On 27.6.2002 19:52, "John Howell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guido d'Arezzo introduced the syllables *ut re mi fa sol la* as names
>> for the tones *c-a*. Later *ut* was replaced with *do* and *si*
>> (now *ti*) added to complete the octave. Now we have a kind of
>> notation, which we migth s
On 27.6.2002 20:42, "Andrew Stiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Guido d'Arezzo introduced the syllables *ut re mi fa sol la* as names
>> for the tones *c-a*. Later *ut* was replaced with *do* and *si*
>> (now *ti*) added to complete the octave. Now we have a kind of
>> notation, which we
>
>In that case EVERYONE was a government employee! (Except maybe pirates and
>highwaymen!)
No, the peasants were not, nor was the small middle class. The
peasantry of course comprised a heavy majority of the population,
otherwise the system wouldn't have worked.
>But I'm curious, Andrew. Yo
>
>Guido d'Arezzo introduced the syllables *ut re mi fa sol la* as names
>for the tones *c-a*. Later *ut* was replaced with *do* and *si*
>(now *ti*) added to complete the octave. Now we have a kind of
>notation, which we migth say Guido d'Arezzo invented, but a very
>limited one because written
>Guido d'Arezzo introduced the syllables *ut re mi fa sol la* as names
>for the tones *c-a*. Later *ut* was replaced with *do* and *si*
>(now *ti*) added to complete the octave. Now we have a kind of
>notation, which we migth say Guido d'Arezzo invented, but a very
>limited one because written do
>>>And music notation itself was invented by government employees
>>>responding to a governmental mandate originating at the very highest
>>>level.
>>>--
>>>Andrew Stiller
>>
>>Guido d'Arezzo was a government employee?
>>John
>>
>Guido d'Arezzo did not invent music notation, however yes, he was a
On 27.6.2002 15:04, "Andrew Stiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randy, I'm always surprised when you write about no governmental
support of the arts when, I'm guessing, most of Coda's clientele
receives, or has received, benefits from the government in various
forms.
>>>
> >>
>>>Randy, I'm always surprised when you write about no governmental
>>>support of the arts when, I'm guessing, most of Coda's clientele
>>>receives, or has received, benefits from the government in various
>>>forms.
>>>
>>>-Randolph Peters
>>
>>And music notation itself was invented by gover
>>
>>Randy, I'm always surprised when you write about no governmental
>>support of the arts when, I'm guessing, most of Coda's clientele
>>receives, or has received, benefits from the government in various
>>forms.
>>
>>-Randolph Peters
>
>And music notation itself was invented by government emplo
>Can those "arts" organizations also contribute to our current and future
>culture? Yes, of course. But not by competing directly with the
>overwhelming and very healthy market forces that govern popular "arts."
>These "serious" arts are aspects of our past culture which existed, grew
>and flour
This has been a fascinating thread, although it sometimes veers a bit close
to subjects that might better be left unargued in this particular forum.
HOWEVER!
There is no such entity as "The Arts." Therefore any dogmatic statements
on either side of the government support question are essentiall
>
>Randy, I'm always surprised when you write about no governmental
>support of the arts when, I'm guessing, most of Coda's clientele
>receives, or has received, benefits from the government in various
>forms.
>
>-Randolph Peters
And music notation itself was invented by government employees
titution provides is
significant.
Roger
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Carl Donsbach
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Finale] TAN: Public support for the arts
...
> The
And so it came to pass that Randolph Peters spake:
>I studied music at Indiana University, a land grant college--a major
>historical governmental support system. Indiana, like any
>university, also relies on donations which gives the donator certain
>tax advantages. The buildings and programs
--On Monday, June 24, 2002 2:47 PM -0500 "Stokes, Randy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The arguments usually presented for government support of the arts can
> just as well be applied to government support of religion. Religion is
> everything that supporters claim for "art" (esp. "high art"): up
On 24 Jun 2002, at 14:47, Stokes, Randy wrote:
> The arguments usually presented for government support of the arts can just
> as well be applied to government support of religion.
Er, aside from some minor little details in the US Constitution, I guess
you're right.
--
David W. Fenton
Stokes, Randy wrote:
>[snip]
>Or could it be that religion is a deeply personal matter that government
>simply has no right meddling with? Support the church of your choice, or
>none at all if you wish. Just don't take *my* money to support *your*
>beliefs.
>
>Why can't art be treated the same way
>Yet many who support government funding of art are repelled by the notion of
>government support of religion. Why?
IMNSHO. For one thing, religion is "organized" and art isn't.
Public radio and TV are as close as we come to having public
supported lobbying organizations of any size. And they
Lee Actor wrote:
> I find it discouraging that so many artists find it not only
> acceptable, but a sign of progressivity to feed from the public trough.
[etc.]
