[VIDEO] Preservation, or Innovation? John McLaughlin: State of the Musical Arts

Unfortunate to hear a great artist lay out a thoughtful, passionate, lucid description of the problem– the decline of jazz in the U.S.–then offer a predictable, depressingly misguided solution: “make the government subsidize it!”

Did the Mahavishnu Orchestra depend on taxpayer subsidies? Did Miles Davis need a government check in order to flourish? Unthinkable. If music is dynamic and alive, people will beat down the doors to go see it. If it’s boring, people will ignore it.

What Is the Future of Jazz in New York? (punditfromanotherplanet.com)

Who Should Pay for the Arts? (city-journal.org)

If it’s waning, drained of its creative force, or is replaced by other artistic innovations, people will look elsewhere. Should it be put on life support? Kept alive artificially? Turned into a social program for talented but neglected musicians? There are technical revolutions, new media disruptions, that are still unfolding, that influences these outcomes, more than lectures about taste, or lowering standards just to get a gig.

The End of Jazz (punditfromanotherplanet.com)

Islam and American Jazz (punditfromanotherplanet.com)

He’s right, jazz one of America’s great original art forms. And he’s right that should be supported, not neglected. It’s part of our history. (though what kind of future it has, organically, is questionable) Foundations, philanthropy, and so on, absolutely, if that’s required to preserve it as a museum piece, or classical artifact. Or, if cities and states have the popular will to support it with government arts funding, then let public policy respond to that. But it won’t make audiences love it, it won’t lure them come see it. Only the music itself can do that.  Read the rest of this entry »