Comments

From Karen Allendoerfer
Posted from 18.4.1.76 on March 6, 2008 at 4:50 PM (GMT)
I just read an Boston Globe editorial about what "stories" have come to mean in our culture that I was reminded of when I read your blog.

It's about the latest in a series of fake bestselling memoirs. The current one was written about running drugs in LA, was marketed as a memoir, but was made up by the author. A story. The editorial says:

"If these fake memoirs feel "ripped from the headlines" it's precisely because they're calibrated to feed the same media machine that habitually markets "real life" trauma as a narrative trope. It's all there: the innocence lost, the tried and true villains, the cinematic victim hood."

It's a powerful idea to try to reclaim our cultural stories from what they've become.

From Stephen Brivati
Posted from 210.172.213.190 on March 6, 2008 at 10:33 PM (GMT)
Greetings,
I think I mentioned it before but the most powerful movie I saw in recent years was the one calle dasomething liek `Rythm it is` in which a couple of dancers train dienfranchised teenegers from berlin to dance with the Berlin Philharmonic and Simon Rattle. It took art to strip away all the barries of hostility and cynicism that these kids had erected just to survive in that hell hole.
At our core, all human beings need is to create togethrart, life and love. Unfortunately todays world is concerned mostly with manipulation which is not an adequate substitute.
Cheers,
Buri
From Laurie Niles
Posted from 75.5.5.106 on March 6, 2008 at 10:59 PM (GMT)
I remember your writing about that movie, Buri. The speaker I heard yesterday also talked about the power of a program that taught prisoners to make art. The prisoners who participated had fewer incidents in prison and a lower rate of recidivism once released. But the program lost nearly all of its funding when the state cut its budget. "Just because you do good work that's effective, doesn't mean that your program will live," he said.

Very sad, but true.

From Emily Grossman
Posted from 66.230.113.10 on March 7, 2008 at 1:20 AM (GMT)
I never understood why state tax money went to give criminals free art and music lessons. I could see volunteering your own time, or choosing to donate your own money to the cause if you feel like it, but I personally know of people much more deserving in need of art lessons, teachers who deserve better pay, public education systems that could use the boost, etc.

Why prisons? Why not reward good behavior instead?

As far as my community goes, I would like to leave a legacy of beauty in all I create, and I want my students to be equipped to express themselves and to love making music themselves.

From Laurie Niles
Posted from 75.5.5.106 on March 7, 2008 at 2:27 AM (GMT)
Why should artists be required to volunteer their time? Jail wardens don't volunteer their time, nor do police officers or counselors. Turning someone's life around is actually in the state's and community's best interest. If art does this as effectively or more effectively than counseling people or flogging people or incarcerating them for longer, then artists should be paid to create those kinds of programs.
From Jim W. Miller
Posted from 172.133.67.244 on March 7, 2008 at 3:04 AM (GMT)
Nobody's "required" to volunteer their time since the Civil War.

People from all walks of life volunteer. I think you're sensitive to most musicians not making a lot of money, or needing opportunites to make money. Or want to provide opportunities to make money. But if you're already so fortunate to have a $100k job, then give something back.

You can be sure it it was a full scale "program" people would get paid. And you'd have to have your music education in the prisons certificate. And tons of paperwork and writing up long progress reports. Or worse yet, progrees check lists :)

Emily's complaint, I can add prisoners are people too :) Especially when the latest stats are 1/100 of Americans are in prison.

From Stephen Brivati
Posted from 210.172.213.190 on March 7, 2008 at 4:42 AM (GMT)
Greetings,
Emily, the problem with your argument about rewarduing good and bad behaviour is that many people are on prison as a result of poverty deprivation. Our onlbest hope is to not judgetoo harshly and belive that people need help to find their way. By far the most expensive tcrimes and criminals in the USA are white color crimes which cause untold harm the poor and disenfranchised. There is not such a clear demarcation between the criminal and the suppsoedly good perosn in this world.
Cheers,
Buri
From Emily Grossman
Posted from 66.230.113.10 on March 7, 2008 at 5:09 AM (GMT)
Well, Buri, I know I for one am not a crook. ;) I work hard every day to keep it that way, too. I also happen to be friends with many whose income fall below the poverty line, yet somehow manage to contribute positively to society.

