Don Satz recently revived a conundrum all too familiar to this list, namely
that of the pros v.  the cons of subsidizing CM.  I here merely mean to
present a topical angle to this potboiler.  It takes the form of a severe
condensation of a piece written for today's Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Munich,
by music critic Reinhard J.  Brembeck:

   "...Alberto Vilar...is an investment consultant in New York.  But
   above all he is a lover and maecenas of classical music.  He supports
   the Met, has a concert hall in Colorado, and has given the Salzburg
   festival six million dollars in support of some special projects to
   run until 2004...Does this foreshadow a transition from state susidies
   to private financing? Let's look at Salzburg's financial statement
   for an answer.  This year's festival cost almost $50 million.  Half
   of this was covered by ticket sales; 30 percent by public subsidies;
   only a tenth was defrayed by sponsors and contributors...  If public
   money were not available, then every one of the 210,000 tickets to
   performances would have had to cost an additional $80..."

Brembeck goes on to outline the positions taken by Europeans in favor of
subsidizing and, as he sees it, by Americans against it.  To help things
along he quotes Festival Boss Gerard Mortier:

   "The Americans are Puritans who have always regarded art as something
   satanic.  For this reason art must be subsidised by privately.  In
   Europe the state...considers art as a part of its responsibiliity"

Brembeck concludes in favor of both Vilar and Mortier:"...whoever is
truly interested in high culture must propagte it--propagate it not only by
supporting state subsidization, but clamoring for more of it.  This should
not exclude private sponsoring which, however, is only developing slowly at
this time in Europe."

Denis Fodor
Internet:[log in to unmask]