EFDSS New Chief Exec.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:47 AM

100

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM

oh yes and 100.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM

Damn - too slow.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:49 AM

Richard Bridge,itwas my 100.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: mattkeen
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:54 AM

I understand it Richard... I just think its shxite.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 10:44 AM

Yes Captain, it was indeed. That's what I said when I'd hit the submit button and I saw the numbers had jumped two not one.

Well, Matt, why say "What is all that", then?

The point remains the same. She may be very useful, but users of managementspeak tend to come to believe in it. We shall see.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:44 AM

Just an expression Richard

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:04 AM

Richard - please give the woman a chance. How on earth do you know how she talks? How many times have you met her and talked to her?

I really think we should be told the evidence on which you base such a statement.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:43 AM

Interesting thread, which I haven't kept up with having been away. Some very silly things have been said which can't help a situation where the appropriate position should surely be to express support and good wishes. Richard Bridge is right to be cautious about funding if that is his postion, but he doesn't need to be so angry about it. And Ruth Archer's intemperance is surely not helpful. It should, I would hope, be possible to be able to express a degree of caution about what fund-chasing can do to you, I would have thought, without being attacked by Ms Archer for being opposed to innovation (now where did that come from? People carry some very strange baggage).
    Ruth Archer makes an assumption that funded projects are, of themselves, more innovative than un-funded ones. That seems to me a ridiculous assertion, and shows the dangers that some of us are aware of; if you really believe that funding will automatically bring the great gift of creativity, you are wearing blinkers that can confuse you utterly.I doubt if she really believes any such thing actaully, she just got a bit over-argumentative.
   Now, I wrote on this thread a while ago of the caution to be needed when fund-raising, and that was before the current Labour party fiasco. Richard Bridge makes an obvious comparison with that, and we must surely have all noticed the connection. However necessary we all know fund-raising to be, it does no harm to be reminded by that cautionary tale. In the Labour Party case, the fund-raisers became so obsessed by the need to raise money that they totally forgot why they were supposed to be raising it, and also totally forgot the laws they were meant to follow while doing so. And, naturally, ended up damaging the cause they were supposedly trying to help. A very salutary lesson. I have worked in the subsidised and the unsubsidised sectors of the arts worlds for 45 years, so I am well aware of the problems of being on either side of the fence. Plus, of course, a lot of work straddles the fence uncomfortably.
    SO, please, a bit of goodwill for the new appointment, and a bit of goodwill to those who wish to discuss it but may have different views to our own. It's our EFDSS you know(well, it is to those of us interested in folk music, whether English or not).
    A final thought: to those who think funding, and its pursuit, is the panacea for all ills. Someone a while back managed to make a successful application to the Arts Council for a toally ludicrous project, and submitted it under the name of "Juan Kerr". The fact that that application for a grant was successful shows just what condition funding bodies can get themselves into. The Great Game of fund allocating can totally screw up the minds of those dishing out the dosh just as surely as it affects those chasing it. We all need, for sanity, to stand backa little now and again and examine what is going on.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:30 AM

Greg generally speaking I have no problems with people who have different views. There are some notable exceptions but generally speaking that is true.

I do have a problem with people who write things based on no or very little tangible evidence for what they are saying. If Richard says "....She may be very useful, but users of management speak tend to come to believe in it"..... I think I am justified in asking how he knows she talks that particular way.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: johnadams
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:38 AM

Greg,

You're right when you say that funding can become an end in itself and needs to be carefully targeted. Although the society has had problems attracting funding in the past I think that the 2007 track record shows that the current bids are so targeted.

I've seen lots of Mudcat comments about the society raising funding for library projects and this year, from Ruth Archer's list...

£154,500 Heritage Lottery Fund grant for the Take 6 Project, conserving 6 collections from the VWML and taking some of them into the communities where they were first collected

London Links project launched to expand the use of VWML by community groups and individuals, particularly in 3 London boroughs. Part-funded by a £3k grant from the Mercer's Company

Grant funding achieved for the appointment of a new Education Director

That's good funding.

I see no reason why this situation shouldn't continue under a new CEO.

J

PS. I'm less excited about the funding raised to install a "music garden" at C#H because that doesn't advance the cause of folk music much but that was just a media exercise and hey, everybody needs a hobby! :-)

PPS.

