Meaning: Walter Legge, a prominent businessman in the classical music industry, made this provocative statement that "Democracy is fatal for the arts; it leads only to chaos or the achievement of new and lower common denominators of quality." This quote challenges the commonly held belief that democracy and artistic expression go hand in hand. It suggests that in a democratic society, art may suffer due to the pursuit of mass appeal and the compromise of artistic standards. To fully understand the implications of this quote, it is necessary to delve into the context of Legge's career and the broader relationship between democracy and the arts.

Walter Legge was a renowned classical music producer and executive, known for his work with EMI and the Philharmonia Orchestra. His career spanned the mid-20th century, a time of significant social and political change, particularly in Europe where Legge was based. As a businessman in the arts, he would have witnessed the intersection of artistic creativity with commercial and societal pressures. This background provides a crucial lens through which to interpret his statement on democracy and the arts.

Legge's assertion that democracy is fatal for the arts suggests a skepticism towards the influence of public opinion and mass appeal on artistic endeavors. In a democratic society, decisions regarding artistic funding, programming, and promotion are often subject to the preferences of the majority. This can lead to a commodification of art, where the pursuit of profit and popularity takes precedence over the pursuit of artistic excellence. Legge's reference to "new and lower common denominators of quality" implies a concern that in a democratic system, artistic standards may be compromised in favor of accessibility and mass appeal.

Furthermore, Legge's assertion about chaos in the arts under democracy may reflect a fear of fragmentation and lack of artistic coherence. In a democratic society, there is a proliferation of diverse voices and perspectives, which can lead to a cacophony of artistic expression. This diversity is a hallmark of democracy, but from Legge's perspective, it may pose a challenge to the establishment and preservation of artistic traditions and standards.

It is important to recognize that Legge's viewpoint on democracy and the arts reflects a particular historical and cultural context. His career unfolded during a period marked by the aftermath of World War II, the rise of consumer culture, and the democratization of access to the arts through technological advancements such as radio and television. These societal changes would have undoubtedly influenced Legge's perspective on the relationship between democracy and the arts.

In the contemporary context, Legge's quote continues to spark debates about the role of democracy in shaping artistic expression and quality. On one hand, democracy can be seen as a vehicle for promoting inclusivity and diversity in the arts, giving voice to marginalized perspectives and challenging traditional artistic hierarchies. However, as Legge suggests, the pursuit of mass appeal and the influence of commercial interests in a democratic society may also pose challenges to artistic integrity and excellence.

In conclusion, Walter Legge's quote about democracy and the arts raises thought-provoking questions about the impact of democratic principles on artistic expression and quality. His perspective as a businessman in the classical music industry during a time of significant social and cultural change provides valuable insight into the complexities of this relationship. While democracy can offer opportunities for artistic inclusivity and diversity, Legge's concerns about the potential compromises in artistic standards and coherence invite us to critically examine the intersection of democracy and the arts in our contemporary society.