谁为“弥赛亚”买单？

嘿

Hey

你好

there.

我是史蒂文·杜伯纳

It's Steven Dubner.

我们正在发布关于乔治·弗里德里克·亨德尔的《弥赛亚》的三部曲系列，今天我要在节目中插入一集《弥赛亚》的特别节目

We are in the middle of publishing a three part series on George Frideric Handel's Messiah, and I'm slipping into the feed today with a Messiah bonus episode.

让我告诉你这期节目是怎么来的

Let me tell you how this one came about.

过去几年里，我迷上了这部音乐作品，参加了纽约爱乐乐团的多次演出

Over the past several years, as I have become addicted to this piece of music, I attended several performances by the New York Philharmonic.

这些演出的节目单上写着：由加里·W·帕尔呈现的亨德尔《弥赛亚》

The playbill for these performances reads Handel's Messiah presented by Gary W Parr.

我开始思考由特定人物呈现一场演出意味着什么，尤其好奇加里·W·帕尔是谁，于是我找到了他

I got to wondering what it means for a performance to be presented by a particular person, and I especially got to wondering who is Gary W Parr, so I tracked him down.

原来他曾是爱乐乐团董事会的主席，现在仍是董事会成员，这使他正式成为一位艺术赞助人。

It turns out that he used to be chairman of the Philharmonic's board of directors, and he's still a member of the board, which officially makes him a patron of the arts.

虽然与乔治二世国王对亨德尔的赞助性质不同，但你能理解这种关系。

Not quite the same kind of patron that King George the second was to handle, but you get the idea.

你即将听到的加里·帕尔与我之间的对话会涉及一些有趣的话题。

The conversation you're about to hear between Gary Parr and myself goes in some interesting directions.

我问过我们的档案管理员，我们演出《弥赛亚》有多少年了。

I'd ask our archivists how many years have we performed the messiah.

那是几十年的历史了。

It's decades upon decades.

仅仅因为我们一直这样做且它已成为传统，并不是继续下去的理由。

Just because we've done it and because it is a tradition is no reason to continue.

只有在它确实是个好主意时才应该继续。

You should only continue if it's a good idea.

爱乐乐团继续演出《弥赛亚》是个好主意吗？

Is it a good idea for the Philharmonic to keep performing Messiah?

我们会找到答案，而且会了解更多。

We'll find out, and we'll find out a lot more.

请继续收听与这位非常有趣人物的精彩对话，我们很快将带着《弥赛亚》系列的终章回归。

Stay tuned for an interesting conversation with a really interesting human, and we will be back very soon with the finale to our Messiah series.

这里是《魔鬼经济学》电台，我是主持人斯蒂芬·杜布纳，我们将一起探索万物背后不为人知的一面。

This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything with your host, Stephen Dubner.

首先，请简单介绍一下您的姓名和职业，如果不介意的话。

First of all, just say your name and what you do if you don't mind.

我是加里·帕尔。

I'm Gary Parr.

我是阿波罗公司的高级董事总经理兼管理委员会成员，同时也参与多项慈善活动。

I'm a senior managing director and on the management committee at Apollo, and I'm also involved in a number of philanthropic activities.

这些慈善活动主要围绕艺术领域吗？还是不一定？

The philanthropic activities mostly center around the arts or not necessarily?

教育和艺术。

Education and the arts.

阿波罗全球管理公司是全球最大的另类资产投资管理公司之一。

Apollo Global Management is one of the biggest alternative asset money managers in the world.

帕尔在那里工作了近十年。

Par has been there for nearly a decade.

在此之前，他曾在摩根士丹利和拉扎德担任投资银行家。

Before that, he was an investment banker at Morgan Stanley and Lazard.

更早之前，他获得了西北大学的MBA学位和北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校的商学本科学位。

Before that, he got an MBA from Northwestern and an undergraduate business degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

如今，他是北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校帕尔伦理中心的董事会主席。

These days, he is chairman of the PAR Center for Ethics at UNC Chapel Hill.

他还是摩根图书馆的理事。

He's also a trustee of the Morgan Library.

教育一直是我的优先关注领域，包括艺术领域内的教育。

Education has always been a priority area, including inside the arts.

我认为艺术教育能培养出更全面发展的人。

I think education about the arts just creates people that are more balanced.

他们对世界有着更文明的视角，我认为也能更好地理解他人。

They have a more cultured view of the world, and I think a better understanding of other people.

一旦你学习了不同类型的艺术、音乐和建筑，就会开始理解其他文化。

Once you learn more about different types of art, different types of music, different types of architecture, you begin to understand other cultures.

我是在北卡罗来纳州的公立学校系统长大的。

I was in the public school systems of North Carolina growing up.

