 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rmk
Date: 2002-10-12 14:43
A companion to that could be the Anthony Newman opera based on the OJ Simpson trial.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-10-12 15:05
It should also be noted that former President Bill Clinton recently appeared in Milwaukee to help MTV present a substancial finacial grant to the cities school district for beginning band instruments. In his speech, he credited his experiance playing the saxophone and organizing groups for developing the leadership skills that enabled his Presidency. His relentless support of school music programs is something we clarinetists should remember. As we make fun of the former presidents personal episodes, we should also give credit where credit is due. (As performers of music, we all know that our art needs all the "applause" it can get--and that it is gracious to "bow" as to say 'thanks')
OJ is "another story"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2002-10-12 17:20
William...Thanks for pointing out Bill Clinton's support of the arts. We often forget that part of his administration.
A thank you as well, to my favorite left-handed, saxophone playing, Rhodes scholar...GBK (who has two out of those three attributes)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-10-12 18:09
William wrote:
>
> It should also be noted that former President Bill
> Clinton recently appeared in Milwaukee to help MTV present a
> substancial finacial grant to the cities school district for
> beginning band instruments.
While I applaud private endeavours for the arts, I'm not so sure government should be involved.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2002-10-13 04:11
Opera as an art form will definitely go down with this one.
What's next, operas based on the exploits of the Butafuccos ot the Bobbits? Weren't the 90s interesting? (My apologies to those not in the USA who might not know of the events caused by the people to which I refer, but if you don't know, that might be for the best anyway!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-10-13 23:00
Mark - are you serious? You mean that the collective resources of a nation should not be pooled into the arts?
I find your comment staggering ... at least, in America, you've got a big enough population to support the arts. In a tiny backwater like Australia - the only way philanthropy happens is to support the knuckle-headed sports men and women.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2002-10-13 23:06
Aussie readers might be interested that Opera Australia is broadcasting 5 operas through the month of November (Sunday nights) included is the new work "Lindy" based on the story of Lindy Chamberlain ... should be interesting indeed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-10-14 01:26
diz wrote:
>
> Mark - are you serious? You mean that the collective
> resources of a nation should not be pooled into the arts?
Perhaps not, unless you want to live with the limitations ("strings") attached to the utilization of public money. What happens when you want to do "art" for "art's" sake but the public doesn't like what you do? Should you demand that all artists share the same amount for the same pool of money? Are some artists "more deserving" than others? Why? If I decide that I want to be an "artist", should i be <b>entitled</b> to share in the money? Are only "formal" or "degreed" artists let into the plan?
It always seems easy at first, but it ends up contentious at best.
Personally, I don't know how to equitably divvy up the share of money. It currently seems to go towards those who can write up the best proposals, not the most deserving ... or at least those that <b>I</b> think are the most deserving. Unfortunately there are 300 million other opinions to deal with after me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Allen Cole
Date: 2002-10-14 04:36
Several points:
On Lewinski Opera: While I like the idea of a Lewinski-based opera, I'm a little nervous about orchestral excerpts written for any cigar-shaped instrument. The OJ one might be better. "If it does not fit, you must acquit" sounds like a fairly good hook for a song. Perhaps Johnny Cochran will be the next Ira Gershwin.
On Arts Funding: I think that we could solve a lot of problems in arts funding by cutting off individual artists and simply financing venues. Countries who are more supportive have an infrastructure of arts committees and such who decide where this money goes. Artists work to cater to the tastes, prejudices and schools of thought espoused by those who control the purse strings, so even these government-sponsored situations lead more to conformity than to real creativity. We can get the same or better results from the patronage system. BTW, did anyone see the 60 Minutes segment tonight featuring the software company that employed two artists-in-residence (painters) and had a pianist playing in their cafeteria during lunch?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2002-10-14 16:36
Mark wrote:
Personally, I don't know how to equitably divvy up the share of money. It currently seems to go towards those who can write up the best proposals, not the most deserving ... or at least those that I think are the most deserving.
--------------
Unfortunately it's everywhere like this. Now, take medical or mathematical research for example I think private funding often has to bring profit to the company funding there very little uninterested private funders.
Governement funding especially for the arts (european country are a good examples) tend to fund even the unsuccessful un popular if they think the work is valid. There is a fine line between legitimate work and rentability. Governements tend to be more realxed and focus less on the cash flow....
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-10-14 17:47
Mark -
The arts have never had any objection to being patronized, by kings, popes or rich old ladies, none of whom knew much about what was involved but wanted to show how much money and power they had.
Bach had to quit writing secular music when his patron married a music-hating princess, but he still produced great religious music. Haydn wrote literally hundreds of trios for baryton because his employer played it. Michelangelo, as I recall, did a pretty good ceiling for a religious patron.
I doubt that audiences or private commissioners of music would be any more sophisticated that government sponsors. It's always a compromise. You do your best despite the restrictions and the idiots who think they know more than you do.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2002-10-14 19:33
Ken Shaw wrote:
>
> Mark -
>
> The arts have never had any objection to being patronized, by
> kings, popes or rich old ladies, none of whom knew much about
> what was involved but wanted to show how much money and power
> they had.
I have no problem with patrons (individual and organizations), since they control their own purse strings. It's representative governments giving money to the arts that bothers me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
