Further cuts in HE funding for arts subjects

[oddoneout]

I'm not disputing that - but I think that there are perhaps many people who are part of a money making work force who by some standards might not be considered as musicians or musically trained - and I'm not disregarding that there are some who have natural talent. For me the word "industry" is significant. Maybe I'm wrong. For me it's a question of how one classifies someone's work - but then I could be very wrong.

Using the word "industry" is probably inevitable when considering GDP, but looking the the £5.2(or5.8) billion figure in more detail does break that down into what could be considered more directly musician related. However isn't there a difficulty with trying to relate degrees to outcomes, one that the current administration seems happy to overlook. The assumption that a degree in subject x must lead to a career in subject x to be of interest to the bean counters and box tickers is built on a false premise that there can be no transference of skills and abilities learned in one subject field to another. It also ignores the many who change their minds about their choice of work path during or after their degree - I'm not including here those who are forced to reconsider due to lack of opportunity - for whatever reason - as I think that is a different matter.
As you say the music related work force will include a great many who do not have music qualifications - but is that a reason to drop support for specific/"proper" music courses? Those people contribute to the overall value of the sector and provide essential support to those who have the "right" qualifications, as has been highlighted with the Brexit fall-out. There are a great many working within the NHS who do not have medical qualifications but I don't see that being used as a reason to drop such courses - in fact support is being increased(although probably not in real terms I admit) as the proposed budget figures show.
Whether so many should be forced into pursuing an academic(degree) path in the absence of decent vocational courses and qualifications is another issue which should have a bearing but doesn't - the aim is to keep increasing student numbers regardless of quality of outcome, or value to the individual or indeed potential employers.

[ardcarp]

Exeter had a music department that was closed down in 2004

Indeed. And many made a huge fuss about it. I got a letter from the VC (not an individual one, but one clearly prepared to weather the storm) in which he claimed running a Music Department was not 'cost effective'. Does this also explain why shortly afterwards he shut down the Chemistry department?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/why-exeter-university-defends-closure-its-chemistry-department-481424.html

[Dave2002]

Using the word "industry" is probably inevitable when considering GDP, but looking the the £5.2(or5.8) billion figure in more detail does break that down into what could be considered more directly musician related. However isn't there a difficulty with trying to relate degrees to outcomes, one that the current administration seems happy to overlook. The assumption that a degree in subject x must lead to a career in subject x to be of interest to the bean counters and box tickers is built on a false premise that there can be no transference of skills and abilities learned in one subject field to another. It also ignores the many who change their minds about their choice of work path during or after their degree - I'm not including here those who are forced to reconsider due to lack of opportunity - for whatever reason - as I think that is a different matter.
As you say the music related work force will include a great many who do not have music qualifications - but is that a reason to drop support for specific/"proper" music courses? Those people contribute to the overall value of the sector and provide essential support to those who have the "right" qualifications, as has been highlighted with the Brexit fall-out. There are a great many working within the NHS who do not have medical qualifications but I don't see that being used as a reason to drop such courses - in fact support is being increased(although probably not in real terms I admit) as the proposed budget figures show.
Whether so many should be forced into pursuing an academic(degree) path in the absence of decent vocational courses and qualifications is another issue which should have a bearing but doesn't - the aim is to keep increasing student numbers regardless of quality of outcome, or value to the individual or indeed potential employers.

Many "proper" musicians who have trained or studied seriously are not earning much. This is reflected in the article mentioned above - https://www.academyofmusic.ac.uk/mus...dustry-growth/
So the notion that the music industry is making a major contribution to the UK's economy has to be moderated by the observation that there are many people classified under the 'music' heading, yet most of them are low earners. Some of these are very dedicated and don't mind earning modest amounts in order to carry out their career desires, but others are struggling - and perhaps relying on financial support from elsewhere (partners?) or supplementing their income by doing other activity - which might not be their preferred choice.

[Richard Barrett]

Some of these are very dedicated and don't mind earning modest amounts in order to carry out their career desires, but others are struggling - and perhaps relying on financial support from elsewhere (partners?) or supplementing their income by doing other activity - which might not be their preferred choice.

There are more important things than financial security, and indeed I was well into my 40s before I really had any (having no suitable "elsewhere" to provide support), but the amounts of cash actually earned by musicians have (sadly!) not that much connection with the more general economic importance of what they do, and still less connection with the (surely much greater) human importance of what they do. Trying to use economic arguments for arts education is trying to play the ruling class at its own game. They might care a lot about money but they care a lot more about restricting free thinking to those sectors of society which already share their agenda.