那实际上是在废除种族隔离和强制校车接送政策的时期。

It actually was during the period of desegregation and forced busing.

十年级时我遇到位出色的英语老师，他教我莎士比亚的《尤利乌斯·凯撒》。

I had an excellent teacher in tenth grade English that taught me Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.

如果没有那位老师，我根本理解不了莎士比亚。

I would not have understood Shakespeare.

莎士比亚的作品很难懂，除非你遇到好老师。

Shakespeare's hard unless you have a good teacher.

而我至今仍能清晰回味的，是《尤利乌斯·凯撒》中的一些经典演说。

And what I came away with, I can still look back on it, was some of the speeches in Julius Caesar.

通过言语说服他人、讲述故事、改变观点、影响舆论、凝聚人群的能力

The ability to talk through and persuade someone and tell someone a story through words, change their point of view, affect their opinion, rally crowds.

这真是非凡的体验

That was extraordinary.

这让我记忆深刻

That stuck with me.

我记得它还关乎权力与领导力，其中有些东西激发了我对领导力的兴趣，或许我也能学会这些

I could remember also it was about power and leadership, and there was something there that just got me motivated about leadership, and maybe I can learn this.

真有意思

That's interesting.

我也遇到过一位出色的高中英语老师教我莎士比亚

I too had a remarkable high school English teacher who taught me Shakespeare.

我现在仍会不时想起那堂课

I still think about that class now and again.

我听说你还在赞助一个新奖项——PAR莎士比亚教学卓越奖

I understand you're also sponsoring a new prize, the PAR prize for excellence in teaching Shakespeare.

这是怎么回事？

What's that all about?

在纽约的这些年，我参与了许多文化和教育活动，但确实没怎么接触过与莎士比亚直接相关的事务。

In New York, all my years in New York, involved in cultural and educational activities, there really wasn't anything related to Shakespeare per se to be involved in.

所以我投身于其他领域，比如爱乐乐团的林肯中心和摩根图书馆。

So I got involved in other areas such as the Philharmonic Lincoln Center at the Morgan Library.

而疫情期间搬到佛罗里达后，我开始重新思考。

And when I, in COVID, moved to Florida, I got to rethink.

从这里出发，我想做些什么？

What do I want to do from here?

我立刻想到要做些与莎士比亚及其教学相关的事情。

I immediately thought I wanna do something related to Shakespeare and teaching of Shakespeare.

于是我实际联系了多个机构——英国的皇家莎士比亚剧团、伦敦的环球剧场、华盛顿的福尔杰博物馆。

So I actually pursued multiple paths with the Royal Shakespeare Company in The UK, the Globe in London, the Folger Museum in Washington.

我当时询问他们，特别是在美国这边，好吧。

I was asking them, particularly here in The US, okay.

我曾有一位很棒的老师。

I had a great teacher.

你如何识别优秀的教师？

How do you recognize great teachers?

福尔杰有一些不错的项目，帮助教师们互相学习交流，这些都很好。

The Folger does some good programs for bringing teachers and helping them learn more and teach each other, and so that's all good.

但我提出，设立一个奖项怎么样？

But I said, well, what about a prize?

于是我开始与各方探讨如何设立一个莎士比亚教学卓越奖。

So I began talking to different parties about how could we create a prize for excellence in teaching Shakespeare.

我们的目标是表明教授莎士比亚很重要，而且需要优秀的教师来完成。

The objective is to make a statement that teaching Shakespeare matters, and it takes great teachers to do it.

请谈谈你对音乐产生兴趣并想支持音乐发展的经历。

Tell me about becoming interested in music and wanting to support music.

我对古典音乐确实有一个清晰的早期记忆。

I do have a clear earliest memory for classical music.

在北卡罗来纳州长大时，我记得那里没有交响乐团。

Growing up in North Carolina, I don't think there was an orchestra.

我从没去过交响乐现场。

I never went to one.

这点我很确定。

I know that.

我父亲会播放黑胶唱片，所以我算是听过一些音乐，但不多。

My dad would play LPs, so I could sorta hear some, but not much.

我有一对姑父姑母，他们很早就有了CD播放机和一套很棒的音箱系统。

I had an aunt and uncle that in the early days had a CD player with a really good sound system.

他们说，嘿，加里，我们想让你听听这个。

And they said, hey, Gary, we want you to hear this.

那时候我正处于听摇滚乐的年纪，那才是我日常听的音乐。

And at that time, was at an age where I listened to rock and roll, that's what I listened to.

然后他们播放了柴可夫斯基的《1812序曲》。

And they played Tchaikovsky's eighteen twelve Overture.

轰。

Boom.

轰。

Boom.

我至今仍能清晰地记得当时坐在那里想，好吧。

And I could remember so vividly sitting and thinking, okay.

