NPR, Government Grants, etc...

["space module" <spacemodule@hotmail.com>]

Howdy all,

I think that NPR has become more watered down over the past 10 years, kind 
of pandering to the "Family Values" crowd.  Maybe it has to do with all of 
the same people reporting/commenting becoming older and more family 
oriented.  They haven't seemed to pick up much new blood over the years. I 
think that Odyssey just went into it's 25th year.  But what else is there 
to 
listen to on the radio?  Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh? Madonna or Britney?  
More oldies or classic rock?  What other stations have featured Robert 
Fripp, Bob Moog, Charlie Haden or Bill Frissel?  Not to mention local 
talent 
(if you live somewhere with a local NPR station).  NPR is the only major 
thing happening outside of commercial radio.  Sure there is community and 
college radio, but these are few and far between.  I think that American 
Radio is in the saddest shape in it's history.  I used to have a community 
radio show with my wife which was 2 hours every Sunday night.  We 
specialized in 'Out' music whether it was Jazz (Sun Ra, Ayler, Coltrane, 
Cecil Taylor, etc), Electronic (Subotnick, Eno, Arcane Device, Teitelbaum, 
etc...), Improvisation (Zorn, Borbetomagus, AACM, etc...), Experimental 
Rock 
(Fred Frith, Fripp, ReR label, etc...) or Modern Composors (Cage, Xenakis, 
Berio, etc..).  Our audience was small but dedicated.  Without the 
generosity of the community our show wouldn't have existed.  There is no 
way 
this kind of show could exist on commercial american radio.  Yet I 
understand this kind of program isn't too uncommon in Europe...  If there 
were more government support for cultural development like quality radio 
for 
instance, I think we as musicians would have more options in the variety 
of 
music that we choose to play and a more appreciative and learned audience. 
 
We would also stand a better chance at getting payed for being original.

U.S. Radio today = Garbage in, Garbage out.

This all kind of leads into Grants:

The city of Berlin spends approximately 20 times the amount of money on 
the 
arts than the entire United States.
Given that the various orchestras, opera companies and museums receive the 
lion's share of the funding they still have managed to pay a generous 
living 
to american artists as varied as jazz violinist Billy Bang and Avant/goth 
Diva Diamanda Galas (D.G. uses loops on her vocals).  Try to make a living 
that way here.  Fat chance.  People who love creative music in the u.s. 
often bemoan the lack of new talent in more adventurous music here and end 
up listening to a lot of artists from England and Europe and elsewhere.
I think that because our Government, which is culturally shackled by 
right-wing reactionaries, refuses to support the arts in more than a 
meansprited/stingy way and because of this has managed to stymie the 
intellectual and spiritual growth of our American culture.  Whatever 
happened to the idea of Art for Arts sake!  Maybe government patronage 
means 
a paternalistic attitude regarding training people to learn about the 
arts, 
but what happens if there is no guidance?  The level of quality 
degenerates 
to the lowest common denominator (i.e. dumb kids).  Most sales of music 
today are to easily impressionable youth for pap that has no artistic 
merit 
and is only created for purely commercial reasons.  Music and Art in the 
USA 
has become a disposable consumer good with the longevity of used toilet 
paper.  To make it as a musician here usually means that you must present 
yourself like a whore.  Do what the customer/record 
company/producer/marketing department wants or be forever obscure and 
marginalized.  Since popular music is totally driven by marketing, talent 
and skill have been replaced by attitude and hype.  Anyway my point seems 
to 
echo an earlier post from someone else that was saying that the support of 
the arts has historically been  from Governments.  And I agree that it has 
had it's ups and downs, but at least there was something to show for it in 
the end whether you like it or not.  No Art funding means less or no 
lasting 
tradition of Art.  I also don't think that corporations have been or will 
be 
able to replace a free societies art support.  Corporate Art is neutered 
by 
requirements of conforming to corporate cultures non-threating don't rock 
the boat mentality.  If Disney and AOL/Time-Warner are your staples for 
culture then you will probably disagree.

One last example of why Art Funding is needed:

Does anyone remember EAR Magazine?  This used to be my road map to new 
creative music of many different styles.  They covered all of the artists 
I 
mentioned above plus many, many others.  I found out about more music from 
one magazine than all of my music lessons and college education combined.  
This all died when they lost half of their grant money when New York 
killed 
it's arts funding.  I'm sure that EAR was only a small part of all the 
arts 
that dried up when this happened.  A lot of shows didn't happen.

I see Art funding as the cost of educating a society in aesthetics, 
diversity and the pricelessness of free expression.  Without the arts we 
are 
just mindless drones-slaves to endless corporate consumption.

I step off the soapbox,

Nick Wilson


Why does our society value money over all other things or ideas?


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com