“Independent artists angry over lost grants”
(“Independent”?)
The Musical Diversity component gave grants of up to $20,000 for the recording and distribution of “specialized music,” defined as “music whose intent or content is not shaped by the desire for wide market appeal – instead, it places creativity, self-expression or experimentation above the demands and format expectations of the mainstream recording industry,” and has “significance beyond being just entertainment.”
Faster, please.
But I repeat thine self.
Reality bites for those getting off the public teat!
With today’s technology, these yobbos should be using their PCs to record, and post on the internet.
The public money is just welfare by another name
Hmm, so they’re saying if I can hold a kazoo up to my butt and play a sea shanty, I get $20,000?
I don’t want to reveal too much about my technique, but I call it “Art with a capital ‘F'”.
I guarantee it meets all the criteria. Very transgressive.
(And I bet if I perform while urinating on the Bible, that ought to be good for an extra ten grand!)
I have many friends in the arts.
It must be frustrating for them – often they are quite intelligent, and very well educated (a few university degrees etc). They want to be well paid.
Many are accustomed to sitting around with their friends and thinking great thoughts. (That’s OK if you manage to land a university position, then you’re home free.)
But if you don’t, you’re spending the rest of your life gunning for scraps here and there.
But the thing is – that was their choice.
RPB
It’s called……………..
Entitlement!
The domain of the dippers and rent seekers!
Are people that need this funding more creative than other people or do other creative people reject bad ideas?
rg said “Hmm, so they’re saying if I can hold a kazoo up to my butt and play a sea shanty, I get $20,000?”
You’ve misread the contract. It’s $5,000 for a kazoo. To get the $20,000 you have to use an alto sax. Please clean the spit valve when you’re done.
“music whose intent or content is not shaped by the desire for wide market appeal”
IOW, a hobby. Where’s the funding for the stamp collectors, knitters and woodworkers? Those, and many more, don’t have wide market appeal either but also add to the culture of a community.
For those who have forgotten, or more likely never knew, the culture of a people is created by those very same people; it’s the sum of all the things they do, not what some politician or bureaucrat deems worthy of other peoples’ money.
You rock, Kate. Thank goodness we have a government willing to show these welfare bums the door.
I worked as a professional musician from 1962 to 1982, then continued in another branch of the music industry to this day. I never took money from any government and sometimes I lived in my car during that period.
I am now aware that there are very few who can actually make a career in music as a performer. Those are the ones who have at least convinced enough others that they are worth paying to see and hear.
I am acquainted with many young and older musicians who still desire to feed their egos by ‘recording’ their ‘work’. None of them are doing it with other people’s money, they mostly all work day jobs.
Here is how they do it … they rent some good quality microphones, hook them all up to a rented mixer, insulate someone’s garage, spend about a grand or so on a computer, download some free recording software and have at it. The quality is as good as the music and the ability of the ‘dude at the computer’. From there it is easy to burn a few CD for a couple of bucks.
If a musician happens to be keenly interested in their own narrow and unpopular niche, then this method is better that hijacking 20 grand of other’s people’s money to record what to most people would be crap.
I believe that music a performance art. It is best experienced that way. By performing, a musician can better develop whatever ability they may have. If there is no place to perform and no audience demanding to hear you, maybe you are in the wrong business. And by the way … everything anyone does with their career music or otherwise is ‘business’. Anything else is merely adolescents pissing around with noise making equipment.
Gord —
“It’s $5,000 for a kazoo. To get the $20,000 you have to use an alto sax. Please clean the spit valve when you’re done.”
If they’re paying $5K per kazoo, I will gladly attempt to shove four of them in there. Plus, I’ll be able to play chords. Perhaps a funky 9th?
It won’t be pretty, but all things considered I call that easy money. Dignity be damned.
(And to handle their subsequent removal, remember, I’m entitled to free healthcare.)
P.S. You are obviously a racist.
“”The Ontario government has announced it is spending around $600,000 this year on programs to help artists improve business skills,”
It seems to me there is something “oxymoronic” about this statement.
Horny Toad
The public money is just welfare by another name
No, it is not the same thing. Just ask ET.
Ask Bateman what he thinks of people who receive arts grants.
Vegetable Orchestra performs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpfYt7vRHuY
The above definition of “Specialized music” … for a moment there I thought they were talking about an Yoko Ono album…but then again “significance beyond being just entertainment.” could also mean torture.
It’s a water key, not a spit valve and they don’t come of woodwind instruments except for the baritone sax in the neck loop section. They come on all of the brasswind family and the best ones are the Amado unit that are more efficient and almost maintenance free..
You can learn stuff on this blog. I know I do.
Momar – very interesting. I’m always struck by creative people who are truly driven, and pursue their art because they *must*, not just because they *can*, knowing that Canada Council Grants will facilitate a reasonable standard of living.