那真是太酷了。

That's really cool.

原来音乐里还能加入大炮声。

You could have music with cannons in it.

可以说我那时就被迷住了。

And it's safe to say I was hooked.

后来我在大学选修了音乐课，至今仍记得那些乐曲片段。

I then took a music class in college, and I can still remember the pieces of music.

那是巴赫的《帕萨卡利亚与赋格》，C小调版本，简直棒极了。

It was Bach's Passekali and Fugue, getting C minor, which is fantastic.

海顿的第88号交响曲。

A Haydniss Symphony, number 88.

我是说，这些音乐作品一直留在我记忆里。

I mean, the pieces of music stuck with me.

但我第一次亲眼看到交响乐团时已经24、25岁了。

But I was 24, 25, the first time I ever saw an orchestra.

你现在对交响乐团的了解有哪些是当年不知道的？

And what do you know about orchestras now that you didn't know then?

交响乐团其实是成本极高的乐队。

Orchestras are really expensive bands.

你需要100名乐手。

You have a 100 musicians.

需要配备所有乐器。

You have all their instruments.

还需要后勤团队支持他们。

You have a staff to support them.

这很昂贵。

It's expensive.

因此美国的每个乐团都在努力收支平衡并筹集足够资金，几乎没有任何政府支持。

And so every orchestra in America struggles to break even and raise enough money, and there's virtually no government support.

所以它完全依赖于主要是个人捐赠的慈善支持。

So it is entirely dependent on philanthropy of primarily individuals.

有一些企业捐赠，但规模很小。

There's some corporate giving, but that's small.

主要还是靠个人。

It's really individuals.

很多不接触这个行业的人可能不记得，但不到十五年前，

And a lot of people that aren't around the business don't remember, but it was less than fifteen years ago.

费城交响乐团——美国最伟大的乐团之一——就曾破产过。

The Philadelphia Orchestra, which is one of the great orchestras in America, went bankrupt.

他们当时确实不得不申请破产并重组薪酬结构，但乐团坚持演出，最终筹集到了足够资金。

They actually had to file bankruptcy and restructure their compensation, But they kept playing, and they raised enough money.

而且，你知道的，它一直是一支优秀的乐团。

And, you know, it's always been a great orchestra.

但在财务方面可能会更加困难。

But the financial side could be harder.

歌剧的情况更糟。

Operas are worse.

歌剧更糟糕，不是吗？

Operas are worse, aren't they?

歌剧的成本甚至更高。

Operas are even more expensive.

这是一种伟大的艺术形式，但它依赖于慈善支持。

It's a great art form, but it is a charitable proposition.

很多人认为票价太高了，我对此表示理解。

A lot of people think ticket prices are too high, and and I'm sympathetic.

我希望能有更多方式来补贴更多票务。

I I wish we had more ways to subsidize more tickets.

那么票价在预算中占多大比例？

So what share of the budget do ticket prices account for?

我不确定这是否公开信息。

I'm not sure this is public.

这里只有你和我，加里。

It's just you and me here, Gary.

是啊。

Yeah.

是啊。

Yeah.

没错。

Exactly.

是啊。

Yeah.

但大概有30%吧。

But it's, like, 30%.

哇。

Wow.

哇。

Wow.

哇。

Wow.

占总预算的没错。

Of the total yeah.

大约占乐团运营总成本的30%到35%之间。

It's somewhere between 30 and 35 of the total cost of running the orchestra.

所以当你说售票收入就这么多时，即使票价变动10%或20%也影响不大。

So when you say that that's it for ticket sales, changing ticket prices even by 10% or 20% doesn't make a big difference.

必须依靠慈善捐款来弥补。

It's gotta come to charitable contributions.

作为金融界人士，你如何看待艺术赞助这个概念？

How do you think about the notion of patronage generally for the arts, especially as, you know, you're a guy from the world of finance?

我能想象听众会说，既然古典音乐、歌剧甚至文学和其他艺术如此有价值，为什么市场需求不足以让它们无需赞助就能自立？

I could imagine people listening to this and saying, well, if classical music and opera and even literature and the other arts are so valuable, why isn't there enough demand that they can be supported without these patrons?

你会如何回答这个问题？

How would you answer that question?

以交响乐团为例来说吧。

Well, take an orchestra as an example.

假设有人说，好吧，市场需求是存在的。

If one said, okay, there is demand.

一方面，确实有人想听音乐会。

On the one hand, there are people that wanna attend the concerts.

但我想说的是，纽约爱乐乐团的订阅票每场可能要120美元。

But I suppose instead of a ticket to the New York Philharmonic Costing, if you bought it in a subscription, let's say it costs a $120 per concert.

这确实是一大笔钱。

And that's a lot of money.

