Good question. Please allow me to extemporize a bit.

My performing career in classical music spans over three decades. This includes experiences in the academy as a student, in the symphonic world (including ballet and opera) Broadway type musicals, church performances,and casual dance "gigs." If one looks at the historical growth of Western art music (often considered "serious" music) patronage has always played a significant role in the creation and performance of music. 

The early Christian church (a.k.a. Catholic church) played a significant role in the development of notation and the establishment of the modes to allow the singing of chants to have the same intervallic relationships between notes regardless of the starting pitch or the "tonic." Composers began to develop new styles such as organum which introduced polyphony and the rhythmic modes. Not to go into too much theory or medieval history, if  composers were not supported by the church, the development of Western art music would likely have suffered.

Other early patrons include nobility and the merchant class, particularly in the city-states of Italy. F. J. Haydn enjoyed a lengthy tenure as court composer/conductor/performer with the Esterhazy family. His patron so admired Haydn that he was provided an opportunity to travel to London on two occasions and to solicit/receive commissions for several symphonies.

Serious music performances were largely associated with worship or the court until the development of opera which although early on was sustained by the wealthy became one of the first large-scale publicly attended art events. By the 17th and 18th  centuries composers were seeking commissions and were beginning to establish themselves as independent from the patronage system as it had existed previously.

In today's world patronage still exists and the philanthropic endeavors of arts presenting organizations is highly developed. Organizations have developed support groups such as guilds, societies, memberships, etc. to supplement the income brought in through ticket sales and subscriptions as well as selling advertising in the concert program. Corporations, foundations, and individuals are sought to sponsor a season or a particular performance (or series). For corporations and foundations, this serves as a public relations or marketing outlet. Private individuals have a variety of personal motivations to support the arts.

The costs incurred with presenting serious music are considerable. Professional musicians, conductors and soloists demand to be paid unless it is a benefit concert in which the individuals have agreed to perform gratis. Their remuneration covers rehearsals and performances. Rental of the rehearsal space, performance space, and frequently music is an expense that some audience members do not readily consider. The same is true for marketing, advertising, and the publication of printed materials such as tickets, posters, and programs. Additionally the ticket staff, ushers and concessionaires will need to be paid. Some upscale performance also provide valet parking as a perk for the most expensive seats.

The actual percentage of the overall production costs that ticket and advertising revenue generates is roughly 20-35% depending on a host of factors surrounding the production. A single ticket for the New York Philharmonic in March 2015 can cost from close to $150 to over $400. Certainly serious music can demand "serious cash"...and that is with corporate, foundation, and individual contributions as well as selling advertising and other "soft goods."

All of this is just on the cost side of the equation. Other factors to consider include the impact of popular culture in the development of taste. This may be somewhat geographically influenced similar to the argument of "nature versus nurture." However with the widespread availability for the electronic playback of music regardless of the genre or style most listeners are now consumers of music who often choose to listen to anything but serious music. Arts presenting organizations generally have public outreach concerts that are free in public parks and schools to acquaint potential audiences with their artistic product. These are supported through donations, grants, gifts and the general operating budget of the organization. However these are only momentary interactions with the arts and unless the artistic exposure is frequent, sustained, or regularly available, the popular culture seems to win out.

In addition to my performing career, I've been a college professor for 25 years. In teaching courses from music appreciation to more advance music history and literature during this time my music major students more often listen to popular music even if they desire to be a professional performing musician in an orchestra. Peer pressure and culture prevail, it seems.

Thanks for bearing with my rambling, but I did want to share some of my insights.

Regards,

Jim

Thank you so much for writing this; for the moment I can't add something. It is what you write.

Regards Rita

It is very remarkable that certain musicians are so convinced of their performance that they don’t care about sponsoring or not, they play what they intended to play.

Although as an organiser it is more comfortable to know what the subsidies would be. It is a kind of discouraging technique which is used to wait as long as possible to give an answer.

So most of the times we don’t wait and play and see what is coming.

Rita,

The visual arts have created highly individualistic art forms perhaps almost from their inception. There have been notable trends that have departed from most viewers conception of beauty by exploring performance art and conceptual art, to name a few movements. Many others exist. For visual artists much of their work is created to "make a statement." Perhaps due to the majority of visual artists creating work that may be deemed commercially unviable the expression "starving artist" was coined. Nonetheless, the artistic expression persisted and expanded the realm of "art."

Perhaps what you are describing is an attempt by musicians to also "make a statement" that is artistically important to them, regardless of commercial value or the availability of subsidies. Over time a new, and perhaps aurally or aesthetically challenging, composition may become part of the accepted standard repertoire. One might consider the initial performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Paris which resulted in the audience rioting. Today it is programmed often as a concert work and not staged as originally intended as a ballet.

If I read your post correctly you are interested in this as an arts promoter/producer/presenter. Correct? (or not....)

Many galleries which display new works entice very sophisticated arts connoisseurs to attend an opening. Perhaps this may be a beneficial strategy to employ when presenting new works?

Best wishes.

Jim

The idea behind the question is in fact; if the Ministry of Culture  decides which projects are getting subsidies and which not, they have also the power to conduct the flow of creativity.

Prestigious projects can  be stimulated for image- building

It is not always the intrinsic quality that counts, which in many cases is unknown by the decision makers.

The will to succeed is even stronger without any support or with a low working budget.

It is the free psychic energy that transposes the idea into the manifestation.of an event. The quantity of energy can influence the quality.

It is a real problem. I think that one single artist with critical open ideas and with high qualities has not always a chance to break through. As the movie 'Winners' show, this is about the winners of the Competition Queen Elisabeth (Brussels) who not succeeded in a world career. Myself I have never seen that movie but I know very well Mikhail Bezverkhni who was one of them. Now he is playing on the streets and in small locals. But sometimes someone remembers his name and invites him to play for very special personalities as queen Paola or Karpov.