Donald Satz wrote:

>Less classical music will be bought than otherwise, and fewer concert
>tickets will be sold. This will adversely impact record companies,
>orchestras, opera companies, a host of spin-off support activities, and
>all the people associated with these activities.  Is this what some
>folks would call "Government support of the Arts"?  I bring this up
>because many list members firmly favor Government support.

Assume that the government collects less taxes, or no taxes at all.  This
would certainly leave the citizens more money to spend, but the amount
spent on music would mostly be spent on the most popular forms of music,
not classical music.

Spending tax money on such unpopular pursuits as CM and other "high arts"
is certainly "tyrranical," in that it distorts what the "free market" would
otherwise do, but I'm still reluctant to leave support of these arts wholly
up to Phillip Morris, or Mobil Oil, whatever.  In the U.S., of course,
there is very little government support at all, by now, and alarmingly to
me, at least, corporate names are showing up as "sponsors" of concerts with
increasing frequency.  What I'm afraid of is that, once subsidies of
CM--and CM now needs, needed in the past, and probably will always need
subsidies--are completely in the hands of the corporations, they will
decide that sponsoring country music concerts and sports teams does more
good for their bottom lines than orchestras.  At that point, good-bye
orchestras.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]