I'm not friends with too many white collar rich people, except maybe my dad, but he's the best darn bureaucrat I ever knew--worked his way from the ground up, generous, and honest as an eagle boy scout (which he was).

The only criminal friend I know had everything she needed, but made a lot of stupid decisions despite plenty of love and attention.

But you're right, criminals take all forms. I also agree that money shouldn't enable one to live above the law. White collar crime enrages me too, because I know I'm one of those who will suffer for their crimes. But large corporations aren't all bad. The Anchorage Symphony, for example, is largely funded by Conoco-Phillips, a large wealthy oil corporation.

I was just expressing my opinion that I would prefer it if my own hard-earned money went to the causes of my own choosing, by my own generosity. It's tax season, I'm having a bit of a rough time making ends meet, and a little pissed about it. The Gov'ment do take a bite, don't it?

Laurie, I hope you didn't get me wrong. I think this has been a great topic for me to ponder today. Thanks for posting it.

From Jim W. Miller
Posted from 172.133.67.244 on March 7, 2008 at 6:11 AM (GMT)
"The only criminal friend I know had everything she needed, but made a lot of stupid decisions despite plenty of love and attention."

She had everything you would need, and possibly didn't have some things you think she had. And hey, some crimes are good. Breaking the segregation laws was, for example. I think I know the person you're talking about and from what I know, I wouldn't consider her a criminal. The real crimimals would be the people who made the things she does illegal.

From Jim W. Miller
Posted from 172.133.67.244 on March 7, 2008 at 6:15 AM (GMT)
But I've known many people who've lived on the fringe for generations. Just like you grew up the way you did, they grew up the way they did.
From Emily Grossman
Posted from 66.230.113.10 on March 7, 2008 at 6:58 AM (GMT)
Jim, she joined the skinheads and is a hustler in Vegas now, amongst other things. I can't think of any excuse for that. And if legalizing the things she does makes her a saint, then I'm through with this discussion.
From Jim W. Miller
Posted from 172.133.67.244 on March 7, 2008 at 7:04 AM (GMT)
Sound like I might not know everything she's doing now, then. But truthfully, I still might not have a problem with it ;)
From Jim W. Miller
Posted from 172.133.67.244 on March 7, 2008 at 7:07 AM (GMT)
I'm not exactly a family man, deacon of the church, candidate for mayor kind of guy.
From Emily Grossman
Posted from 66.230.113.10 on March 7, 2008 at 10:07 AM (GMT)
Hm, I thought for sure you'd have a problem with the skinhead bit.
From Jim W. Miller
Posted from 172.133.67.244 on March 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM (GMT)
Could be worse. Could be Southern Baptists, New Kids on the Block, or Aryan Nation.
From Christopher McGovern
Posted from 63.76.208.17 on March 8, 2008 at 5:23 PM (GMT)
Laurie,
I'm glad you're bringing this up.
It's really hard to watch shows like "The Phil" (on the Ovation TV network; BTW I think it was a series on British TV, but they'll show episodes from it on occasion) where they show you how a symphony orchestra and its members (I think in this case it's the London Philharmonic) have to deal with their short incomes because of the way they are funded through the system--Discussions about cutting back on rehearsal time so the pay isn't compromised, meetings where they've had to cancel certain concerts because the conductor wanted more money than the budget allowed, etc. Now, I don't know if this is exactly what every orchestra has to deal with, but it's sad that such a promininent group like them whose name has appeared on so many records has these issues.
It just makes me think of the time Carnegie Hall kept calling my house and wanted donations--I refused because I felt they were strong-arming me into making a donation, and they seemed to need a big one because the guy wanted to know if he could put me down for $50. At the time I was outraged they would ask for such an exorbitant amount, but I kind of feel now like I should have been more considerate if an establishmnet of the arts needs that much money.
I don't make a lot of money. I'm a musician stuck in a job I hate but keep since its benefits are hard to find anywhere else. I really do agree that the arts needs to be boosted in more communities, especially in communties where they don't even know who Mozart is.
From Christopher McGovern
Posted from 63.76.208.17 on March 8, 2008 at 6:33 PM (GMT)
Sorry my point didn't seem to be complete, but I know that you wouldn't see these issues if we were supporting the arts and their groups more fervently. OK, glad I got that out! :)