"Juan Kerr" LOL

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: GUEST,Ruth at Work
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 09:12 AM

Greg, I'm sorry if you feel I've been intemperate. I have tried to keep my responses relevant to the myriad (and, I feel, unfair)accusations thrown at someone who does not even take up her post for another two months. I certainly think that my responses have been more "helpful" than the tedious and ill-informed mud-slinging that's occurred here.

You say that "Ruth Archer makes an assumption that funded projects are, of themselves, more innovative than un-funded ones..."

No, I don't. But I was responding to your assertion:

"have a little listen to some recent folk projects that have attracted cultural funding to enable them to be created. Then have a listen to some stuff that didn't. And see if you can see a pattern emerging.There's a difference in style, isn't there? Whether it is to yopur taste or not, you can't deny a difference."

I was simply suggesting what some of those differences might be. Why did I make the suggestions I did? Because funding does not simply subsidise what you already do. To achieve funding you have to demonstrate that you are being innovative, engaging in new collaborations, developing your work. This is why I suggested that these may (note: MAY) be the hallmarks of the projects you've alluded to. Naturally they won't sound like the non-funded work. That's the whole point: they're MEANT to be different, to encourage artists to challenge themselves.

If you are happy with what you do, and want to keep doing it for an audience that enjoys it, great. Go for it. The bit I don't understand is when people who have chosen that path then get chippy about the people who choose to do things differently. What are you so threatened by? No one's going to stop you making your music in the way that you want to. What artists in receipt of subsidy do with their work does not de-value yours, and at the end of the day, if it doesn't float your boat, you don't have to listen to it. And if it's crap 9and plenty of subsidised projects have been crap) it won't sell.

Now, let's make a distinction between what you do as an individual artist, and what an organisation like EFDSS does. As an artist, you don't need to apply for subsidy to do what you do. But an organisation like EFDSS, if it is going to work effectively at a strategic national level, probably needs (and deserves) funding. In the application process, some things will be as true of EFDSS as they are of individual artists: the organisation still needs to do new things, be innovative, seek out collaborations and partnerships. However, this does NOT have to meant that the fundamental product (English music, dance and song) needs to change. It can simply mean that we work with new audiences, or work in new places, or come up with innovative new ways to bring our work into the community (like the Take 6 Project, which not only conserves important collections, but also takes some of them back into the communities where they were first collected).

A good arts manager (and I have no doubt that Katy is one of these) will understand the need to demonstrate innovation while protecting the integrity of the artform. I think this is the main concern that a lot of people have been expressing, and to be fair, for some it will be borne of previous experience. What I'm trying to say is that funding is NOT intrinsically a dirty word, and that the professsionalisation of the arts (including folk) is not a threat to its integrity. An experienced arts manager, aware of the potential pitfalls, is actually MORE likely to maintain that integrity.


PS: I'd like evidence for the Juan Kerr story - sounds apocryphal to me.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 09:33 AM

Yes - I said give her a chance - that's "wait and see". It's what I've said all along.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:15 AM

Ruth Archer: you seem to make an incredible range of assumptions.Go ahead if you wish, but if they are about me, expect to be challenged. Now, the clear implications of your remarks directed at me are that I am opposed to funding, that I do not engage in funded work, that I am happy in doing things the old way, that others choose to be funded and innovative, and that funding is only granted for innovative work. Now, everyone of those statements is demonstrably rubbish.For example, I worked for the celebratory/site specific(whatever you care to call it) theatre company Welfare State International, regularly, from its first show in 1968 to its last in 2006(it closed itself down with the retirement of director John Fox). Now, many accusations could be levelled at WSI(hippy, load of rubbish, child of three could do that), but I don't think anybody has ever accused us of not being innovative. Try reading "Engineers of the Imagination", or any other stuff about the company. And all of the work(virtually) was funded in some way.So, (1) I like innovating and (2) I love being funded. And I have worked for at least ten other (funded) wierdo theatre companies.
   I am always after funded work, I'd likely starve if I didn't find it. I work a lot by gigging, and have often lived on busking when times were hard, but by and large I work in areas where things are financed by funding...theatre, education etc etc. Nothing against it at all. So please don't suggest I don't do funded work, or disapprove of it. I say there are dangers in funding, certainly. Do you think it is possible to work profesionally as an artist for 45 years without noticing a few things that go wrong from time to time?
    As to my not being innovative, and just happy to do things the old way. Well, I do have an indecent love for "the old way", which is why I love folk music. But as a person who is notorious for never going to folk clubs, but persisting in working with African percussionists, asylum seekers, radical theatre companies, gypsies and now(horror of horrors) young urban rappers etc etc, I don't think I am quite such a stick-in-the-mud as you paint me. I know everybody works with African and Asian music and mutli-this and multi-that now, but believe me there weren't all that many of us around in the 70's. I think I preserve quite a nice balance of old and new, and unfunded and funded.
    And your crucial point, that funding is only for innovative work. Ha ha ha ha!You've got to be joking.But wouldn't it be great if it was true?