Momar, I agree with you about live performances. Maybe it’s just me, but I find myself shattered at the end of the working day, and the thought of going out to see live performances daunting. I think in general we work far harder than we did a generation ago, which means that performance artists resultantly suffer. (My opinion)
The question is, should some meritorious young artists get (only) an initial “leg up” through public support, or should young artists know that no matter what the public’s reaction or commercial viability, public support will be there for their full career.
The former seems sensible.
(PS – I agree with philboy, it is not welfare, it is subsidization.)
Erik, if it is “subsidization”, how long must we taxpayers subsidize the person before someone, somewhere tells him he has no chance of EVER making a living as a musician, or artist?
I knew a fellow who tried to pass the Bar exam, and failed it several times,should the taxpayers have supported him while he studied?
Should we have subsidized another chap I knew who failed the Surveyor’s exam nine times until he finally passed it and now runs his own surveying business, but NEVER took taxpayer’s dollars, just worked as a rodman and junior surveyor until he finally got his ticket?
There is a certain snobbery about some people in “the arts” that makes them imagine that because they have a little bit of talent, they are somehow “special” and the world, or in this case, the taxpayer, owes them a living.
Not in my view. We should provide support through the education system, as we do now, and after that you’re on your own. Get out and find work,and SUPPORT YOURSELF.
No one owes you anything! Earn your way, or you are just another useless drain on the taxpayer.
rg said “P.S. You are obviously a racist.”
Aren’t we all?
I spent all of my life in and around the music biz and from what I’ve seen it’s the worst no-talent hacks that get grants to continue their delusional music concepts while other good musicians get ground down trying to succeed. Real musicians know from the get go that it’s going to be a struggle so you rarely hear them complain as they never wanted or expected a handout. Just a paying gig.
If you missed the “But I repeat thine self”, go back. It is one of Kate’s best, writing of what she knows.
This, by the way, was the genius of the Conservatives’ aborted attempt to reform (and increase!) art funding. They took money out of the grant system, controlled by a small number of bureaucrats and increased money available to music lessons, whereby many individuals would fund artists according to who they liked.
I am of the opinion that the art a civilization produces is a measure of it’s worth…..Attila produced no art nor did Tamerlane….
Michealangelo, Da Vinci were commercial successes. Their commissioners/sponsors maybe were the Medici’s and Popes but if they had produced crap—-they would have been selling fish instead.
Paying thousands for a canvas the size of a barn-door with one (1) red spot in the centre is just plain insanity and waste—-an insult!
It would be interesting if they held votes in different communities as to where to put “arts” funding. Here in Hamilton I’m sure we would have free heavy metal concerts year round. No more symphony or poetry readings.
It could be a refreshing change.
dmorris, maybe I was unclear with my post, but it seems reasonable to me to subsidize some young artists early in their career, the way many students (law, medicine, etc) are subsidized during their (early) educational years.
But the support should be selective, I’m tired of seeing diapers stapled to plywood and hung on a wall, and being told it is bold and innovative.
Real craftsmanship should be valued.
PS – infinity squared, loved the vegetable orchestra. Innovative and creative.
“Independent artists..”
Shouldn’t they refer to themselves as dependant artists?
All these grants do is take money from the productive parts of society and give it the unproductive. In the process we get more unproductive people. In my opinion there should be no grants for the arts period. It does not enrich society it just makes us all poorer.
Erik Dr.s are heavily subsidized because of the cost of their education. They re-pay society by working cheaply as residents and interns. Do you think your GP is going to show up at 3 in the morning?
speedy, I agree that docs are subsidized during the course of their education, and there is a significant payback by these individuals (it’s not just about the money)
You see, for reasons that have never been clearly explained, select members of the “arts community” are actually sheltered from
their own lack of market appeal through programs and funding provided by various arms of government…..
In other industries, these people are called “corporate welfare bums”.
You see, ET, even Kate agrees with me. I was just being a bit more
industry specific when I referenced rural conservative welfare bums.
RG asks, “if I can hold a kazoo up to my butt and play a sea shanty, I get $20,000?”
The answer is, if rg goes about it the right way, “you betcha”.
It is best to be in the penumbra of a university. It
mightn’t work so well if you were faculty, unless
you could play that kazoo really well. Furthermore you’d
have to master the repertoire of a whole bunch of dull
university-employed composers who wrote only for arse-played kazoo.
The main thing is to be noncommercial.
I remember that in a local Humanities program the music
of Charles Ives was studied rather
than Mozart – Mozart was deemed too commercial!
(Mozart was indeed a commercial success though he needed
a good business manager).
A video of a woman spitting on a mirror
passed for performance art in the same program.
Innovative music like Bebop was developed by musicians who jammed afterhours and was subsidized by actually working as musicians playing music people wanted to hear. Some of the Group of 7 worked as graphic artists to pay they bills so they could paint what they wanted.
