Almost caught up on missed work from last week, and when I am I will post more, but until then, here is a recent post from Locals.
Look, this is such a circular argument.
People like Folkie think Paul McCartney is better, for no quantifiable reason. Mainstream music consumers (a shrinking commodity, but still a huge force) think that “of course this music is better” meaning mainstream old school pop and rock.
So the government and bureaucrats can justify the expense based on “common knowledge” and “what everyone knows”.
Now, the event does have some kind of social, tourism and economic impact, and that is measurable, so the same politicians and bureaucrats say “this proves what everyone knows”.
BUT, all the other festivals and events have economic impacts, some significant, but often for non-mainstream or specialty music or art, and these too have social, tourism and economic impact, and it too is measurable and quantifiable.
Sometimes the economic impact is less (HPX, IDOW) or as much (AFF, Jazzfest) or more (Tattoo, Neptune, Symphony).
The fact that the music or art is not mainstream, well “everyone knows” that these events are “not as important or impactful”.
So the issue remains one of fairness.
There is no quantifiable reason to give a major commons concert disproportionately more money as a grant or a loan than, on a percentage or per capita basis, any other event EXCEPT the idea that “this music mattes more” which is intellectually bankrupt, and from a quantifiable provable basis SIMPLY FALSE in terms of social, tourism, and economic impacts.
Comments