>Can those "arts" organizations also contribute to our current and future >culture? Yes, of course. But not by competing directly with the >overwhelming and very healthy market forces that govern popular "arts." >These "serious" arts are aspects of our past culture which existed, grew >and flourished as entertainment for the upper classes, whether nobility or >merely wealthy. They still are.
This is a classic bit of American cultural prejudice. It's simply untrue, and basically confuses the music's patrons with its consumers. In the radio business, the audience for classical radio stations has traditionally been summarized as "doctors, lawyers, teachers, and musicians." Hardly the upper crust. As I said in a previous post to this thread, the consumers of classical music in *every* culture that has developed a classical tradition are the intelligentsia. The wealthy and powerful *patronize* the music in order to keep the intelligentsia happy. New classical music created now is in no different a social position than that created in former times: it has *always* been a minority taste, and it has *always* been subsidized, both in its creation and its performance, by rich and powerful figures who seldom have much actual interest in the stuff itself (the totally unmusical JFK is a good case in point), and who more often than not have provided support via the government which they directly or indirectly control. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
