Re: funding in canada & cultural globalization

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

hey david,

[readers: please see david's post below]

These are all good points and I don't really have much to disagree with here
save for the fact that FACTOR and the CCA have time and time again -- and on
the record -- shown a complete disdain for forms of electronic music that
verge on the "popular." This was evident last year at Mutek and in several
conversations I have had with them in various capacities, mainly through
campus & community radio in Canada and via the CBC. And I think this is a
vicious circle; as you mention, the most experimental of your grants was
accepted. What message does this send to us, as electronic musicians? That
art "good enough" for the CCA *must* be experimental, i.e., unpopular. To
say that it leaves electronic musicians in a lurch or an in-between place is
an understatement; it *dictates* a mandate of art-production. Remember that
FACTOR is set-up to primarily give *loans* to *bands*, who need the start-up
cash to book a studio and promote an album. The whole framework of
electronic production is completely exterior to these mandates and is thus
ineligible for almost all FACTOR monies save for a massive grant to launch a
label.

Moreover, I think the time has come to start *demanding* recognition from
both agencies. If you talk to Richie Hawtin, despite the fact that CIRPA
utilises Richie's name to promote Cdn music all the time, they've barely
done a thing for him, nor do they understand his work. And it's been about
15 years here of solid lobbying. S1E/AeMusic, who contracted the Canadian
Electronic Music Directory, have run into a solid brick wall in terms of
advancing these issues. I think the only reason we are not seeing
recognition now--and the same problematic goes for the CRTC, as I sat
through several NCRA (National Campus & Community Radio Association .. of
Canada) squabbles on attempting to get turntablism, radio.art and collage
accepted as Canadian Content (CanCon)--is because of a defensive reaction by
these powerful agencies against the underlying disintegration of the
high.art/low.art paradigm that underpins the very structure of not only
FACTOR and the CCA, but the welfare/nation-state. Once you also know the
internal politics of FACTOR, you also realise that it is practically run as
a personal record label.

There's a book coming out about all this by Will Straw and Richard
Sutherland at McGill which should outline all the details here...

As you noted, networking is an increasing movement of our generation; I
think this is because the nation-state is failing to provide the supportive
structures, be it through a social-democratic system in Canada or unbridled,
corporate capitalism in the US that are necessary for the cultural industry
to survive. This goes hand-in-hand with a branching out beyond the borders
of the nation-state through teletechnologies. This is not surprising--it is
my belief that the nation-state is failing and that we are entering an era
of extended globalization on the one hand--the positive effects of
net.working--and imperalism on the other [all the negatives].

Where does this leave us?

Playing a tactical game at both ends: pushing for, on the one hand,
recognition with funding bodies which, imo, are operating an outdated and
arcane mandate based upon certain presuppositions of art that need to be
dismantled, and, on the other hand, forming our own global networks,
networks which are in the process of forming an alternative economy of the
creative arts to that of imperialist entertainment [Hollywood, Clear
Channel, etc] -- although only one part of the pie, so to speak, a worthy
one ..

best, tobias

p.s. I've re-posted this to microsound as I think this is actually quite
fascinating, following the level of net.working that took place at this
year's Mutek. If it's anywhere for this discussion, it's here ..

