This will be my first blog post about music business, where the subject is funding the arts. As a music education major, whenever I hear the phrase "funding the arts," I automatically think about music in public schools. I think about giving money to the music teachers. I think about how when my band asked the district for more money, we got less that the year before. I think about all the music advocacy I've been taught to display as a music educator. There's one thing I don't think about: the consequences of an single entity controlling music funding. Our class discussion really opened my eyes to what it means to "fund the arts." To let the government give money to the arts is to let them control the arts. I don't usually think about alternatives to government funded programs, like private school teaching. I like this this idea: to allow the music programs to make their own money and distribute it accordingly. No one tells them how to teach (ahem, common core) and no one is worried about political decisions that might influence their program. Don't get me wrong: At this point in time in America, I support funding the arts. We are in it too deep with the government to completely drop their finical support. Because to me, not funding the arts means there is no music in public school. As a music educator, that's my life so you can imagine it's not something I want. Maybe in a few decades, music programs in schools can become more self-dependent through private studies. However, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Word count: 273