但与其收120美元，我们更应该像百老汇戏剧那样定价。

But instead of a 120, we need to be more like Broadway plays.

丹泽尔·华盛顿最近参演的《奥赛罗》，票价高达900美元。

And this most recent Othello that Denzel Washington was in, the ticket price was $900.

现在很多百老汇剧目，那些能盈利或收支平衡的，票价在400到500美元之间。

Now a lot of Broadway plays, those that make money or break even, they charge 4 or $500 a ticket.

所以如果纽约爱乐乐团说，好吧。

So if the New York Philharmonic said, okay.

市场需求是存在的。

There's demand.

我们想效仿百老汇演出的运营模式。

We wanna operate more like Broadway shows do.

我们希望票务收入能达到收支平衡。

We'd like to break even on our ticket sales.

是的。

Yeah.

最终票价会涨到400或500美元一张。

You'd end up with 4 or $500 a ticket.

我不确定是否有这样的市场需求。

And I don't know if there's demand for that.

我不得不相信观众上座率会下降。

I've gotta believe the audience attendance would drop.

所以我认为这是个实际问题，需要通过慈善捐赠来填补这个缺口。

So I think it's a practical issue that, you have to have philanthropy to close the gap.

实话实说，林肯中心本身是个伞式组织。

Just to put facts on the table, Lincoln Center itself is an umbrella organization.

它拥有这些不动产。

It owns the real estate.

实际上是由12个成员机构组成。

They're actually the 12 constituent organizations.

所以茱莉亚学院自主运营。

So Juilliard does its own thing.

美国芭蕾舞剧院和纽约爱乐乐团各自独立运作。

ABT does its own opera and the New York Philharmonic.

所以我们各自有自己的模式。

So we each have our own model.

顺便说一句，这对想跨所有场馆选购套票的观众来说非常令人沮丧，但我们了解到这是不可能的。

This is very frustrating, by the way, to ticket buyers who would love to be able to pick a portfolio across all the properties, but we learned that that's not possible.

已记录在案。

Duly noted.

是的。

Yeah.

共有12家机构，每家都有自己的运营模式。

There are 12 organizations, and each have their own model.

它们各自拥有独立的捐赠者群体。

They each have their own donor base.

它们各自实行自治管理。

They each have their own governance.

当你担任纽约爱乐乐团董事会主席时，与其他成员机构之间是否有大量互动和协调？

When you were chairing the New York Philharmonic board, was there a lot of interaction with the other constituencies, a lot of coordination?

情况各不相同。

It varied.

我们与茱莉亚音乐学院有很多协调的理由，因为他们有音乐学生，我们会邀请他们作为替补。

We had a lot of reason to coordinate with Juilliard because they have music students, and we'd have them in as substitutes.

我们也有理由协调日期，了解歌剧院的演出安排，因为观众群体有很大重叠。

We had reason to coordinate dates as to what was going on at the opera just because there's a fair amount of overlap of audience.

此外还有联动关系。

And then there's connectivity.

中心点是林肯中心，所以各组织会举行会议。

The center point is Lincoln Center, so there were meetings of the organizations.

但绝大多数时候，每个组织都在这个框架下独立运作。

But the vast majority of time, each is operating independently under the umbrella.

我很好奇亨德尔的《弥赛亚》在爱乐乐团年度演出计划中作为吸引点和财务项目是如何定位的。

I'm curious to know how Handel's Messiah lies in the Philharmonic's annual schedule as an attraction and as a financial proposition.

我认为这对爱乐乐团来说是个巨大的赚钱项目。

I would think it's a huge moneymaker for the Philharmonic.

我不知道。

I don't know.

所以我很乐意听你详细讲解关于你作为赞助人的身份、这意味着什么、为什么有必要等等一切信息。

So I'm willing for you to tell me anything and everything about your presenter status, what that means, why it's necessary, etcetera.

当我加入董事会并即将成为董事会主席时，已经有一项资本筹款活动在进行中。

When I joined the board and was becoming the chairman of the board, there was a capital campaign already underway.

和所有艺术机构的资本筹款活动一样，这次活动也提供了各种命名机会。

And that capital campaign, like any capital campaign of any arts organization, there are all these naming opportunities.

如果你捐出这么多钱来资助这个、那个或其他项目，就能获得命名权。

If you put this much money to endow this, that, or the other thing, here's the naming opportunity.

我确实看过那份清单，资助《弥赛亚》就在其中。

I did look at the list, and endowing the messiah was on the list.

当然，它立刻引起了我的共鸣。

And, of course, it immediately spoke to me.

我热爱这部音乐作品，你看多巧。

I love this piece of music, and look at that.

它就在那里。

It's there.

所以并不是我创造了它。

So I didn't create that.

