Leon Botstein: The rich don’t give a damn
OrchestrasIn the latest edition of David Krauss’s Speaking Soundly, the conductor and Bard College president discusses his frustrations at the classical music scene in America. The fault does not belong to musical organisation, he argues. It’s the super-rich – he names Elon Musk – who show no responsibility for maintaining cultural infrastructures.
‘Where are they now?’ he demands.
Botstein relates being sent to squeeze money from a rabid ex-Nazi. His grandfather, a camp survivor, encouraged him to do so.
Listen here.
Why the hell should anyone who is “super rich” subsidise the classical music fraternity ? How about Mr Botstein getting off his arse, building a company that makes huge profits and he can then subsidise himself and other musicians who can’t draw an audience. As more than one business thinker has said “a product or service is not worth what the developers think it is, but what the public are prepared for it”. Classical musical artists seem to think that they should be a protected species, tell that to the miners, steelworkers, mill workers, shop workers worldwide who unfortunately don’t come into the “protected species” category but provide just as much contribution to society as the classical mob.
He has built a company, an incredibly successful company: it’s called Bard College, with all its many satellites. He has completely transformed the economic and cultural life of the Hudson Valley region. A colossal achievement.
Please don’t confuse a non-profit institution with a for-profit company.
This is the kind of response that makes me wonder why so many non classical music lovers tune in to this blog. It seems to attract the industry’s most virulent detractors, not its supporters.
The answer to your elegant “Why the hell…?” question requires an examination of the distinction between art and entertainment, and the question of art’s intangible value – and cost – to the flourishing of the individual and, by extension, to society.
It seems self-evident, but necessary, to claim that popular culture can be profitable because, as its name suggests, it is scaleable. So Taylor Swift can make billions of dollars from one tour because she can fill stadia and spin-off cinemas. Good for her.
But classical music – being, by its very nature, so metaphysical an endeavour and skilled a craft – requires years of training, and massive investment in both the education and performance spaces. Those titans of industry who, in yesteryear, provided that investment, did so because they recognised the duty that extreme wealth bestowed upon them to nurture and sustain the intangible benefits of a spiritually healthy, intellectually curious, community-cohesive society. They did so by endowing all sorts of institutions, from schools and hospitals to concert halls. They were the US’s response to the earlier European aristocracies.
Today the problem is one of perception, and is captured perfectly by the latent attitude of the comment above. Classical = intellectual. Intellectual = elite. Elite = bad. Therefore cut all funding to intellectual pursuits and feed them to brute, market forces. It is a barren vision, one that fails to recognise intangible value.
The irony, of course, is that many of the new Tech elites became über-rich on the promise that technology would democratise all aspects of worthy human endeavour, and thereby enhance human flourishing while dismantling the structures of elitism. The opposite has happened. Tech monarchies are the new royalty, more powerful than states. Technology has become an end in itself, to the detriment of both culture and human flourishing. We have the means to distribute culture as never before, but a diminishing pool of willing recipients because the delivery system has become more attractive – and more indicative of status, crucially – than the content it was designed to deliver. The tangible has usurped the intangible. The object has usurped the experience. The abundance has diluted the essence.
Now, more than ever, we need to restore the intangible value and societal benefit of excellence. I am happy to report that we are doing it successfully in the small Maryland town of Easton, thanks to the generosity, trust and shared vision of one individual benefactor and a dedicated team. Focussing on one small community, and scaling down to a salon-like space, we have focussed on excellence, but at a cost to the concert-goer that recognises its value. We do not apologise for asking our public to pay to listen to the best artists alive today what they regularly pay for a meal at an averagely decent restaurant ($150 per ticket in a 160-seat theater for Bell, Wang, Hamelin, Sierra, Montero, Babayan, Rana etc.). Our message is clear, that art has a value, and therefore a cost. It is not a give-away, worthless and trivial. The more we underscore that message – the more we value ourselves – the more the community wants to be part of our vision. (In Season 2, we raised our full-season subscription cost and saw a 25% increase in subscribers.)
