Re: [microsound] Re: funding in canada & cultural globalization

[Ned Bouhalassa <ned@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tobias,

In the quote you posted, the part that strikes me as the most revealing is 
  the following:
"... this is new territory for the Canada Council and we are educating 
ourselves..."

So yeah, these kinds of institutions (like those of higher learning, for 
eg.l) are very slow to react to change, but they do react... eventually. As 
for what kind of electronic music should be funded by the CC - I think 
that's hard to say. The pie is not that big, and the large slices are given 
to the orchestras, operas, etc. Like it or not, that's the way it is (if 
you really don't like it and want to make a change, allow me to suggest you 
write to your M.P.). And so, electronic music now has to share a small 
triangle with contemporary and electroacoustic music.  In 
contemporary/electroacoustic music, there's already a rolodex/database full 
of names of peers, respected/crusty old farts (it's all relative to your 
POV), who can get together and decide which of the top 5 % of submissions 
will get the money. Where is the electronic music equivalent of this pool 
from which the CAC can fish out a representative every music jury? I'm not 
saying it's not possible to put together a dozen or more Canadian 
electronica peers for them, perhaps just that it hasn't been done yet.

As for who should get funded? On the one hand, you've got 
contemporary/electroacoustic composers. Many of them make between 30-70K a 
year teaching. Their music makes almost no money back whatsoever (oh, maybe 
75 bucks for being at the concert). How often will one of them get CAC 
funding? Once every 3 years? I don't have the figures, but suffice to say 
that I have met many local and national composers, and only a handful get 
regular funding. Why do _they_ get funded? I don't have a CAC handbook or 
anything on me, but it must have something to do with 
the-Nation-supporting-experimental-artists-who-wouldn't-do-their-art-otherwise 
idea. Many electronica artists, it turns out, also have day jobs. They work 
as programmers, music software tech supports, run record shops, even write 
commercial music. They might even make between 30-70K a year. Their music 
can make money back, but only if it's commercial (plays on mainstream 
radio, used in an ad/soundtrack, is a dance-floor classic). If they are 
closer to glitch than pitch (just a joke, put the label-blaster gun away!), 
chances are they are in the same boat as the comtemporary/electroacoustic 
artist (very limited record sales), and should be treated equally.

Don't forget Tobias, that although we on this list can easily tell the 
difference between Janek and Pierre Schaeffer (actually harder with one's 
eyes closed), or Plastikman and Richie Hawtin (trick question - until the 
new album), most people/artists/musicians/many CAC people think all techno 
artists look and act like that eurotrash DJ. G character from Madonna's 
Music. And you wonder why you can't get no respect! ;-)

BTW, I'm not out to defend the CAC or anything (more than it needs, 
anyhow). I just know that they're headed in a better direction, because 
some people there (like agents) are around Mutek, Elektra,  and other 
events (in Toronto? Vancouver?) - they're taking it in, asking questions. I 
_imagine_ there's a lot of pressure to keep things the way they've been, to 
keep 'new clients' out. But time is against those who resist new genres, 
new ways of making art.

Ned

http://www.nedfx.com

       Ned Bouhalassa

n e d @ n e d f x . c o m

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