Essentials
Essentials
Updated 00:13am (Mla time) Sept 02, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the September 2, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
JONATHAN Velasco, a Filipino conductor, has a good point. A perennial judge in international choral competitions, he has seen Filipino choral groups do immensely well abroad. Many of them have won prizes in prestigious competitions in Asia and Europe.
What he cannot understand, he says, is why government officials keep proposing to give huge cash rewards to Filipino athletes who will do the country proud. Such as they did only recently during the Olympics, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself promising a million bucks to the Filipino athlete who will bring the country its first gold. When, Velasco said, Filipino musicians have been doing exactly that for a long time. They've been winning big in the Olympics of music. Music remains the country's forte, the one thing Filipinos naturally excel at and the one thing Filipinos have been reaping plaudits for the world over. Why not give them the money instead?
I did not remark when Velasco said at a press conference to announce Manila Philharmonic's offerings in the coming months that the reason government officials probably make that offer is that they know their money is safe. The probability a Filipino athlete will bring home the gold in these days of diminished expectations is practically nil. By contrast, Filipino musicians are more than likely to separate fools from their money, or officials from their pork.
But levity aside, I don't know that we shouldn't take Velasco's complaint seriously. That is particularly so in the light of one thing, which is that in these days not just of diminished expectations but horrendous ones (economists have been warning of an economic collapse unless we curb the budget deficit--music is likely to be one of the first casualties). It is not just that musicians are not bound to be rewarded as they should, it is that they are bound to be punished as they shouldn't. The normal instinct in times of economic trouble is to cut out what is not essential. And for some reason, in this country, music--and the arts generally--are first to qualify as non-essential.
I remember saying this, too, to Francisco Feliciano a few months ago when he held a press conference to drum up interest in his project, which is the national youth summer music camp. Last April and May, they held their sixth. The summer camp recruits musical prodigies and trains them intensively in various musical instruments. Feliciano had several kids play before us (trombone, trumpet, violin, cello), and it was easy to see why Filipinos routinely wow audiences wherever they go. This was shortly before the elections, and Feliciano was complaining about the dumbing of Filipino musicality, as seen-or heard-in the tasteless campaign jingles, which were rip-offs from popular noontime dance ditties. That was the disease, he said, the kids playing classical (local and foreign) music was the cure.
Like Rodel Colmenar, founder and music director of Manila Philharmonic, and indeed like the other people involved with serious musical effort in this country, Feliciano was banking on the private sector to support his effort. But he wasn't loath to get government help where he could get it, given that his initiative was likely to fall on many deaf ears, literally, in this age of MTV. It's not easy getting the public, the youth in particular, to appreciate San Pedro and Mozart, Buencamino and Bach, in the days of Incubus and Maroon 5, Matchbox 20 and Blink 182. So it wouldn't hurt to get government to lend a hand.
I said that might not be so easy. In these lean years in particular, government wasn't likely to look kindly upon the arts. An Arroyo government above all which even then looked headed for a second term: Culture, or plain civilization, was not its strongest suit. With Arroyo's wanton electoral spending moreover, it didn't look likely the economy would improve. It looked likely runaway inflation and currency devaluation would soon hit the nation.
At the time, an impending economic collapse was only being whispered in corners. It is now being shouted openly. So, are we likely to see musicians encouraged by public-sector support for their Olympian achievements or will they be the first to be sacrificed by the current calls for austerity?
I myself, from a completely pragmatic viewpoint, can't understand why music--and the arts--should be the first to go in dire economic times. At the very least, as Velasco and Feliciano point out, music is the country's comparative advantage, the one thing that is giving the country not just a flood of medals but a flood of dollars. The country's biggest export is not fruits, it is people, musicians at the head of them. Other countries, not least Southeast Asian ones, give substantial subsidies to their arts, why shouldn't we? You do not allow your competitive edge to dull, you hone it. Certainly, you do not kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
Quite apart from that, music--and the arts--promote a lifestyle that is acquisitive only in spirit, not in body. People who are literate and appreciate aesthetics are not naturally given to keeping mistresses, buying cars and shopping till they drop, though some of them have been known to make love till they do. We want to encourage people to live simpler lifestyles, or more austere ones, we should encourage learning, reading and listening. They cost very little, certainly far less than cell phones and Pajeros. If Mike Arroyo and company were to improve their minds, they would immediately improve the budget--by wanting less of it. If only from this perspective, dire times should make the arts the priority, not the sacrificial lamb.
The things of the body we can do much without. The things of the soul, ah, there we can never really have enough.
