You mean he regularly and reliably churns out music with a critical function and is hence an institution? If that were true, then I see nothing wrong with him making a career solely with the largesse of the public subsidy behind him. It is most certainly his intention to uphold the tenets of 'critical composing' in all of his work, and for that tenacity he deserves our admiration.

But tinners is right that his reception may very well prove a thorn in the side of that mixed metaphor... and I think Spahlinger is aware of that as well, to his credit. His essay (forthcoming in CMR) on the conceptional ideologue addresses exactly this dilemma.

Sure, if it's composers to which we are looking to lend admiration; but I'm more interested in works. I'm referring more to the fact that certain types of critical composition can become manneristic (equally a problem with Lachenmann, indeed perhaps more so) and as such easily appropriated as merely the manifestation of some exotic quirkiness. I know Spahlinger is aware of this problem and maybe attempts to avoid it, but maybe such a situation is an inevitable outcome of composing in capitalist society. Very little music fails to be absorbed and rendered meaningless by its clutches. Though at least it seems like Spahlinger hasn't thrown in the towel, as some others have done, or retreat into solpisism or aestheticism; and there's no comparison whatsoever with most British composers, who (with only a very small number of exceptions) would not even be aware of these things being issues. But even in those sentences I'm falling prey to centring the issue around composers, who in the end are no more important than any other human beings. The issue is more whether inter-mezzo or adieu m'amour or Presentimentos continue to have a critical function, regardless of what their composer intended.

By the way, you seem to have a very wrong idea that I'm opposed to subsidy: I'm not, by any means, but I think the arguments for its maintenance or expansion have to be put to the test. At the moment the enemies of subsidy hold most of the discursive trump cards; a failure to seriously engage with their objections - by no means all of them unfounded - may ultimately lead to them having their way without any serious opposition. Certainly in terms of the ways in which subsidy is being targeted nowadays, the demands of audience-pleasing above all, not to mention major cuts such as recently occurred in Holland, they seem to be winning.

True. And while musicians are obviously composing/playing for an audience, we also have to keep ourselves alive and buy washing machines occasionally, in other words we're a functioning part of society just like the "customers" are. The question seems to revolve around how large a minority needs to be before the government can be relied on to give some kind of priority to its funding, and the answer probably is "large enough to make a difference in the next election."

As I said before, without the institutional funding systems in place in many European countries during the second half of the last century, a lot of the most valuable art of that period (not just compositions but performances of course) wouldn't have had the opportunity to come into being. Many would say yes, that's true, but the art I'm talking about isn't "valuable" to more than a small (ie. electorally invisible) minority. But why is that an argument? Have we all been encouraged to be so selfish and mean-spirited that we aren't prepared for a tiny proportion of our taxes to subsidise other people's interests? (Yes, we have.) As far as I'm concerned, and as Ollie and others have said, the onus is on those who want to take it all away to explain themselves, not that we need it explained because the underlying reasons are quite clear, but (as usual) policy is being pursued in a craven way for the benefit of an even tinier minority than are interested in classical or contemporary music.

So we assume Ian that you subscribe to the view that in funding the arts "value for money" is to be seen not in terms of the intrinsic quality of the product being funded, but rather in terms of the number of people the product will please (despite its intrinsic value or non-value)?

Baz

Well, they do as long as the mindset that doesn't take them into account, as contributions to the history of ideas, is still prevalent. Right? Or is that too 'Old Musicology' ?

They certainly do. But not by Pollard. By experts willing to name names and be specific.

Stuart, I will try and answer your questions later - they require more words than can realistically be typed on a mobile phone.

I know you will forgive me Member Ian-Lawson, but this statement seems to me so completely absurd that I shall be quoting it on the "At least nine-hundred and sixty crackpot quotations" thread. Thanks for your input.

Baz

Baz (whoever you actually are.)

 That’s fine by me - as long as you make some attempt to justify your rather unfriendly sarcasm . How about starting by explaining to us mere mortals how you go about measuring the intrinsic value of music.

Don’t worry, I won’t be holding my breath - I’ve been waiting for years for this magic recipe -  perhaps, at last, all is going to be revealed?