Discussion:
OT - Slatkin's ideas on return of live concerts
Add Reply
Bozo
2020-06-03 13:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Courtesy of a poster at another group:

https://www.leonardslatkin.com/june-2020-recovery-edition-part-1/

Interesting thoughts, he is to be commended.He is obviously far more knowledgable than I, but on first reading does not strike me as practical, logistically or financially, given all the moving pieces especially since one misstep may/will lead to transmission. Personally, I wont go back until there is a vaccine.Much of the CM audience is in the higher risk groups.Seems same issues with new recordings either live or studio.
wkasimer
2020-06-03 14:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Interesting thoughts, he is to be commended.He is obviously far more knowledgable than I, but on first reading does not strike me as practical, logistically or financially, given all the moving pieces especially since one misstep may/will lead to transmission. <<<
If the goal is to prevent *any* transmission, then we would be treating this differently from every other infectious disease, ever. The goal is, or should be to minimize the possibility of large-scale outbreaks.
Personally, I wont go back until there is a vaccine.<<<
If that's the case, you may *never* be able to go back - because there is no guarantee that there will ever be an effective vaccine.
Bozo
2020-06-03 14:47:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Smallpox,measles,polio,others were virtually eliminated,not just reduced to small outbreaks , where vaccines available ( at least until anti-vax movement) , and medications are available for usual flus.Right now nothing for corona so I will give science more time.If no vaccine possible, then given the high mortality rate In my group, I won’t go back,as I would not if no effective polio vaccine. Seems Slatkin is also hoping for a vaccine,his proposals not a long term fix . He notes some repertoire is off limits under his proposal, some artists may not be willing to travel. If no vaccine or treatment, and mortality and transmission rates with corona remain as high as now, much in the World will change or cease.
Frank Berger
2020-06-03 15:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bozo
Smallpox,measles,polio,others were virtually eliminated,not just reduced to small outbreaks , where vaccines available ( at least until anti-vax movement) , and medications are available for usual flus.Right now nothing for corona so I will give science more time.If no vaccine possible, then given the high mortality rate In my group, I won’t go back,as I would not if no effective polio vaccine. Seems Slatkin is also hoping for a vaccine,his proposals not a long term fix . He notes some repertoire is off limits under his proposal, some artists may not be willing to travel. If no vaccine or treatment, and mortality and transmission rates with corona remain as high as now, much in the World will change or cease.
The age distribution of the audience would likely change as
the elderly stay home. For the young, the mortality rate of
Covid-19 seems to be lower than the flu. In Europe, around
50% of Covid-19 deaths have been in people 65 and over.

Regarding the development of a vaccine, there is no
effective vaccine for MERS and SARS, two other
coronaviruses. Hopefully the massive resources going into
developing a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 will be successful.
Frank Berger
2020-06-03 15:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wkasimer
Interesting thoughts, he is to be commended.He is obviously far more knowledgable than I, but on first reading does not strike me as practical, logistically or financially, given all the moving pieces especially since one misstep may/will lead to transmission. <<<
If the goal is to prevent *any* transmission, then we would be treating this differently from every other infectious disease, ever. The goal is, or should be to minimize the possibility of large-scale outbreaks.
Personally, I wont go back until there is a vaccine.<<<
If that's the case, you may *never* be able to go back - because there is no guarantee that there will ever be an effective vaccine.
There could be concerts where the musicians and audience
have all recovered from COVID-19, if immunity can be shown
(which it hasn't yet).
Bozo
2020-06-14 18:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Nashville Symphony shuts down completely until July, 2021:

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2020/jun/14/nashville-symphony-board-suspends-events-furloughs-staff-musicians/525262/
Bozo
2020-06-16 15:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Courtesy of a poster at another group:

Very worrying in the UK. Look at these letters to The Times (1) and The Guardian (2)

