Fernando, thank you for your encouragement and contribution to the dialogue. And I will share with you that I did take some liberties with the caption to fit the post. :-) Bill, who was every bit the lion I described, was actually telling me what a good job I did out there. Hope you and yours are blooming.
Thank you Denis. You two are on our minds so often—and happily so, to be in your corner for your good health and betterment. Much love and respect. And confession about photo: It's amazing what a fictional quote to do to change our view of a photo. Truth is, he was complimenting me. :-) His face had not caught up with his intention.
It’s amazing how the left protests by destroying property and setting fire to cities, consistently disobeys the law, preaches hate and intolerance, yet trump supporters are the cult? You are brainwashed by the media.
Charlie, thank you for naming what a lot of working artists and arts workers are feeling right now: this isn’t just a programming dispute or a budget headline. It’s about trust, credibility, and whether the people steering a cultural institution actually respect the work and the workers who make it possible.
From where I sit as a community college dean dealing with the similar upheaval into which the president and his administration have cast higher education, I’m thinking first about the artists, stage crews, and educators whose livelihoods and professional identities get thrown into uncertainty whenever a flagship institution is destabilized, whether it be the Kennedy Center or the Department of Education. Whatever one’s politics, that kind of whiplash always lands on the people least able to absorb it: gig workers, touring artists, early-career performers, and the behind-the-scenes staff who keep the lights on for the arts; part-time faculty and ordinary college staff for education.
And I agree with your larger point about ethos. In education, we see the same dynamic: students will work hard for instructors and institutions they believe are acting in good faith. When leadership signals contempt, self-promotion, or a purely transactional posture, people disengage. The arts are no different. If artists don’t feel respected, they won’t lend their reputations or their labor to legitimize someone else’s brand.
That’s why this moment matters beyond Kennedy Center. Community colleges like mine are where a huge share of America’s artists are trained: first-generation students finding a voice, adult learners rebuilding a life through creativity, and working musicians and technicians stacking credentials while they gig. When national culture-bearers become unstable or politicized in ways that undercut artistic independence it narrows opportunity all the way down the pipeline.
So, I want to express solidarity with the artists impacted, including those connected to the National Symphony Orchestra and everyone who depends on that ecosystem. And I truly appreciate for you calling out “ethos first”, because if we can’t agree that the work deserves respect, then all the logistics, funding, and messaging in the world won’t rebuild what’s actually been damaged.
Steve, you are so kind and responsible to give the community this sort of thoughtful contribution. Not only this, but I saw a couple of other contributions you made to comments. You have really invested in, and carefully thought through, what it means to speak/write in the public square (something which I know you know I'm equally invested in—however much I miss the mark I have in mind). So, thank you. What you are modeling (on a number of levels, explicit/implicit, descriptive and rarely prescriptive except toward love and empathy) is so needed. Appreciate you.
Wow Charlie , Your perception of self-importance seems to have given you an even bigger head than Trump !
So artists who have sufficient stature and “wisdom” to make decisions get to decide the names of federal buildings ?
I guess you missed all the “genius” comments of the recent Grammy Awards , railing against law & order in your country because they don’t like the President …. Certainly not comments based on any sort of reality or wisdom
Please explain to me how the KENNEDY name fits into your parameters .
Was he the “genius” who decided the name was right , or was it his other “brilliant” Democrat masters ?
This is not an argument you needed to step into because it just shows your intolerance of those who disagree with you .
Pull into Minneapolis , pull out your whistle , and tell us again about how your unbiased wisdom has done anything to benefit anyone .
I have appreciated your music over the years , I wish you had not mixed music and politics .
Gerald, I hear your frustration, but I think you’re misreading both Charlie’s argument and the role artists are actually playing here.
No one is claiming that artists get to decide the names of federal buildings, or that musicians possess some special authority over public policy. The point being made is narrower and more practical: artists do get to decide whether they associate their work, reputations, and labor with a particular institution and its leadership. That isn’t arrogance...it’s professional autonomy, something most people exercise in their own fields.
As someone who works in public higher education, I see this dynamic all the time. Institutions don’t function on authority alone; they rely on trust, credibility, and mutual respect. When those break down, people disengage. Not out of intolerance, but because collaboration becomes untenable. That’s an institutional reality, not a political tantrum.