There are wealthy people out there who will share their wealth, but part of the problem is that the classical music industry, in a competitive world, has adopted a begging posture. And begging is unattractive, to both benefactor and audience. We should not be putting out begging bowls, either to attract funding or an audience. Rather, we should be asking the wealthy – as well as our audiences – what sort of communities they wish to live in, and what they are prepared to do to help build them. That was the question put to Carnegie and Rockefeller. And they answered it by raising society from the top, as well as pushing it up from the bottom.
It is time to reframe our questions, and restore value to what we are selling, since nobody wants either to fund or purchase that which is perceived to have no value.
Sam, I am in awe of the power and eloquence of your post. You have written something truly profound. THANK YOU. I am going to save this because it reflects a lifetime of wisdom that usually is impossible to distill in a few paragraphs. This is absolutely brilliant!
Herr Doktor: and yet, 16 nitwits didn’t get it…
Nice essay, but the truth is, most people really don’t care much about classical music. It’s that simple. And It’s not a crime.
Most don’t, and that is fine. I agree. But our job is to maintain the critical mass of curiosity, attendance, investment and professional opportunity necessary to safeguard the art form for those who do care, and for those who might care in future generations. The goal is not majority appeal, but the continuation of a culturally valuable musical genre.
We don’t need “most people” to care. We need enough people to care.
I enjoyed your comment about the value of intangibles, which we can classify as social goods, beneficial to the community at large. But laudable as you have worked to get top artists to Easton and have them play in an intimate space, the cost of $600 per concert per family of four (you do want the kids to share in this great experience, don’t you?) is prohibitive except for the very wealthy. So how is appreciation for classical music to be inculcated in the middle and working class households who would also enjoy it as much as the elite?
You ask a good question.
The truth is that vast numbers of families who would be classed as working to middle class are paying far, far higher prices to go to pop concerts and sporting events. It is a myth that classical music is the most expensive genre to attend. It is, in fact, among the cheapest, on aggregate. So, it boils down to priorities. If Taylor Swift is worth four figure ticket prices, I think it is entirely justifiable – and economically prudent – to charge at least $150 to hear the best classical artists in the world in the special intimacy of a 160-seat hall. In our case, there is no extra cost to drive to a big city, stay there overnight, park there, or eat there. Most people have to spend a lot in extras to go to a concert or opera.
In our case, we also have a program called “Access to Excellence”, which offers free tickets to teenagers and young adults who express a keen interest in the arts. No young people are left out. That way, the older ones slightly subsidise the next generation. Seems fair, to me.
Thanks for your question.
“vast numbers of families who would be classed as working to middle class are paying far, far higher prices to go to pop concerts and sporting events.”
For now, let’s leave aside sporting events, the sociology of which is very different from that of concerts, plays, or movies.
To be fair, most of the working- and middle-class people who pay far higher prices to go to pop and rock concerts do it once or twice a year, if that, and they may go as couples, but rarely as families. They don’t subscribe to a season, which is what most classical music organizations and opera companies really hope audience members will do.
And when those people go to pop or rock concerts — or sporting events — they can usually jump around and yell and celebrate. For better or worse, most people find that more fun than sitting still and keeping quiet, as one is (rightly) expected to do at concerts and operas and plays.
Two thumb, two toes up
As always, you make a cogent and reasoned argument. (You ought to be writing for far bigger fora than this, though I hope to continue to be able to see your thoughts here, too).
However, as someone who does not — because cannot — “regularly pay [$150] for a meal at an averagely decent restaurant” (that’s more than my monthly grocery bill) I can no more face that sort of price for a concert ticket. That you have found a little community that can is fine, and how lucky they are to be able to see artists of the calibre you name in a nice little intimate space. But you are a little cavalier about those of us to whom such prices are an impossibility, so in a way you are making classical music for the elite again, only this time it is an elitism of wealth.