1. Sir, In the most difficult days of history, the arts — and perhaps especially music — enhanced the spirit. But today we cannot do so. We are prevented from performing in live spaces, from reaching the eyes and ears and hearts of the public, from sharing with them our love, our passion and our belief. It is becoming more and more apparent that orchestras, opera companies and other musical institutions in the UK, a truly world-leading country in all forms of culture, are in danger of being lost for ever, if urgent action is not taken. We ask for support from the government and that it works with us in planning a long-term strategy for recovery, including additional financial support to help ensure that we can continue to play our full roles for our local and national audiences, our communities and our cities. If financial help is not provided, companies will fold, musicians will be silenced. We may be left with no more Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Elgar, no music written about our times, for our times, by our living composers. Many musicians will be forced to abandon their profession.
Vasily Petrenko, chief conductor, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra
Martyn Brabbins, music director, ENO
Sir Mark Elder, music director, The Hallé
Edward Gardner, principal conductor designate, London Philharmonic
Mirga Grazinyte-Tyla, music director, City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra
Tomas Hanus, music director, Welsh National Opera
Vladimir Jurowski, principal conductor, London Philharmonic
Kirill Karabits, chief conductor, Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra
Daniele Rustioni, chief conductor, Ulster Orchestra
Esa-Pekka Salonen, principal conductor and artistic adviser, Philharmonia Orchestra
Lars Vogt, music director, Royal Northern Sinfonia



2.There are so many pressing problems to solve in the UK that it takes courage even to mention the desperate situation of classical music in the time of Covid-19.

There’s a real possibility of a devastated landscape on the other side of this; orchestras may not survive, and if they do, they may face insuperable obstacles to remain solvent in our new reality. What we write applies, of course, to all types of music, not just classical music which is our area of expertise. Our music is essentially a live experience and requires all the participants, performers and listeners alike, to be in the same room together. What we may do individually over the internet in these months is all well and good, but the living core of our work is a live communion, a sharing of space, art and emotion which is both vital and healing.

This healing will become ever more necessary in the coming time as we attempt to bear witness and understand what we have all gone through. In such an existential crisis, the realisation of our shared vulnerability will surely change and deepen our relationship to all the arts. In our own field we are asking ourselves; how can we get back to live music? How can we give our audiences the courage to gradually return?

More immediately, how can we maintain musical continuity when orchestras are silenced? And how do we nurture a generation of young musicians whose prospects look bleak just as they embark on a career in this ever more uncertain world?

The recent extension of the furlough scheme is a blessing and enables many organisations to hang on. For freelance musicians, which include four of the London orchestras among others, huge problems remain. Currently many freelancers fall between the cracks of the government’s self-employment schemes. We need to find a way to sustain some kind of backbone of income so that we will eventually be able to play whenever that will be possible. At the most basic level, despite all appearances to the contrary, musicians are humans. They need to eat and pay their bills. But we also need to play together and train, just like any sports team, albeit in a totally new environment. Crucially, this musical team is part of a complex structure that is focussed around, and serves, its home town or city.

We will have to reinvent the wheel in so many ways. Learning to play while remaining distanced from each other will be much harder than it may initially seem.

Our venues will have to learn to shepherd audiences in and out of performances in safety, and accept that at maximum only 25% capacity will be allowed, with all the economic knock on effects that this reality implies. We MUST find a way to play together soon, even without an audience, if we are to maintain anything like our normal standards, and we badly need clarity from government, a timeline, of when that might be and how it can be implemented. We understand that we cannot expect to revert to everything as it was before; we will be creative and tireless in making contingency plans and solving problems.

All musicians of whatever genre share the magnificent problem of an art form which is, fundamentally, songs transmitted to people in a room. When will our audiences have the chance to experience this once more?

We refuse to believe that live music will die, but it will not survive merely on energy and optimism. It will need support and understanding, particularly when it ventures out in public once more. The first year of performing with fewer musicians to a much smaller public will be our toughest time, and we will need a helping hand to make it through.

