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.

INDUSTRY'S AID TO MUSIC

Industry is increasingly prominent as a sponsor of music. Conditions calling forth this generosity are discussed in the present chapter.

The Ford Motor Company paid the entire cost-around $150,000 of flying the one hundred and six musicians of the New York Philharmonic to Berlin to give two concerts at the Berlin Festival.

The Monsanto Chemical Company sponsored a concert by the St. Louis Symphony, featuring Van Cliburn.

The Union Pacific Railroad gave a $5,000 grant to the Omaha Symphony.

In Montreal, four concerts take place each summer on the top of Montreal's Mount Royal. Texaco sponsors the first two and the Dominion Store the last two.

The 1960 summer series of the Worcester (Massachusetts) Orchestra was sponsored by six major Worcester companies.

The Starlight Series of the Honolulu Symphony is sponsored by the Dairymen's Association, Ltd. (Leis, courtesy of the Hawaiian Flower Distributors, and the guest artists' hotel accommodations, courtesy of the Hawaiian Village Hotel.)

These isolated examples of industry giving represent a relatively new development in music's sponsorship. Only within the past twenty years has business become a significant factor in the artistic life of the United States and Canada. But if it is a sudden shift, it is also a spectacular one. It is estimated that in 1959, corporate giving in all fields of endeavor in the United States amounted to $500,000,000.

Grants earmarked for musical enterprises are less measureable. We have been able, however, to get a record of corporations' support of some twenty major symphony orchestras. The figures are illuminating.

The 1959-60 fund drives of the various symphonies showed the following percentages contributed by industries: more than a fifth of the total amount raised by the San Francisco Symphony; almost one-fourth of the total raised by the

S

Philadelphia Orchestra; 24.2 per cent of the total brought in by the Buffalo Philharmonic; approximately one-fourth of the total realized by the Los Angeles Philharmonic; about one-third of the amount raised by the Minneapolis Symphony; 45 per cent of the total of the Kansas City Philharmonic; almost one-half of the sum realized by the San Antonio Symphony; one-half of the Atlanta Symphony's total; 60 per cent of the total realized by the Houston Symphony.

In Cincinnati and Louisville (Kentucky) where orchestras receive monies from united arts funds-"cultural community chests"-the percentages are "over a third" for the Louisville Orchestra and "more than a half" for the Cincinnati Symphony.

Some major orchestras, chary of percentage statements, yet reveal huge sums derived from industries. The Birmingham Symphony gets almost $30,000 in contributions from two hundred businesses and industries annually; the St. Louis Symphony, during the 1959-60 season, received gifts to the amount of $100,000 from six hundred industries; this year Rochester industrial banking and retail concerns corporately pledged in one form or another more than $77,000 toward the support of the Rochester Philharmonic.

Astonishing figures are reported by the Detroit Symphony. The very reemergence of this orchestra in the 1940's from a period of total eclipse, was dependent on "The Detroit Plan" by which industries figured not only as sponsors but as actual founders. Today, the Detroit Symphony boasts at least sixteen industries and businesses which contribute $10,000 each a year; six which contribute between $5,000 and $10,000; two which contribute between $2,500 and $5,000; and nine which contribute between $1,000 and $2,500.

Aside from annual maintenance drives, there are innumerable ways by which orchestras are aided outside the pattern. The fashion shows held annually by the Birmingham Symphony, to which seven department stores contribute to the amount of $5,000; the young peoples' concert programs paid for by the Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company; the nineteen pop concerts presented by the Buffalo Philharmonic; the summer series in Detroit underwritten in part by Detroit Edison Company and the National Bank of Detroit are cases in point.

Then there are the sponsored radio and television programs such as the New York Philharmonic by CBS, and, in 1959-60 by Shell Oil; four live telecasts with radio AM-FM