As for the Kennedy name, it wasn’t chosen by artists congratulating themselves. It was established by Congress as a living memorial, with bipartisan intent, to honor public service and cultural investment. Agree or disagree with that legacy, but it’s historically grounded and procedurally legitimate. Very different from a unilateral rebranding by a president driven by personal ego and wanting his name on the institution.
I also don’t hear Charlie arguing that disagreement itself is illegitimate. If you know anything about him, you'll know that he never has. He and I have disagreed, and we've always maintained a baseline of respect. Disagreement is inevitable in a pluralistic society. What he’s describing is an incompatibility of values and professional ethics, and the predictable consequences of that incompatibility when voluntary participation is involved.
Finally, on “mixing music and politics”: artists have always engaged civic life. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes through the values embedded in their work. You’re free to wish they wouldn’t, just as they’re free to speak anyway. That tension isn’t new, and it isn’t evidence of intolerance on either side. It’s part of living in a democracy. Music is a means of personal expression, and that hits on all aspects of life.
We don’t have to agree, but we can at least argue about what’s actually being claimed, rather than reducing it to ego.
K, so good to see you here! I hope all is well with you and yours. If you're ever in Nashville please let us know. It would be great to catch up. That said, thank you for the "well writ." All of that cutting class after you left for University has really paid off! Peace and love to you. Always grateful when our paths cross.
Thank you Dennis for the encouragement. I'll keep working to improve on limiting ego and making the analysis more precise. Your kind note is the incentive. Peace to you.
Spot on, Charlie. And that photo of you and Bill Graham - yikes!
Fernando, thank you for your encouragement and contribution to the dialogue. And I will share with you that I did take some liberties with the caption to fit the post. :-) Bill, who was every bit the lion I described, was actually telling me what a good job I did out there. Hope you and yours are blooming.
Love this! Well said.
Thank you David. Good to hear from the artist! Peace to you.
Well said, Charlie!
Thank you. I completely agree, excellent.
Spot on
Very thoughtful and well said. Thanks for seeing deeply into reality, my friend, in both your music and prose. The photo is horrifying.
Thank you Denis. You two are on our minds so often—and happily so, to be in your corner for your good health and betterment. Much love and respect. And confession about photo: It's amazing what a fictional quote to do to change our view of a photo. Truth is, he was complimenting me. :-) His face had not caught up with his intention.
beautifully stated
Thank you, Charlie…well said….👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you. This is spot on! Bravo!
Boom. Spot on.
Thank you friend!
Wonderful. ✌️
Nailed it, Chuck. Showed great restraint. Still can't escape the MAGAts tho...Good on ya.
Another TDS sufferer.
Brent is correct
That everyone who supports trump is a maggot? That’s nice.
I wouldn’t have used that term; however, from what I’ve seen…this MAGA movement behaves and acts like a cult.
It’s amazing how the left protests by destroying property and setting fire to cities, consistently disobeys the law, preaches hate and intolerance, yet trump supporters are the cult? You are brainwashed by the media.
so...we who want to Make America Great Again are in a cult?!?! Quite the opposite my friend.
Charlie, thank you for naming what a lot of working artists and arts workers are feeling right now: this isn’t just a programming dispute or a budget headline. It’s about trust, credibility, and whether the people steering a cultural institution actually respect the work and the workers who make it possible.
From where I sit as a community college dean dealing with the similar upheaval into which the president and his administration have cast higher education, I’m thinking first about the artists, stage crews, and educators whose livelihoods and professional identities get thrown into uncertainty whenever a flagship institution is destabilized, whether it be the Kennedy Center or the Department of Education. Whatever one’s politics, that kind of whiplash always lands on the people least able to absorb it: gig workers, touring artists, early-career performers, and the behind-the-scenes staff who keep the lights on for the arts; part-time faculty and ordinary college staff for education.
And I agree with your larger point about ethos. In education, we see the same dynamic: students will work hard for instructors and institutions they believe are acting in good faith. When leadership signals contempt, self-promotion, or a purely transactional posture, people disengage. The arts are no different. If artists don’t feel respected, they won’t lend their reputations or their labor to legitimize someone else’s brand.
