tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716509980377809016.post5785072949831339731..comments2024-03-11T10:20:01.582-07:00Comments on The Rehearsal Studio: Fighting Words over the Fine ArtsStephen Smoliarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14689767135234237242noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716509980377809016.post-90625439421808160432008-11-21T14:23:00.000-08:002008-11-21T14:23:00.000-08:00I am glad that Matt Smith found my comments "thoug...I am glad that Matt Smith found my comments "thoughtful;" and I definitely feel the same way about his response. I also agree that in a time of serious deficit (and I do not doubt that $90 million is "serious," even though some institutions would regard it as "insignificant") there are budget items that need to be significantly cut, if not eliminated entirely. In such times it is difficult to talk about negative long-term consequences in the face of short-term remedies; but the consequences of avoiding such talk are almost always <I>more</I> negative. The good news is that Smith is open to such talk; the bad news is that neither of us is likely to have any impact on budget decisions, regardless of the conclusions that emerge from that talk.<BR/><BR/>Smith is right to point out that there is a dark side to how the fine arts are funded. My effort to respond in terms of a cost/benefit analysis was not so much a rebuttal as an attempt to view the situation through different lenses. Nevertheless, I will be the first to admit that those lenses are distorting, primarily because the benefits involve the sort of "intangibles" that the business-school types like to identify and then ignore. In that respect funding the fine arts is not that different from funding education: One does not get any argument over whether or not there <I>are</I> benefits; but as soon as anyone insists on <I>quantifying</I> those benefits (say, in order to prioritize the "seriousness" of budget cuts), the discussion goes all to hell.<BR/><BR/>From a strictly qualitative point of view, I can state that I have lived in a rather large number of cities around the world (probably not as large as Mariedi Anders, the subject of the article at the other end of the "classical-discord" hyperlink). I have lived in cities where the only opportunities to hear "live" classical music come from an extremely sparse flow of visitors, where the "resident talent" is painfully mediocre, and where the performances are "world class." To the extent that my portfolio still allows it, living in a city with "world class" talent makes a difference to me; and Michael Tilson Thomas contributes to that difference in a significant way (as does the San Francisco Opera, just to clarify that I am not putting all of my eggs in one basket). I might even be bold enough to suggest that Thomas makes a significant positive impact on the quality of education received by students at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, as well as the less specialized academic institutions in the Bay Area.<BR/><BR/>On the quantitative side, it goes without saying that every recipient of city money needs a ruthless representative whose goal is to avoid getting that recipient's budget cut. That is the way the game is played, and the tragedy is that those rules undermine opportunities for negotiation before the conversations even begin. Unfortunately, alarmist rhetoric over spending too much for too little in return <I>also</I> undermines opportunities for negotiation, which leaves the city's budget caught between a rock and a hard place.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what, if anything, the Mayor and Supervisors will do in the interest of serious deliberation with representatives of the fine arts institutions prior to any budget decision-making. I <I>do</I> know that many of my reasons for living in San Francisco are based on "intangible" benefits. If those benefits leave, then I shall have to decide whether I want to leave with them.Stephen Smoliarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14689767135234237242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-716509980377809016.post-69356607106555219152008-11-21T13:37:00.000-08:002008-11-21T13:37:00.000-08:00The following comment was submitted by Matt Smith ...The following comment was submitted by Matt Smith by way of a response to the points I raised; since he submitted it to my most recent post, rather than this one, I am reproducing it here:<BR/>--<BR/><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/profile/06186879546354864760" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Matt</A> said... <BR/>Dear Mr. Smoliar,<BR><BR/><BR><BR/>Thank you for your very thoughtful comments.<BR><BR/>There's no question ordinary people get pleasure out of going to the symphony. I <BR/>think I meant my discussion to be held in the shadow of a city that's struggling <BR/>to decide what to cut or not cut in the fact of a $90 million budget deficit.<BR><BR/>More than a decade ago I spent a month researching an article on the business of <BR/>classical music, and attended the annual trade convention of this "industry" <BR/>such as it is. I sat in on workshops where symphony executive directors fretted <BR/>about how to re-cement their position as worthy public-benefit charities, now <BR/>that the public felt it could satisfy sophisticated musical tastes elsewhere. <BR/>Many acknowledged that the old idea of a symphony deserving tax dollars didn't <BR/>really fly in many communities. Some tried to redefine their organizations into <BR/>educational institutions. San Francisco went a different way, largely weaning <BR/>itself from government support by developing a national donor following.<BR><BR/>The old article is here: <BR><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sfweekly.com/1997-09-03/news/classical-discord/5" REL="nofollow"><BR/>http://www.sfweekly.com/1997-09-03/news/classical-discord/</A><BR><BR/>I had a section in this week's column on this issue, too. But it was cut for <BR/>space. Perhaps you'd be interested in reading it anyway.<BR><BR/><BR><BR/>"...But it’s worth taking a look because it’s the public face of a business <BR/>strategy unrelated to serving the public interest. It involves hoisting the star <BR/>of their music director to boost ticket sales, then shoveling ever more cash and <BR/>perks to their self-created celebrity to keep him aboard.<BR><BR/>This type of spectacle is what’s known among some priggish aficionados as The <BR/>Decline and Fall of Classical Music. The zenith of this arc occurred during the <BR/>1970s and 80s, as boom cities in the Southwest and bursting exurbs everywhere <BR/>sought to exhibit their newfound glory by establishing, or growing, a symphony <BR/>orchestra, so that chamber of commerce brochures for towns such as Fairfield, <BR/>Calif., could in good faith feature a cello bow action shot.<BR><BR/>The bottom fell out of that market during the last recession, which coincided <BR/>with a catastrophic epiphany among baby boomers: listening to Cuban <BR/>Afroantiliana music or American jazz, they realized, had cultural merit similar <BR/>to attending a performance of Tchaikovsky.<BR><BR/>Some symphonies tried to survive by re-fashion themselves as educational <BR/>institutions, forcing unhappy flautists to give talks at schools. <BR><BR/>Just as the end seemed nigh, a miracle came along in the form of The Three <BR/>Tenors, drawing nearly a billion people to television broadcasts, and selling up <BR/>to 10 million records per release. De Mille, not Chautauqua, became the new <BR/>paradigm. San Francisco found its own handsome, charismatic, artistically <BR/>prominent box-office draw in Tilson Thomas, spending fortunes to promote his <BR/>stardom, and fortunes more to keep him..."<BR/><A HREF="http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/11/temporal-spectrum-of-chamber-music.html?showComment=1227296400000#c2115092747409919877" REL="nofollow" TITLE="comment permalink"><BR/>November 21, 2008 11:40 AM </A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=716509980377809016&postID=2115092747409919877" REL="nofollow" TITLE="Delete Comment"><BR/></A>Stephen Smoliarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14689767135234237242noreply@blogger.com