这甚至在我加入董事会之前就有了。

This was even before I was on the board.

但它就在那里，而且还没有其他人站出来做这件事。

But it was there, and nobody else had stepped up to do it yet.

所以这是个非常实际的选择。

So that's what it was a very practical thing.

同时还有关于旅游旺季期间如何安排的讨论。

There were discussions concurrently about during the holiday season, there are a lot of tourists.

那个时期我们最适合表演什么节目？

What is the best thing for us to perform during that time?

是否应该选择电影原声带演出？比如《ET》《大白鲨》这些确实能带来可观收入的曲目？

Would it be better to do the soundtrack of movies, which actually are very good revenue generators, ET, Jaws?

在大屏幕上放映电影，并由管弦乐队现场演奏配乐。

So show the film on a big screen and have the orchestra perform the soundtrack.

是的。

Yes.

我们几乎每年都这样做。

We do that almost every year.

这些活动在商业上非常成功。

Those do very well commercially.

人们喜欢来看电影并听现场乐队演奏配乐。

People like to come and watch a movie and hear a live orchestra play the soundtrack.

当时讨论过这个问题，因为很多游客会愿意来参加。

So there was a discussion about that as to well, a lot of tourists would like to come to that.

当然，也有反对意见认为很多游客同样喜欢来听《弥赛亚》，而且票卖得也很好。

And, of course, the countervailing discussion is, well, a lot of tourists also like to come to the Messiah, and it does sell well.

所以最终事情就这么定了，我说我会资助它，我们就继续办下去。

So in the end, it's sort of the things aligned where I said, well, I'll endow it, and we keep doing it.

我询问过我们的档案管理员，我们演出《弥赛亚》有多少年了。

I'd ask our archivists how many years have we performed the Messiah.

已经很多年了。

It's a lot.

那是几十年的历史了。

It's decades upon decades.

仅仅因为我们一直在做且这是个传统，并不是继续下去的理由。

Just because we've done it and because it is a tradition is no reason to continue.

只有在它是个好主意时才应该继续。

You should only continue if it's a good idea.

它确实是个好主意。

It is a good idea.

门票确实卖得很好。

Tickets do sell well.

这是个很好的收入来源。

It is a good revenue generator.

这些并非公开数据，但我们作为董事会成员可以查看。

These are not public numbers, but we can see it as a board.

我担任主席时确实看过这些数据。

I certainly saw it as chairman.

《弥赛亚》的表现相当不错。

The Messiah does just fine.

所以我们不该指望它短期内会停演？

So we shouldn't expect it to go away anytime soon?

我认为不会。

I don't think so.

有可能。

It could.

顺便说一句，如果爱乐乐团决定转型改演其他曲目，他们有权这样做。

By the way, if the Philharmonic decided to shift and do something, they can.

法律上他们并无义务继续演出，但我认为这个传统不会消失。

They're not legally bound to do it, but I have no reason to think it's going anywhere.

广告之后，我们将探讨交响乐团如何售出更多门票。

Coming up after the break, how does an orchestra sell more tickets?

你可以制造稀缺性，从而创造更多需求。

You can create scarcity and therefore more demand.

我是史蒂文·杜布纳。

I'm Steven Dubner.

这里是《魔鬼经济学》电台节目。

This is Freakonomics Radio.

我们稍后回来。

We'll be right back.

今天与我对话的是投资银行家兼慈善家加里·帕尔，他曾任纽约爱乐乐团主席，目前仍担任董事会成员。

I'm speaking today with Gary Parr, an investment banker and philanthropist who's a former chair of the New York Philharmonic and still sits on its board.

几年前，爱乐乐团耗资近5亿美元翻新了其旧场馆。

A few years ago, the Philharmonic renovated its old facility at a cost of nearly half $1,000,000,000.

该场馆随后以出资1亿美元的娱乐大亨大卫·格芬之名，更名为大卫·格芬音乐厅。

It was renamed David Geffen Hall after the entertainment mogul who put up a $100,000,000 of the cost.

我询问加里·帕尔他的慈善本能从何而来。

I asked Gary Parr where his own philanthropic instincts come from.

总的来说，这要追溯到我父母的教育方式，我和他们有幸拥有一些能力和才华，而帮助他人确实很重要。

As a general matter, it goes back to my parents and upbringing, and that is I and they have been blessed with some capabilities, some talent, and that's really important to help others.

如果你有钱，那么你也可以运用它。

If you have money, then you get to apply that as well.

但也可以仅仅是付出你的时间和才能。

But it can just simply be your time and your talent.

让我们暂时回到15世纪的佛罗伦萨。

Let's go back in time for a bit to fifteenth century Florence.

