Perhaps there may have been twenty years ago, but this apparent detour actually brings us back to what Ian's asking in the message above...  about what Britain's priorities are in the sphere of public spending on "non-critical" services?  I can't any longer find myself in sympathy with the present priorities, and have gone to where I feel more comfortable (along, I note with interest amid this week's news, 1/10 other Brits who are now residing outside the UK).  I don't say my current country of domicile has got the priorities "right", either... perhaps no country has, or perhaps it is all a matter of opinion. Nor am I interested in getting into a "bidding war" over this (I have friends in Norway who are quite happy with their lot, though).  All I say is that where I am at the moment suits me better, personally speaking. 

There's very little with which I disagree here. I see what you mean by your use of the term "redeemed" in this context and accept it. The only comment that I might make is that I'm not even sure that the vast majority of that "wider population" of which you write willingly sanctions that all-important funding of which you write; they do so mainly only through the taxes that they cannot avoid paying and a very few also do so by voluntary donation to relevant charitable organisations. I suspect that, if given the choice, most people would rather elect to have that part of the taxes that they cannot avoid paying diverted towards something other than the continued survival of "orchestras, opera houses, chamber music series, recital series, new music festivals, etc., etc.," - and I daresay the majority of licence payers would prefer that the part of their licence fees that fund BBC Radio 3 be diverted elsewhere, too, for that matter - a deeply depressing thought, but probably not far off the mark. That said, I have also heard it conjectured that there is a certain kind of ironic absurdity in taxpers' money funding such things while at the same time the Treasury gives tax relief to corporations in respect of their charitable contributions towards the very same kinds of funding, but I suppose that's another topic. Speaking personally, the kinds of thing you mention are, as you imply, always in such desperate need of funding that I've long since had no scruples about where that money comes from as long as it comes.

Best,

Alistair

I'm not sure there's such an irony?  Surely there irony would truly be if what was given (or supported) with one hand were then grabbed back (in the form of taxing charitable donations made by corporations) with the other?   This is, of course, if one takes it as a given that funding will be a public/private mix for most Arts organisations,  which has been the pattern in the UK now for the past quarter-century at least.  (I don't say I approve it - I mention that it's the established pattern).

I personally believe that rather than being offended, Arts organisations ought to be rather flattered that the image of quality, artistic value, innovation and excellence they offer has a financial "value" which can be leveraged to the organisation's advantage if outside bodies wish to gain benefit by association?  It doesn't always work that way, of course.  (I was once asked if I would rewrite the libretto of Mozart's SCHAUSPIELDIREKTOR to allow for "a number of catwalk models who had come to the theatre seeking work, and would appear on the catwalk in latest fashions provided by the sponsor, to the accompaniment of EINE KLEINE NACHTMUSIK".  I'm afraid I told them where they could stick their catwalk, although there would have been a marvellous irony - considering the piece concerned - in agreeing to permit this outrageous shenanigan).

I very much agree with your suggestion that a mix of public and private money for the Arts is not only practicable but desirable. An entirely Government-funded system produced our dear chum Khrennikov, for example...  and the entire strata of cronyism that went along with it.  In point of fact one can see this very much now in the BBC - they had their wings clipped for suggesting that the WMD claim was "sexed-up", and ever since that time one has not heard so much as a peep out of Auntie by way of suggesting that British involvement in the warplans of President Dubya may not have been an entirely wise move.  The deaths of two British soldiers today were reported as "friendly fire", and one had to read quite deeply into the story to discover that it was - as one immediately suspected from the outside - American munition which had caused their death.   I am surprised no contemporary Khrennikov has surfaced to write a Glorious Hymn On The Ousting Of The Butcher Of Baghdad??

I realise that Ian will always disagree that the Soviet experience is a relevant experimental model for incepting identical public policy in Britain - he believes different outcomes will occur.  However, I am more sceptical, and I remain sadly convinced (viz my BBC example above, and thus my reason for quoting it) that identical circumstances will result in identical outcomes.  An entirely public-funded classical music structure in Britain will result in the work of a few cronies being funded, whilst others are thrown to the wolves.

Is that any more the case in France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Finland, etc. (all of which have much higher degrees of public funding than the UK) than it is here at present? I don't see any greater diversity of work being produced here than in various of those countries.

i've just wiki'd paul mccartney, and discovered that he used to be in the beatles!

Wasn't he the guy who wrote that great James Bond song?

What does a James Bond song sound like?