Music: Tomatito – Agua Dulce
Mood: upbeat
Comment posted by Victor at 01:35:32 PM
Well, I’m not a “real” musician so I don’t know if this will be an “intelligent conversation” but… The one thing we’re not going to see is all music distributors getting together and agreeing on pricing that garuntees the quality musicians will survive. What we might see is cheap manufactured music along with the newbies who are willing to work at a loss on one side selling songs for say 25 cents a pop and the quality musicians on the other side selling for say a dollar. It’s sort of like the $25 wine vs. the $5 wine, with maybe a few $50 bottles thrown in. But the point is that it will only work if the public is willing to pay for quality. I don’t see any way around it if the marketing mechanism changes as it appears to be. I mean, we could talk about the goverment subsidising the arts or charities for the arts but who wants to go there? I mean, the heart of the matter is nurturing a culture that values art over a cheap “consumables”.
I agree with every word you write, Victor. Other options include corporate sponsorship, which could become pretty nauseating. Hm, but maybe Prada could sponsor me. That would be cool!
Let’s face it we could return to the age of the classical composers, many of whom were sponsored by the wealthy, the blue-blooded, or the church.
I have to say that I perceive many Americans as having a strained relationship to art. I believe it might hail from ye old Puritans… a distrust of art having any real value. There are some European governmments who annually spend more money on the arts than the governmant of the mighty US of A. Those governments believe that Art adds to their cultures and fosters their societies. For example don’t you think that Americans would prefer corporations paying less taxes and maybe sponsoring some art rather than corporations paying higher taxes and the government creating art programs. People seem to trust Exxon or Mickey D more than they trust their own Congress people. True or false?
I actually hesitate to comment because I’m probably off the subject, but it seems like America is still holding on to Scientific Investigation being the only true gauge of value. and we get pretty single minded, putting the emphasis on only a few things, like a person’s mind can’t handle too much. They see now that graduates can’t read and are poor in Math so that gets all the time and stress. I don’t know what happened to the stress on Science. I guess since the USSR isn’t much of a threat it’s no longer number one. But we do not necessarily care what they’re reading or what the math applies to. Some day maybe the nation will realize it’s not enough . We need people with vision and ideas desperately, and that’s where art and music and all the creative arts come in. They are treated like a diversion or fun thing when there is time, not anything of importance. Perhaps that is still from the Puritans. I don’t know, but it has to change if we are to grow.
I think there generally is a preference for corporate sponsorship over government (i.e Mickey D trumps Uncle Sam). The reason is mostly that people want to have a say in how their taxes are spent. I seem to recall a few years back that there was an art exhibit featuring some sort of fecal matter smeared on a religious artifact and people demanding to know if the National Endowment for the Arts had any part in funding it. Anyway, I think there’s a tendency to think of a corporation more as a person – they can spend their money however they choose. If you don’t like how they spend their money then you can boycott their product. Americans like to vote with cash.
Americans definitely have a strained relationship with art. I was certainly raised with the perception that it wasn’t something to be taken as a serious pursuit. Even in school it was always considered the fun class – but not something that had any impact on career preparation. I remember being surprised to learn that in Europe people apprentice in different forms of craftsmanship.
On the other hand, Americans definitely love pop culture (movies, pop-music, etc.) We happily spend a lot of money on those as diversions and then revel in the icons that rise to the top. There are certainly some artists in the bunch but that’s not a necessary requisite – just as long as we find them entertaining for a while.
I don’t trust anything that has the word “CON” in it – as in CONgress. Remember, most Congressmen are Attorneys. Most even practice their profession at the same time they are representing the people in Congress.
Setting a standard or uniform price for art or music doesn’t seem like a very fair or intelligent idea. Most pop music gives instant gratification and pleasure to the listner, who doesn’t have to get involved with it at a deeper level. It is not like classical music which sinks in slowly and stays in the system for years and may be even a life time!
Unfortunately in a society which believes in disposable materials more than recycling it is difficult to justify the price of something which is not a quick fix. I wish more people would understand that a piece of art or music repays itself tenfolds to enrich the life of the person who invested in it… and is a long term investment.
Hopefully with more public awareness people and corporations would sponser music and arts. The least state/government can do is provide tax break/deduction for such contributions and sponserships.
I agree that the general public in Europe is more art conscious/literate.