BS: Capitalism and the Arts

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Nov 99 - 04:17 PM

Fredrick of Prussia presents Mozart live!

Coca Cola presents Whitney Houston in concert!

Regardless of the quality of the product, there is always someone behind the scenes who is marketing it. Folk music and Blues may be the single exceptions, but it's my understanding that Woody,Pete,Hank,BB and John Lee were able to eek out fairly comfortable livings through this music. Whether the system is Capitalist or Socialist is not the most important factor- freedom of speech and thought are the essential factors.Essential,that is, to the creation of a mass media that reflects the art desired by the people. In a system where this will is repressed, the people's music will still out by word of mouth,fax or electronic mail. This was the case with the Irish Rebel songs.

Art has rarely been understood, appreciated, or purchased by the majority of the population. Mozart performed most of his pieces for the select few. However, he also knocked out quite a few Dance Hall numbers for the sweaty masses. Profit,I believe, was his motivation in both instances.

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: Frank Hamilton
Date: 22 Nov 99 - 04:46 PM

M. Ted, I think your point about art having become as disposable as last year's car is a good one. Many audiences are often fickle and appreciate only what they are told is good by critics, or by the popularity of the artist. It's a "consumer" attitude that is prevalent rather than a humanistic or value-oriented appreciative view that controls the art marketplace.

As to the subsidy of artists by corporations, Pete Seeger was never endorsed by any. Nor was Woody. Their songs were able to make it to the charts and financed them to a degree because of the licensing organizations for songwriters. Unfortunately, Woody was not able to enjoy the benefits of the song royalties because of his encroaching disease. Leadbelly, Josh White, Big Bill Broonzy and others like them were considered too radical to be subsidized by CocaCola or General Foods.

One exception to this seems to be the advent of The Old Town School of Folk Music who through the aegis of Director Jim Hirsch has gained corporate sponsorship. The jury is out on whether the School can adhere to it's original design, this way.

I agree that the artist has to please him/herself first before pleasing others whether the others are a state- controlled autocracy or a Capitalist financier. There will be those artists who don't fit and will not be terribly popular or even known well. There will be no bucks behind them as a result.

The solution is maybe to have more imput in the value of the art by the artist him/herself. Art collectives in various fields are a good idea, I believe. When Picasso was being interrogated by the Nazi's, he was able to salvage the paintings by Cezanne through convincing the Nazis that they were valueless. When artists care about each other, wonderful things can happen. As a collective voice they have more ablility to find funding for their work. In folk music, there are generous people like Pete Seeger who has supported the talents of many folk-type performers unselfishly. I believe the Folk Alliance may have this goal in mind but I'm wondering if they haven't gone the way of the music business machinery rather than support for traditional folk music artists?

I've gone on too long. Sorry about that.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 22 Nov 99 - 06:46 PM

I am skeptical about corporate sponsorship--for one thing, it tends to go for artists that satisfy the image requirements of the promotions department of the corporation that fronts the money--

There was an interesting promotion connected with the Kool Jazz Festivals that tells the story--the slogan was. "There's only one way to play it, Kool"

Of course, the whole point of jazz is that every artist has his or her own way of playing--but as far as the cigarette company was concerned, they paid the money, and they were going to decide how it was going to be--

The problem with this arrangement is that the decisions area made by people who have no real concern about music--they could just as easily dump the whole thing and go for a "Free travel coupons" promotion--

They want to be able to buy something that is a promotional package, use it for thirteen weeks, and move on to the Fall promotion--

Another thing about commercial sponsorships, they want the entertainment to appeal to their middle American target market--forget anything avant-garde, and especially anything traditional--

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 22 Nov 99 - 07:39 PM

This Corporate Sponsorship issue touches many professions looking for funding.
If you want their money, you will have to follow their guidelines.
For some this would be selling their soul
For others, principally they would never put themselves in a compromising situation.
For others, when it comes to exposure, promotion & cash, they are willing to do anything. Very sadly, there are others who take the funding not realizing what they are getting themselves into only to regret it later.

Banjo Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 22 Nov 99 - 07:42 PM

OOOPs
I meant their are some who don't mind being in a compromising situation

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 99 - 09:16 PM

The roots of the musical traditions that we love is in people making music for its own sake, and getting the odd gig at weddings and community celebrations. And it's still that way for most of us.

So what we need to do is to support each other, by swapping our skills and knowledge, in operations like "LETS" schemes. (You know, you get a credit for mowing a lawn, someone else gets a credit for singig a song or mending a hoover and so forth. ) And have lots of celebrations where you hire the local musicians instead of getting some band of srtrangers for weddings and such like.

The best we can hope for on a consistant basis from outside the "folk community" is to have some useful facilities laid on free or subsidised, in the way public libraries are, including archives and collections etc. That should include some recording facilities, and some maintained venues. And some travelling bursaries woukld be handy as well. and the right place to get that is from local government, and from voluntary community like churches of various sorts.

Outside of that there a music business, some of it growing out of the folk scene, and that can look for sponsorship from firms and trusts and that to underpin festivals - but that's really a separate operation.In one way it's much stronger and wealthier - but in another it's much more vulnerable to changes in fashion.

Whereas, so long as anyone wants to play or sing for it's own sake, there no way it can die out. And if it did, it'd be born again, and there'd be young people pestering any of us still alive at 90 years old. Making up songs and kidding them they were traditional. The same way old folk have always done. (The trick being that when you make up a song and let on it's traditional, sooner or later you find out it was anyway....

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: Vixen
Date: 23 Nov 99 - 08:41 AM

Again, more really interesting stuff....can anybody tell me how the musician's union would match up to a "musician's collective"? As the collective is described, it seems much more community-based than a labor-union. But the collective seems like a very interesting way to go, and fairly easy to set up if one can get the musicians interested. HMMMM. Any thoughts?

V

Subject: RE: BS: Capitalism and the Arts
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 23 Nov 99 - 01:39 PM

Years ago, in East Lansing, we started a Musician Guild, on a similar principal to a collective, and it wasn't all that easy--the musicians were all excited about it, and we arranged concerts, auditions, etc--however, over time, the people who put the most time in found that they were doing more for the benefit of other people than for themselves, the meetings deteriorated in to gripe sessions and complaints about people who did the work, and, after a few well intended but unsuccessful efforts ( a big concert campus concert got snowed out, a community cable project died a borning) one day, nobody showed for the meeting, and that was it--

The reason that the music business is run by promoters of one sort or another, and not musicians, is that playing, writing, rehearsing, and practicing over the long term fill up the schedule--You can straddle the fence for a while, but sooner or later, you have to choose between being an evil, greedy, sweaty palmed, cigar chomping, lying, thieving promoter and a talented, gifted, misunderstood, exploited, underappreciated, and perpetually underbooked and underpaid performer--