In Mainland Europe orchestras are gradually opening up and finding different ways to deal with the problems of distancing. Good practice is being built up: in the UK we must gain time by learning what has already been proved to work, rather than starting from the beginning yet again, with people not from the performing arts making the decisions. Until we have some practical idea of what our future might entail, musicians in our country will continue to feel out in the wilderness.

Sir Simon Rattle, OM, CBE, Music Director, London Symphony Orchestra

Sir Mark Elder, CH, CBE, Music Director, Hallé Orchestra
Frank Berger
2020-06-16 20:43:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?

I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.

A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.

The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.

Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-16 21:08:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?

Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)

Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
Frank Berger
2020-06-16 21:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
All you are saying is that anybody can (and is entitled) to
ask for anything. The problem is government has to decide
what to do with limited resources.
Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-16 22:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?

Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)

Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is mostly unable to sustain itself even in the best of times. I don’t agree at all with the notion that popular demand indicates need and quality. The public, for the most part, tend to be poorly informed anyway and is often unable to make sensible choices.

At any rate, our governments have already established that some industries have been deemed as being entitled to bailouts (e.g. automobile industry, finance, etc). Even with limited resources, the government inevitably ends up printing more money anyway, the cries of fiscal hawks notwithstanding. (Japan, the PRC, and the US all have done this to varying degrees.) So with that in mind, why should any industry (including classical music) turn their noses up at the possibility of government assistance?

That said, there is also widespread complacency in classical music and business simply cannot go on as usual post-coronavirus. Reform is required and is long overdue. The symphony orchestra world, in particular, has had a difficult time of letting go of a failed paradigm of doing business. With dwindling interest and audience numbers—and I have a feeling that many older people will not be returning to the concert hall, at least for a long while—the same old ideas simply will not work. I think classical music is one of the few industry where poor financial returns often bear no change in leadership, personnel, etc. This would be unacceptable in nearly any other business. I’m the last person to take a bean-counting, materialist attitude to music, but the COVID-19 situation may be an opportunity to move forward with a new way of doing business that does justice to artistic ideals while reflecting current financial realities.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
All you are saying is that anybody can (and is entitled) to
ask for anything. The problem is government has to decide
what to do with limited resources.
Frank Berger
2020-06-16 22:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
You misunderstand my use of the word "deserving."
Understandably. It is a word I rarely use, along with "need."

As a libertarian I could make an argument and let's suppose
I have a leaning towards thinking there should be and should
have been no government payouts at all. Nevertheless, the
decision has been made otherwise and the government's
resources, though huge, are limited. It can only pay for
things via taxation, borrowing or causing inflation by
inflating the money supply. Therefore, it has to prioritize.
So read "deserving" as "most in the national interest." My
own interests might indicate a preference for classical
music subsidies, but the national interest doesn't.
Raymond Hall
2020-06-17 00:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
You misunderstand my use of the word "deserving."
Understandably. It is a word I rarely use, along with "need."
As a libertarian I could make an argument and let's suppose
I have a leaning towards thinking there should be and should
have been no government payouts at all. Nevertheless, the
decision has been made otherwise and the government's
resources, though huge, are limited. It can only pay for
things via taxation, borrowing or causing inflation by
inflating the money supply. Therefore, it has to prioritize.
So read "deserving" as "most in the national interest." My
own interests might indicate a preference for classical
music subsidies, but the national interest doesn't.
The national interest might well also be better served if the better off pay more tax. It might also be better served without a cretin sitting in the top office.

Ray Hall, Taree
Bozo
2020-06-17 00:23:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The national interest might well also be better served if the better off pay more tax. It might also be better >served without a cretin sitting in the top office.
Bingo ! 2 marks.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 01:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Raymond Hall
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
You misunderstand my use of the word "deserving."
Understandably. It is a word I rarely use, along with "need."
As a libertarian I could make an argument and let's suppose
I have a leaning towards thinking there should be and should
have been no government payouts at all. Nevertheless, the
decision has been made otherwise and the government's
resources, though huge, are limited. It can only pay for
things via taxation, borrowing or causing inflation by
inflating the money supply. Therefore, it has to prioritize.
So read "deserving" as "most in the national interest." My
own interests might indicate a preference for classical
music subsidies, but the national interest doesn't.
The national interest might well also be better served if the better off pay more tax. It might also be better served without a cretin sitting in the top office.
Ray Hall, Taree
The better off do pay more tax. Oh, you mean EVEN more.
How would you calculate how much the better off should pay?

