The future of classical music in the concert hall in UK?

Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 24 July 2007

Dear Friends,

As an upshot of the BBC thread, I was wondering whether others share my rather austere view that the performance of classical music should stand without Public [Tax Payer's] support in future in the UK, [or even indirectly by the support of the BBC, which is after all funded by a form of public taxation, even if this is based on the ownership of television receiving equipment].

As a minority interest, I am of the view that ticket prices should reflect the costs of promoting concerts, and should be commercially guaged to cover the costs - the cost being born by those who attend the concerts as individuals.

I realise this would radically reduce the amount of classical music given in concert halls, but even if it died out altogether would this be a tragedy in any real sense? I think not, but I also think it would much more likely find a level where there would be less, but what there was would certainly be finer...

I have not a few reasoned arguements for my view, but think it would be nice to have a discussion and allow the debate to evolve and reveal the range of views. Some may think my view is very odd given my love of the classics, but I hardly think my love of the repertoire should colour what is a logically reasoned position, even if it is one I wish I had not reasoned myself into!

Please add your own thoughts!

Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 24 July 2007 by Revelation 33 1/3
So, your view is that if there is no public support, the arts should be left to shrivel and die on their own.

An interesting view. My view : There are worse things that Governments endeavor to go to their purses for. Wars, for example.


Regards
Posted on: 25 July 2007 by chaliapin
I must admit to finding this the thin end of a very scary wedge. Ought we also to scrap libraries on the grounds that those who want a book should just buy one? More importantly, should profitability be the yardstick of social value? Should we, for instance, stop teaching children all those subjects which have no obvious workplace value? As it is, our schools are shifting from education to Gradgrindian training. Would it not be better to say that we are the grateful heirs of Homer, Monet, Dickens, Mozart, Goethe etc and to do our best to share the wealth of those masters?

If music is not free then there are some people whom it will never reach; I know at least two people who discovered the wonder of opera by listening to Pavarotti banging out Nessun dorma during the world cup. They would never have known Puccini and thence Verdi or Britten etc if they had been asked to pay to hear Pavarotti in the first place.

When we subsidise public performance we are saying that the Arts matter to us. Long may that continue.

(Climbs off soapbox).

Chaliapin
Posted on: 25 July 2007 by acad tsunami
Barking mad.
Posted on: 26 July 2007 by Steve S1
Fredrik,

With your love of music I can't believe you posted this. I'm glad money is spent on promoting things that don't necessarily appeal to me, but make other's happy and add to the variety on offer.

Jeeze. What kind of cultural desert do you want to live in? If every form of art or leisure interest had to survive purely on admission or direct subscription - there would be football and casinos left.

The government should spend money on some of the things things we may personally not contribute to. That's the whole point of pooling resources, to provide things that could not be sustained by individuals alone.

Steve
Posted on: 26 July 2007 by Guido Fawkes
Dear Fredrik

This would be tragic. It can't be allowed. There must be public support for the arts and classical music performance. If there is not and it is lost then many will grow up with no opportunity to hear a classical concert and decide if they enjoy music.

If we continue this thinking - no BBC, no classical concerts, no libraries, no museums .... where does it end.

What about no youth clubs - I never use one. No schools - I have no call to use one. Why can't parents or the children themselves fund these? Where does it end if we only contribute to things we use.

We need to fund classics and the arts, libraries, museums, schools, youth clubs (and Ipswich Town - sorry didn't mean to say that) - that are essential.

Personally, I've no wish to spend public money on bombing people that have never threatened me, but the Government see it differently. I'd have spent some of the (wasted) money on flood defences, but I'm probably in the minority on this one.

ATB Rotf
Posted on: 26 July 2007 by Guido Fawkes
Hi Frank

Hope you get your second power supply soon - you certainly have a great set-up. I think whatever Naim does in its pre/power amps that they work really well. I saw Richard's answer, which was very informative. My ears are probably my biggest bandwidth limiter Smile

Back on thread, it would be nice to think I'm not in minority - I try not think too deeply about some things that go on. There's plenty of public money around if it is used properly. I remember learning that all Children need exposure to eight areas of learning (Music, Art & Literature comprised one area) and if we deny any area then we deny them the chance to develop fully. So we can't let art and music die.

I also remember a line in the film Dead Poet's Society - that engineering, science and economics are fine disciplines and necessary for life, but art, music and poetry are what we live for[/i] - great line IMHO.

ATB Rotf
Posted on: 26 July 2007 by Macker
quote:
Originally posted by Revelation 33 1/3:
So, your view is that if there is no public support, the arts should be left to shrivel and die on their own.


If society does not give support then maybe that is a reflection of societies value in the arts.

I for one think that diversity is the key to free thinking and expression of individualism - arts are diverse and so is their interpretation - long may free spirit reign.

Sometimes we don't know what we have until it is gone....