is your prerogative. But let me ask you this - if you had the choice to opt out of sacrificing a few cents of each paycheque towards Art funding, but were then not permitted to attend publicly-funded concerts, would you take it?

wizofaus asks:

>>Pericles - who said anything about lectures?<<

I was responding to ybgirp, who was most certainly talking about lectures.

"When confronted with a masterpiece they saw nothing they were used to and became almost angry when asked to talk about what they saw. By the end of the year they could ‘read’ a painting as well as they could read a novel."

>> The best musical education starts at home: early exposure to great classical music is almost essential to the ability to enjoy it fully as an adult<<

I am assuming from this that you actually agree with me, rather than with ybgirp.

>>Until a significant percentage of the population receives such an education<<

But in your world this is unachievable. If you are unable to appreciate classical music unless you were introduced to it by your parents, how will you be in a position to enthuse your own children?

Exposure is the key, not parents or teachers. And if businesses are smart, they will want to be associated with the sorts of programmes that simultaneously introduce people to the arts, and to their own contributions to society. It looks good in the annual report, and ensures good publicity for their business.

Theoretically, you could apply the same arguments to government largesse. Unfortunately, governments everywhere share the same characteristic - the ability to spend other people's money really really badly.

To adapt Sibley's Law only slightly, giving money to the government is like giving a gallon of beer to a drunk. You know what will become of it, but you can’t know which wall he will choose.

West “Lets either get rid of all subsidies or stop complaining.”

I agree

Individual consumers are the best judges of what they are buying; not disinterested, faceless bureaucrats or promise peddling politicians.

Wizofaus “It's just the practical outcome of your unprovable and subjective judgement that "Individuals are better at making choices with their own resources than government is".”

In a democracy, Individuals elect all levels of government.

Governments rely on the individuals “unprovable and subjective judgment” to be elected.

You are suggesting the folk who elect governments are incapable of deciding what they like in terms of “art”.

Which is utter rubbish!

If I thought government was in any way better at making choices for me than I am myself, I would be a Bolshevik.

I am no Bolshevik.

I have enjoyed considerable time studying visual arts.
At the age of 40 I discovered classical music, eventually evolving through Puccini, Wagner and Beethoven to appreciate Mozart.
My living room is graced by 3 large Canaletto prints, because I favour his style.

Re“if you had the choice to opt out of sacrificing a few cents of each paycheque towards Art funding, but were then not permitted to attend publicly-funded concerts,”

My partner paid for us to watch one of the performances of the MSO at the Queen Victoria market.

I buy my CD’s etc. commercially, without public subsidy.

I pay to visit the National Gallery of Victoria (both permanent and traveling collections).

I paid to view the “Bald-Archy” exhibition in 2007, when it happened to visit Bright the same day as I.

I guess I am paying for my “cultural indulgences”, as well as being forcibly charged through my rates and taxes.

I call that “double dipping” and as such it represents an abuse of governmental power.

Removing the individuals market choice from “art” is no different to removing the market choice from any other product or service.

All that results is some form of "cultural monopoly" and as we saw, with Hitler and Stalin, monopolies only deliver the worst supply for the highest price.

Col Rouge > “Please explain why you support the “fund it through the state” perspective (of Hitler and Stalin), Doc?”

'Fund it through the state' is normal practice throughout the world's nations today. Hitler/Stalin = irrelevant. Your position of funding everything privately is radical and diverges greatly from current practice. Therefore the onus is on you to explain the practicalities and possible outcomes of doing things 'your way'.

I brought up public spaces because they are a 'cultural indulgence' as much as free concerts and exhibitions. However it would be highly impractical and expensive to wall or cordon off parks, beaches and other public spaces and performance areas so that they could be purely user-pays affairs. The result would be much uglier than your Federation Square building. Speaking of which, regardless of what you think of it, it is without question an intrigue that attracts large numbers of visitors who boost the local economy.

You would be aware that the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra is mostly funded by taxpayers, regardless of the price one pays at the door. MSO Governance: http://www.mso.com.au/cpa/htm/htm_article.asp?page_id=15
Same goes for the National Gallery of Victoria. What you pay only takes the edge off the cost to taxpayers. It's not 'double-dipping' on the part of the government - galleries and orchestras are just expensive and require funding from a variety of sources.