In November the voters (and the electoral college) will
decide what is in the national interest. We will have either
a Republican opportunistic, corrupt, fumbling,
near-octogenarian or a Democrat opportunistic,
corupt,fumbling, near-octogenarian. Personally, I don't
much care which.
g***@gmail.com
2020-06-17 00:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is mostly unable to sustain itself even in the best of times. I don’t agree at all with the notion that popular demand indicates need and quality. The public, for the most part, tend to be poorly informed anyway and is often unable to make sensible choices.
At any rate, our governments have already established that some industries have been deemed as being entitled to bailouts (e.g. automobile industry, finance, etc). Even with limited resources, the government inevitably ends up printing more money anyway, the cries of fiscal hawks notwithstanding. (Japan, the PRC, and the US all have done this to varying degrees.) So with that in mind, why should any industry (including classical music) turn their noses up at the possibility of government assistance?
That said, there is also widespread complacency in classical music and business simply cannot go on as usual post-coronavirus. Reform is required and is long overdue. The symphony orchestra world, in particular, has had a difficult time of letting go of a failed paradigm of doing business. With dwindling interest and audience numbers—and I have a feeling that many older people will not be returning to the concert hall, at least for a long while—the same old ideas simply will not work. I think classical music is one of the few industry where poor financial returns often bear no change in leadership, personnel, etc. This would be unacceptable in nearly any other business. I’m the last person to take a bean-counting, materialist attitude to music, but the COVID-19 situation may be an opportunity to move forward with a new way of doing business that does justice to artistic ideals while reflecting current financial realities.
But in a capitalistic system, is there any more room left for ideals of any kind?:

- Capitalism attacks and destroys all the finer sentiments of the human heart; it ruthlessly sweeps away old traditions and ideas opposed to its progress, and it exploits and corrupts those things once held sacred.

