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.