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:25 AM

Greg, I know absolutely nothing about you or your work. I've been engaging in a purely theoretical conversation about one approach vs another. Perhaps I should have said "if one is happy with what one does..." instead of "if you are happy with wehat you do..." - but then I probably would have been accused again of being a poncey arts manager. But I was replying more generally to sentiments of suspicion about funding that have appeared on this thread, not talking about you personally. Blimey.

I give up. I retire from this conversation.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 12:07 PM

Well, if I'm not the "you" you are talking to, who is? The post of yours that I was referring to was addressed to someone, and it appeared to be me.Maybe it was to Richard Bridge? I thought there was an element of confusion. Posibly nobody was arguing with anyone?
   All I am pointing out is, you are attacking somebody who doesnt wish to innovate, or accept funds. Those are not views I hold.Addres you remarks to someone else. Or if nobody on this thread holds these views you are attacking, perhaps you shouldn't make the remarks?It's one or the other. Just who are you disagreeing with?

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 12:31 PM

"Greg, I know absolutely nothing about you or your work. I've been engaging in a purely theoretical conversation about one approach vs another."


"I was replying more generally to sentiments of suspicion about funding that have appeared on this thread, not talking about you personally."

Which bit was hard to understand? I won't be drawn on this, I'm afraid. If you're looking for a fight, look elsewhere.

---

Ruth, Please note that anonymous posting is no longer allowed at Mudcat. Use a consistent name [in the 'from' box] when you post, or your messages risk being deleted. You can be logged in on both your home and work computers (if your employer permits cookies) - or you can post at "Guest" with your usual name.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 12:54 PM

GUEST Ruth:
Please don't be silly.
I quote you verbatim:

"This is why I suggested that these may (note: MAY) be the hallmarks of the projects you've alluded to".

That is not addressed to a hypothetical "you" as in "one". That is directed to a quite specific person, and that specific person can only be me in the context ofyour post.I repeat, I do not hold the views you are having a go at me for. I support the EFDSS, I support funding, and I support innovation. Which(to quote you again) bit don't you understand?
    This is a serious and interesting discussion about the future of the EFDSS, now looking rosier than it has for a generation or two, to my way of thinking. Which is brilliant. What on earth are you on about?

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:01 PM

Deep breaths please.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:29 PM

well the problem here, as I see it,Is that Ruth Archer,is being over defensive about any criticism.
In the past when I have had the temerity,to try and make concstructive criticism of the EFDSS,I have had a packof hounds [consisting of Ruth,FolkieDave,JohnAdams]baying for my blood.
they need to chillout.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:36 PM

Speaking for myself I have criticisms of the society - and I know Johnny Adams has - we talked about them on the radio last week so they have hardly been kept secret!! But both of us became members and Johnny in particular has worked extremely hard - unpaid - to improve things. So does Ruth.

Unjustified criticism - and criticism based on misconceptions - is bound to attract adverse comment.

PS You missed out Malcolm Douglas. I suspect he'll be upset!!