Daniel De Leon
Frank Berger
2020-06-16 22:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
You are serious comparing requests for aid by the medical
infrastucture that is saving our lives to classical music
performance? If you had to pick one or the other to
support during the pandemic, which would it be?
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-16 22:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
All I said was that any plea by anyone on behalf of their pet interest/industry will be “self-serving.” Classical musicians are just one of the many people with their hat in hand asking for help. I mean, who else should advocate for an industry if not professionals from the industry itself?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
You are serious comparing requests for aid by the medical
infrastucture that is saving our lives to classical music
performance? If you had to pick one or the other to
support during the pandemic, which would it be?
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 00:08:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
All I said was that any plea by anyone on behalf of their pet interest/industry will be “self-serving.” Classical musicians are just one of the many people with their hat in hand asking for help. I mean, who else should advocate for an industry if not professionals from the industry itself?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
You are serious comparing requests for aid by the medical
infrastucture that is saving our lives to classical music
performance? If you had to pick one or the other to
support during the pandemic, which would it be?
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
Not disagreeing with any of that, but you keep focusing on
the demanders. You don't seem to want to talk about how the
government should decide who gets what. Which is fine.
Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-17 00:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well, it’s neither up to me nor you. It’s the government. And however we feel about these issues, the government, at least here in the US, seems to be prepared to be willing to dole out at least some help. Whether they actually have the funds for this, or will simply resort to printing money (as they already are), the matter is out of our hands.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
All I said was that any plea by anyone on behalf of their pet interest/industry will be “self-serving.” Classical musicians are just one of the many people with their hat in hand asking for help. I mean, who else should advocate for an industry if not professionals from the industry itself?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Why does one have to be “more” deserving that the other? At least in the US, all those aforementioned industries have benefitted from some measure of government assistance in the past few months. Or why should there be a bailout for anybody, no matter how “deserving” they may be?
Also, a letter signed by these conductors is no more “self-serving” than various public appeals made since March from medical professionals asking for, among other things, prioritized allocation of masks and disinfectants, increased government assistance, and encouragement of further social distancing. (After all, their pleas are “self-serving” as they benefit first and foremost the industry which they represent.)
You are serious comparing requests for aid by the medical
infrastucture that is saving our lives to classical music
performance? If you had to pick one or the other to
support during the pandemic, which would it be?
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Classical music is, unfortunately, a niche interest which is unable
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out hotels,
sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and bars,
popular music live performances, movies, dentist offices,
laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos,
scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
I chose these, not at random, but because I saw them listed
as the 10 hardest hit industries.
A letter signed by leading conductors asking for aid seems
awfully self-serving, doesn't it? I suppose it could be
that these conductors are only interested in the welfare of
rank and file musicians, but every industry listed above
(and the myriads not listed) have rank and file employees, too.
The government (that is, me and you, and future generations)
can't subsidize everything.
Having said that, let me point out that my wife and I have
given away the $2400 we received because I don't think
pensioners, whose income is assured, needed to get anything
at all.
Not disagreeing with any of that, but you keep focusing on
the demanders. You don't seem to want to talk about how the
government should decide who gets what. Which is fine.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 01:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Well, it’s neither up to me nor you. It’s the government. And however we feel about these issues, the government, at least here in the US, seems to be prepared to be willing to dole out at least some help. Whether they actually have the funds for this, or will simply resort to printing money (as they already are), the matter is out of our hands.
Collectively we determine who the government is. Why do you
persist in making content-free comments?
Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-17 04:14:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well, collectively “we” have determined that bailouts are in order and, therefore, “we” will be printing more money.

As for my comments, they’re merely reflections of the vacuous inanities you persist in jabbering on about. You also seem wont to projecting your pet fears/dislikes onto them. Or at least willfully misread them. Personally, I don’t have a horse in this race one way or the other, but evidently you do. In which case your frustration would be better vented at your local political representatives.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Well, it’s neither up to me nor you. It’s the government. And however we feel about these issues, the government, at least here in the US, seems to be prepared to be willing to dole out at least some help. Whether they actually have the funds for this, or will simply resort to printing money (as they already are), the matter is out of our hands.
Collectively we determine who the government is. Why do you
persist in making content-free comments?
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 14:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Well, collectively “we” have determined that bailouts are in order and, therefore, “we” will be printing more money.
As for my comments, they’re merely reflections of the vacuous inanities you persist in jabbering on about. You also seem wont to projecting your pet fears/dislikes onto them. Or at least willfully misread them. Personally, I don’t have a horse in this race one way or the other, but evidently you do. In which case your frustration would be better vented at your local political representatives.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Néstor Castiglione
Well, it’s neither up to me nor you. It’s the government. And however we feel about these issues, the government, at least here in the US, seems to be prepared to be willing to dole out at least some help. Whether they actually have the funds for this, or will simply resort to printing money (as they already are), the matter is out of our hands.
Collectively we determine who the government is. Why do you
persist in making content-free comments?
Never mind.
MiNe109
2020-06-17 14:49:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why is a government bailout of the classical music performance industry
more deserving than bailing out hotels, sports, home furnishing stores,
restaurants and bars, popular music live performances, movies, dentist
offices, laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and casinos, scenic
and sightseeing transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
Many local arts organizations have received government support as small
businesses.

