Re[2]: Klezmer in corporate hands?

[richard_wolpoe <richard_wolpoe...>]

And Europeans were oh so generous to Vincent van Gogh????!!!

(And until mendlesohn they ignored Bach for severa; generations, too)



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Klezmer in corporate hands? 
Author:  <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org> at Tcpgate
Date:    1/1/99 8:45 AM




What is the result of artistic censorship?  That the artist is not allowed to 
bring his work to the public.  If an artist can't make a living at his art and 
has to do something else to survive, he is also not able to bring his work to 
the public, which is the same result.  I myself objected to the use of the term 
"censorship" in Ingemar's friend's statement.  However, the NEA and other 
institutions have made clearly political decisions to support institutions who 
produce the "safe" work of primarily dead European artists as opposed to 
institutions who produce the work of living American artists.  The US 
Government's support for the arts is perhaps the least of any industrialized 
nation.  The point is, in American capitalism, you have kids who barely know how
to play their instruments making enormous amounts of money (mainly immitating 
African-American musical styles) because the big corporate media companies can 
make lots of profit from them, while a great black composer like Leroy Jenkins 
is still struggling after thirty years of prominence.