Because I worked as a critic in the arts, I was able to see a great deal, and while still working could afford some (somewhat less expensive, because in larger venues with more price options) tickets for things outside my remit. In medically forced retirement I have less “disposable income,” so am lucky to have built up a nice little collection of music CDs and to have online access to many other things. Live performance may be a thing of the past for me, but I have been very fortunate and retain loads of options.
But you may want to turn your considerable intelligence to how classical music might be delivered, live, to the less financially fortunate.
As I have considerable reason to know, the most dedicated aficionados often derive from these ranks. I had the “cheap seats” at ENO when I was staying in London, and the people I met in that sidelined little bar for those seats were very passionate music fans, while down in the Crush Bar at the ROH, where I was when I was working, I met a lot of people who were there to see and be seen. The Crush Bar must have had many true music lovers, too, but nobody whose interest was phony would bother to take the cheap seats.
But each person can only do so much, and you have done something at least in one lucky community. Congratulations and thanks for that. Just don’t forget the rest of us, please.
Thank you for you kind remarks, and valuable questions. I am sorry you are restricted these days, but happy to know you are surrounded by great recordings.
Please see my response above, to Eric, who asks similar questions.
Very best,
Sam
I am not suggesting Yuja Wang or James Ehnes is not “worth” as much as Elton John or Paul McCartney. But they are just as out of reach to many of us as the pricing structure you seem to think is appropriate. I think you have rather ducked the main question.
Sorry for the very tardy reply…
This from the BBC today:
“For the Eras tour, Ms Swift sold more than 4.3 million tickets. That averages to roughly $239 (£190.4) per ticket – the fifth highest of the year’s top tours, Pollstar said.”
Case rested? There is plenty of money out there. And these are young people. It is a question of what people choose to spend it on. That’s all. Valuing our art form is an imperative. If we give it away for nothing, we degrade it. Things of high quality cost money. That’s all there is to it, unless you want people to produce high quality at low cost and low reward. And that seems unreasonable to me, since no other industry adopts that model. As for Cuba? The human cost of that system disqualifies it from sensible discourse.
Culture, like health care, in the US, is mainly for the wealthy. In other countries, it’s for everyone. I can hear the Royal Bangkok Symphony Orchestra for $14, and see a Dr. for $10.
I remember going to events in Mexico, Havana, Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, all for a fraction of prices in Canada (and presumably the US). Top seats in the gorgeous Teatro Colon for somewhere around $4 US. In Cuba tickets were so cheap Teatro Garcia Lorca was full for the ballet. Not just because it is comm: I found throughout Latin America that arts tickets were very affordable for populations that on the whole were far from wealthy, suggesting a different recognition of the importance of the arts to national well-being.
In the UK, when I last lived there, concession tickets were available for just about everything. For the young, the aged and the unemployed, whatever else. Not so sure today — if a series (the Ring) can be sold out to donors only, the priorities may have shifted.
But the fact remains, the arts are pricing themselves out of the market for an increasing number of people. (So is pro sport; I used to go regularly to baseball. I doubt if Icould afford it now).
I think the point is that in the past the super-rich folks DID subsidize music. Do you know who “Carnegie” in Carnegie Hall was? Who Avery Fisher was? Who the Rockefellers are?
And poor Avery Fisher had his name effaced from the edifice for a newer richer donor.
They paid the family $15 million to do that. Which made clear that a donation does in fact confer a “thing of value” to the donor. There was an argument at the time that David Geffen’s tax deduction should be reduced by that $15 million.
It takes roughly 10,000 hours of training to even have a chance of a career in classical music. That includes private lessons, hours of individual practice, participation in youth orchestras, university, summer festivals, gigging, etc. How many hours of training does it take to become a bricklayer?
Spot on.
Make a compararable study; Artist, Dr., Scientist, Writer.
Why do you blog this bullshit full of hatred for culture and classical music on a website dedicated to classical music? Uneducated,primitive rubbish.This is a classical music website,not a coal miners blog.
Wow, from the downvotes above you can see how much classical music lovers hate the idea of free choice when it comes to their subsidies.
