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

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has told recipients of public money that they should at least think of putting Royal Opera House shows, for example, or National Theatre productions on the web once their runs are over. The overwhelming majority of people who cannot get to London, and could not afford tickets if they did, would then see the work their taxes helped pay for. It does no good. The notion that publicly funded art must be publicly available does not occur to today's generation of cultural bureaucrats.
Nick Cohen

see also the nesta website for discussions of mutuality innovation &c ....

Cohen's point seems especially relevant to post-war upbringing in a still class dominance society and the overthrow of the toffs in the sixties .... they are back!

[teamsaint]

If anybody is interested, I work for a very small publisher. We are market leaders in one sector, and employ about 60 people.

We may not be paragons of virtue, ( the bosses I mean) but one thing I am actually quite proud of is the fact that we have never used kids as interns . We have always made a point of employing people, and on a wage that you can at least live on , in the area where we operate. Actually we have a company minimum wage which is a decent amount above the statutory level.

We could easily get interns fresh from prestigious universities,prepared to work for nothing for 6 months ,but we have chosen not to. Most of the youngsters we emply move on in a year or two to better paid jobs, but we have given so many people a start in working life, in what is a difficult, no, very difficult industry to get into.
So, paying people a wage, which at least helps to level the playing field, can be done. It is a real struggle for small businesses to survive in our industry, certainly for us, but if we can employ people fairly, then others can too.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

good for you guys teamsaint!

[Richard Barrett]

I wonder, Calum, if the the problem is that it simply hasn't occurred to the bureaucrats to make what they do publicly available, or whether there is some idea of "intellectual property" which means that someone (who?) now "owns" any documentation of productions at the Royal Opera House etc. and now doesn't want to "give that property away". IMO the sooner we do away with the concept of intellectual property the better; if not it will fade away into the ready availability of almost everything on Youtube etc. in any case. I'm often surprised at colleagues who would on the one hand decry the idea of deriving income from owning things (rather than doing things) but don't extend this to things such as the copyright on published music and recordings. As far as I'm concerned, any possible small profit to be made by charging for such things is offset by the fact that so many more people can and will gain access to the work if it's made freely available.

This is why, as I've said before, I extracted myself from the music-publishing "industry" in 2011 and since then have made all my notated materials freely downloadable from my website, as well as uploading as many good-quality recordings as I "own" for free streaming or download from Soundcloud. If the ROH did something like the latter, there'd be a lot less bollox flying around as to their "elitism", and without compromising their artistic output in any way.

[MrGongGong]

If the ROH did something like the latter, there'd be a lot less bollox flying around as to their "elitism", and without compromising their artistic output in any way.

They are doing an increasing number of things like this

http://www.roh.org.uk/news/la-traviata-to-be-live-streamed-live-and-free-as-part-of-bp-big-screens-on-20-may-2014

Sometimes people just don't see though
(I think this is right ? but correct me if not !)

After Maria Miller went to see the production of The Carmelites she was quoted as saying things about how everyone was so "middle class", that will be the co-production with Streetwise Opera then

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/may/30/simon-rattle-revolution-royal-opera-house-dialogues-des-carmelites-poulenc

[Richard Barrett]

They are doing an increasing number of things like this

Very good.

I guess Maria Miller (surely you mean Harriet Harman, I remember her sounding off about this, easy mistake to make of course) was talking about the audience, and maybe paying more attention to it than to what was happening on the stage.

[MrGongGong]

Very good.

I guess Maria Miller (surely you mean Harriet Harman, I remember her sounding off about this, easy mistake to make of course) was talking about the audience, and maybe paying more attention to it than to what was happening on the stage.

Yes I do

"even from the cheapest seats in the house, I couldn't see in the audience anyone who wasn't like myself: white, metropolitan and middle class".

I guess she wasn't looking at the stage then

And has an amazing ability to make a judgement of people based on a cursory glance

[Richard Barrett]

"even from the cheapest seats in the house, I couldn't see in the audience anyone who wasn't like myself: white, metropolitan and middle class".

On the other hand maybe her memory might have been playing tricks and she might have been talking about the House of Commons.

[ahinton]

I wonder, Calum, if the the problem is that it simply hasn't occurred to the bureaucrats to make what they do publicly available, or whether there is some idea of "intellectual property" which means that someone (who?) now "owns" any documentation of productions at the Royal Opera House etc. and now doesn't want to "give that property away". IMO the sooner we do away with the concept of intellectual property the better; if not it will fade away into the ready availability of almost everything on Youtube etc. in any case. I'm often surprised at colleagues who would on the one hand decry the idea of deriving income from owning things (rather than doing things) but don't extend this to things such as the copyright on published music and recordings. As far as I'm concerned, any possible small profit to be made by charging for such things is offset by the fact that so many more people can and will gain access to the work if it's made freely available.

This is why, as I've said before, I extracted myself from the music-publishing "industry" in 2011 and since then have made all my notated materials freely downloadable from my website, as well as uploading as many good-quality recordings as I "own" for free streaming or download from Soundcloud. If the ROH did something like the latter, there'd be a lot less bollox flying around as to their "elitism", and without compromising their artistic output in any way.

Honourable and generous as it is of you (and those others who do the same) to make your work freely available - and much as I understand the principle under which you do it - wouldn't the total abolition of intellectual property rights mean that many composers would end up with even smaller incomes from their work than they get now? From what source/s would you then expect them to derive their incomes from composition (other, perhaps, from distribution of self-published scores)?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

IMO the sooner we do away with the concept of intellectual property the better; if not it will fade away into the ready availability of almost everything on Youtube etc. in any case. I'm often surprised at colleagues who would on the one hand decry the idea of deriving income from owning things (rather than doing things) but don't extend this to things such as the copyright on published music and recordings. As far as I'm concerned, any possible small profit to be made by charging for such things is offset by the fact that so many more people can and will gain access to the work if it's made freely available.