Support for large-scale classical music will always depend on subsidies
of some kind, private or public.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 15:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out
hotels, sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and
bars, popular music live performances, movies, dentist
offices, laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and
casinos, scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat
tours, off-road)?
Many local arts organizations have received government
support as small businesses.
And therefore we should bail out orchestras also?
Post by MiNe109
Support for large-scale classical music will always depend
on subsidies of some kind, private or public.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between public and
private "subsidy." One is voluntary, the other isn't.
MiNe109
2020-06-17 15:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Why is a government bailout of the classical music performance
industry more deserving than bailing out hotels, sports, home
furnishing stores, restaurants and bars, popular music live
performances, movies, dentist offices, laundries, clothing stores,
amusement parks and casinos, scenic and sightseeing transportation
(boat tours, off-road)?
Many local arts organizations have received government support as
small businesses.
And therefore we should bail out orchestras also?
Is an orchestra not a small business?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Support for large-scale classical music will always depend on
subsidies of some kind, private or public.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between public and private
"subsidy." One is voluntary, the other isn't.
If one believes the economy is best served by supporting demand, there's
no reason to exclude classical music from small business subsidies.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 15:59:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out
hotels, sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants and
bars, popular music live performances, movies, dentist
offices, laundries, clothing stores, amusement parks and
casinos, scenic and sightseeing transportation (boat
tours, off-road)?
Many local arts organizations have received government
support as small businesses.
And therefore we should bail out orchestras also?
Is an orchestra not a small business?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Support for large-scale classical music will always
depend on subsidies of some kind, private or public.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between public and
private "subsidy." One is voluntary, the other isn't.
If one believes the economy is best served by supporting
demand, there's no reason to exclude classical music from
small business subsidies.
You are missing the point I am trying to make. Not every
business can be bailed out. It is impossible. Congress has
failed it's responsibility to prioritize. They sent me
$2400 to no purpose. I am not saying orchestras are less
important than restaurants or hair salons, or anything else.
But they are less important than hospitals. If anyone
wants to disagree with that there is nothing to talk about.
MiNe109
2020-06-17 16:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Why is a government bailout of the classical music performance
industry more deserving than bailing out hotels, sports, home
furnishing stores, restaurants and bars, popular music live
performances, movies, dentist offices, laundries, clothing stores,
amusement parks and casinos, scenic and sightseeing transportation
(boat tours, off-road)?
Many local arts organizations have received government support as
small businesses.
And therefore we should bail out orchestras also?
Is an orchestra not a small business?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Support for large-scale classical music will always depend on
subsidies of some kind, private or public.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between public and private
"subsidy." One is voluntary, the other isn't.
If one believes the economy is best served by supporting demand,
there's no reason to exclude classical music from small business
subsidies.
You are missing the point I am trying to make.  Not every business can
be bailed out. It is impossible.  Congress has failed it's
responsibility to prioritize.  They sent me $2400 to no purpose. I am
not saying orchestras are less important than restaurants or hair
salons, or anything else.  But they are less important than hospitals.
If anyone wants to disagree with that there is nothing to talk about.
The small business subsidy program had criteria that some orchestras
satisfied. I believe the priority was "first come, first served." In
this special case, you are in effect arguing orchestras should have been
excluded despite meeting the requirements.

Future subsidies will have different criteria which classical music
organizations may or may not satisfy so why not be agnostic? Of course,
the government has as much money as it chooses to spend but that's a
different conversation.

