Here, Cerys reveals how the music industry should revitalise itself from within. She addresses the state of commissioning in the UK and asks what’s being done to promote music education in schools and fight online piracy.
Funding success or failure
The commissioning of musicians and composers isn't a new concept, indeed subsidising large groups like orchestras is considered the norm due to the logistics involved. Where I have my concerns is mainly in the process of commissioning the composition of music. Are there better ways to allocate funds around the business.
Music industry profits are down and piracy, with its spread through new technologies, takes the brunt of the blame. This has had obvious consequences on both the record labels and music creators themselves. While there is little sympathy out there for multinational record companies, the impact of piracy on the myriad of small record labels has been ignored. Some of these labels are founded by individual musicians themselves and, if they make it through the embryonic period of shifting the first few thousand copies, they can grow into breeding grounds for other new music-makers.
Grant-giving and the subsidised commissioning of new music may seem like the obvious answer to help keep the music-making process healthy, but the real qualification of its success can only be measured by the effect it has on producing quality music. The way it is allocated is the first step by which funding can succeed or fail in this objective.
So, I would like to analyse some of the ways I see funding allocations really being able to target the areas currently lacking and look at what’s being done to protect the open music industry.
Music in schools
The first caveat in the much wider picture is creating (and funding) a system in schools where every child has both the means to instrument tuition and learn about music. Seeding this field will in itself create a more prolific and diverse musical culture country-wide, and is the sure and most responsible investment for what is usually tax payers’ money. Once that is achieved, the debate can begin.
Individual funding vs private funding
The funding of individuals can be an insular formula if the money doesn’t bring the creation of something that feeds out to the wider community or economy. It can lead to one performance, n'er to be repeated, and the return on investment ends there. That's why my preference is for investment in theatres, festivals or groups that support local music-making. This type of funding supports creativity but also supports the necessary infrastructure that music-makers need; sound crews, aspiring lighting directors, small recording set-ups and more. The focus should be less on the performance and more towards actually delivering a ‘product’. If run with some responsibility, these investments create income that feeds back into the industry, supports creators and reaches out into communities.
Small pool of people
My experience of grants is that they tend to go time and again to the same pool of people; those that know how to fill in the forms and have the free time to do it, those that tick the diversity boxes and those who often believe they have an 'entitlement ' to be subsidised.
Art by committee
This is where the democracy of the panel tends to fall short in responsibility. The alternative of having an individual taking full responsibility for allocations is also obviously a potential minefield. When I sit on panels it becomes clear very early on that people can have an agenda that is limited to fighting for their own area of the arts. There needs to be an ability to understand the principle that funding should go to the most deserving, the one that will craft the best musical results.
Reliance on hand-outs blunts artistic freedom
The tokenism is obvious - state funding as conscience easing. But any funding from the authorities can be stifling to true artistic freedom.
Realistic budgeting
When comparing the value of grants handed out to individuals against the cost of the non-funded artist creating their own product you can see a clear gulf. A musician can nowadays get from the music composition stage to actually having a finished CD (or download) for less than £5,000 - a fraction of the £20-£25,000 grant being allocated to individuals for their creating a three minute song or performance. Grants and commissions simply need to make their money work harder.
Fighting piracy
Another area where the money might be better spent is actually fighting piracy. If a baker sets up his business by investing in the necessary equipment and premises and then on producing his first batch of cakes for sale has to watch on as someone walks into his shop and helps themselves to all of his produce without paying, the law would be called up to get involved and prosecute the thief. Illegally downloading music is exactly the same principle as the cake stealer; the baker has his protectors while musicians are left unprotected.
Yet it seems acceptable to much of the general public and an issue so low on the government's agenda that nothing of any effect is being done to really fight music piracy. Closing down the piracy trade would invariably lead to more actual sales of all music and the generation of funds that would roll back to the songwriters and musicians to keep creating an performing without subsidy.
An excerpt of this comment featured in the M48 issue of M magazine.
Funding success or failure
The commissioning of musicians and composers isn't a new concept, indeed subsidising large groups like orchestras is considered the norm due to the logistics involved. Where I have my concerns is mainly in the process of commissioning the composition of music. Are there better ways to allocate funds around the business.
Music industry profits are down and piracy, with its spread through new technologies, takes the brunt of the blame. This has had obvious consequences on both the record labels and music creators themselves. While there is little sympathy out there for multinational record companies, the impact of piracy on the myriad of small record labels has been ignored. Some of these labels are founded by individual musicians themselves and, if they make it through the embryonic period of shifting the first few thousand copies, they can grow into breeding grounds for other new music-makers.
Grant-giving and the subsidised commissioning of new music may seem like the obvious answer to help keep the music-making process healthy, but the real qualification of its success can only be measured by the effect it has on producing quality music. The way it is allocated is the first step by which funding can succeed or fail in this objective.
So, I would like to analyse some of the ways I see funding allocations really being able to target the areas currently lacking and look at what’s being done to protect the open music industry.
Music in schools
The first caveat in the much wider picture is creating (and funding) a system in schools where every child has both the means to instrument tuition and learn about music. Seeding this field will in itself create a more prolific and diverse musical culture country-wide, and is the sure and most responsible investment for what is usually tax payers’ money. Once that is achieved, the debate can begin.
Individual funding vs private funding
The funding of individuals can be an insular formula if the money doesn’t bring the creation of something that feeds out to the wider community or economy. It can lead to one performance, n'er to be repeated, and the return on investment ends there. That's why my preference is for investment in theatres, festivals or groups that support local music-making. This type of funding supports creativity but also supports the necessary infrastructure that music-makers need; sound crews, aspiring lighting directors, small recording set-ups and more. The focus should be less on the performance and more towards actually delivering a ‘product’. If run with some responsibility, these investments create income that feeds back into the industry, supports creators and reaches out into communities.
Small pool of people
My experience of grants is that they tend to go time and again to the same pool of people; those that know how to fill in the forms and have the free time to do it, those that tick the diversity boxes and those who often believe they have an 'entitlement ' to be subsidised.
Art by committee
This is where the democracy of the panel tends to fall short in responsibility. The alternative of having an individual taking full responsibility for allocations is also obviously a potential minefield. When I sit on panels it becomes clear very early on that people can have an agenda that is limited to fighting for their own area of the arts. There needs to be an ability to understand the principle that funding should go to the most deserving, the one that will craft the best musical results.
Reliance on hand-outs blunts artistic freedom
The tokenism is obvious - state funding as conscience easing. But any funding from the authorities can be stifling to true artistic freedom.
Realistic budgeting
When comparing the value of grants handed out to individuals against the cost of the non-funded artist creating their own product you can see a clear gulf. A musician can nowadays get from the music composition stage to actually having a finished CD (or download) for less than £5,000 - a fraction of the £20-£25,000 grant being allocated to individuals for their creating a three minute song or performance. Grants and commissions simply need to make their money work harder.
Fighting piracy
Another area where the money might be better spent is actually fighting piracy. If a baker sets up his business by investing in the necessary equipment and premises and then on producing his first batch of cakes for sale has to watch on as someone walks into his shop and helps themselves to all of his produce without paying, the law would be called up to get involved and prosecute the thief. Illegally downloading music is exactly the same principle as the cake stealer; the baker has his protectors while musicians are left unprotected.
Yet it seems acceptable to much of the general public and an issue so low on the government's agenda that nothing of any effect is being done to really fight music piracy. Closing down the piracy trade would invariably lead to more actual sales of all music and the generation of funds that would roll back to the songwriters and musicians to keep creating an performing without subsidy.
An excerpt of this comment featured in the M48 issue of M magazine.
