Response to "Of New Music and The 99%"

The point of “occupy” is to speak truth to power and in the best American sense perhaps level the playing field. For this to work in an arts context there are some real problems to consider.

Arts its a different kettle of Fish. Unlike the arts no one lives in a “banking community.” For many the arts are their life. Also Wall Street and the banks have a lot of customers. Musical institutions make very few commissions and they tend to use the same or similar people over and over. Also popular music is a gigantic industry with a very small percentage of successful musicians. In both cases those empowered with success become celebrities, but more important they are the power. At least for the moment. Who are these famous people going to speak truth to? Or for? Certainly they have nothing to risk. Can Philip Glass speak for me and my music? Will he give up a commission so I and others can be performed in his place? I’m not sure he could do this even if he wanted to.

How can we propose a revolution in classical music when the folks claiming its leadership are the very folks we need to replace. The dragon does not slay itself.

‍

What we need is more opportunity, not new star composers to replace the old ones.

Unlike occupy wall street, its not easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys in the art world. Further complications include the fact that the 1 percent are usually arts benefactors, and that no one is in actually charge of the American musical arts scene. There is no donkey to pin a tail on. On the other hand success for an American composer means sponsorship and composers can freely chose to align themselves with the workers or the management.

‍

Article to: Of New Music and the 99% of Daphne Carr

‍

‍