The $2400 subsidy was deliberately not prioritized because to do so
would have delayed its propagation. Of course, it was for individuals so
no hospitals were disadvantaged to your benefit.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 16:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Post by Frank Berger
Why is a government bailout of the classical music
performance industry more deserving than bailing out
hotels, sports, home furnishing stores, restaurants
and bars, popular music live performances, movies,
dentist offices, laundries, clothing stores, amusement
parks and casinos, scenic and sightseeing
transportation (boat tours, off-road)?
Many local arts organizations have received government
support as small businesses.
And therefore we should bail out orchestras also?
Is an orchestra not a small business?
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Support for large-scale classical music will always
depend on subsidies of some kind, private or public.
Sure, but there's a huge difference between public and
private "subsidy." One is voluntary, the other isn't.
If one believes the economy is best served by supporting
demand, there's no reason to exclude classical music from
small business subsidies.
You are missing the point I am trying to make.  Not every
business can be bailed out. It is impossible.  Congress
has failed it's responsibility to prioritize.  They sent
me $2400 to no purpose. I am not saying orchestras are
less important than restaurants or hair salons, or
anything else.  But they are less important than
hospitals. If anyone wants to disagree with that there is
nothing to talk about.
The small business subsidy program had criteria that some
orchestras satisfied. I believe the priority was "first
come, first served." In this special case, you are in effect
arguing orchestras should have been excluded despite meeting
the requirements.
Future subsidies will have different criteria which
classical music organizations may or may not satisfy so why
not be agnostic? Of course, the government has as much money
as it chooses to spend but that's a different conversation.
The $2400 subsidy was deliberately not prioritized because
to do so would have delayed its propagation. Of course, it
was for individuals so no hospitals were disadvantaged to
your benefit.
That's silly. The $2400 my wife and I got could have been
given to someone who needed it. I acknowledge your point
about the need for speed, however.
Bozo
2020-06-20 14:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Effects on the Met Opera's orchestra :

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/arts/music/met-opera-orchestra-jobs.html
Ricardo Jimenez
2020-06-20 16:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bozo
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/arts/music/met-opera-orchestra-jobs.html
“You think to yourself: I’ve made it,” said Benjamin Bowman, 40, the
Met’s co-concertmaster since 2017. “But what once seemed like the most
secure job is anything but.”

What a great name for a string player.
Bozo
2020-06-20 18:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ricardo Jimenez
What a great name for a string player.
Who , in addition to recently buying a house, also recently purchased a new, expensive bow !!
And with a child on the way, or recently arrived. What a financial catastrophe.
Bozo
2020-07-02 18:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
An irreverent look :

Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-16 19:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A lot of the discussion on the resumption of concert life has revolved around symphonic concerts, but chamber music concerts haven't really been discussed. I wonder what the effect will be on them in the short-term future? One organization here in Los Angeles very optimistically announced business-as-usual for them beginning this September. How they'll manage this remains to be seen. For one thing their normal venue is a small salon which fits about 100 people tops—and even then rather tightly. How will "social distancing" work here? Also, one of their trademarks is a post-concert gathering and buffet with champagne. I can't see how that could work in this present state of affairs. Chamber music, too, depends vitally on a certain intimacy of venue in order to be properly heard. Performing in a large hall would not only work against this repertoire, but would simply be out of reach in terms of cost for most of these organizations.

One thing's certain: We all got front row seats to witnessing some very "interesting times."
Post by Bozo
https://www.leonardslatkin.com/june-2020-recovery-edition-part-1/
Interesting thoughts, he is to be commended.He is obviously far more knowledgable than I, but on first reading does not strike me as practical, logistically or financially, given all the moving pieces especially since one misstep may/will lead to transmission. Personally, I wont go back until there is a vaccine.Much of the CM audience is in the higher risk groups.Seems same issues with new recordings either live or studio.
Peter
2020-06-16 23:18:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's important to bear in mind that the endless threat of a pandemic we now face is self-imposed. There was a path out of this predicament: a period of rigorous distancing to get the caseloads down, followed by widespread testing, contact tracing and isolation. Meanwhile the wearing of facemasks would be mandatory.
The outcome would be a situation in which all of us could return to the things we used to do, confident that the person next to us is not an asymptomatic spreader. I'm not making this up. Classical concerts can resume in New Zealand and Iceland. It's possible some continental European countries can soon follow suit if they can stay the course. As Paul Krugman put it, the US (and Britain) and many other countries have failed the marshmallow test. In fairness, it would be difficult for any society to keep to this program without enlightened and widely respected leadership. That's in short supply.
Néstor Castiglione
2020-06-16 23:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You said it, brother!
Post by Peter
In fairness, it would be difficult for any society to keep to this program without enlightened and widely respected leadership. That's in short supply.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 00:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
It's important to bear in mind that the endless threat of a pandemic we now face is self-imposed. There was a path out of this predicament: a period of rigorous distancing to get the caseloads down, followed by widespread testing, contact tracing and isolation. Meanwhile the wearing of facemasks would be mandatory.
I thought we did all that. You meant it should have been
done sooner? Unfortunately, our leaders (and I am thinking
of state and local leaders primarily, as they have the power
to implement your plan) are not clairvoyant.
Post by Peter
The outcome would be a situation in which all of us could return to the things we used to do, confident that the person next to us is not an asymptomatic spreader. I'm not making this up. Classical concerts can resume in New Zealand and Iceland. It's possible some continental European countries can soon follow suit if they can stay the course. As Paul Krugman put it, the US (and Britain) and many other countries have failed the marshmallow test. In fairness, it would be difficult for any society to keep to this program without enlightened and widely respected leadership. That's in short supply.
All the experts who are planning the altered future no
nothing about it, of course. It is entirely possible that
we get a cure, or effective treatment (strides are being
made) or a vaccine, and that the future will be just like
the past. But you sell more copy telling the other story.
Raymond Hall
2020-06-17 00:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
It's important to bear in mind that the endless threat of a pandemic we now face is self-imposed. There was a path out of this predicament: a period of rigorous distancing to get the caseloads down, followed by widespread testing, contact tracing and isolation. Meanwhile the wearing of facemasks would be mandatory.
The outcome would be a situation in which all of us could return to the things we used to do, confident that the person next to us is not an asymptomatic spreader. I'm not making this up. Classical concerts can resume in New Zealand and Iceland. It's possible some continental European countries can soon follow suit if they can stay the course. As Paul Krugman put it, the US (and Britain) and many other countries have failed the marshmallow test. In fairness, it would be difficult for any society to keep to this program without enlightened and widely respected leadership. That's in short supply.
Hear, hear. Noticeable is that even minimally intelligent leadership is very definitely AWOL in the UK and the US. Oz is not far behind either.

Ray Hall, Taree
Bozo
2020-06-17 00:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's important to bear in mind that the endless threat of a pandemic we now face is self-imposed. There >was a path out of this predicament... it would be difficult for any society to keep to this program without >enlightened and widely respected leadership. That's in short supply.
Indeed. Trump will probably cause deaths of more with his upcoming rallies, ironically starting in "Massacre" Tulsa.
Frank Berger
2020-06-17 01:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bozo
It's important to bear in mind that the endless threat of a pandemic we now face is self-imposed. There >was a path out of this predicament... it would be difficult for any society to keep to this program without >enlightened and widely respected leadership. That's in short supply.
Indeed. Trump will probably cause deaths of more with his upcoming rallies, ironically starting in "Massacre" Tulsa.
It will mostly be Republicans dying. What do you care?
Bozo
2020-06-17 12:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Safe" music for virus times ? :

https://tinyurl.com/yaq9g6dg
Raymond Hall
2020-06-17 15:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Courtesy of a poster at another group: 

https://www.leonardslatkin.com/june-2020-recovery-edition-part-1/ 

-Interesting thoughts, he is to be commended.He is obviously far more knowledgable than I, -but on first reading does not strike me as practical, logistically or financially, given -all the moving pieces especially since one misstep may/will lead to transmission.
-Personally, I wont go back until there is a vaccine.Much of the CM audience is in the
-higher risk groups.Seems same issues with new recordings either live or studio. 


I think there is now an opportunity to present repertoire with reduced forces that normally wouldn't be played, which can be recorded live and using spaced audiences a seat apart. Works would include many concertante type pieces, Boulez etc., and especially works of masters such as Frank Martin, who has scored several works for strings, and many types of gongs, spiels, xylophones etc., and other exotica. The audiences would probably be younger also. Just a thought.

Ray Hall, Taree
Loading...