Re role of police, that wasn't being pedantic - I genuinely thought that someone silly enough to suggest jailing all alcoholics and junkies might also be silly enough not to know what the role of our police is. Despite the fact that such a program would end up only targeting homeless alcoholics and junkies, as opposed to those with jobs, the expense of policing and imprisonment would be better spent on say, supporting the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra or free concerts to liven up Martin Place during what might otherwise be just another dreary workday.

Livingstone “Fund it through the state' is normal practice throughout the world's nations today…… Therefore the onus is on you to explain the practicalities and possible outcomes of doing things 'your way'.”

Not so in USA and not so in many parts of the world.

you are just using that as an excuse.

Reality is, when asked, you lack literary ability to defend the process you here claim to support.

Obviously, in “Livingstone world” the state not only “chooses” for you but also “thinks” for you.

That reduces your view to “the philosophy of a vacuum”

As for “highly impractical and expensive to wall or cordon off parks, beaches and other public spaces and performance areas so that they could be purely user-pays affairs.”

That can be determined from a cost / benefit analysis.
Whilst the parks and beaches remain public, they are a rate and tax payer owned asset.
Should they be privatised, the taxpayer / rate payer paid for the transfer, doubtless the new owner is free to choose to secure such areas off from public access or not.

“Melbourne Symphony Orchestra is mostly funded by taxpayers”
and the user-pays New York Metropolitan Opera is not.

We can learn from the USA.

“role of police, that wasn't being pedantic”

yes it is

re “targeting homeless alcoholics and junkies”

Junkies or alcoholics reflect an indifference to their personal wellbeing. Locking them up means they are less likely to be burglarising honest tax payers to support their addiction..

You seem to think the state should make all the decisions and levy all the taxes upon us.
I suspect you work in the public sector, part of some monolithic bureaucracy, which regulates and prescribes your every action.

Your desire to surrender your personal discretion and choices to the state, presumably for “security” or due to lack of imagination / motivation, has resulted in you merely “existing”.

I am risking and “living” everyday of my life.

I would not change my life for your existence ever.

That is of course “My Choice” and not one determined by the “State”

Col, the New York Met is dependent on government funding, and recent cuts to it, and the consequent need to increase ticket prices, have significantly affected sales:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDC143AF932A35751C0A964958260

If orchestras could operate profitably without government funding, then where are Australia's privately-funded orchestras? There's no law against them. Further, ticket prices are already as high as the market can bear - The Australian Opera recently tried increasing ticket prices by 6%, and sales dropped by exactly 6%.

If government funding for orchestras and opera companies in Australia was scrapped, we would have no professional orchestras or opera companies - no two ways about it. If we were lucky, eventually enough of the super-wealthy who cared might realise what a loss this was, and agree to fund a single orchestra, but that would be about it. For the sake of your ideological belief (and a few cents out of your paycheque), most Australians would have no opportunity to attend performances of classical music.

Thank goodness for democracy.

Wizofaus “no professional orchestras or opera companies…. For the sake of your ideological belief (and a few cents out of your paycheque),”

If opera companies and orchestras were so popular, they would be able to generate the revenue needed.

If they cannot maintain themselves, then why should a clearly disinterested tax payer be stuck with footing the bill?

Why should we be left paying for a service which, by your own definition, no one wants or too few are prepared to pay the necessary commercial rate for?

It is no different to running public transport. Who decides when a railway branch line is no longer “viable”?

As for the sake of my idealogy and paycheque:

my paycheque is not the product of government grants. The only government funds in it are the product of arms length commercial negotiations on the basis of commercial need, not some subjective artistic judgment to cultural merit.

my “ideology” is the result of living in a general culture where just about every worthless minority interest both, cultural and commercial, was the beneficiary of government funding to the point consumers had very, very little personal choice, due to lack of discretionary income, as in UK in 1960s.

It is a matter of justifying, in your terms, how many cents from my paycheque are requisitioned to support indulgences which I would not otherwise pay for.

On the one hand, we could go on infinitely finding projects with diminishing right to call them selves “worthy causes” until no one spent anything for themselves and everything was run and funded by the state, all income being subject to very high taxes (say a marginal rate of 98%, like UK in 1960s).

On the other hand, art and cultural interests are not deemed “necessaries”, whereas, based on historic case law, a pair of trousers are. Since we do not give grants to tailors, we should not be giving grants to artists.

No government has any insight into my preferences for culture and thus should not seek, through selective funding, to provide for my cultural interests.