[oddoneout]

Many "proper" musicians who have trained or studied seriously are not earning much. This is reflected in the article mentioned above - https://www.academyofmusic.ac.uk/mus...dustry-growth/
So the notion that the music industry is making a major contribution to the UK's economy has to be moderated by the observation that there are many people classified under the 'music' heading, yet most of them are low earners. Some of these are very dedicated and don't mind earning modest amounts in order to carry out their career desires, but others are struggling - and perhaps relying on financial support from elsewhere (partners?) or supplementing their income by doing other activity - which might not be their preferred choice.

"Contribution to the economy" is just that - it doesn't mean that those involved earn well, it's what the sector brings in in total. Arts tourism brings in money but the employment may well be casual and low-paid, and as we know a great many of those in the performing arts are self-employed in some form. Finding a balance between pursuing one's art and making a living has always been problematic except for a fortunate few. Cutting funding for arts education doesn't do anything to improve that situation IMO, but will increase the existing demographic bias in those joining the sector.

[Richard Barrett]

will increase the existing demographic bias in those joining the sector

... which is an alternative way of putting the final sentence in my last post. In other words, given its lack of economic impact in the wider sense, this is a decision made for ideological reasons.

[ardcarp]

There are more important things than financial security, and indeed I was well into my 40s before I really had any (having no suitable "elsewhere" to provide support), but the amounts of cash actually earned by musicians have (sadly!) not that much connection with the more general economic importance of what they do, and still less connection with the (surely much greater) human importance of what they do. Trying to use economic arguments for arts education is trying to play the ruling class at its own game. They might care a lot about money but they care a lot more about restricting free thinking to those sectors of society which already share their agenda.

Very interesting that Holbein the Younger's father (presumably Holbein the elder!) great artist though he was (with a workshop and all that) was reduced to penury. Unlike Italian masters with impossibly wealthy patrons, many north European artists were paid as if they were lowly tradesmen. This was hinted at on R4's programme this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000vq74

[oddoneout]

... which is an alternative way of putting the final sentence in my last post. In other words, given its lack of economic impact in the wider sense, this is a decision made for ideological reasons.

Is that actually the driving force or just a useful result of not giving a toss about the arts and therefore turning a blind eye to the inability of those not middle class and white to access the likes of instrumental tuition?

[Serial_Apologist]

Is that actually the driving force or just a useful result of not giving a toss about the arts and therefore turning a blind eye to the inability of those not middle class and white to access the likes of instrumental tuition?

Or even both?

[Richard Barrett]

Is that actually the driving force or just a useful result of not giving a toss about the arts and therefore turning a blind eye to the inability of those not middle class and white to access the likes of instrumental tuition?

As S_A says, there's no contradiction between the two. Speaking for my own profession, we seem to be heading back into a time where being a "composer" outside the commercial sphere was a gentleman's pastime. I've noted here before that of the living British composers listed in Wikipedia whose education is mentioned, about two thirds were privately educated. It's like the Tory party with manuscript paper!

[oddoneout]

As S_A says, there's no contradiction between the two. Speaking for my own profession, we seem to be heading back into a time where being a "composer" outside the commercial sphere was a gentleman's pastime. I've noted here before that of the living British composers listed in Wikipedia whose education is mentioned, about two thirds were privately educated. It's like the Tory party with manuscript paper!

There isn't a contradiction, I was just wondering to what extent it is a deliberate ploy(which requires thought and effort) and how much is the convenient result of lack of interest or consideration?

[Roslynmuse]

Petition here for anyone who is able to support it.

https://www.campaignforthearts.org/petitions/stop-the-50-percent-funding-cut-to-arts-subjects-in-higher-education/?fbclid=IwAR3mOFT6hI_tyu_uh18_PhrYHTJxD8N6aEf3_vgT4ePWN96XpoP9xspmJzM

My belief is that the government is trying (and well on the way to succeeding) to produce a populace kept happy by a diet of poor quality television and social media, and systematically removing any opportunities for anyone to develop their creativity. Much the same world that Orwell described in '1984' in fact (although even he couldn't imagine the world of Twitter and Facebook...)

[ardcarp]

Signed.

[Roslynmuse]

Signed.

[Ein Heldenleben]

As S_A says, there's no contradiction between the two. Speaking for my own profession, we seem to be heading back into a time where being a "composer" outside the commercial sphere was a gentleman's pastime. I've noted here before that of the living British composers listed in Wikipedia whose education is mentioned, about two thirds were privately educated. It's like the Tory party with manuscript paper!

Many public schools have invested millions in music and theatre faculties and tuition ( to be fair so have quite a number of state schools ) . I wouldn’t criticise them for it . They are responding to the demands of parents who realise the many benefits that learning an instrument and acting on a stage can bring in terms of intellectual and emotional development - in acquiring social skills and confidence . Would that government followed what parents and their children instinctively know is sensible. If it makes money great but that’s not the real purpose is it ?