September is traditionally the time when opera companies and orchestras return to their home cities from Aix, Salzburg, Tanglewood and countless other summer festivals. This is also marked (on both sides of the Atlantic) by the return of worries about how classical music is financed.
American symphonic life is Euro-centric in almost every respect except for its funding. Whereas Americans depend upon tax-deductible private donations and box office receipts to finance live classical music, Europeans prefer direct government support for the arts.
Ironically, while arts advocates in the US have long argued for adoption of the "European model" -- which has produced a rich and varied artistic life for Europeans -- Europe is being forced to change its system of support to one that depends more on private money and the box office.
Unfortunately, Europe's system of direct government financial support is falling victim to the continent's slow economic growth and budget deficits. Particularly for those countries that have adopted the euro, government spending on the arts will be constrained for some time by the requirement that fiscal deficits be kept to 3 percent of GDP.
The resulting pressure on Europe's performing arts institutions is causing concern at various different levels. Traditionally, Europe's social democracies have preferred allocating scarce goods and services like concerts and operas by queues (financed by huge subsidies to keep prices low) rather than by willingness to pay. Now, this will change.
Performing arts advocates in Europe point to the US, where among other things music directors of even major orchestras are now expected to fully participate in fundraising activities and be active in the local community on the orchestras' behalf. The same thing, they fear, will happen in Europe.
Some conductors have rejected important posts in the US for this reason, feeling that it would interfere with their art. Daniel Barenboim is rumored to have left the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in part because he objected to the fundraising demands that were being made of him.
But US experience shows that getting artistic leaders like orchestra music directors to participate in fundraising need not be bad for the artistic side of the job.
Michael Tilson Thomas in San Francisco, for example, has combined effective fundraising and artistic leadership to propel the San Francisco Symphony to the top rank of US orchestras.
It also should be reassuring to Europeans who fear that greater reliance on private money necessarily means conservative programming that the San Francisco Symphony has one of the most adventurous repertoires in the US.
If the audience has progressive tastes, private money and innovative programming are entirely compatible. A corollary is that public money makes it possible for adventurous programming even if audience tastes run on the conservative side.
This is one reason why performing artists in Europe like public money -- it liberates them from a diet of only Beethoven and Mozart. The audience may come to appreciate an adventurous repertoire the more it becomes exposed to it.
Of course, with reduced public spending on the performing arts, not only will there be greater reliance on private money, but ticket prices will have to rise as well. Some argue that this is a bad thing, because they prefer queuing to the price system and fear that higher prices will compromise future audiences by excluding young people.
But cheap prices for the performing arts do not solve the thorny problem of access for youth. First, youth may not take advantage of cheap tickets to the extent that they are not interested in going to hear live classical music at any price. Second, even if they do want to go, they may not be able to get seats, which often are not available because subscriptions stay in the same hands year after year.
What good are cheap prices -- which serve mainly to subsidize the same subscription holders -- if there are no seats? If a taste for classical music is to be subsidized, more targeted subsidies should be preferred to cheap prices.
The best way to bring youth to the performing arts is through education. Because American orchestras can't count on schools or government to provide the basic music education necessary to ensure a continuing audience, some orchestras are doing it themselves with private money.
In San Francisco, for example, the Symphony runs a US$23 million privately funded project called Keeping Score that includes a national public television series, radio shows, interactive music learning and school music programs.
This type of innovative program is relevant for European as well as American orchestras. The problem of youth and access to the performing arts exists on both sides of the Atlantic. So does poor music education in state schools. If orchestras don't look after their own futures, they may well not have one to look after.
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS