Robin Mitchell-Boyask writes:

>But I never understood people who do live in or near cities who do not
>support their performing arts institutions with their presence.

I'm one of those people - what don't you understand?  I think it's simply
a matter of individuals making decisons based on personal preference.  It
sounds as if Robin is adding an "altruistic" element here, but I doubt that
many folks go to concerts for "support" without any expectation of enjoying
the concert.  Isn't enjoyment the primary motivating factor, whether it's
concerts or recordings?

>Collecting isn't a substitute for live music-making, and does real harm
>to living musicians if it keeps audiences away.

It isn't a substitute for me either, just my preferred medium.  Also,
I could say that not buying the recordings of living musicians does
them harm.  But I really don't feel like saying that because I am not
responsible for the financial well-being of living musicians; the musicans
are the responsible parties.  Let's keep things in perspective.

>Conversely, I've come to believe that the collapse of the recording
>industry will ultimately prove beneficial for classical music,...

I must be entering a skewed world.  First, there is no collapse of the
recording industry on the horizon; how anyone can come to that conclusion
is a wonder to me.  The Philadelphia Orchestra's lack of a recording
contract does not equate to any kind of collapse.  Second, a real collapse
would doom classical music to the recesses of the public's mind (and it's
already close enough).  This is not circa 1700.  Recordings reach far more
people than live performances.  I think it's reasonable to assume that the
collapse of recordings for classical music or any other type would spell
doom for that musical category.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]