The Music Business and it is a business is tough enough for people who play “commercial” music. The ones with their hands out will never succeed as it takes a work ethic to be a professional.
hmmm…perhaps Kate could apply for the grant and then use it to for legal fees. She could use “specialized music” for her defense – a montage of jazz, classical, rap, hip hop, country music that puts her defence in music in a remix format. The jury would enjoy it, or she could take lines and accompanying chords from recognizable songs from every genere and put them altogether to present her case. One could have a lot of fun with that.
I am for subsidies and tax incentives for artists, IF, and I mean only if they are treated like any other small business venture. You know, like the expectation of making a profit after five years. Handing out tax dollars to allow someone to “do their thing” is something that should have never been started in the first place.
we wouldna neber gots rock wid no blooos
A real artist can flip burgers/sling beer at late hours, pay the bills, and create the groundbreaking stuff on the side.
“Independent artist” = somebody that nobody will
pay AND who whines about having no money.
Not an independent bone in its body.
A REAL artist – David Milne comes to mind – who
never made much money from his art arranged his life
so that he didn’t need much money, and in his solid
Presbyterian way was the opposite of a whiner.
Many if not most really good artists can make
a living at it – and the real artist don’t complain
to the press if he has financial troubles.
No puplic teat involved, content warning, not your average garage band.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uljq3DP6bdM
for those who didnt realize the great talent of yoko ono , here we go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqrHZYdAeOc
nothing like putting the Bside of “Cold turkey” on the jukebox and leaving the bar.
Erik: “… loved the vegetable orchestra”
Ya, I liked them also.
I would allow our Canadian “artists” to deduct a portion of their cost of an internet connection, so they can, like, post to youtube, facebook, etc like the rest of the world is doing.
I believe one of the big mistakes this country has made, is relating a “payed artist” to culture.
The idea that a government can choose who is being “creative”, is like allowing my 2 year old daughter to make interior design ideas for our home compulsory. She might scribble crayon on a piece of paper and it ends up on the fridge, but we chose to do that. We didn’t pay for it but it still becomes a part of the definition of our family.
Is it not difficult enough for Canadians to define their own “culture” without having the government spending our hard earned money to spread the idea around the world of what might be the opposite?
Knacker
I agree with defunding the arts out of tax dollars. I will say though that there are many examples of good art that were not popular in their creator’s day (wasn’t Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony unperformed in his lifetime?) and many of bad art that were. There’s a lot of big pop/rock tunes that I think are garbage, while I can think of hundreds of songs I love that most people have never heard (that doesn’t mean I have to dislike REM or U2 though, because I don’t).
I am constantly being amazed and surprised by some productions that resonate for me. I am also neutral about some “art” that doesn’t do a thing for me. What I describe as art is personal to me and consists of something that in some way speaks to me. That being said,there are some self described artists who just don’t have any discernible talent. These are not artists just self indulgent children. Why am I asked to pay for someone’s self indulgent tinkerings.
Rather than a government grant system I would prefer to see a private foundation take over the arts grant industry- maybe with matching government funding – and fund raise from corporations and private citizens. I am quite sure these Artists who are now crying about funding cuts would be more “conservative” when they are granting money they had to raise and making decisions on artistic merit and then having to justify their decisions to their patrons. If nothing else it would get the government out of the art business and put the onus on artists to be relevant.
I have worked in the classical, jazz, and popular music industries for about thirty years. I have seen some government grants for education and studies abroad go to hardworking, serious young musicians, who benefited from the training and went on to become productive, skilled professionals. However, I have also seen many grants go to prop up talentless individuals who lacked the honesty to evaluate the significance of their own work, or the work ethic to do anything about it. Worse, I have seen those individuals claim that they somehow represented Canadiana in an important cultural fashion. Like it or not, true Canadian culture is best evaluated by what actual Canadians are willing to spend their own money on. (And, despite what “independent” musicians will say, Canadian tastes are really pretty diverse.) I know, some popular works really are not creative, but some are, and all of them communicate, which is one of the core “reasons-for-being” of true art. Also, most of them exhibit a workable level of craftsmanship, which is something I don’t mind paying for. To have some unskilled, lazy hack in a hemp shirt demand my funding because he/she sounds like a bunch of other unskilled, lazy hacks in hemp shirts is demeaning to true hardworking musicians, and to the plethora of taxpayers who also have creative hobbies that they pursue on their own time and their own dime. Since when did producing works of interest that touch human beings become a drawback in the stature of an artist? (I have read those grant forms where they essentially say that if anyone wants to listen to what you do, we won’t fund you.) Is it just the anti-profit mindset weaseling its way through the artistic community? It calls to mind the famous quote from Floyd Pepper (the bass player in the Muppet Band) to Kermit. “Admit it, Froggy! You don’t understand my music! Nobody understands my music! I don’t even understand my own music! Why, if I didn’t know I was a genius, I wouldn’t NEVER listen to that crap I write!”