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

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.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]