美第奇家族在赞助艺术时主张，资助艺术、建筑和其他我们可称为公共事业的项目，不仅对美、美学、灵魂等方面重要，他们还认为这能使一个地方、城市、省份等对商业更具吸引力、更安全、结构更稳固。

The Medicis, in their patronage, argued that funding the arts and architecture and other, what we might call, public goods was important not just for beauty and aesthetics and for the soul and all that, but they argued that it would make a place, a city, a province, etcetera, more attractive for business, safer for business, more structurally sound.

你对此有何总体看法？

What are your thoughts on that generally?

实际上，我从商业角度研究过美第奇家族。

I've actually studied the Medici family both from a business point of view.

据说他建立了一个庞大的商业贸易与投资银行帝国，从中可以学到许多关于投资和投资银行业务的经验教训。

They say he had a great business trading merchant banking empire from which there are a lot of lessons to be learned for investing and investment banking.

在艺术方面，我完全赞同，但我会将其分解为不同部分来看。

And on the arts, I completely agree, but I break it into components.

由于没有美第奇家族那样的雄厚财力，我必须找出能在哪些更具体的领域发挥作用。

Not having the firepower of the Medicis, I have to figure out where is a narrower component where I can make a difference.

我倾向于专注于教育相关的事务。

I tend to focus on the teaching of things.

这可以追溯到亚里士多德和柏拉图等人，看看古希腊人的做法。

It goes back to even Aristotle and Plato and such and look at what the Greeks did.

那是一个类似的时期，哲学思想、艺术与建筑都是文明社会的重要组成部分。

It was a similar period of time where philosophical thought, the arts, and architecture, they all were a part of a civilized society.

在古希腊，我知道所有富裕家庭都需要缴纳一种财富税，这被认为是资助这些事业的途径。

In ancient Greece, I know that there was a wealth tax that all wealthy families paid, and it was considered the way to fund these things.

能否请你简要谈谈私人慈善在现代社会应当或可以扮演的角色？因为来自金融界以及科技界等领域的众多慈善家，在环境保护、基础科学研究、艺术等方面都成为了重要的资助者。

Can you talk for just a minute about the role that private philanthropy should or can play, let's say, in the modern era now because the idea that so many philanthropists from your realm, from finance, but from other realms, tech especially, have become massive philanthropists in the areas of the environment, in basic scientific research, in the arts, etcetera, etcetera.

你认为这是一个健康社会的标志——能创造如此多财富以至于个人可以支持那些原本会缺乏资助的领域，还是认为这是国家未能支持本应属于基本项目的失败，导致最终由慈善家来资助？

Do you consider that the sign of a healthy society in that it's generating so much wealth that there are individuals who can support things that would otherwise be undersupported, or do you consider that some kind of failure of the state to be supporting what are some pretty basic programs that philanthropists end up funding?

你知道，这很有趣。

You know, it's interesting.

我只是希望有更多人参与。

I just wish there were more.

无论是政府还是私人，有两种模式可以比较，那就是欧洲和美国。

Whether it be government or private, there are two models that one can compare, and that is Europe and The US.

美国出于各种原因，更倾向于个人向慈善事业捐款。

The US, for all kinds of reasons, is much more about individuals donating to charitable causes.

在欧洲，人们已逐渐习惯由政府承担这些事务。

Europe, individuals have grown accustomed over time to the fact that government does it.

因此他们个人就不做了。

They, therefore, do not.

我曾担任过一个叫威尼斯遗产组织的理事长。

I was chairman of an organization called Venetian Heritage.

我们筹款用于修复威尼斯帝国的艺术与建筑。

We would raise money to restore the art and architecture of the Venetian empire.

比如威尼斯、威尼托、克罗地亚。

So Venice, the Veneto, Croatia.

我们有一个完整的欧洲董事会。

And we had a whole European board.

我们有一个完整的意大利董事会。

We had a whole Italian board.

但最终，资金是从哪里来的呢？

But in the end, where did the money come from?

绝大多数来自美国。

The vast majority was American.

许多欧洲人会这样说，而且他们可能是对的。

Many of the Europeans, they would say and they may be right.

他们会说，你们美国人可以获得税收减免。

They would say, well, you and America get a tax deduction.

对此我只能说部分正确，但这完全解释不通。

And so you have a tax incentive to give, to which I could only say that's partly right, but that does not explain at all.

让我们专注这个特别差异，我觉得特别有趣。

Let's stick with this particular difference, which I find particularly interesting.

你认为有多少原因是欧洲人已习惯由国王、女王或其他商业统治者资助这类事务，而责任从未落在个人身上？

How much do you think is due to the fact that Europeans are simply accustomed to their king or queen or other merchant ruler funding things like this and that the onus was never on the individual?

我不知道。

I don't know.

