Don Satz wrote:

>Deryk Barker asked for my evidence that "state" control of the Arts
>would lead to fewer choices and reduced quality.

In the years I have been reading this list I have been surprised at the
number of times I have read the phrase "unavailable in the US".  I do get
the impression that the number of choices when buying records is at least
as great in the UK (and in Australia, with a much smaller population) as in
the USA.  In both the United Kingdom and Australia there is considerable
state support for music.

>In the USA, control of
>music rests primarily with the private sector; the public sector is only
>on the periphery.  But, imagine a system where the public sector is in
>charge of music: nameless individuals making the all-important decisions,
>individuals appointed by politicians, the source of power being with
>politicians.  As much as I think poorly of many Peter Gelb decisions, he's
>far preferable to a group of politicians.
>
>I don't have any statistical information as evidence.  I have worked
>within the public sector, received contracts from it, and am very familiar
>with how a public agency is run and of the attitudes of those who work for
>it (top and bottom).

I assume that Don is talking about public agencies in the USA.  It is
possible, even likely, that in other places public agencies have a quite
different culture.  In the public agencies where I have worked I have been
quite proud of the attitudes of my colleagues.

>With a few exceptions, I am well served musically by private enterprise
>because it operates on the profit motive/supply & demand.  I have no idea
>what the motivations and goals of public control would be, nor do I want
>to experience their results.

There is occasionally the motive of giving service to the public.  In my
country the people who do this call themselves the Public Service.

>We have gone over this ground much in the past.  I favor private
>enterprise/capitalism and some others feel that there's a nobility of
>purpose and/or greater accountability with the public sector.  The only way
>to really have the answer concerning the art of music would be to compare
>two different systems utilizing the same population pool.  Well, we only
>have the private system to look at and analyze and criticize.  If we did
>have a public system, I think the majority of list members would strongly
>regret the change.

In the USA, as you say, you only have the private system to look at,
analyze and criticize.  As a result you are hardly in a position to say
that any alternatives would not work.

In reply to Denis Fodor, Don wrote

>The attempt to control the creative mind and use it toward the
>brainwashing of an entire poulation is as close to evil as anything
>I know.  And, state control of music would only be contemplated by a
>totalitarian regime.  Just the thought of this type of abomination makes
>my blood boil.

Cool your blood Don!  There are many gradations between complete reliance
on the private sector and public support of music.  Some of these
possibilities work quite well.  I should know.  In Australia, with a much
smaller population, we have classical music radio stations in all capital
cities and many of the larger provincial centres.  Until recently we had
state funded orchestras in each state.  We are now feeling a degree of
apprehension about the coming "privatisation" of these orchestras.

It seems to me that the state of classical music education and performance
is as much an indicator of the prestige of a country as is the quality of
the aircraft that transport heads of government fom country to country.
People want their country to look good to the outside world.  Sounding good
is a part of looking good.  When the state pays, it does not necessarily
mean objectionable control.

Looking to the outside world to see if things can be done better is not an
admission of failure.

Alan Dudley
<[log in to unmask]>