Updated 00:13am (Mla time) Sept 02, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the September 2, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
JONATHAN Velasco, a Filipino conductor, has a good point. A perennial judge in international choral competitions, he has seen Filipino choral groups do immensely well abroad. Many of them have won prizes in prestigious competitions in Asia and Europe.
What he cannot understand, he says, is why government officials keep proposing to give huge cash rewards to Filipino athletes who will do the country proud. Such as they did only recently during the Olympics, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself promising a million bucks to the Filipino athlete who will bring the country its first gold. When, Velasco said, Filipino musicians have been doing exactly that for a long time. They've been winning big in the Olympics of music. Music remains the country's forte, the one thing Filipinos naturally excel at and the one thing Filipinos have been reaping plaudits for the world over. Why not give them the money instead?
I did not remark when Velasco said at a press conference to announce Manila Philharmonic's offerings in the coming months that the reason government officials probably make that offer is that they know their money is safe. The probability a Filipino athlete will bring home the gold in these days of diminished expectations is practically nil. By contrast, Filipino musicians are more than likely to separate fools from their money, or officials from their pork.
But levity aside, I don't know that we shouldn't take Velasco's complaint seriously. That is particularly so in the light of one thing, which is that in these days not just of diminished expectations but horrendous ones (economists have been warning of an economic collapse unless we curb the budget deficit--music is likely to be one of the first casualties). It is not just that musicians are not bound to be rewarded as they should, it is that they are bound to be punished as they shouldn't. The normal instinct in times of economic trouble is to cut out what is not essential. And for some reason, in this country, music--and the arts generally--are first to qualify as non-essential.
I remember saying this, too, to Francisco Feliciano a few months ago when he held a press conference to drum up interest in his project, which is the national youth summer music camp. Last April and May, they held their sixth. The summer camp recruits musical prodigies and trains them intensively in various musical instruments. Feliciano had several kids play before us (trombone, trumpet, violin, cello), and it was easy to see why Filipinos routinely wow audiences wherever they go. This was shortly before the elections, and Feliciano was complaining about the dumbing of Filipino musicality, as seen-or heard-in the tasteless campaign jingles, which were rip-offs from popular noontime dance ditties. That was the disease, he said, the kids playing classical (local and foreign) music was the cure.
Like Rodel Colmenar, founder and music director of Manila Philharmonic, and indeed like the other people involved with serious musical effort in this country, Feliciano was banking on the private sector to support his effort. But he wasn't loath to get government help where he could get it, given that his initiative was likely to fall on many deaf ears, literally, in this age of MTV. It's not easy getting the public, the youth in particular, to appreciate San Pedro and Mozart, Buencamino and Bach, in the days of Incubus and Maroon 5, Matchbox 20 and Blink 182. So it wouldn't hurt to get government to lend a hand.
I said that might not be so easy. In these lean years in particular, government wasn't likely to look kindly upon the arts. An Arroyo government above all which even then looked headed for a second term: Culture, or plain civilization, was not its strongest suit. With Arroyo's wanton electoral spending moreover, it didn't look likely the economy would improve. It looked likely runaway inflation and currency devaluation would soon hit the nation.
At the time, an impending economic collapse was only being whispered in corners. It is now being shouted openly. So, are we likely to see musicians encouraged by public-sector support for their Olympian achievements or will they be the first to be sacrificed by the current calls for austerity?
I myself, from a completely pragmatic viewpoint, can't understand why music--and the arts--should be the first to go in dire economic times. At the very least, as Velasco and Feliciano point out, music is the country's comparative advantage, the one thing that is giving the country not just a flood of medals but a flood of dollars. The country's biggest export is not fruits, it is people, musicians at the head of them. Other countries, not least Southeast Asian ones, give substantial subsidies to their arts, why shouldn't we? You do not allow your competitive edge to dull, you hone it. Certainly, you do not kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
Quite apart from that, music--and the arts--promote a lifestyle that is acquisitive only in spirit, not in body. People who are literate and appreciate aesthetics are not naturally given to keeping mistresses, buying cars and shopping till they drop, though some of them have been known to make love till they do. We want to encourage people to live simpler lifestyles, or more austere ones, we should encourage learning, reading and listening. They cost very little, certainly far less than cell phones and Pajeros. If Mike Arroyo and company were to improve their minds, they would immediately improve the budget--by wanting less of it. If only from this perspective, dire times should make the arts the priority, not the sacrificial lamb.
The things of the body we can do much without. The things of the soul, ah, there we can never really have enough.
posted by Dante at 4:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home