To patronise. A discussion.

Subject: To patronise. A discussion.
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:03 AM

Today, to patronise someone means to talk down or belittle him or her but it was not always used in that context. For it was the process whereby a wealthy individual or organisation patronised 'the arts' but more specifically, patronised the artist.

This system worked for many years and many wonderful works of art were produced under it but could those works produced, been even more wonderful under a different system?.

Was this a good system and is it now completely a thing of the past or are we still seeing it, under the guise of sponsorship?

Are there any examples of worthy folk or blues music been produced under patronage?

I ask this as Coca Cola is currently sponsoring me to write a NEW thirty verse 'folk song', (complete with cross-dressing and tokens) to be used as their new jingle. I do jest (but that is a real song challenge for someone).

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Lady McMoo
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:19 AM

Indeed, the very large bulk of Turlough O'Carolan's compositions were produced under the patronage system and I do not think we would have the pleasure of playing them today had it not been for that system.

I can't offhand think of anything quite similar today but others much more knowledgeable than myself will surely chip in!

All the best

mcmoo

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Lady McMoo
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:21 AM

Hell's teeth! What happened there!

mcmoo

Duplicate messages deleted. Not to worry, mcmoo.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: The_one_and_only_Dai
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:27 AM

WARNING! Anecdote alert.

A few months ago I heard Martin Carthy give an interesting provenance for The Devil and the Feathery Wife, in that it is to be found in a collection of Folk Songs sponsored by the Duke of Atholl (obviously some years ago). However, it appears that the chap who was sent out by the good duke to collect said material wasn't above staying at home and writing them himself instead...

So, this is apparently just such a thingy liek what you were talking about/

Also, remember Charles II described the new St. Paul's as 'Pompous and Awful', and he was being complimentary...

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Blackcat2
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:55 AM

Greetings all

One of the great things about the patronage system of old, is that the music was more likely to be saved and passed down through history, because oft times it was more than just oral. The patron wanted "hard copy" of the music - many times because the original composer wasn't the only person who would perform the piece(s).

It would be neat to see if this system could be revived. (not just corporate sponsorship, but with actual individuals. I can see it now www.patronsearch.com where artists (visual as well as audible) can go to match their styles/subjects with interested patrons. There could be a "Patronizing Game" - like the Dating Game on TV, "Patron Personals" in the classifieds (i.e. "Patron looking for music writer - folk/Celtic style, humorous but not bawdy/ to write song on the foibles of love between teens in County Cork. Fee - negotiable.")

Sounds like a plan to me. It could be an off-shoot of the Mudcat. (Not that I'm in any way asking Max to do more work).

pax yall

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 11:58 AM

Many of the old time Blues musicians said that they were often paid a sum of money by store keepers to sit in the back of the store on Market day and play, and that they were sums of money by lumber companies to come out to the lumber camps and play--to me, this seems comparable to a prince or merchant paying a composer to create a piece to perform in the chamber--

As I think of it, most of America's large landholders gentry tended to be European aristocracy who discreetly dropped the titles when they moved to the Ol' Plantation, so it isn't inconceivable that patronage from the same families supported Mozart and Robert Johnson--

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 12:06 PM

I think that the patronage system is already in place. Only the big corporations are promoting popular cultural events and symphony orchestras. Folk music is a low priority.

Frank

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 12:08 PM

A number of Woody Guthrie's fine pieces came out of his time subsidized by the WPA Writer's Project. I know there are more, but what comes to mind is (are) Roll On, Columbia Roll On, and the talking blues (whose name I disremember) that starts out, "Down along the river, a-sittin' on the rocks, lookin' at the boats in the Bonndeville locks. Open the gate, the boat sails in; toot yer whistle, she's gone agin! Gasoline a-goin' up; wheat a'comin' down!"