The point remains though. Gone are the days when people listened and financially supported the arts out of duty, moral superiority, or aspiration. We have engineered a society moving increasingly towards free choice.
My advice to those in the arts is to stop telling the public what they ‘should do’ ‘should like’ or ‘should pay for’. That is all thinly disguised self-preservation and people see straight through it. Rather, get on with producing something of quality they are drawn to and want to choose.
A valid and important viewpoint. Let’s apply it to physical buildings. If we stop publicly subsidizing the preservation of our global architectural heritage – encapsulated by the awarding of World Heritage designations – it will crumble into ruins soon enough. Unlike a physical structure, classic music – and its global infrastructure built over centuries – is an intangible cultural heritage, but, I would argue, its preservation bestows no less of a duty than the publicly funded restoration of Notre Dame. Some things are so worth preserving as human achievements that they spill into the realm of collective moral duty – in my view. That said, I entirely agree that, in parallel, it is incumbent on classical music professionals to inject creativity and imagination into the process – from content, to marketing to audience experience – so that we preserve and generate genuine love for the art form. I think our two positions are not only compatible but both approaches are essential. Neither one, alone, will succeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNw0P5ZMbA
The worshipers of Elon Musk as the new Messiah tend to forget that his business was heavily subsided by state and federal governments, both directly (as in the huge loans that saved Tesla from bankruptcy in 2009) and indirectly (as in incentives for buying electric cars, like state credits, tax credits, and so on). Mr Musk is definitely not Ayn Rand’s hero who’s going against the odds. To the contrary, he’s going with the flow. This is called “progressive liberalism”, when the government is promoting some technology and the business follows in the wake to make profits. So the expectations that Mr Musk should pay something back to the public are not unreasonable.
Such a philistine reply – and so typical of Reaganite/Thatcherite conservatives to whom the only acceptable metric is a “market value” one.
This polymath’s sense of entitlement to other people’s money is astonishing.
It’s not other people’s money. Capitalism is to a large degree legal stealing. Now communism is even worse, but that doesn’t free the beneficiaries of the rigged capitalism game of their moral responsibility to share large parts of their wealth in ways that support mankind’s highest aspirations, namely art and science. As well as in welfare for the less advantageous.
You have to be pretty rich to attend Botstein’s Bard College.
That’s really not true, msc. They offer generous aid and scholarship packages which make it much cheaper than a state university would be for many students. I teach gifted high school musicians and help them with college applications, and they are often tempted to consider Bard over more competitive and prestigious places by the excellent financial terms they’re offered.
Maybe rich people would take him more seriously if he didn’t look like a Bond villain.
Or conduct like one! He’s a pompous arrogant charlatan on the podium. Truly soul-sucking to perform under him. Not to mention, violently boring.
Of course, blame Elon Musk – the richest man in the world who happens to not be some rabid leftist. He could blame a lot of billionaires like George Soros or Bill Gates, but then he can’t offend his leftist buddies.
The time honored tradition of noblese oblige is dead. And just because someone had money doesn’t mean they value high art more than those who aren’t in their tax bracket. In many ways I’ve seen big money ruin classical music. As deep pocketed supporters have been enticed to summer festivals like Aspen, Vail, Grand Tetons, Santa Fe and elsewhere (Bard!), the average working guy has been priced out and the programming has become very stagnant and uninteresting.
“rabid leftist…” HAaaaa!
Elon Musk is Stage IV cancer to human society.
This does underscore a major point that is perhaps the main culprit of classical music’s contemporary problems and as well as societies. This man is right to criticize the avarice and greed of our well PR’ed billionaires.
In the US the top 1% hoard 50 trillionish dollars of net worth while the bottom 50% have 2-4ish trillion. Wealth inequality of this degree has devastating consequences including on Democracy, culture, and the economic viability of anything that isn’t explicitly commercial.