Off to Bramall Lane on a cold wet night.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:52 PM

I am a great supporter of the EFDSS. The promulgation of the contents of its Ann Gilchrist collection to the wider world has been my continuous work since the 70's, I think with quite a bit of success throughout the northwest and beyond.. Why this GUEST:Ruth is having such a go at me I haven't a clue. She is an EFDSS person is she?
I'm familiar with Johnny Adams and Derek Schofield on this thread as people asociated with C Sharp House, I don't really know Ruth other than as a contributor here. Anyway, I stand by what I say. I speak from personal experience over a long time and (on this thread at least) I am trying to stick by that. I mean, if someone sounds off about funding or innovation or whatever, I am trying to keep to what happens in the areas I know about. The EFDSS is currently in a position where it can vastly improve its own position due to a variety of circumstances. "There is a tide in the affairs of men etc etc": well, the tide is there to be caught right now if we all play our cards right. Abuse is not going to get us anywhere.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 02:39 PM

Greg, I repeat, I won't be drawn. If you choose to misinterpret my words that's up to you. When I replied to you, I was also referring to various other opinions expressed in this thread. I repeat: I don't know your work - you also don't know mine. But I have been engaging on this thread in an intense discussion (and defense) not only of EFDSS's progressive practice, and its new (not even in post) Chief Exec, but also of the sudbsidised arts generally, all of which I believe in passionately.

Yes, I responded specifically to some of your points, Greg - but that doesn't mean I was having a go at you personally when I was talking about the differences between a subsidised and non-subsidised approach. If you continue to choose to take it as a personal attack, however, there is nothing else I can do.

As you're familiar with Derek Schofield, I'll just repeat his words:

"I cannot remember a thread on mudcat that commented in so much detail, or so critically, on other appointments by folk music and dance organisations, or on the many, many successful funding projects in folk music. Many festivals get funding, Folk Arts England, Folkworks at the Sage, Folk South West..... Why doesn't someone start a thread about these, and then see if you get as good a response from representatives of those organisations....."

Now I really am done. I have much more important things to be doing.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:40 PM

People have indeed been critical(well one person has) of the EFDSS's decision, but not me. Since I have worked closely with the EFDSS in the past, and hope to continue to do so, I would hate anybody to get the impression I was one of its attackers. I accept your statement that your comments were intended to be directed elsewhere, and that is fine, no hard feelings. But I hope in return you might accept that several of your posts appeared to be directed at me, or could be interpreted in that way. It could be extremely damaging to me personally and professionally if a feeling went about that I was an anti-C Sharp House person.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:54 PM

not intended at all.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:36 PM

Without wishing to be an arse, I do think Greg and Ruth are singing from approximately the same hymn sheet, just approching it from slightly different angles...

cheers

nigel

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: mattkeen
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:13 AM

Good man Nige.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:33 AM

I have my moments, Matt!

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:51 AM

I am delighted to report that Ruth and I are back singing from the same hymn sheet(well, one or two minor typos aside). Which is not to say that I regard the chasing of funding as an invariable panacea. Supping with the devil, as everyone knows, requires a very long spoon. Which, as has often been observed, is why arts organisations took to employing administrators. The perennial discussion, which every group needs to have all the time, is "admin: long spoon or wooden horse?" You can't live without administration making funding applications(or at least the EFDSS couldn't, right now).But you always need to think very carefully what you want to do and what you want to get to help you do it. As they say, more heartache is caused by prayers answered than by prayers refused.
    I have made a considerable study of this, having been involved with an inordinate number of companies, many connected with folk music, and some not.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: BB
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:47 PM

Been away from Mudcat for a few days, so I was amazed at how much interest this thread has generated. I understand Derek's concern about people's apparent criticism of Katy's appointment, and I agree that she should be given a good chance to prove that the appointment was the right one, but I do see it as positive that so many people care about EFDSS and its future.

And if any of you aren't members, then get in there and be so, 'cos even if it's difficult to change things from the inside, you sure as hell can't do it from the outside! And it seems to me that people like John Adams and Derek Schofield are proving just how much things can be changed. Many of us don't have the time, or maybe even the inclination, to do much, but our membership fees at least support those who do.

Barbara

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:29 PM

I lkie those last thoughts Greg.

Not sure if you mean "Trojan Horse" rather than "Wooden Horse" - the first got into Troy and the latter out of Germany.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: greg stephens
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:00 PM

Richard: I was meaning in the Trojan sense, not the Stalag-Luft bit. Hiding under an administrator's skirts while digging a tunnel to escape from a ceildh band seems an unlikely activity.

Subject: RE: EFDSS New Chief Exec.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:14 PM

Might be fun though...