"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[burning dog]

Unmade beds. Piles of rubbish that get thrown out of galleries by cleaners. Stockhausen. Berio. Aphex Twin. etc. etc.
.

Sounds like a hell of a party, I'd liked to have ligged my way into that one!!

[MrGongGong]

It's outrageous what passes for "Art" these days innit

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p...lit-defait.jpg

[An_Inspector_Calls]

We've agreed, I think, that private subsidy of the arts will not extend to works that are "really innovative and challenging".

However, in case anyone thinks that sounds disappointing, the definition of "really innovative and challenging" comes from Barrett, with the example that it would exclude works by George Benjamin (!) as he's a safe pair of hands.

Colour me unconcerned.

GG: liked the painting, esp. the usual erotic folds of the sheets.

[amateur51]

We've agreed, I think, that private subsidy of the arts will not extend to works that are "really innovative and challenging".

I think that this runs counter to the stated aims of a number of charitable arts funders who are always prepared to set aside a proportion of their funding for 'risk-taking and innovation'

[MrGongGong]

GG: liked the painting, esp. the usual erotic folds of the sheets.

It's not "art" though is it ?

:whistle:

A bit like the wind machine in RVW's Antarctic Symphony isn't "music"
and the birds in the Pines of Rome and so on .............

[MrGongGong]

I think that this runs counter to the stated aims of a number of charitable arts funders who are always prepared to set aside a proportion of their funding for 'risk-taking and innovation'

Ludwig of Bavaria for example ?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think that this runs counter to the stated aims of a number of charitable arts funders who are always prepared to set aside a proportion of their funding for 'risk-taking and innovation'

Well good, tell RB.

[amateur51]

Ludwig of Bavaria for example ?

I was thinking more of Mrs (now Lady?) Duffield as it goes but your point is well made :biggrin:

[amateur51]

Obviously, one doesn't expect rational debate or common sense from such as GG, or, heaven forbid, his usual cronies, but surely someone has the brains to proffer a cogent argument against at least a couple of the points I made? Instead of part-argued comments, one-liners and smileys.

Or maybe not. :sadface:

House Rules

Please treat other members respectfully, even/especially if you disagree with what they are saying; and please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group.

[MrGongGong]

Obviously, one doesn't expect rational debate or common sense from such as GG, or, heaven forbid, his usual cronies, but surely someone has the brains to proffer a cogent argument against at least a couple of the points I made? Instead of part-argued comments, one-liners and smileys.

Or maybe not. :sadface:

Your "points"
seem to largely consist of a load of "received wisdom" and ignorant assumptions based on a series of profound misunderstandings of how music and musicians work.
The usual opinion masquerading as "facts" that we have come to expect

Why not try educating yourself before making statements ?
Or even actually speaking to someone who really KNOWS about this stuff ?
I'm sure you can find someone who does ............. how about the director of the Buxton Festival for a local start ?

[Tapiola]

Bartok...I was put off him as a child when the ABRSM decided to include one of his piano pieces in one of their exams...I played it through - or tried to - and then told my music teacher that it was tuneless, unpleasing and utterly unmusical rubbish. She agreed....

:laugh::laugh:

Sorry for the horse-laughs, Simon, but I cannot let this pass, and I am surprised that no one else has picked up on it. Perhaps it's because I am not involved in the bigger picture debate that is going on.

So now we know that Bartok was wrong and the young Simon and his teacher were right all along. What fools we have been!

With oblique reference to another thread (the Brahms/children one), my 8 year old son has listened to, and enjoyed mid and late Bartok - he may not like all that he has heard but he would not for one moment suggest that it is rubbish. Perhaps because he listens with an open mind. :erm:

[teamsaint]

No need to apologise ts.

I'm afraid I don't know much about Bartok, apart from the usual about him being an enthusiastic collector of folk music. I was put off him as a child when the ABRSM decided to include one of his piano pieces in one of their exams - I can't recall which grade. It was one of the optional ones, thank goodness, as I played it through - or tried to - and then told my music teacher that it was tuneless, unpleasing and utterly unmusical rubbish. She agreed and I chose the more tuneful and musical alternative option - I can't remember what that was.

Over the years I've heard little to convince me that he was a particularly great composer, though I confess I did enjoy bits of Bluebeard's Castle once when it was on the radio. I gather that his earlier works are perhaps more traditional and pleasant, but I haven't as yet made any effort to search them out. So I'm afraid I can't really give a definitive answer to your question.

A propos the thtread subject, I don't know how he lived and how he made his money. I don't know if he lived from his work or received any subsidy.

Try The Piano concertos, Simes.
They are funky.

here is a nice heavyweight line up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvm6BnH7KMo

43000 youtube users can't be wrong, can they? It's the market place in action !!

[MrGongGong]

43000 youtube users can't be wrong, can they? It's the market place in action !!

Of course they are ALL wrong
Simon says they are
so it must be the "logical" conclusion :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ahinton]

I'm afraid I don't know much about Bartok, apart from the usual about him being an enthusiastic collector of folk music. I was put off him as a child when the ABRSM decided to include one of his piano pieces in one of their exams - I can't recall which grade. It was one of the optional ones, thank goodness, as I played it through - or tried to - and then told my music teacher that it was tuneless, unpleasing and utterly unmusical rubbish. She agreed and I chose the more tuneful and musical alternative option - I can't remember what that was.

OK, so having been honest in admitting that you know little about Bartók, you then regale us with detail about how you and your piano teacher were prepared to dismiss one of his works as "tuneless, unpleasing and utterly unmusical rubbish", from which one can only conclude that you were each very adept at jumping to ill-informed and unwarranted conclusions and that Bartók himself must be a composer of little if any importance whose work would never have a hope of standing the test of time; how does this stack up against the sheer plethora of Bartók performances, broadcasts and recordings that have been given / made over many decades, the vast amount of Bartók literature and scholarship that abounds and the reputation that he has long enjoyed as one of his country's most distinguished composers (not to mention also a considerable pianist and, as you yourself imply, an ethnomusicologist of no small significance)?

It is very difficult to take your myopic non-arguments seriously when your appreciation of a giant such as Bartók is so gravely lacking - by which I am not suggesting that you should necessarily enjoy much, let alone all, of his music but that you should at least recognise the respect in which his work has long been held, the enjoyment that it has given to millions of listeners and the desire on the parts of many distinguished musicians to perform it.

Over the years I've heard little to convince me that he was a particularly great composer, though I confess I did enjoy bits of Bluebeard's Castle once when it was on the radio. I gather that his earlier works are perhaps more traditional and pleasant, but I haven't as yet made any effort to search them out. So I'm afraid I can't really give a definitive answer to your question.

Indeed you cannot and do not but, in the meantime, you have no call to be patronising by "confessing" to having enjoyed bits of one of Bartók's major works.

A propos the thtread subject, I don't know how he lived and how he made his money. I don't know if he lived from his work or received any subsidy.

You really don't seem to know much at all about this, do you? - by your own admission! But you can still point your finger at people who derive a living from composition, conducting and performance as having nothing useful to contribute to this discussion, not to mention one individual whose interest in one particular composer allegedly disqualifies him (in your view) from the same.

If amber, then nectar, say I (but then I would, wouldn't I?!)...

[Richard Barrett]

the stated aims of a number of charitable arts funders who are always prepared to set aside a proportion of their funding for 'risk-taking and innovation'

That's very interesting of course, but which organisations are you talking about? and what proportion? and how are the decisions made? - those are relevant questions to ask before A_I_C jumps to the conclusions he'd already made, I would have thought.