Donald Satz to Robert Palmer:

>....I emphatically am against using taxpayer funding for anything musical.

This is just a fun observation, but considering that some of our most
beloved composers from the Baroque and Classical era relied upon church
and royalty for their bread and butter, I wonder what would have happened
to the quality and quantity of these composers' outputs without such
sponsorship?

And wasn't sponsorship from religious or royal organisations of that era
similar to current gov't sponsorship, as that paying "staff" would be a
form of tax redistribution?

It is my understanding that we wouldn't have anything close to the breadth,
quality and scope of Western European Art that we enjoy without the
sponsorships and validation of royalty and the church, who often were
just trying to out-do the other.

And I wonder who is more hands off, current gov't or 16th-Century royalty
and church.  I guess it all depends, though what if Bach's muse was only
inspired by pagan ritual?

John Smyth