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 12:22 PM

I beleive that the Smithsonian (American Museum) is doing some patronage with their "Historic Treasures" (I think that is what it is called, might be "National Treasures" or some such) program. These are people in any country who are skilled in any sort of "folk" process......art, music,et.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 01:31 PM

Charlie Maguire of Minneapolis has been hired to write songs on historical and geographical topics for various aspectss of the Minnesota picture. Woody too, on the Col. River for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Art

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Blackcat2
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 01:35 PM

Not that the programs are financially healthy but wat about he National Endowment for the Arts & National Endowment for the Humanities? I wonder what kind of grants folk music writers get/can get?

pax yall

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: GeorgeH
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 01:57 PM

In this context it's worth pointing out that Folkworks, the leading Folk Development Agency in the UK, is a major partner in a new performing arts centre for Gateshead (jut across the river from Newcastle, for non-UK persons!), and that the scheme has fairly recently been awarded funding of 43.8 million gbp . . . For outline info. see:

http://www.arts.org.uk/directory/regions/northern/what_new/19991115.html

and don't blame me for that page being so bland and uninteresting; the project itself certainly isn't.

(It amazes me that the Arts Council of England's web site is so poorly designed - technically and artisticly - and poorly maintained; I did a site search for info on this project and every link the search turned up was broken . . )

G.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 02:04 PM

When I was promoting my brother's classical music in New England, I was able to raise about $6,000 from individual "patrons", who considered themselves as such, for a concert and tape production. Our slogan for one ad for that was "Composers don't have to be dead to be good"©.

When I worked for the dir. of development, of an arts center in Rhode Island, we routinely had "patrons" donate healthy sums to bring folk to the center & out to the schools.

My experience with the NEA is that it is very difficult for an individual to get any kind of grant from them. maybe it has changed.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 02:33 PM

I am fond of all types of music (something of an irritation to many of my friends), but my most particular fondness is for the music that gets lumped into the folk category--people seem to warm up more to things like traditional ballads, or blues, or Irish songs, or Russian songs or some Rumanian or Klezmer dances--and when a person comes on stage with a banjo, or a fiddle, it can warm up even a cold audience--

The odd thing is that sponsorships and funding seem to like to hand money over things like jazz festival or "new music" projects, even though the reception for these things often cool-and the audiences are limited--I sort of get the feeling that they like the way they like the image that these things project in promotional literature--

Anyway, we have had discussions about how to bring more attention to "folk music", the question of how to get more support ought to be an extension of that--

I had a chance yesterday to get my uke out and play for Grandpa Marotta (who was an avid player for more that 70 years) and the folks at the nursing home--It reminded me of how important it is to keep the tradition of singing and playing alive--

I think patronage is important, and I think it is about time to begin thinking about ways to expand and encourge patronage--

I am really busy this week, but I will take some time to send messages out to a few friends who are involved on the giving end, with foundations and corporate sponsors, to find out why they aren't doing anything--

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: sophocleese
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 03:10 PM

Well okay. I'll give it a shot. Any corporations want to sponsor me? Here's what I can do.

Fast Leezie Lindsay

Will ye gang tae the burgers Fast Leezie? Will ye gang tae the burgers wi' me? Will ye gang tae the burgers Fast Leezie? My pride and cashier for tae be?

Will I gang tae the burgers wi' you sir? Such a thing it never could be For I know not the name you have taken Or why you grin so wi-de-ly.

Oh Leezie your mind it is mista'en If it sees but a poor fool in me For my name it is Ronald MacDonald A vendor of great quantity.

She has traded her clothes from The GAP For shirts striped like bright candy And she's gone with Clown Ronald MacDonald His pride and cashier for tae be.

Is it fries that ye want with that order? Is this for tae stay or tae go? Did ye want a drink with that Big Mac? Fast Leezie's become quite the pro.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: sophocleese
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 03:16 PM

Wasn't it the Eagles who a few years ago had a tour where they didn't have corporate sponsors? The tickets were a lot more expensive but they didn't have to have beer and cigarettes associated with their music either.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: GUEST,Les B
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 04:26 PM

I suspect the reason corporations sponsor symphony concerts, jazz, and "new" music is they perceive those genres as "ART" ! Folk music is not an "emerging" art like "new" music, isn't "classical" like symphony music, and doesn't have the "intellectual" and/or politically correct "race" dimensions of jazz. Folk is just folk, too common, too grassroots to be considered worthy. Tis a pity.

