Ellery Eskelin <eskelin@earthlink.net> wrote: Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
I'm not sure the grant process is much more brutal than getting club gigs or record contracts
Perhaps, but I see that as no great virtue. Understood.
I certainly don't think of it as any kind of remedy to those situations. It's just another option that's somewhat more clearly public
I don't know...I've always thought that grants were supposed to be a way to recognize artists in a way that the free market does not, at least with any consistency. Maybe I'm wrong on this? Grantmaking certainly works in a way that's distinct from the commercial market, but it has it's own built-in strengths and weaknesses. Like every selection process, some things won't get through. & some of those things that aren't well served by the grant process are also not well served by more standard commercial processes.
and, because in most instances, the panel makeup changes periodically, more open to some kinds of vagaries that I guess you're referring to when you use the word "lottery."
I used the word lottery because once you remove the handful of submissions that clearly don't meet the prerequisite guidelines the rest might as well be chosen out of a hat, regardless of who's on the panel and how often that panel changes. Ultimately, the idea of panels and of changing the panels is to make the process almost exactly NOT random as such, any particular panel having reasons for making the grants that they do, but, especially when looked at over time, the process IS largely random. Not that a panel is incapable of rewarding deserving artists, but due more to the fact that there are numerous deserving submissions that will never be funded due to financial limitations. True again, but rightly or wrongly I think the grant situation is seen as being more altruistic and fair in some way, in counterpoint to the purely free market system. And there are the post grant press releases that come from these organizations taking great pride in having determined who is deserving and the accompanying inference that these are necessarily the best folks to fund. Is this really any different than winning a critics poll? And then there's the cache of prestige associated with them. Of course I don't blame the grant presenters, they're doing the best they can and they should continue to do so. I just wanted to point out that the system of giving out grants is really just as f****ed up from a musician's standpoint as trying to get a gig or record deal, maybe more. Of course, some folks are better at it than others, for reasons usually having little to do with music, as has been covered. Exactly. However, it's probably good to point out that in jazz and improvised music there are usually some kinds of subsidies supporting whatever the endeavor once you scratch the surface. Festivals often receive corporate support, smaller presenting organizations often receive support from local businesses or regional arts councils, recording labels are frequently supported by more popular divisions of the company in the case of majors or run by someone who can afford to lose money year after year in the case of many independents. Even these grassroots tours throughout the US are often supported by a couple/few enthusiastic and industrious music fans in each town who devote their time, energy and money to producing concerts that would otherwise not happen. If the whole thing were to have to depend completely on the number of butts on the seats...well...you get the picture... Actually, virtually all art of any kind is subsidized to a great extent. Limiting my examples to music, in addition to the "alternative" economy that you describe which supports the music we usually discuss around here, look at the corporate underwriting for tours by hugely successful bands like the Rolling Stones (as if they somehow wouldn't make money otherwise, eh?), or the fact that the surplus income generated by pop mega-hits enables the major record companies to release a lot of other recordings (& yeah, I realize that this process mainly puts a lot of musicians in debt unless they invest the greater portion of their advance), etc. Or hey, look at how Tzadik is structured so that a few comparatively good sellers support the production of a lot of discs with more limited sales potential. -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb@eskimo.com
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.
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 give Ken Vandermark props for doing just that. Even with his "big commercial" band, The Vandermark 5, he will tear it up to only a handful of people. Being able to play (and maybe making a little money doing it), is its own reward. I saw him here in Indy at a very small (unknown) venue, that I didn't think he would condescend to playing with the 5. I know the promoter; no one even broke even on the night. However, they played their asses off and refined the music that much more (Ken was making corrections/additions to the score mid-piece). They looked like they were having fun just playing; just as the few that were there had fun watching something magical unfold in front of them. Zach
yes, i feel very much the same. i play in a free jazz duo and i could care less how many people are in the audience. its just great to get out of the basement and play. but some of the best stuff happens in the basement too. mentioning vandermark reminds me of seeing the brotzmann tentet + 2 playing to about 20-30 people in s.f. and they played like their lives were at stake. thats still the best jazz show ive ever seen. On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Zach Steiner wrote:
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 give Ken Vandermark props for doing just that. Even with his "big commercial" band, The Vandermark 5, he will tear it up to only a handful of people. Being able to play (and maybe making a little money doing it), is its own reward. I saw him here in Indy at a very small (unknown) venue, that I didn't think he would condescend to playing with the 5. I know the promoter; no one even broke even on the night. However, they played their asses off and refined the music that much more (Ken was making corrections/additions to the score mid-piece). They looked like they were having fun just playing; just as the few that were there had fun watching something magical unfold in front of them.
Zach
_______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list
I'm personally not a huge fan of Vandermark's records, but he's a perfect example of what I mean. Instead of whining about how "my music is too artistically uncompromising for an audience to understand it", he went out and built his audience one head at a time, and does not seem to need a day job. Lesson: Vandermark has enough balls to put his own money where his mouth is, and chops to play his ideas convincingly enough that the audience is convinced. sh on 4/23/03 10:45 AM, Zach Steiner at zsteiner@butler.edu wrote:
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 give Ken Vandermark props for doing just that. Even with his "big commercial" band, The Vandermark 5, he will tear it up to only a handful of people. Being able to play (and maybe making a little money doing it), is its own reward. I saw him here in Indy at a very small (unknown) venue, that I didn't think he would condescend to playing with the 5. I know the promoter; no one even broke even on the night. However, they played their asses off and refined the music that much more (Ken was making corrections/additions to the score mid-piece). They looked like they were having fun just playing; just as the few that were there had fun watching something magical unfold in front of them.
Zach
_______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list
It sounds like there's very little disagreement, though I seem to care a lot less about what someone may do to get over. If there's a gig or a grant or a record contract that works for a musician, that's great. If not, not. It's all just different ways to get the rent paid. In the non-ideal world we live, I don't see the point in complaining about one option being less pure than another. But anybody doing something cause they think it's going to help help their career, on any level, whether it's dealing with a major label, writing grants, making your own records, booking your own tours, etc. had better be doing what they want to be doing cause if/when the money doesn't come through, that's all you've got. Cause there's not much worse than doing something to try to sell out & then find out that nobody's buying in. Bests, Herb
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.
-- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb@eskimo.com
participants (4)
-
Chad Stockdale -
Herb Levy -
skip Heller -
Zach Steiner