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.

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?

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. 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.

As I tried to be clear earlier, I don't think any funding option, whether it's the slightly more business-related model of gigs and record companies, or some kind of grant application, is going to work for everyone and for many artists, unfortunately, none of them will work very well at all.

True.

As I also tried to be clear earlier, I don't think it's reasonable to expect otherwise. It may be the case that everyone has the right to express themselves, but that doesn't mean that any one else is obligated to buy a particular self-expression.

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. 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... ================================= ELLeRY ESKELiN/MiCHELLE VAn NaTTA RaMiChElLeRy/PrImE SoUrCe PrOdUcTiOnS http://home.earthlink.net/~eskelin/ =================================