[NewMusic] Ribot rant and subsidized spaces in Europe

[Matt Davignon]

On 4/6/07, Jacob Lindsay <jacobmakesnoise at yahoo.com> was like:
>
> Obviously,
> according to laws of the market if Madonna makes 10
> million times as much money from her music as you do,
> that means that her music is 10 million times better
> than yours.

Well, in regards to the musicians that make money in America, it's not
really the music that's being sold - it's the appeal of the lifestyle
and image of the musician. In the cases where a song gets popular
because of the music, the 'artists' have very little to do with
whether the music is good or not. Thank the unnamed songwriters and
producers for that. I don't think many Americans buy music anymore.

Then George Creamasci was all:
> I once went out to dinner with a member of a local
> city arts council, who admitted not really knowing anything
> about art or non-pop music, but she really really thought
> art and artists were "cool". She then went on to say that she
> never voted for any projects that didn't have a social dimension,
> like school or prison outreach. She then ended the evening calling me,
> and abstract music and art in general, "elitist".  Why should we give
> you money? she said - no one cares about what you do, you're
> not helping anybody. This is the person reviewing your application,
> folks.

Well, if we're going to ask for grants and stuff, we have to be ready
to answer that question: What value does our music have for people who
don't make our kind of music? I've been trying to answer that one
myself, but everything I come up with sounds even more elitist. (Our
music encourages people to be more open minded, and appreciate things
that don't come in sterilized little packages.)