> tobias,
> 
> (originally meant to post this to microsound, but it's pretty OT...)
> 
>> I won't go beyond this, as it was a private yet enlightening conversation,
>> but certainly one can find, even in the official calls for works from the
>> Canada Council for the Arts, and so on, a coda that specifies certain
>> parameters of "composed" music, and which often draw a distinction
>> specifiying "high-art" as non-beat, non-body-movement oriented, and "low
>> art" (as in ineligible for funding) as beat-oriented. [...]
>> What is worse is that while FACTOR in Canada understands
>> the way bands operate, they have had a hard time understanding the
>> intralinked, globalized structure of electronic music, its methods of
>> recording [they are always surprised when electronic musicians don't need a
>> grant for studio recording-time], distribution, playback, etc..
> 
> it seems to me, from speaking to a few people, that this is a common
> problem with funding in canada.  the basic issue is that there is a gap
> between what the CCA can offer & what FACTOR can offer.
> 
> what i do know is that 'music with beat' is just as eligible as anything
> else to a CCA grant, but it has to make sense as some sort of avant-garde
> or contemporary composition.  david kristian's _room tone_ (which is pretty
> 4/4 at times, if very murkily so), for example, has been awarded a CCA grant.
> 
> the CCA's jurys seem to me actually rather open.  but of course, i would
> imagine that they're a generation older than most of us & do not
> necessarily grasp the naive inventive energy of much of today's new
> music.  i understand that they will more likely give a grant to a more
> typically 'non-popular' composition (i.e. without beat & melody) which is
> basically a risk investment for a label.  as a matter of fact, a few months
> ago no type has sent out 3 grants applications to the CCA (for future
> canadian artists releases) & only one was accepted: interestingly enough,
> the least accessible of the three.
> 
> CCA's mandate (as i see it!) is to fund a certain kind of musics which
> probably wouldn't exist without the money: classical music because it costs
> SO DAMN MUCH to produce, & experimental musics in general because they're
> risk investments.  they aren't there to fund what we usually call 'popular'
> musics.  & dance music does draw a lot of people.  it's popular.  & this is
> what FACTOR exists for.  now, FACTOR (who, i must say, i'm not very
> familiar with) might not be very well suited to serve electronic music
> NOW.  but, to relay the wisdom of some people i've discussed with, who have
> years of experience with such organisms, this only means that we have to
> hit back every year until they get their act together.  this is how
> electroacoustic music came to be recognised & funded, less than 10 years
> ago.  (we tend to think so-called 'academic' electronic music has always
> been privileged, but really, people have fought to get this kind of music
> to be recognised AT ALL...)
> 
> so there's a gap between purely 'unpopular' (come on, let's hear it:
> 'elitist', i don't care) musics & 'popular' musics which begs to be
> filled.  most interesting musics made nowadays fall into that gap.  the
> question now for a canadian composer/musician looking for a grant is: which
> side to go?  perhaps the best bet is to send your application to both
> places (both of which are, as you might guess, underfunded to begin with)
> until someone somewhere gets the message...
> 
>> As for the CMC, they have been very supportive, I think, and the free CDs at
>> Mutek and the ad in the Mutek programme speak to this. However, there is
>> still much work to be done in breaking down the vertical structures of art
>> that operate in these institutions, the CMC included. A major tenet of this
>> coda is that of the "composition" in New Music.
> 
> i directed a question to the CMC in regards to their support of
> non-conventional contemporary musics in general (including improv, new
> electronica, etc.) at the symposium for new canadian music earlier this
> year, & their answer was unequivocally positive.  but there is only so much
> they can do.  if we want them to think of new music in terms other than the
> good ol' "composition" paradigm, then we'll have to step up, join these
> instances & do the work ourselves.  although a tempting alternative,
> inventing a separate instance 'just for us' will, in the end, probably only
> lead to a similar problem as outlined above between the CCA & FACTOR, i.e.
> bipolar structure, no way to be 'in the middle', etc.
> 
> there's a trend of 'networking' going on--let's hope it won't turn into a
> trend of 'dividing.'
> 
> now, i realise your original concern was about the division between 'low
> art' & 'high art' & its potential hidden underpinnings...  i don't know if
> it's really so useful to make a big deal out of it.  to me these are two
> sides of the same coin, which is the marketability of music.  if all music
> were free & musicians had an automatic welfare whatever the kind of work
> they'd be doing, there would be no such division.
> 
> have a nice day
> ~ david
> 

tobias c. van Veen -----------
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org
http://www.thisistheonlyart.com
------------- tobias@xxxxxxxxxxx
---McGill Communications------
ICQ: 18766209 | AOL: thesaibot

------------------------------