As an ecologist I learned that bio diversity is healthy and mono cultures are unhealthy and prone to disastrous collapse. So it was worth the effort to prevent extinction of even the most obscure species to maintain genetic diversity. The same may be true of culture. So maybe we should view ourselves as artists attempting to maintain cultural diversity and prevent extinction of our art so future generations can enjoy what otherwise may go extinct. I think there is a trend as we get more automated to value more the skills of the artist and artisans.
In the SF Bay Area, classical is pretty much dead in terms of audiences and making a living. Other forms of music thrive just fine, and people who choose to be professional musicians can make a modest living - just not with classical.
And the arts have long been the territory of colleges and universities. These institutions have a vested interest in preservation of historical forms. And many musicians are "classically trained" but transition to pop music to make money. Pat Benatar was trained as an opera singer. Yngwie Malmsteen was trained as a classical guitarist. I'm sure there are many, many others who fit this category.Stephen Kenyon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:12 pmThe death of the arts has been predicted with regularity since they invented arts, and while of course there is plenty of fluctuation, it seems to me there is a strong tendency for them to hang in there.
As an example, in the 1980s I used to often go to the then local orchestral concerts (Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra). I was usually pretty much the only 20 something there, the average age of the audience was probably about 60. And the average is still about 60, 30 years later!
Users browsing this forum: Adrian Allan, albert-canuck, bear, Briant, CommonCrawl [Bot], Jeffrey Armbruster, kertsopoulos, Kevin Cowen, lagartija, Rasputin and 26 guests