Grimes/Claire Boucher thread

the unfairness of an established artist with access to vast financial resources (and space flight) getting grants because she has a record company with enough staff to apply for them

isn’t this kinda sexist, tho? “access” to resources, hmm

I thought the revive was about i_o passing away today. Anyhoo:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CH_b5S2glBL/?igshid=1nfwpsvhh7sgu

Some Canadian record labels kinda operate as FACTOR grant application mills. They won't sign you if you don't qualify. They acquire your grant for you and stick their name on it for a mgmt fee. The rest is up to you.

I’m sure she’ll continue to find ways to disappoint me to the point of hating her and vowing to never listen to any of her music ever again, but I honestly don’t think she was even aware of said subsidy.

I agree that given the meritocratic pedigree of the Musk family that it is unconscionable that either party would be on the receiving end of government arts funding, such a borderline socialist act smacks dangerously of altruism

https://factorportalprod.blob.core.windows.net/portal/Documents/Annual_Reports/FACTOR_Annual_Report_2019-2020.pdf

Here's the full FACTOR report. Grimes's stipend accounts for .36% of the overall budget

Don't get me wrong

I don't think Grimes's admin bodies should be applying for Canadian arts grants

But these sort of institutions and their budgets are completely dwarfed by, say, "the amount of money the federal government uses to stimulate the, say, softwood lumber economy", and so I always get frustrated by people clay-pigeoning certain recipients of broader industry stimulations as a method to criticize the entire mechanism as a whole

If you wanna load up the guns, let's talk about Starmaker (and even then I think Starmaker is a good thing)

The writer of that article also identifies himself as being “firmly” in the camp of “those who think (government’s) job is to stick to the basics” – so I suspect there may be a bit of concern-trolling going on.

I mean Musk took 4.9 Billion in government subsidies. If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

The writer of that article also identifies himself as being “firmly” in the camp of “those who think (government’s) job is to stick to the basics” – so I suspect there may be a bit of concern-trolling going on.

National Post gonna National Post.

The writer of that article also identifies himself as being “firmly” in the camp of “those who think (government’s) job is to stick to the basics” – so I suspect there may be a bit of concern-trolling going on.

The National Post is very right-wing, approximately a Canadian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal, maybe? His 'concern' for up-and-coming artists is quite likely disingenuous. Some subsidies have been put forth to assist with the issues he refers to, which I note he doesn't praise here, e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/music/new-program-will-pay-canadian-musicians-for-live-stream-concerts-on-facebook-and-instagram-1.5569422

xp!

And the Liberal govt, of whom Gurney is not a fan, has roughly doubled funding for the Canada Council, which funds music by lesser-known, less commercially oriented artists: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/arts-federal-budget-canada-council-heritage-1.3501480

Is that fund going to be spent in Canada?

Acc to this (blog by Alan Cross, who seems credible), it seems like yes: https://www.ajournalofmusicalthings.com/grimes-whos-married-to-one-of-the-richest-men-in-the-world-finds-herself-in-artist-funding-controversy-lets-sort-this-out/. It's a Montreal-based label and the money may not even go to Grimes's recordings - he questions whether she is even an owner of the label.

I did a little Googling of my own last night, and also couldn't find any indication of how Grimes may actually be connected to the label (I couldn't even find its corporation record, tbh).

But these sort of institutions and their budgets are completely dwarfed by, say, "the amount of money the federal government uses to stimulate the, say, softwood lumber economy", and so I always get frustrated by people clay-pigeoning certain recipients of broader industry stimulations as a method to criticize the entire mechanism as a whole

As a grateful recipient of Canadian art grants, I think I am in a safe position to criticize structural problems within the institutions, my intentions are to better the institutions. Giving a life changing amount of money to someone who does not need it, when so many artists are struggling to pay rent might be symptomatic of a broken mechanism, this is one story that gets headline because Grimes is huge, but it's something you see through and through, that has been debated for years now, and Grimes being the partner of the second richest person in the world should be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

all that is great and everything, but claire -who is the mother of the child of the second richest person in our current civilization- needless to say, probably didn't need that money.
especially during this year which has seen socioeconomic changes that will take generations to recover from in some places. at least donate it or something for crying out loud.

it just seems a tad tone deaf, but i reckon she could have titled her most recent album just that and would still have plenty of people at the ready to defend her. it's like amanda palmer leveled up at this point, honestly.

xp Are there struggling artists who are being turned down for grants because the fund is depleted?

Austin, it's still not clear that Grimes had anything to do with the application.

It is not even clear that the money is going to her.

In general principle, though, what would you guys suggest? Would you support a means test for arts grants?xp

xp Are there struggling artists who are being turned down for grants because the fund is depleted?

Yes. It's a fixed budget, they only give out so much per year (twice a year). (Prior to the pandemic, might be different because of the emergency nature of everything).

Now for the music industry and that specific grant I do not know if it's different.

Would you support a means test for arts grants?xp

― actually-very-convincing (Sund4r), Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:08 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Something like that, the same way private high schools shouldn't receive govt funding, artists who have a clear access to funds and/or to a sustainable market shouldn't receive funds.