就我所见，这种观念已根深蒂固成为文化的一部分。

It's so deeply ingrained is what I've seen that is just a part of the culture.

我认为你刚刚阐述了一些很好的理由来解释可能的原因，但我不确定。

I think you've just articulated some very good reasons as to why it might be the case, but I'm not sure.

因为实际上德国等地的税率并没有高那么多，而且纽约爱乐乐团和美国交响乐团几乎得不到政府支持。

Because actually tax rates are not that much higher in Germany or and, yep, the New York Philharmonic has and and the American Orchestra has virtually no government support.

非常少。

It's very small.

这个比例总是低于5%，大多数情况下甚至不到预算的1%。

It's always less than 5%, and in most instances, it's less than 1% of the budget.

在欧洲，柏林爱乐乐团作为一个顶级乐团，我记得曾与一位政府文化部门负责人交谈，柏林爱乐乐团90%以上的预算都来自政府拨款。

In Europe, the Berlin Philharmonic, which is a great orchestra, I can remember sitting with a government official head of culture, and the budget for the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, over 90% came from the government.

这完全是另一种运作模式，差异极其显著。

It's just a whole different construct, dramatically different.

这个问题可能有点牵强，但你是否认为美国这种对慈善事业（包括艺术领域）的拥抱与美国经济独有的活力之间存在某种联系？

You know, this is maybe a bit of a reach of a question, but do you see any connection between this American embrace, let's say, of philanthropy, including for the arts, and the singular dynamism of the American economy?

或许可以从哲学角度这样解释：欧洲虽然也创造了财富，但情况与这里不同，而且整个欧洲的经济通常缺乏同等活力。

I guess a philosophical parallel or explanation might be, you know, in Europe, there have been fortunes made, but it's different than here, and the economy typically throughout Europe is not as dynamic.

一种可能的解释是：正如普通欧洲人习惯于政府资助艺术等事业，他们也习惯于政府承担许多其他事务——其中不少是很美好的，比如社会保障安全网等等。

And one explanation may be that just as a median European may be used to government funding things like the arts, the median European is also used to the government taking care of a lot of other things, many of which are wonderful, you know, Social Security blanket and so on.

而美国经济这种略带残酷的高空走钢丝行为——它要求更多私人捐赠来支持艺术等领域——同时也激励了创造性发明与创新，这些实际上催生了大量私人财富。

And that the slightly more ruthless high wire act of the American economy, which may require a lot more private donation for things like the arts, also serves as an incentive for creative dynamic invention and innovation that actually generates a lot of private wealth.

你认为这两者之间存在关联吗？

Do you see a connection there?

也许吧。

Maybe.

我是说，嘿。

I mean, hey.

你描述的情况完全符合事实。

What you've described is absolutely factually accurate.

几十年来美国的GDP增速一直高于欧洲。

GDP growth in America has been higher than Europe for decades.

慈善捐赠比例也高于欧洲。

Charitable giving is higher than Europe.

这些都是不争的事实。

All those are factually accurate.

但如果你追溯美国的许多立国原则和民主运作方式，就会发现这创造了一种绝妙的动态机制。

But you go back to many of the founding principles of America and how a democracy works, it just creates a wonderful dynamic.

对于不太了解甚至不住在纽约的人，你会如何描述爱乐乐团目前整体的艺术创造力和财务状况？

How would you describe the state of the Philharmonic itself overall creatively and financially for someone, especially who doesn't know much about it, maybe doesn't live in New York?

我认为爱乐乐团现在的状态比过去多年都要好。

I would say the Philharmonic is in better shape than it's been in many years.

现任领导层非常出色。

The current leadership is fantastic.

令人兴奋的是，现在有一个大家都真正喜欢的新音乐厅。

The exciting things that now are in place is one, there's a new hall that people really do like.

观众、评论家和音乐家们确实都很喜欢这个音乐厅。

The audience, the critics, the musicians actually really like the hall.

所以这是个成功之作。

So that's a winner.

其次是古斯塔沃·杜达梅尔即将到来，他充满活力和创意。

Second is Gustavo Dudamel is coming, and he is full of energy, ideas.

他是个吸引人的亮点。

He is a draw.

这一点毫无疑问。

No question about it.

他的艺术视野非常卓越，这是个巨大的优势。

His artistic vision is exceptional, so that's a big plus.

比过去三十年好多了。

It's doing much better than in the last thirty years.

我可以非常肯定地这么说。

I can say that definitively.

让我问你一个有点技术性的小问题。

Let me ask you a small technical ish question.

格芬音乐厅的翻新工程，在我这个外行听来，是个巨大的升级。

The renovation of Geffen Hall, to my untutored ears, has been a massive upgrade.

