Trig Brother Question 9: Government Grants To Musicians - How Would It Affect The Music Industry As We Know It?

New Zealand had such a program instituted, I think, for a while. I remember reading about it in some Chris Knox interview. As long as the government doesn't meddle with the work produced, I think it's kosher.

Doubtful that any acts I'd like would receive such grants, though. But that's because I'm a poncey pessimist.

Fine, as long as all CDs produced by these bands have a "Government- Funded" label on the cover.

Turbonegro's first tour was funded by Norway. What a great country! Unfortunately they failed to book any dates and spent the grant on male prostitutes and gambling. What a great band!

It'd suck! It wouldn't work, the amount of demand for grants would be unbelievable! Can you imagine if a state sponsored band got to number one? We'd have smug git Tony Blair on Top of the Pops with them, saying how this government supports young people and trying to dance or headbang or whatever.

Total dud, unless they pay me for singing in the shower.

I'm given to understand that this system was in place until the mid 90s when it got replaced with the Jobseeker's Allowance.

I must admit that I bought my guitar with my income support money when I was 18, so thanks Johnny M!

david: actually i'm pretty sure that the indie bands you like would be near the top of the list for receiving grants.

in canada you can already apply for grants to make videos, record indie stuff, etc. how has it affected the music industry? i suppose it, along with airplay quotas, has meant that we have a canadian music industry distinct from the american industry. sterling has noted elsewhere how horrible canadian indie is and this may be one cause. i'm not sure though that it's a lot worse than the guess who or the stampeders or neil young, which we had before the grants (rush and triumph were ace). i actually can't say for sure how it has affected the industry. i don't think it has allowed for the creation of a distinct canadian sound.

of course orchestras only exist because of public funding for the most part.

Lets face how much it would suck. Wanting to and being able to are not the same

new zealand still has it, there is a website somewhere where you can see where the money is going but i have forgotten the address. cloudboy got a load of money to tour the uk, but not the usa erm. they also made david kilgour the equivalent of a knight or something so i think i am supposed to put letters after his name now.

the soviet union had a huge artists state sponsorship but all of the vital art was produced independently. it is the same thing as censorship, either by funding it or banning it it is still the government deciding what is art.

Yes, exactly. The government should have nothing to do with it unless they are deciding how to decorate a new subway station.

Of course, if Tim was in charge, it would rule, not that Atomic Kitten need the money. That's how he got my vote.

Sucks for the Canadian music industry, where it happens all too often. I can imagine a good grant system, just not from any currently extant govt.

I'm surprised everyone is so conservative. It seems obvious to me that governments should fund cultural stuff, just like they should fund roads and charities and things that don't make money but are really important. It's just that where else is the money going to come from? Business exists principally for profit, but 'man does not live by bread alone.' There aren't any kings with whims and loads of money anymore, so it leaves ... the government. Do you guys think the audience should fund the artist? I don't think there has ever been a situation in history where audiences have been able to afford to fund stuff they couldn't understand straight off. That stuff is an efflorescence of civilisation (is that word spelt right?) I mean a flowering over the top of it - it's kind of superfluous in some ways - but at the same time it requires a lot of nutrition - its the sort of thing that can only occur in a situation of over-abundance, which not many individuals are likely to have. Which is where the govt or the prince comes in. I guess maybe you're saying 'but come on, Atomic Kitten!' You know what govts do that is IDOTIC? They don't think about, oh, we are funding the superfluous stuff, the stuff people can't understand straight away, and they try to fund stuff which has 'popular support' or that people already like, because they are a 'democratic govt' and thus they miss the whole point of what they are doing!! duh.

Back in the days when the Borgias were patrons of the arts there weren't 30 000 cds released each year catering to every kind of obscure taste imaginable. If you can't find a niche in today's market (after two or three years practice and some live slog) it means only one thing: you're shit.

As far as I know Atomic Kitten don't actually get any money from the government. Though their record co. probably gets all sorts of favours from Tony.

Govt. taste SUX! Witness the graphic design on DMV forms. Would you trust THAT man to pick yr. music? On the other hand, a system which would avoid the stupid money-grubbing flops the majors can stumble into and yet still truly attempt to give the ppl. what they wanted -- that would be GRATE.

Culture isn't a necessity for those who can't find it on their own, if you can live without it then you don't deserve it.