FACTOR is explicitly meant to promote a commercial music industry in Canada. It seems like it might be more analogous to other industrial subsidies (for things ranging from lumber or dairy to video games and engineering firms) than to something like the Canada Council: https://www.factor.ca/about-the-foundation/what-we-fund/
xp

artists who have a clear access to funds

This was in the article, too - I still find it to be a weird thing to say. Without knowing how Musk & Grimes arrange their finances, it's defining a woman by her husband (and his wealth).

Independently of Musk, Grimes is doing very well as an artist, and doesn't even reside in Canada anymore.

I checked the historical list of FACTOR recipients; fwiw, Grimes has been on there several times in the past (2015 & 2016). There are many other entries for Crystal Math over the years, with different artists listed.

If Grimes is a part owner of Crystal Meth and received funds as a part-owner of Crystal Meth then I have no problems with this at all.

it's defining a woman by her husband (and his wealth)

Are they even married?

The money is going to the label, not Grimes, in something called a Comprehensive Music Company grant. Crystal Math Music will use it to release records by Canadian artists on their roster. Those acts include Emily Haines, Half Moon Run, and Metric.

Will any of that money go to any Grimes records? Possibly, but it wouldn’t be a smart business move. That money would be better used to nurture those other acts currently on the label and prospective signings. Besides, Elon is a music nut himself. Think they don’t have a state-of-the-art recording studio at their place in Pasadena?

I'm curious why exactly the company is allowed to leverage Grimes's name for a grand application if the money most likely isn't supporting her.

*grant, sorry

Are they even married?

Looks like maybe they’re not! Makes my point even stronger.

Hm, I'm not sure Cross was totally right. Looking over the list of recipients here, there are some grants that went just to Crystal Math but also a $20K grant that went to Crystal Math to finance a Grimes video and a $90K "comprehensive music company" for Crystal Math that also lists Grimes as "artist" - so maybe the funds are going to promote her?

I'm not a fan of her music at all but I don't really get the "already very successful" issue in her case: she hasn't had a top 40 hit or gold album afaict. It's not really the same as if they were giving out grants for Bryan Adams and Drake to make videos.

here = https://www.factor.ca/factorfunded/recipients/

I’ll define Grimes by her ability to have world tours, music videos, delayed album releases, an incredible network within the music industry, a very large set of fans and by the fact that she probably doesn’t even contribute to canadian taxes. All in constrast to some First Nations artists who can wait up to 5 years to receive less than 90 000$ to make a second record. In a hypothetical world where Musk and Grimes doesn’t meet, it would seem grotesque to most Canadian artists. Now, let me be rather certain that being the life partner to the second wealthiest man on earth does have an impact on her financial situation.

Heck, she is zero to blame here and she isn’t the source of the problem and yet people feel the need to defend at every turn as if she’s some sort of perpetual victim.

Wolf Parade do those things, they’ve received grants four times.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of Grimes. I do think a Canadian music industry is worth supporting at multiple levels but the issues of equity and nepotism do concern me so the story interests me - and so far, I'm not sure this story is evidence of a systemic problem. It sounds like you would want to revamp FACTOR and the granting system altogether to make it focused on promoting those who are actually in need, which is a valid position but is, I think, more extreme than mine.

xp

But if people are being defensive about Grimes, it's probably bc MtlBlog and National Post are making this explicitly about Grimes herself and her partner.

It was late last night and I posted the wrong link

https://factorportalprod.blob.core.windows.net/portal/Documents/FACTOR_Recipients_List.pdf

Here it is

A complete list of all the recipients of FACTOR funding 2019-2020. You will scroll, and scroll, and scroll, and scroll some more-- 2k CAD seems to be the base minimum for a grant. You will see very few artists you recognize; as somebody who is "in the loop", even I see very few artists I recognize, although the few that I see constitute pretty-much EVERYBODY I know who lives in Canada and works as a musician.

My conclusion is: FACTOR ~is~ funding those who deserve funding-- both those who we know create worthy work, and those who we don't know (and need the assistance). Speaking personally, too: when you get a video grant, that money goes to the video artist. When you get a publicity grant, that money goes to the publicist. "Is FACTOR saving you money?" kind of? but not actually? it's paying for things that I (personally) would not be able to afford without funding.

I myself am NOT defensive of Grimes. If she is, or organizations she's affiliated with are, going to apply for arts funding, it would be helpful/wise to be accountable by publicly acknowledging this application, and stating what the intention is for any funds received.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to what Niko has to write about all of this

Hey friends, I found a home for my voice on the Grimes thing. Thanks for everyone having my back on that, I really, really appreciate it.

— Niko Stratis (@nikostratis) November 25, 2020

But if people are being defensive about Grimes, it's probably bc MtlBlog and National Post are making this explicitly about Grimes herself and her partner.

Never read either of these two publications imo!

Like, FACTOR, a federal $25m granting system has been going for years, and is so well-funded, because it's been found to work; subsidizing a music industry is good for other industries, as well.