And no it’s not “their money”; most of these super rich are parasites that use money to make money, and charge rent fees rather than produce anything of worth… or they buy up patents/technologies (mrna tech, internet, medicines etc) made in universities and use the police power of the government they literally buy, to hold monopoly pricing power via force.
If even 1 trillion was donated to cultural life in America, imagine.
… But no, as Adam smith said “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
“This man is right to criticize the avarice and greed of our well PR’ed billionaires”………..don’t you just love the man who hates the fact that entrepreneurs can build companies and make millions in profit through hard work, drive and commitment. But of course he would prefer the old communist model where everyone who earns money is told by the state what and how to spend their money, at the same time the powerful elite in those societies grow rich at the expense of the working class. You really do need to read a bit of history!
“hard work, drive, and commitment”. And a heavy dose of family money to start with; and the drive and commitment were to make massive amounts of money. Is this really something we should all worship? Try valuing deeper values for once. Greed is definitely not the highest human trait.
Ah Adam Smith. The canny Scot knew more about “what evil lurks in the hearts of men” than even the Shadow did! Can you give me the source of that wonderful quote!
Book III, Chapter 4, The Wealth of Nations.
Tell you what. Deal with the monstrous levels of income inequality in the classical music industry first.
Don’t be silly, classical musicians believe in distribution of wealth when they receive it, not when they have to give it!
Let me get this right:
Botstein is bitching that the 1% isn’t subsidizing the 10%?
That Musk’s billions aren’t paying enough of Muti’s millions?
Botstein needs to live in Palestine for a week to get his head on straight, his head is so far stuffed up his elite ass he’s staring at his belly button from the inside.
J Barcelo: “Of course, blame Elon Musk – the richest man in the world who happens to not be some rabid leftist. He could blame a lot of billionaires like George Soros or Bill Gates, but then he can’t offend his leftist buddies.”
——–
The politics in today’s world of culture, entertainment and corporations (and, certainly government too) has become a fascinating mix of dueling agendas and contradictory preferences. Much of that world also tends to be ideologically more alike than different.
It’s symbolized by Hollywood/entertainment and Silicon Valley/high-tech both being very so-called progressive (which affects the world of culture in general) and things like – such as a banner carried at a rally in October – “Gays for Hamas.”
Are people actually trying to say that the rich are not despicable?
Tim, you have no idea how the economy works, and your claims about how patents are no better. The rich aren’t sitting on piles of money at home. This money is in investments and other kinds of wealth. You don’t just siphon this off to the poor, it’s not even possible (not to mention that they would spend it, and then what do you do?) This wealth is based on trust in fiat currencies and the international financial system, the US dollar most of all, on belief that the world will continue on an upward spiral, on progress, sanctity of private property and continued prosperity. That’s the stock market, that’s real estate values etc etc. Amazon stock is high not because Bezos robs the poor but because Amazon remains competitive, people – regular people, probably including you – buy its stuff. As for the claim about patents, it’s not enough to invent something. You need lots of capital and investment to get things going. Otherwise, how do you produce hundreds of millions of microprocessors such as those in your mobile phone annually, with billions of transistors in each, and get the cost to be so low as to be accessible to everyone? Soviets invented a lot of things but most of their inventions never got to the mass market, because this is precisely what they lacked (not to mention respect for private initiative, which is why the USSR could never even feed its own people).
Ultimately, the rich aren’t subsidizing classical music because…. have you been to a concert conducted by Botstein? There’s your answer.
I agree with OSF above, as far back as we can tell music depended on patronage. At first it was the Church, then the aristocracy, Music promoters and publishers became more important from the nineteenth century, but patrons remained crucial and in twentieth century America it was the rich industrialists.
That contribution to society is not being made by their successors, and the health of musical culture needs something new.
Maybe he should hit up Jeffrey Epstein for some donations. Oh, that’s right, he did.
