Riggerjack wrote:Yes, we have one of those in Seattle. We tax people who have no interest in symphony, so the rich folks who go to symphonies, don't have to cover the costs.
This seems like an urban solution to commoners with recorded music. More expensive, more status signaling, more taxes.
Whether or not a symphony orchestra is partially funded by taxes, it obviously requires a certain population to support, and even in a rural area, such as the county in which I resided when my children were young, the symphony will be found performing in whatever constitutes the city center of a largely rural area. The fact that most people most of the time listen to recorded music does not negate the fact that the music must first be composed and performed before it is recorded. Skilled individuals working in proximity are more likely to be inventive. Of course, access to books, the internet, etc. does allow people in rural locales greater level of ability to interact with creative others.
I don't think noting that an individual who performs in a large city orchestra is likely to be more skilled or gifted at art/craft than somebody who performs in a small town orchestra is simply a matter of "status signaling." More like just doing the math.
Anyways, my preference would be to spend roughly half my time in a lively city, and half my time in the country. IMO, the suburbs, whether working class or uber affluent, suck relative to both of these alternatives.