And as I mentioned yesterday-- there are other granting institutions (specifically Starmaker) that DO give money to the money-est of the monied, to Celine, to Shania, to Bryan, to Drake, to Bieber. (Note: I do not know if Starmaker actually grants money to the aforementioned artists, but they are certainly eligible.) To be eligible, you have to meet a certain (very high) sales/streaming requirement. I am much more interested in this being investigated, personally-- although I intuit that it's still a highly positive thing, as this is not about "helping out needy artists", this is about stimulating an industry

It's worth noting maybe that on the Spotify thread, a few weeks back, when I was catching hands for saying "Spotify is a wonderful product and an excellent way for music to be transmitted"-- because it is-- even if the pay-out is crap and broken and Daniel Ek should be killed, smoked, and eaten-- that one of the primary solutions I felt would solve the problem is "more government funding for musicians". We can (and should) eat Daniel Ek, but it won't change the fact that recorded music and its usage has irreversibly been devalued, and if it's going to continue being created, it's going to require some other method of sustaining it. Considering how the music industry has (compared to other industries) such a low operating cost, it makes sense (to me) that creating a system where it subsists on government funding is a no-brainer

Like I said, I'm not a fan of Grimes. I do think a Canadian music industry is worth supporting at multiple levels but the issues of equity and nepotism do concern me so the story interests me - and so far, I'm not sure this story is evidence of a systemic problem. It sounds like you would want to revamp FACTOR and the granting system altogether to make it focused on promoting those who are actually in need, which is a valid position but is, I think, more extreme than mine.

Funding labels with their costs for promotions and other expenses that do not have tangible financial gains is a good thing, and of course it will somehow end up helping the likes of Emily Haines or Tegan and Sara, and if Grimes is a part owner of one of these labels then so be it, I have no problems with that.

I come from a place/industry where some artists keep getting financed over and over and over at the expense of others despite no commercial success and I probably over stepped and saw nepotism where they might be none at all.

at the expense of others

I don't think it works like this, personally, but that said, if I have any ire, it's less "Grimes got $90k" and more "Beverly Glenn-Copeland only got $10k"

And again, "Tegan & Sara getting government money" is! ultimately! a! good! thing! Bands that big are effectively cottage industries, that money is going to the thousands of people who work for them, it's not going into "buying Sara a pony". And again: I think it'd be great if bands that big, if they decided to apply, show their work, or don't apply. Arcade Fire do not apply for government money. Destroyer has only started to do so recently-- he has a large band to feed, I'm glad he's getting funded-- but for years he and that whole crew of musicians (including their Victoria-originating sisters and brothers, Wolf Parade i.e.) did not apply out of principle.

It's nice to log on to the FACTOR website and see Rollie staring intensely at you, gotta say

It's worth noting maybe that on the Spotify thread, a few weeks back, when I was catching hands for saying "Spotify is a wonderful product and an excellent way for music to be transmitted"-- because it is-- even if the pay-out is crap and broken and Daniel Ek should be killed, smoked, and eaten-- that one of the primary solutions I felt would solve the problem is "more government funding for musicians". We can (and should) eat Daniel Ek, but it won't change the fact that recorded music and its usage has irreversibly been devalued, and if it's going to continue being created, it's going to require some other method of sustaining it. Considering how the music industry has (compared to other industries) such a low operating cost, it makes sense (to me) that creating a system where it subsists on government funding is a no-brainer

Like paying taxes.

And here's some of my economic problem we have in Canada, in that tax payer money is made to fund artists who then allow Spotify to rake in a lot of money without paying taxes in Canada or genuinely funding artists in return. The structural problem, highlighted by Grimes receiving such a sum (if it isn't as the owner of a label), is that the return for it is basically zero, except maybe patriotic pride to see one of us do very well? It doesn't help the ecosystem that will help less established artists down the road (or artists in domains that are less commercialisable).

"patriotic pride"

for better or worse I do think there's a lot of "soft power" at work behind these granting institutions. It's less about making Canadians feel good and more about setting up Canadian artists to punch above their weight internationally, thus making Canada seem cultured, successful, etc.

otm

Oh, absolutely. And it seems to be working pretty well-- but in Canada, "export" seems to be a priority. In Europe, certain countries spend lots of money on arts funding, but we (as outsiders) don't really seem to see it, as such efforts in France/Germany/Benelux seem to be focused more on stimulating culture for local benefit. Compare this with Iceland, where "export" is also a priority-- I could name 20 contemporary Icelandic bands compared to 5 contemporary French bands, i.e.

I think the soft power thing is true and otm, but I don't see how it helps artists in the long run.

Oh, absolutely. And it seems to be working pretty well-- but in Canada, "export" seems to be a priority. In Europe, certain countries spend lots of money on arts funding, but we (as outsiders) don't really seem to see it, as such efforts in France/Germany/Benelux seem to be focused more on stimulating culture for local benefit. Compare this with Iceland, where "export" is also a priority-- I could name 20 contemporary Icelandic bands compared to 5 contemporary French bands, i.e.

That's because outside of hip-hop contemporary french band are mostly terrible.

I like Feu ! Chatterton, and that's about it.

There's a lot of shitty French hip-hop too tbf (see: Jul).