That’s why this moment matters beyond Kennedy Center. Community colleges like mine are where a huge share of America’s artists are trained: first-generation students finding a voice, adult learners rebuilding a life through creativity, and working musicians and technicians stacking credentials while they gig. When national culture-bearers become unstable or politicized in ways that undercut artistic independence it narrows opportunity all the way down the pipeline.
So, I want to express solidarity with the artists impacted, including those connected to the National Symphony Orchestra and everyone who depends on that ecosystem. And I truly appreciate for you calling out “ethos first”, because if we can’t agree that the work deserves respect, then all the logistics, funding, and messaging in the world won’t rebuild what’s actually been damaged.
Take care,
Steve
Steve, you are so kind and responsible to give the community this sort of thoughtful contribution. Not only this, but I saw a couple of other contributions you made to comments. You have really invested in, and carefully thought through, what it means to speak/write in the public square (something which I know you know I'm equally invested in—however much I miss the mark I have in mind). So, thank you. What you are modeling (on a number of levels, explicit/implicit, descriptive and rarely prescriptive except toward love and empathy) is so needed. Appreciate you.
I appreciate you engaging in discussing important topics like this from a unique, yet grounded perspective. Thanks for the kind words!
Wow Charlie , Your perception of self-importance seems to have given you an even bigger head than Trump !
So artists who have sufficient stature and “wisdom” to make decisions get to decide the names of federal buildings ?
I guess you missed all the “genius” comments of the recent Grammy Awards , railing against law & order in your country because they don’t like the President …. Certainly not comments based on any sort of reality or wisdom
Please explain to me how the KENNEDY name fits into your parameters .
Was he the “genius” who decided the name was right , or was it his other “brilliant” Democrat masters ?
This is not an argument you needed to step into because it just shows your intolerance of those who disagree with you .
Pull into Minneapolis , pull out your whistle , and tell us again about how your unbiased wisdom has done anything to benefit anyone .
I have appreciated your music over the years , I wish you had not mixed music and politics .
Gerald, I hear your frustration, but I think you’re misreading both Charlie’s argument and the role artists are actually playing here.
No one is claiming that artists get to decide the names of federal buildings, or that musicians possess some special authority over public policy. The point being made is narrower and more practical: artists do get to decide whether they associate their work, reputations, and labor with a particular institution and its leadership. That isn’t arrogance...it’s professional autonomy, something most people exercise in their own fields.
As someone who works in public higher education, I see this dynamic all the time. Institutions don’t function on authority alone; they rely on trust, credibility, and mutual respect. When those break down, people disengage. Not out of intolerance, but because collaboration becomes untenable. That’s an institutional reality, not a political tantrum.
As for the Kennedy name, it wasn’t chosen by artists congratulating themselves. It was established by Congress as a living memorial, with bipartisan intent, to honor public service and cultural investment. Agree or disagree with that legacy, but it’s historically grounded and procedurally legitimate. Very different from a unilateral rebranding by a president driven by personal ego and wanting his name on the institution.
I also don’t hear Charlie arguing that disagreement itself is illegitimate. If you know anything about him, you'll know that he never has. He and I have disagreed, and we've always maintained a baseline of respect. Disagreement is inevitable in a pluralistic society. What he’s describing is an incompatibility of values and professional ethics, and the predictable consequences of that incompatibility when voluntary participation is involved.
Finally, on “mixing music and politics”: artists have always engaged civic life. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes through the values embedded in their work. You’re free to wish they wouldn’t, just as they’re free to speak anyway. That tension isn’t new, and it isn’t evidence of intolerance on either side. It’s part of living in a democracy. Music is a means of personal expression, and that hits on all aspects of life.
We don’t have to agree, but we can at least argue about what’s actually being claimed, rather than reducing it to ego.
You hit it on the nose! Well writ. The words, “I’m sorry?” Unfortunately, Trump would never be able to utter what his ego won’t allow.
K, so good to see you here! I hope all is well with you and yours. If you're ever in Nashville please let us know. It would be great to catch up. That said, thank you for the "well writ." All of that cutting class after you left for University has really paid off! Peace and love to you. Always grateful when our paths cross.
Thanks for this. I love your heart and egoless analysis.
Thank you Dennis for the encouragement. I'll keep working to improve on limiting ego and making the analysis more precise. Your kind note is the incentive. Peace to you.