Col, if you seriously believe the world would be a better place with no orchestras, and a few more cents in the hands of each taxpayer, then fine - that's your opinion (certainly your CD collection would become more valuable, if no new recordings were ever to be made of great orchestral music).
But no government would ever get elected on such a platform, because the vast majority of the population would not agree with you. That's democracy.

I'm not sure you have represented the position correctly, wizofaus.

>>if you seriously believe the world would be a better place with no orchestras, and a few more cents in the hands of each taxpayer, then fine<<

You appear to be suggesting that it is the taxpayers' "few cents" that represent the only difference between the existence and non-existence of orchestras. I'm not sure that is a reasonable assumption.

If the government were to withdraw all public funding from the arts tomorrow and refund the moneys to taxpayers in the form of lower taxation, I suspect that two things would happen. First, there would be a rush of special pleadings - we must "save" this orchestra, or that opera company, or the other theatre. Then, businessmen would begin the process of arranging alternate funding - through trusts, appeals, sponsorships etc. - of those cultural "essentials" that deserve to survive, for whatever reason.

It is worth pointing out that 2MBS FM, a classical/jazz music station in Sydney, has been operating for over thirty years without any government funding. I am sure there are many similar instances around the country of the arts standing on its own two feet, and taking full responsibility for their existence.

It may also happen that cities decide that tourist attractions such as major opera houses or concert halls deserve additional incentives, in return for maintaining an iconic status and bringing the city identifiable benefits.

It is possible along the way that an orchestra may be disbanded, or a couple of theatre companies amalgamate in order to survive. But to dangle the vision of "no orchestras" as an alternative to government subsidy is not convincing.

You obviously see a more catastrophic outcome to the prospect of zero government financial support, but is it more likely to occur than the one I describe?

Incidentally, do not underestimate the power of a promised tax cut, given back to the people in return for privatising the arts.

The average taxpayer has less sympathy with grant-dependent luvvies than you might think.

>>You appear to be suggesting that it is the taxpayers' "few cents" >>that represent the only difference between the existence and non->>existence of orchestras. I'm not sure that is a reasonable assumption

Well it's a "few cents" a day per taxpayer, which adds up to ~100 million dollars a year. And yes, I am most definitely suggesting that without that money, Australia would have no professional full symphony orchestras. It's not just an assumption, it's based on the fact that these orchestras have already tried almost everything within reason to raise additional funds and rely less on government money, and that there no such orchestras in Australia (and quite possibly anywhere in the world) that are not dependent on government funding. Even the London Philharmonic, which derives a significant income from performing film scores, relies on government funding.

How are radio stations even marginally comparable to running an entire orchestra?

A tax cut that amounts to less than $1 a month isn't likely to win any votes. Polls even showed that the majority of those asked didn't want the tax cuts being offered as part of the last election campaign, and they're in the order of $50 a month.

Look, it's a silly discussion anyway - no government is about to strip away all funding for orchestras. Indeed, I'm willing to bet that within the next 6 years, funding will have been increased, hopefully back to pre-Howard levels.

Wiz “Col, if you seriously believe the world would be a better place with no orchestras,”

People, being free to support what ever cultural pursuits the wish, orchestras included will ensure their continuance. Lack of government funding will not see orchestras disappear.

“it's a "few cents" a day per taxpayer.”

How much should be spent on Peruvian mountain choral societies or Moldavian nose flute ensembles?

Some folk, had they more money in their disposable income (instead of it being taken in taxes to fund orchestras), would prefer to directly support Moldavian nose flute ensembles.

I would note the "multiculturalism's” demise is hastened by taxes being levied to fund “mainstream culture” eg classical orchestras at the expense of individual choices to support other cultural pursuits, like nose flute ensembles.

By the time the government bureaucracy has been paid to do “its thing”, for every dollar of taxes drawn away from private spending, half goes in bureaucracy, so the orchestra only get 50 cents, had they been competing in the market, they would have got 100 cents of those who thought they were worth it rather than 50 cents from those without a choice.

As for “How are radio stations even marginally comparable to running an entire orchestra?”

They both claim to “entertain”,

I would note the station in Melbourne on 103.5 FM (cannot recall the name) is a private classical station which I occasional tune to, it relies on advertising and private subscriptions.

If you are going to intervene to support classical music, why should the state not do the same for, say the Bee Gees, Silver Chair and any other mob who aspire to produce “pop” music?

