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.