ENO funding cuts

[johnn10]

Sad news and there seems to be further uncertaintity as to what the future has in store. The problem is probably a result of getting the balance of trying to attract a new audience without giving some members of the existing core audience the feeling that they were no longer welcome. It would be interesting to know whether there are any figures which show whether the policy of employing film directors etc actually bought about anything resembling a new core audience once the initial novelty had worn off.

[Dave2002]

I think (and being rather careful about choice of words here !) that some (SOME not ALL) of the "National" organisations don't do enough work that reaches the rest of the country, a few gigs north of Watford simply isn't good enough IMV.

I absolutely agree with this. Even where some organisations do offer tours, they don't always have to go to the same places, and they could have some years when they reach the extremities of these islands.

[MrGongGong]

Anyone else miss the old "scrap the whole Arts Council" folks we used to get from time to time ?
We used to have a good old "academic" ding dong about this kind of thing

[Honoured Guest]

Reading the Financial Times's succinct summary, over 80% of organisations have a cash standstill grant and 10% have increased funding. 58 organisations lose their entire National portfolio grant. These include the Academy of Ancient Music, the English Concert and Bath Festivals. The FT doesn't say whether there's a chance that they may successfully bid for one-off lottery funding for future projects. In my personal opinion, Bath Festivals is no great loss with Bath International Music Festival having degenerated over very recent years. Personally, I'd fund their education work and their Party in the Park from the National Lottery and stuff their concert programme. They've been completely overshadowed by St Georges, year-round in Bristol, and the Bristol Proms for an annual summer week at Bristol Old Vic in King Street.

[Flosshilde]

I think (and being rather careful about choice of words here !) that some (SOME not ALL) of the "National" organisations don't do enough work that reaches the rest of the country, a few gigs north of Watford simply isn't good enough IMV.

It would seem fairly obvious to me that The English National Opera should tour productions, to allow the rest of England to see them. Cinema relays are all very well (& does ENO do them?) but nothing can replace the live experience. As ENO seems stuck in London it seems entirely reasonable that it shouyld receive less money & that Opera North should get more (is that happening?). Of course, one of the problems ENO would have touring is that its productions are designed for an enourmous stage, & they wouldn't easily fit in other theatres.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Of course, one of the problems ENO would have touring is that its productions are designed for an enourmous stage, & they wouldn't easily fit in other theatres.

They could always present them on the stage of, say, Leeds Town Hall - scene of some of the finest Opera productions seen in this country in recent years.

[mercia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28104684

the startling thing in that article for me (but probably no one else) is the fact of London getting over seven times the amount of funding as the whole of the south-west region - I guess its a simple reflection of the fact that London has a greater concentration of arts organisations/venues than anywhere else in the country or that London venues are bigger/more important and more costly. I think I would like to see those figures expressed as pounds per head of population - which I suppose might show Londoners enjoying the benefits of less funding per head than people in other regions.

now I've thought about it - funding to, say, a London-based orchestra which then gives concerts in the regions would still show as 'London-funding' even though the regions were benefitting, or likewise a touring exhibition originating in London etc. - so I guess trying to compare different regions is a bit meaningless.

[Flosshilde]

now I've thought about it - funding to, say, a London-based orchestra which then gives concerts in the regions would still show as 'London-funding' even though the regions were benefitting, or likewise a touring exhibition originating in London etc. - so I guess trying to compare different regions is a bit meaningless.

It shouldn't be too difficult to allocate or ring-fence funding for touring?

Calculations per head should also include local authority spending to get a true picture. Perhasps also sponsorship - I would imagine that it's easier for arts organisations in London to raise money that way than for those outside.

[amateur51]

It would seem fairly obvious to me that The English National Opera should tour productions, to allow the rest of England to see them. Cinema relays are all very well (& does ENO do them?) but nothing can replace the live experience. As ENO seems stuck in London it seems entirely reasonable that it shouyld receive less money & that Opera North should get more (is that happening?). Of course, one of the problems ENO would have touring is that its productions are designed for an enourmous stage, & they wouldn't easily fit in other theatres.

I think you've just argued yourself out of your initial proposition there Flossie

[amateur51]

the startling thing in that article for me (but probably no one else) is the fact of London getting over seven times the amount of funding of the whole of the south-west region - I guess its a simple reflection of the fact that London has a greater concentration of arts organisations/venues than anywhere else in the country or that London venues are bigger/more important and more costly. I think I would like to see those figures expressed as pounds per head of population - which I suppose might show Londoners enjoying the benefits of less funding per head than people in other regions.

now I've thought about it - funding to, say, a London-based orchestra which then gives concerts in the regions would still show as 'London-funding' even though the regions were benefitting, or likewise a touring exhibition originating in London etc. - so I guess trying to compare different regions is a bit meaningless.

London has a far greater population too mercs, especially when you include tourists.

[amateur51]

It shouldn't be too difficult to allocate or ring-fence funding for touring?

Calculations per head should also include local authority spending to get a true picture. Perhasps also sponsorship - I would imagine that it's easier for arts organisations in London to raise money that way than for those outside.

Contrariwise, potential sponsors have far less choice in say the South-West so it should be easier to attract sponsorship, if you can guarantee an audience.

[mercia]

London has a far greater population too mercs, especially when you include tourists.

well yes, that's why I wanted the figures per head. £180 million divided by 10 million people = £18 pp. £23 million divided by the population of the "south-west region" = ????

but I realise I'm thinking very simplistically - I appreciate its not only the population of London who get to enjoy "London Arts". And I appreciate its not the Arts Council's fault that there aren't as many arts organisations in the regions to give money to.

[aeolium]

the startling thing in that article for me (but probably no one else) is the fact of London getting over seven times the amount of funding of the whole of the south-west region - I guess its a simple reflection of the fact that London has a greater concentration of arts organisations/venues than anywhere else in the country or that London venues are bigger/more important and more costly. I think I would like to see those figures expressed as pounds per head of population - which I suppose might show Londoners enjoying the benefits of less funding per head than people in other regions.

I don't think even a per head funding calculation would even it out in favour of the regions, mercia. It's also the case with transport expenditure, where the per head funding was recently (IIRC 2011) calculated at £5 per head for the North-east and £2700 per head for London. All priorities seem to be concentrated on the capital.

[Flosshilde]

I think you've just argued yourself out of your initial proposition there Flossie

If you're referring to my comment about the difficulties of touring productions designed for a large stage, I was supporting/reinforcing a comment up thread suggesting that a large part of ENO's difficulties in selling enough (full price) seats derived from them opting for a very large theatre. That decision seems to have created a number of problems, both financial and artistic.

[Flosshilde]

Contrariwise, potential sponsors have far less choice in say the South-West so it should be easier to attract sponsorship, if you can guarantee an audience.

Rather fewer of the wealthier busineses who might want the publicity & 'feel-good factor' (and potential for corporate entertainment)are located outside London.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone based in London to agree with the suggestion that London gets rather more than its fair share of the cake and icing than anywhere else.


(on the general topic of opera, did anyone else see any irony in Saturday's discussion on whether opera is elitist or not coming from Glyndebourn?)