自从翻新后，你听《弥赛亚》的感觉不同了吗？还是听起来基本相似？

Do you hear Messiah differently now since the renovation, or does it sound relatively similar to you?

我认为体验是不同的，而且是多层次的。

I think the experience is different, and it's on multiple levels.

现在音乐厅更小了，而且是环绕式的。

The hall is smaller now, and it is surround.

因此每位观众平均离舞台更近，这直接提升了观赏体验。

So every member of the audience on average is closer, and that just adds to the experience.

当我即将成为乐团主席时，我渴望尽可能学习一切。

When I was becoming chairman of the orchestra, I wanted to learn everything I could.

我特意拜访了七十年代曾任音乐总监的皮埃尔·布列兹。

I sought out Pierre Boulez, who had been the music director in the seventies.

当然，我问了他那个问题——当时人人都告诉我，那地方还叫艾弗里·费雪厅。

Of course, I asked him the question, you know, everybody tells me at that time, it was called Avery Fisher Hall.

所有人都说音响效果糟糕透顶，我们必须想办法改善。

Everyone tells me the acoustics are terrible, and we need to do something about it.

你觉得呢？

What do you think?

他援引斯特拉文斯基的话，表示赞同其观点：人们听到的内容有50%实际来自所见所感。

And he referenced Stravinsky and said he agreed with Stravinsky, and that is 50% of what someone hears is actually what they see and feel.

所以他说情况没传言的那么糟，但确实是个巨大而平庸的演出厅。

So he said it's not as bad as people say it is, but it's a big, rather bland hall.

灯光有点刺眼。

The lighting was a little harsh.

座椅坡度设计不佳，意思是倾斜度太垂直了。

The rake was not good, meaning how vertical does the incline.

你只能看到前排的乐手。

All you could see was the front musicians.

你看不到长号手。

You couldn't see the trombones.

你看不到任何木管乐手。

You couldn't see any of the woodwinds.

所以他会说，是的，这个音乐厅的体验感不好，这影响了人们对声学的感受。

So he'd say, yeah, it's just not a nice hall as an experience, and that affects people's feeling about acoustics.

我记下了这点并说，好的。

I took that away and said, okay.

我们确实需要做得更好。

We we do need to be better.

那确实不是我的观点。

It was really not my opinion.

我只是在聆听一位非常聪明的人——皮埃尔·布列兹的意见。

I was just listening to someone really smart, Pierre Boulez.

你当时作为主席，肯定深度参与了翻修工作吧？

You must have been very involved with the renovation since you were chair then.

对吗？

Correct?

我只参与了一个阶段。

I was in one phase.

这是个持续了非常漫长的过程。

This was a process that went on for a very long time.

在我卸任主席后，我们最终不得不进行了一次像样的改造，因为成本已经失控了。

We ended up having to do a after I was chair, I actually had to do a decent revamp because the costs were getting out of hand.

是的，我参与了很多流程，但大部分工作发生在我卸任主席之后。

So, yes, I was involved in a lot of process, but a lot of it also happened after I was chair.

我很想听你花几分钟谈谈你和其他人为爱乐乐团发展国际分部所做的工作。

I'd love to hear you talk for just a few minutes about the work you have done and others have done with the Philharmonic to develop international outposts.

我和几位经营过乐团的业内人士聊过，其中有人告诉我一个非常有趣的观点：纽约爱乐乐团在纽约演出的次数太多了。

I talked to a number of industry people that have run orchestras, and one thing someone said to me that was very interesting is the New York Philharmonic plays too often in New York.

这种说法几乎颠覆了你对乐团运营的常规理解。

And that you sort of have it almost stand on your head to how you're understand that one.

但评论指出，你可以通过制造稀缺性来激发更多需求。

But the comment was, you know, you can create scarcity and and therefore more demand.

另一方面，当时克利夫兰管弦乐团已在迈阿密建立了合作伙伴关系。

The flip side was, at that time, Cleveland Orchestra had created a partnership in Miami.

我觉得这是个有趣的想法。

I thought that's an interesting idea.

第二个家。

A second home.

这样就有了固定的演出场所。

You get a place to go perform.

你们不需要四处奔波。

You're not moving around.

巡演的成本极其高昂。

Touring is incredibly expensive.

一百名音乐家加上他们的乐器，还要解决从A地到B地的交通、住宿问题，花费确实非常巨大。

A 100 musicians and their instruments and figuring out how you get from point a to b, hotels, and what it's really expensive.

所以巡演在经济上并不是个好选择。

So touring is not a good economic proposition.

它或许能提升品牌形象。

It may be brand building.

可能还有其他一些作用。

It may be some other things.

但设立第二个驻地，你们只需去一个地方。

But the second home, you go one place.

可以在一处固定停留一段时间。

You are stationary for a while.