“Look, it's a silly discussion anyway”

Not “Silly”

I am arguing the principle.

My principle is, “government” does not know what people want as “culture” and should, therefore, not levy taxes to fund what it does not know about.

Remember, in a democracy, government is there to represent its citizens (not to direct their cultural pursuits).

If the citizens are being moulded by government, we call it "dictatorship".

Col, while demand for live classical music isn't enough to support orchestras on its own, there is at least sufficient demand to keep the concert halls full for several performances a week throughtout the year, allowing that the ticket prices are heavily subsidised. Moldavian nose flute ensembles wouldn't fill concert halls even if they were fully paid for by the taxpayer.

If I were in charge of allocating arts funding to performance groups, my rule would probably be that taxpayer funds would subsidise ticket prices by a maximum of 50%. If a Moldavian nose flute ensemble can remain profitable with 50% subsidisation, then good on it.

That way you can't argue that government is "directing [our] cultural pursuits".

Wiz “my rule would probably be that taxpayer funds would subsidise ticket prices by a maximum of 50%.”

And how much would they subsidise “Rolling Stones” or “Police” tours tickets when filling the same concert halls on the off days of the week which the orchestras cannot fill?

My “rule” would be the taxpayer be left to decide for themselves.

Private individuals using the monies, left in their pockets from lower taxes, selecting the classical or otherwise entertainment of their choice or maybe putting that same monies into a house deposit or whatever other discretionary choice takes their fancy.

As for “If a Moldavian nose flute ensemble can remain profitable with 50% subsidisation, “

I chose a “Moldavian nose flute ensemble” for the obvious reasons,
It does not represent any “mainstream” Australian interest
It has no “characteristic” associated with Australia

There is no point in government funding “marginal” pursuits, especially when the government has no clue as to the public demand for any “cultural” support over other worthy causes. like baby bonuses, pensions, health, education and military spending.

If émigré Moldavians want to spend their own tax savings on their nose flute ensembles, let them.

I will spend my tax savings on what suites me, maybe start collecting antique French ticklers (as in whatever tickles my girlfriends fancy).

I agree with what Pericles wrote

“a classical/jazz music station in Sydney, has been operating for over thirty years without any government funding. I am sure there are many similar instances around the country of the arts standing on its own two feet, and taking full responsibility for their existence.”

And

“The average taxpayer has less sympathy with grant-dependent luvvies than you might think.”

Krudd cannot afford to play “lady bountiful” by diverting tax cuts he endorsed in the election.

There is a wave of major economic problems about to land on his desk.

Whatever he does, he is going to look pretty bad (incidentally, Howard and Co would have dealt with them in the liberal way using options “ideologically” unavailable to the socialists).

Col Rouge > "Your desire to surrender your personal discretion and choices to the state, presumably for "security" or due to lack of imagination / motivation, has resulted in you merely "existing"."

Well, your imagination seems to be functioning well enough:

Col Rouge > "I suspect you work in the public sector, part of some monolithic bureaucracy, which regulates and prescribes your every action."

Private 'sector'. Clients include companies, individuals and one organisation that is partly funded by the state. Your divination skills are greatly lacking, however your ability to be belligerent for the sake of it seems well-rehearsed.

I requested that you describe your extreme user-pays ideology in more detail - to define where the lines should be drawn, if any, to mark the boundary between what is publicly-owned and what is privately owned. You couldn't do that so eventually you respond with sneering contempt - "I would not change my life for your existence ever."

Because I asked you questions about your Utopia, you assumed that I seek a Utopia as well:

Col Rouge > "Somehow the promises of "expert" townplanners and their associates, with noses in the public trough, has failed to generate the utopian aspirations which you presume."

Who on earth do you think should do town planning, if not qualified town planners?

I am willing to give ear to anyone's ideas, especially if they are able to elucidate them clearly. You have not been able to do so with your 'Privatopia' concept, and quickly become belligerent when questioned. You cannot explain how a ground-up rebuild of our society (necessary to implement your Privatopia) is either possible or desirable.

Col Rouge > "Reality is, when asked, you lack literary ability to defend the process you here claim to support."

Nowhere in any of my posts did I implicitly or explicitly claim to support a particular 'process' or ideology. My literary ability is sound. At the end of the day, it is like this: YOU have an inflexible, radical ideology. It is not up to me to wipe your bottom when you can't detail your ideology/case properly.