This is why, as I've said before, I extracted myself from the music-publishing "industry" in 2011 and since then have made all my notated materials freely downloadable from my website, as well as uploading as many good-quality recordings as I "own" for free streaming or download from Soundcloud.

I can't help feeling that this is somehow "wrong"/unjust. I own several of your scores, bought from UMP with the knowledge that I was buying into my being fascinated, thrilled and enriched (no pun intended) by your Music, and feeling that my spending was going somehow to give something materially in return. I get very uncomfortable with the idea that, in downloading one of your scores, the only people benefiting financially from the transaction are the manufacturers of the ink in my printer. I cannot accept that Art isn't worth at least a "small profit" to its creator - or feel that a society in which a mug of coffee can cost £3, but that the notated scores of a composer are being given away is a just one.

Probably causing all sorts of problems with tax returns and setting up credit/debit/paypal accounts, but I think Artists should get income from their work.

[Richard Barrett]

I think Artists should get income from their work.

I agree, I think they should get income from doing their work. I expect to get paid for composing and performing. I'm uncomfortable with the results thereof being considered my "property" that I can derive profits from (actually I'm uncomfortable with the idea of property in general). So the fact that one of my scores "costs" less than a cup of coffee is fine with me. I've done the work and now the main thing is that it finds its way to the people who are interested in it, many of them (like me in days gone by and occasionally still) without the wherewithal to buy expensive published scores.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Oh, I said nothing about "expensive published scores"! I have no scores by Nono or Sciarrino because I can't afford them: Ricordi's pricing keeps this Music the preserve of a financial elite and away from study by the lower waged. My objection is to "free" notated and recorded material by living, eating Artists who have bills to pay. My Proudhonian attitude to "property" sees the products of nature and the means of production as common "property" but lets individuals own "possessions" - Artists have the right to earn income from what they alone have produced, what would never have existed without them, what they have done as well as what they are doing - and people have the right to feel that they are supporting the work that is so important to them. The notion of composers starving in garrets ("good enough for Mozart") or relying on the whims of performers strikes me as quaintly bourgeoise and, well ... err ... English!

[Richard Barrett]

The notion of composers starving in garrets ("good enough for Mozart") or relying on the whims of performers strikes me as quaintly bourgeoise and, well ... err ... English!

I hope you're not under the misapprehension that I'm in favour of composers starving, or that I am a gentleman of leisure with no bills to pay (and I don't know at all what you mean about "relying on the whims of performers"). Actually I have spent most of my working life (not excluding the present time) in a state of economic precariousness. I think I should be be remunerated for what I do, and most of the time I am, though often not really commensurately with the amount of work and effort that goes into it. But deriving income from property is something that creates many of the problems and inequalities we see around us, and if my convictions on this are to be consistent they should extend to the "rights" on notated and recorded material. This is quite the opposite of a "bourgeois" attitude!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But deriving income from property is something that creates many of the problems and inequalities we see around us, and if my convictions on this are to be consistent they should extend to the "rights" on notated and recorded material. This is quite the opposite of a "bourgeois" attitude!

Indeed, but I think that the alternative that you are offering means that creative artists are entirely reliant on income from immediate performances of their work - that you would deny yourself and your fellow composers reasonable payment from others' benefiting from the work you (and they) have done and that only you could have done. I believe that this would create alternative "problems and inequities" that future generations would see around them. It's a difference between running a business and being a Capitalist: in the former, you offer your "goods" (and they are very good) or services to interested parties at reasonable prices. An agreement is made between us: I want to have a copy of one of your scores to enrich my appreciation of what I hear in performance - from this I learn stuff and can pass on that learning to others, or adopt what I've learnt in a work of my own. In other words, I profit from having the score in my possession. That you (or one of your colleagues) don't get any remuneration whatsoever from this strikes me as a minor form of exploitation - even if you are the one allowing the exploitation - that is equally responsible for many of the other problems and inequities we see around us - and if my convictions on this are to be consistent, I cannot take advantage of what I see as your self-exploitation.

I'm not saying, charge Ricordi prices for your scores, just let us pay a fiver at least!


As for "relying on the whims of performers" - let me give you a summary of the last eighteen years of one composer's career: send a score off to performers who perform the sort of stuff you write; wait a few weeks for the return of said score with polite rejection letter. Send score off to competition; wait several weeks for letter rejecting "very interesting" score and requesting postage for return of score. Meet performer who expresses interest in new Music; show him/her something you've written and spend some time explaining that no, it isn't really "mathematical" it justs looks that way, expressing regret that s/he can't do fluttertonguing; suggesting that we should meet up to work together on a completely new piece; spend the next month awaiting an e-Mail - get one eventually informing you that s/he is pregnant and so regretfully cannot devote the time which is a pity because s/he was really looking forward to ... you write another piece (knowing that there are some composers whom you admire who really look down on this sort of activity) and send it off to performers who perform the sort of stuff you write; wait a few weeks for the return of said score with polite rejection letter. Send score off to competition; wait several weeks for letter rejecting "very .... etc etc ad infin ...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well i think that you should be able to make at least a living wage as a composer ... one of the consequences of our present arrangements for intellectual property is that Andrew LLoyd Webber is filthy rich .... whereas i think he should pay us for having to put up with his stuff

the issue of artists and income is a not inconsiderable argument for a national citizen's wage - for all of us, no exceptions nor means tests ..