must spend to keep in practice, are the most expensive items of all.

We realize that music, unlike plumbing, well-kept lawns and roofing, requires more than installation like an electric refrigerator or pruning like a hedge. It is a community affair. Expensive and communal as it is, who then pays for

music?

We have found that in towns from California to Maine, from Florida to Montana, this is being decided in about as many ways as there are communities to decide. The wealthy sponsor, the pooled resources, industry's contributions, ticket sales-these have all been resorted to in varying blends. But, because of the haphazard and sporadic quality of such means, orchestras, we have found, have fallen into some sorry practices: conductors chosen as much for their way with words as for their skill with batons; musicians become adept at living incognito as insurance agents, clerks and office workers; and music lovers resigning themselves to waiting for the millenium when music, instead of being a hanger-on “on the town," ," will be cherished and supported as its true love.

Lately, we have had reason to hope that the millenium might be within sighting distance. Newspaper readers have been getting used to seeing that word, "subsidy," in headlines, in business reports and in editorials. In February, 1961, periodicals from coast to coast carried the news that Representative Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, and Senator Jacob K. Javits of New York State had introduced a bill calling for the establishment of a United States Department of the Arts. At about the same time word got around that Representative Carroll D. Kearns of Pennsylvania had introduced legislation to provide Federal aid for the fine arts through allocations to be administered by the various States. Among the bill's aims are: assistance to the States in making inventories of already existing musical organizations; help in establishing new ones, including symphony orchestras; aid toward the construction of cultural centers; and encouragement of educational institutions in the development of their musical programs.

Federal support of the Arts was debated on the NBC-TV network on February 11, 1961, before a nation-wide audience. J. Kenneth Galbraith, special consultant to President John F. Kennedy and Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, who took the affirmative in the debate, scattered a few hopeful hints that President Kennedy's administration may do something for the Arts.

On March 3, 1961, The New York Times headlined on its front page, "Cultural Subsidy Is Asked of (New York) State-$400,000 Urged in Aid for Areas Lacking Art." Though this was a state rather than a national effort, still the essentials were there for all to see. "The State Council on the Arts," the article read, "urged today (March 2) that

the state underwrite a share of the cost of presenting theatre, ballet, classical music and art to the public in areas lacking such activities."

Here are three of the seven projects outlined by the New York State Council (formed in 1960 in an exploratory capacity):

"A three-week state tour of a leading opera company, with the state guaranteeing to cover losses up to $70,000.

"A three-week state tour by a leading non-profit ballet company, with a repertory including at least one new work. The state would be prepared to meet up to $65,000 in losses from the ballet tour. In addition, $5,000 was asked to increase the dance program at the Empire State Summer Arts Festival.

"Extended tours in the state by leading symphony orchestras, with the state guaranteeing a total of $110,000."

As of February 1, 1961, an appropriation of $450,000 has been made available to the Council so that it might carry forward its program: $70,000 has been earmarked for opera and $110,000 for orchestra.

State subsidy of music in the United States is no new thing. Twenty-three states have enabling legislation for band and orchestra support. North Carolina, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Kentucky are states which have long allocated funds for orchestral enterprise. Among cities providing for such activity in one way or another are Philadelphia, Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Houston, Baltimore, Atlanta, Birmingham, Buffalo, San Francisco, Detroit and Denver.

This not only shows which way the wind is blowing but also shows that the American people believe in subsidy for music. Moreover, there are evidences that they make expert use of it when they do get it. Detroit earmarks $25,000.00 in the music budget for the purchase of tickets to sixteen concerts for school children. The City of Chicago allocates a budget of approximately $135,000.00 for Grant Park summer concerts, thus providing music in an otherwise dull period of the year. Since with regular municipal or state allocations for music, activities may be scheduled far ahead and be planned in terms of benefit to the whole people, orchestras in the cities offering subsidies are usually stable, well-manned and thoroughly integrated in the community.

If state subsidies serve the purpose, one might ask, "Why institute Federal subsidies?" Because our great musical organizations are hampered when geographical limits are imposed on them. In the case of the New York State Bill, for instance, one can see the New York Philharmonic presenting a state-sponsored concert to citizens in Olean, New York; then, on being eagerly approached by Bradford citizens just across the Pennsylvania border-"While you are in the vicinity can't you arrange to give us a concert, too?”— having to refuse. So long as New York remains New York and Pennsylvania remains Pennsylvania, governmental subsidy in America, to fulfill its whole function, must include Federal grants. This boundary business comes into proper focus in government-sponsored trips of musical organizations abroad. When a great American orchestra plays in Berlin, Bangkok or Burma, no one bothers even to inquire about its state derivation.

Moreover, some musical projects, by their very nature, must be dealt with on a national scale: a national cultural center built in Washington, D. C.; a national conservatory, such as America almost built in the 1890's; a national orchestra. As things stand, the "National" Symphony of Washington, D. C., not only does not receive Federal aid, but, since it is situated in no state, cannot derive benefit from state subsidies. One promising note: in the Washington, D. C., budget of 1961 was a recommendation by the District of Columbia Commissioner for an extra $25,000 with which to further cultural activities, among which figures the National Symphony, the Washington Opera Company and the Washington Ballet.

Probably a combination of state and national subsidies would serve music best, as such a combination already serves education. Witness the 1957-58 allocations to our education system: $1.2 billion from the state and local governments and $701 million from the Federal Government. (Figures for 1960 show a proportionately greater increase of Federal contributions.)

The mention of Federal subsidies brings up that bugaboo of Federal control. A straight look at the matter will lay this ghost once and for all.

It is understood that there must be close attention to allocation goals. The government must consider carefully the end purpose of every taxpayers' dollar, see that each cent contributes to the cultural well-being of the whole society.

Control of this sort, however, is a quite different matter from tampering with the internal structure of musical organizations. What is the danger of our government being guilty of that?

To judge from its record, none. Under the President's Program, by which many leading orchestras and artists have been sent abroad via our International Cultural Exchange Service, the government, although footing the bill—a sum of about $2,000,000 each year-has left the selection of artists to qualified professionals who serve without pay as part of the ANTA management arrangement. Institutions of long standing which are supported by the government-the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institute, the Geological Survey, the Fulbright Grants-are impeccably run, and not by political party appointees. It seems we have already taken to heart the lesson of government sponsorship in Europe where every country has established a system which removes the specific allotment of funds from the sponsoring agency and gives these decisions to competent leaders in the arts.

Safeguards would of course be provided from the start. An Arts Council would be appointed to examine the field thoroughly; consider ways of administering the funds; lay before citizens of the United States a comprehensive picture of the musical situation; point out enterprises most worthy of assistance. For the special boost they would give to musical endeavor, without interrupting the general scheduling of events, the following projects would no doubt stand high on the list: special tours, summer series, children's concerts, scholarships to young artists, commissions to composers.

Once one concedes that fine musical performance is necessary to the cultural health of the nation and that institutions like symphony orchestras, opera companies and schools of music must by definition be run at a deficit, then everything falls into its proper place. As our nation requires scientists to keep us abreast of modern devices, engineers to build our facilities, librarians to service us with books, and judges to dispense justice, so it requires musicians to give meaning to our daily lives. These must be helped not only as one lavishes money on Olympic sportsmen, as propaganda, but also as one provides for those members of society

poets and painters, sculptors and architects—who give identity to the nation and spirit to each of its inhabitants.