In an ideal world, there would be be no subsidy to speak of. A musician would have to go up in front of an audience, collect his fee from the promotor, and sell his own records at the end of the night, and, whatever he makes, that's the money. Anybody else remember punk rock? (Before Ellery Eskelin objects to this, I've seen him sell enough to CDs at one gig to cover a bandmember's plane ticket and motel room, so shut up and prove my point, Ellery.) The grant system is as flawed as the major label system, and is in many way regulated by a different version of the same posturing, the same challenges of being represented by the "right" people, and all the other industry shmeeze that goes with it, to say nothing of the similar types of censorship and deciding which oppressed group is politically correct to fund this year. Of course, occasionally someone breaks through -- Tom Waits on a major (which Epitaph is, in terms of dollars and distribution), or Carla Bley with a Guggenheim. Let's not fool ourselves that the industry term "great music" is about as accurate as the academic term "high art". Giving tens of thousands of dollars to an "individual" with a consequential label deal, a booking agent, and a high-powered publicist is kind of like... Well, to me it smacks of a kind of manifest destiny, wherein a large sum of money is given to a high-profile artist to do something that will automatically be called a"major work". Anyone who ever has seen a Hollywood epic knows that big names and big dollars don't add up to major work. On this level, I don't see much difference between Hollywood and a grant foundation. If you're going to make some art, you're stating a need to communicate something to an audience. Whether or not you're realistic to admit that audience is CLIENTELE is the issue. Doing music professionally -- ANY music -- is a business, and having unrealistic expectations as to the size of your clientele and what the market will bear should be the ultimate factor in what gets done. Charles Ives understood this. If you're going to run a business, run it like a business. The tax laws in the USA don't discourage this. But musicians have to take the risk. Artistic risk is easy -- that's a journalist's way of saying "he only does what he wants". But economic risk is putting your money where your mouth is. Aligning yourself with a fundable cause in ored to get money so you can make what they consider fundable is not much different than signing with a major label and making the kind of record they think will be a hit. If you're gonna do music, you should be honest about who your clientele is and how many of them there are. If there's enough of them to make you a living, put together a really good working ensemble, make some product, hire a publicist and a distributor, go out there, get ready to take it on the chin, and play the best you can no matter what. I remember seeing Ellery's trio in '95 in one of the little rooms at the Knit playing for less people than I have fingers, and it was a lesson in the value of playing big no matter how small the house. I bet every one of those people has a nealry complete set of Esklelin's in their stacks now. And I'm reasonably sure this wasn't the only night that trio faced that unhappiness. But they played like they knew that they were auditioning for people who would each bring four people next time out. And -- yes -- Ellery Eskelin is still in business. Yes, the grant thing is largely unfair. But so is life. The difference is that you can carve your own path away from subsidizing and regular record labels and actually do alright. Of course, you can carve your way out of life, but it's pretty hard to change your mind down line from having done so. skip h np: same Howlin' Wolf album as before.