The National Endowment for the Arts is a hard nut to crack because espisodes like "piss Christ" ticked off the conservative congressmen and they severely cut the agency's budget. (I work for an Arts org. who once got big bucks from them, now zilch) The guidelines for the National Endowment for the Humanities (as they were explained to me several yeara ago) generally require you to "talk" (or write) about an issue. So they might fund an educational lecture about a certain ballad, or ballad collection, but would not support a straight out concert of those ballads.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Callie
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 04:48 PM

I can understand that a govt arts policy would favour the creation of new music as opposed to trad stuff. How else would new music (esp experimental) be written? Folk events (BECAUSE they're grass roots) seem to often be well attended and not needing the funds that, say, an electronic kazoo ensemble (eek!) would.

Having said that, of course I would like to see more opportunities for folk musos.

I guess we're lucky here in the Land of Oz. Our major folk festivals DO receive govt support, and even small festivals are likely to get local council help. Our govt also gives grants for recordings of folk music, and this definition of 'folk' embraces Indigenous and the cultures of people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Unions have been a reasonable source of patronage of late, but it's only in smatterings.

Pubs who shout a round of whiskeys at the end of a session are the best sorts or patrons!!

Callie

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: GUEST,Seamus Kennedy
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 04:51 PM

Could it be argued that any establishment which pays musicians to perform therein is practising patronage? If a performer writes a new piece (not necessarily in praise of said establishment) while in its employ, is he accepting the patronage? If the answer to one or both of these questions is "Yes", then I'm in the same company as Turlough O' Carolan, Bach, Mozart and a few others. YES!!

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Llanfair
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 05:33 PM

I tend to place patronage in the same category as charity, which was when rich and powerful people were enabled to feel good by giving to the poor and needy.
The trouble is that the "poor", or the artisans in the case of patronage, were not valued as people, but a route to further glorification of the rich. Charity is OK for dogs homes and poorly donkeys, but it degrades people.
Hwyl, Bron.

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 05:57 PM

That was the year of the baseball strike, and , if I remember correctly, the Eagles tour produced more revenue than all of the cancelled games in both leagues would have produced, had they been played--

There are definitely trade-offs that performers make when they allow sponsorships--Performers who don't have the kind of clout that the Eagles did get completely overshadowed by sponsors, for instance, Jazz artists and the non-profit and community organizations that put on Jazz festivals often find themselves squeezed out of the picture by sponsors, such as Kool cigarettes, who spend millions on their own publicity for the events and overwhelm the concert sites with banners,ads, and perhaps worst, free product--

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Crowhugger
Date: 14 Feb 00 - 06:58 PM

Somewhere in smalltown Ontario can be found Ian Bell, songwriter. The local museum, perhaps inadvertently - I don't know, pays his bills while he does curator stuff which is where he's found inspiration for some of his most charming songs. I don't know if it's his only genre, but he puts into song what many of us do when we see something old - imagine where it's been, if it's a chair, who sat on it and stuff like that.

Aine, maybe there's a song challenge here, eh?

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Ana
Date: 15 Feb 00 - 02:28 AM

I understand that Ireland has given "artists' tax exemptions. Can someone tell me more about that? The concept of Govt. being such a patron is exciting.Ana

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Feb 00 - 04:38 AM

The Japanese have people (artists, great craftsmen) designated as National Treasures. Does anyone know more about this designation and what it entails?

Subject: RE: To patronise. A discussion.
From: Willie-O
Date: 15 Feb 00 - 09:21 AM

Well, let's face it, folk music, when thought of at all by mainstream culture-meisters, is perceived as a left-wing art form. This is probably more true at times like this when it's not, generally, on a huge wave of popularity. We are, or try to be, a pain in the ass to corporate culture, why would they support us when they can put their charitable-culture dollars into art forms that don't talk back to them?

Nevertheless, some do, which raises the interesting question of, does this lead artistic directors or artists to practice self-censorship (or are they advised to avoid certain "controversial" performers or issues by the sponsors?)

Willie-O