The arguments usually presented for government support of the arts can just
as well be applied to government support of religion. Reli
On Saturday, June 22, 2002, at 08:01 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> Can you name one poet that has come out of NEA support to achieve
> national recognition (that didn't already have national recognition
> before receiving NEA support)?
No, because I have only recently moved to the United State
Darcy James Argue wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 07:08 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
>
>> Poetry "slams" are quite alive and well -- poetry thrives today
>> without NEA support.
>
>
> David, I'm afraid you're quite wrong about this. First off, poetry
> slams were a fad that has com
Andrew Stiller wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure that giving creative minds a free ride so that they may
>> create is such a great thing -- it removes them from having to
>> interact with the world in any meaningful way and (in my opinion) may
>> rob them of the very stimulus which provides great a
On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 07:08 AM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> Poetry "slams" are quite alive and well -- poetry thrives today without
> NEA support.
David, I'm afraid you're quite wrong about this. First off, poetry
slams were a fad that has come and gone; second, the sort of material
tha
At 04:00 PM 6/21/02 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
>I am not sure that giving creative minds a free ride
Most creative minds get a "free ride" if they work in industries where
research and development is paid for, don't they? More than a free ride --
one with benefits and facilities and recognitio
>
>I am not sure that giving creative minds a free ride so that they
>may create is such a great thing -- it removes them from having to
>interact with the world in any meaningful way and (in my opinion)
>may rob them of the very stimulus which provides great art.
>
That's a wonderful idea. Le
Andrew Stiller wrote:
[snip of old quoted material]
> I was not addressing the main thread, but simply the narrow issue of how
> important the arts are to society. However, I find I can't resist
> swinging at such an easy pitch:
>
> No, he didn't have government support. He didn't have *any*
>Andrew Stiller wrote:
>
This is not a life or death issue, like national defense, or
public safety, or desegregation.
>>>
>>
>> It is difficult
>>to get the news from poems
>> yet men die miserably every day
>> for lack
>>of what is found there.
>> Hear me ou
At 7:08 AM -0400 6/21/02, David H. Bailey wrote:
>
>I am not against the arts at all. I earn my living from
>participating in the arts.
>
>I also do so without governmental support.
>
>How about you?
>
>
>--
>David H. Bailey
As a matter of absolute fact, I make my living without DIRECT
gover
Andrew Stiller wrote:
>>> This is not a life or death issue, like national defense, or public
>>> safety, or desegregation.
>>
>
> It is difficult
> to get the news from poems
> yet men die miserably every day
> for lack
> of what is found there.
> Hear me out
>
--On Thursday, June 20, 2002 3:21 PM -0400 "David H. Bailey"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Salieri received a lot of government support in his day, forcing Mozart
> to scrounge for every pfennig. Yet history has shown how wrong the
> government was. Does that make everything alright? I don't t
>> This is not a life or death issue, like national defense, or
>>public safety, or desegregation.
It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there.
Hear me out
for I too am concerned
and every ma
On Thursday, June 20, 2002, at 08:21 , David H. Bailey wrote:
> Great! Then I can expect your check for support of my composing by
> return mail? Wonderful!
Of course. I'll be happy to send you a cheque for £0.01, which is my
rough estimate of my tax contribution to any one commission fu
Great! Then I can expect your check for support of my composing by
return mail? Wonderful!
Or do you need to come to some understanding as to whether my composing
has worth to you? If not, then a few thousand pounds will be very
welcome, and I will even dedicate my next work to you. Thanks
On Thursday, June 20, 2002, at 12:01 , David H. Bailey wrote:
> And those it DOES support I frequently would NOT support because I
> don't happen to like the art they produce.
The problem with this view is that, if you take each single act of
funding individually, and make the criterion wheth
On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 06:23 PM, David H. Bailey wrote:
> Until you've run up against the stupidity which is the poster child of
> state-run arts organizations, it is easy to feel as you do, that state
> support for the arts is a good thing.
David,
While your story is indeed a sad exa
> However, his comments on Enron betray so fundamental a misunderstanding
> of the situation that I had to respond.
>
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 04:53 PM, Lee Actor wrote:
>
> > You can unfairly castigate the free market if you
> > wish (the failure of Enron is a textbook demonstration of the
Until you've run up against the stupidity which is the poster child of
state-run arts organizations, it is easy to feel as you do, that state
support for the arts is a good thing.
I conducted the Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra in Lowell, MA for 7 years.
We started a youth orchestra, a first-o
On 18.06.2002 21:46 Uhr, Darcy James Argue wrote
> The NEA is effectively dead, I'm afraid. It's sentiments like those
> expressed on the list that put the last nail in the coffin. Despite the
> tiny budget it was operating with even before the cutbacks (costing
> every American a fraction of a
38 matches
Mail list logo
