... the arts politics and class - a lesson for R3

[ahinton]

As for private rented accommodation, yes I can confirm there's some use for it, having lived in such places since I left the parental nest! (not that I ever had a choice)

I mentioned all rented accommodation, not just that in the private sector, in response to your reference to the derivation of income from renting properties - i.e. local authorities as well as private landloards; the basis principle is broadly the same, even if the renting out of social housing is more to retrieve investment in it than make a profit per se from it - the financial speculations that local authorities make with their taxpayers' money must result in getting back the funds invested.

But as a general principle I think the use of money to make more money is fundamentally wrong, that's all: hereditary privilege and financial speculation for example.

In the case of hereditary privilege, yes; in that of the SME startup, for example, surely not? A new one/two-person business borrows money from the bank in order to fund its development which won't usually occur until and unless it makes some profit on the investment of the bank's money.

But to return to composition, I remain unclear as to the source/s from which composers could be expected to derive an income from their work were royalties from intellectual property rights be abolished and were those composers to attract few or no commissions...

[teamsaint]

this seems apposite.
The John Peel Lecture by Iggy Pop on " Free music in a capitalist society".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcj6z

begins around 35 minutes in.

Haven't listened to the whole thing so can't recommend, or otherwise.

Its on the telly tonight.

[Richard Barrett]

The John Peel Lecture by Iggy Pop on " Free music in a capitalist society".

It's a ramble, but an engaging one.

"Prosecuting some college kid because she shared a file is a lot like sending somebody to Australia 200 years ago for poaching his lordship's rabbit. That's how it must seem to poor people who just want to watch a crappy movie for free after they’ve been working themselves to death all day at Tesco or whatever" - in other words, as I was saying, if people in general didn't have to spend so much of their time doing dismal things for dismal pay while watching the fat cats get fatter, they would probably feel differently about paying for their culture, either directly or in the form of taxes to go towards subsidised arts. Why should the arts be subsidised, some may ask... well, by the same token, why should education be subsidised? it's part of civilisation, the wherewithal to live a fulfilled life, maybe that's a whole other subject, but IMO it links back to Calum's opening post and the thread title.

[teamsaint]

I mentioned all rented accommodation, not just that in the private sector, in response to your reference to the derivation of income from renting properties - i.e. local authorities as well as private landloards; the basis principle is broadly the same, even if the renting out of social housing is more to retrieve investment in it than make a profit per se from it - the financial speculations that local authorities make with their taxpayers' money must result in getting back the funds invested.


In the case of hereditary privilege, yes; in that of the SME startup, for example, surely not? A new one/two-person business borrows money from the bank in order to fund its development which won't usually occur until and unless it makes some profit on the investment of the bank's money.

But to return to composition, I remain unclear as to the source/s from which composers could be expected to derive an income from their work were royalties from intellectual property rights be abolished and were those composers to attract few or no commissions...

Crowd funding might be one way. Very popular these days, and can be successful. (although it is really just the old publishers subscription model, nothing new under the sun).

On a different tack, it might be a good way to get published but unrecorded music to the public.

[Richard Barrett]

Crowd funding might be one way

It's certainly being used in various ways to fund commissions and recordings. I don't have any direct experience of it, but as you say subscription has a long history. GP Telemann's Tafelmusik was published that way - one subscriber was Handel, who subsequently appropriated, I mean file-shared, at least one movement from it for one of his oratorios.

[ahinton]

[/B]

Crowd funding might be one way. Very popular these days, and can be successful. (although it is really just the old publishers subscription model, nothing new under the sun).

On a different tack, it might be a good way to get published but unrecorded music to the public.

It is indeed one way and it certainly can work on occasion; my two principal concerns about it are its sheer unreliability and the risk of eventual crowd funding fatigue arising from an ever-increasing plethora of requests for such subsidy.

[ahinton]

It's certainly being used in various ways to fund commissions and recordings. I don't have any direct experience of it, but as you say subscription has a long history. GP Telemann's Tafelmusik was published that way - one subscriber was Handel, who subsequently appropriated, I mean file-shared, at least one movement from it for one of his oratorios.

!!!

[teamsaint]

It's certainly being used in various ways to fund commissions and recordings. I don't have any direct experience of it, but as you say subscription has a long history. GP Telemann's Tafelmusik was published that way - one subscriber was Handel, who subsequently appropriated, I mean file-shared, at least one movement from it for one of his oratorios.