Andrew, I won't argue your point that many, if not most composers in history lived at least partly on the public dole, but will only point out that the history of partially free markets is much shorter than the history of music. I can't give you a similar list of those who never became artists because they were not favored by the state for obvious reasons. Your criticism of the statement that "government subsidies inevitably result in hack work" is a straw man argument that was not made by me.
I do dispute your argument that free markets require some kind of bizarre economic reductionism. Even in the study of economics, "value" does not necessarily mean "monetary value". People have no problem making hundreds of "economic" (rightly understood) decisions every day, calculating and comparing the value to them of money, time, effort, relationships, work, leisure, and other non-monetary values. In arguing for free markets, I am simply expressing the idea that the complex matrix of human relationships in society is best both morally and practically when coercion is reduced to the absolute minimum. In the best free market tradition, I highly recommend Andrew's book on instrumentation. And I have to stop flaming and get back to writing the 2 pieces I'm working on. -Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew Stiller > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:45 PM > To: finale list > Subject: RE: [Finale] File formats - security anyone - copying or not > > > > > >I find it discouraging that so many artists find it not only > acceptable, but > >a sign of progressivity to feed from the public trough. ... I > >believe that not only are government subsidies > >immoral in principle, but in the long run they are harmful to > the cause of > >both art and artists. ...[W]hy not just state the case > >baldly: you don't wish to make a living by others freely > choosing to support > >you or not, according to their own judgement of the value you > offer; you'd > >rather use the power of the state as an intermediary to spend > other people's > >income on you. > > > >-Lee > > > > Here is a very partial list of composers who made their living > primarily or entirely through payments derived from taxation > (contributions forced by law) of the general populace: > > All the troubadors; Leonin, Perotin, Machaut, De Vitry, Busnois, > Dufay, Ockeghem, Obrecht, Des Prez, Palestrina, Lassus, Byrd, Tallis, > Schütz, Monteverdi, Purcell, Couperin, Bach, Bach, Bach, Bach, > Handel, Rameau, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, > Schoenberg, Messiaen, Stockhausen. > > The list could be made much, much longer without including any > obscure names; I have here restricted it to those with whose economic > biographies I am strongly familiar. > > Of those composers who would not figure on the list (including most > American composers), almost every one I can think of lived either > through the support of a spouse or partner (Copland, e.g.) or through > a "day job" (Ives a fortiori). > > The problem with the kind of market absolutism expressed by Lee is > that it only works if all value (in the broad sense) can be expressed > economically--but such is not the case. To pick an obvious example, > human nature rebels at the free-market construction of families > (trading in your spouse freely to acquire a sexier or better-heeled > model, or selling off the kids to finance a home remodeling). Yes, > such things happen, but I know of no-one, from any culture, who > considers them desirable. > > Classical music, along with the other "high" arts, is in a similar > position, in that it is by definition a music for a small minority, > and is incapable of supporting itself solely from the contributions > of that minority. This has been so in every culture that has ever > generated a separate classical idiom (that is to say, in every > civilization, bar none), and in every case the music has been > directly or indirectly subsidized by the ruling class, who of course > derive their wealth from taxation or simple coercion. (I am using > "ruling class" in the straightforward sense of "the set of those who > rule, and from among whom the rulers are drawn," not in the Marxist > sense). The rulers support the arts not out of altruism or an > advanced esthetic sensibility, but as one of several ways of keeping > the intelligentsia happy. > > Any regime that loses the support of the intelligentsia is in deep > trouble, and it could sensibly argued that since a stable society is > beneficial to all its members, taxation to keep the intelligentsia on > board is as defensible as taxation for roads, police, fire > departments. That strikes me, however, as an overly cynical, even > philistine way of looking at things. That an abundance of thoughtful > art is in and of itself a boon to society (even to those who don't > appreciate it) seems to me beyond question. As for the criticism that > government subsidies inevitably result in hack work, the record of > history, in this case, very strongly suggests otherwise. > -- > Andrew Stiller > Kallisti Music Press > > http://www.kallistimusic.com > > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