This is how America works! Richest country but all good and important things depend on charity. The sick, the poor, the arts, the immigrants…
The general lack of arts education ( first programs to be cut everywhere) does not foster appreciation later in life. Condemning the rich in this way seems way over the top. They still keep things going, at least the older generation. Once they are gone, things will really go down hill. It will be only sports and pop culture of we don’t educate and invite everyone to the table. Many musicians are doing amazing outreach to save the future!
I’m amazed at how many of the super rich have done so with the help of governments. Ross Perot made lots of $$ off of government, and then attacked it. Isn’t E Musk using public funds for his space efforts?
Perot also made the Meyerson Symphony Center (home of the Dallas Symphony Orchestra) possible. It’s one of the great halls in America.
I’m sad that Herr Botstein is the only person being quoted as saying such true and important statements. I’ve sung for Leon several times and he is one of the most heinous, narcissistic conductors I’ve ever worked with. Who hires Anne Bogart to direct their opera and then changes all of her staging while she’s standing in the room? Botstein is absolutely clueless in terms of treating people in the room with respect. No wonder he’s the only one in the classical world willing to call out the rich. I wish better people would join the call!
He could have also mentioned the fact that government support of the arts here in the United States is a pittance compared to other countries. And even that token amount would be completely eliminated if many of our lawmakers had their way.
Musk is only one of the uncultured tech money makers who have done little with their money other than count it. Their impact is so small.
Most rich individuals and media celebs prefer giving to charities that make themselves feel good, rather than to an artform that has a public perception of high elitism — especially in America, where opera and classical music is not part of their culture.
it did not take long to collapse, did it. Not that long ago, Bernstein was a household name in the US. I doubt there is a single conductor working today who is a household name. Believe me, I know loads of people, generally intelligent and well-informed, who have never heard of Dudamel, let alone Y N-S or Muti or Rattle.
There was always popular music — my parents’ generation had big bands and swing among other musical diversions. Crosby and Sinatra were huge stars. But they did not erase classical music from the conversation. What made the music of the boomers different, that it did? Let alone what followed.
The only time popular mainstream media covers classical music is when (1) a big-name artist such as Lang Lang made a Disney deal or dressed too sexy; (2) when something instagram or tabloid news-worthy happens such as an orgasmic scream during a L.A. Phil concert.
In other words, it’s news-worthy when it caters to the lowest common denominator of the popular culture.
But it was not always thus. There used to be plenty classical concerts, operas and ballets on TV. They might not have had the ratings of Gunsmoke or All in the Family, but they were good enough to be a regularly scheduled offering.
So people knew who Bernstein was, and Previn. And later Pavarotti. Perhaps there is some clue in the attitudes of those individuals to the wider world of music — all had contact, in one way or another, with popular music.
Bernstein composed for the Broadway stage. Previn was a big deal in Hollywood. Pavarotti enjoyed concerts with the top pop singers of the day, for charity, and fans clearly came for him as much as them. Lang Lang, the best known classical artist in the world today, is following in some pretty good footsteps.
Hm. Why a conductor that can not conduct at all (I was present at Carnegie, when the ASO had to restart a piece thrice[!], because it just fell apart thanks to Botstein’s chaotic hand waving) and accepts money from Epstein wants to moralize about anything. Totally inappropriate and he is not competent to take any “moral stand” since he insists on conducting on and on despite a clear lack of any capabilities.
If they people don’t want it, let it die.
No one has any responsibility to support anything the don’t want to. It’s bad enough our government feels the need to support artistic activities of questionnaire value, i.e. PBS, simply because some self appointed elites says it’s for the good of society.
There are many free sources for classical music, why should any of it be subsidized. If no one is listening to it now, why should others pay for live performances that only the mostly elite will attend?
I enjoy classical music. At home. In the privacy of the living room. I don’t attend live performances because of the cost and inconvenience. The same reason I don’t attend Taylor Swift concerts. I’ve been to one live performance over the last 10 years, even though I have the means.
No one should have to support a dieing art.
What on earth are artistic activities “of questionnaire value”?
You once again confuse the definition of civilisation with market value. How very cynical, in Oscar Wilde’s definition.