Thanks to martle, have been glancing at the site here which details the spending review. Haven't yet burrowed sufficiently through all the Blairite talk to get a handle on the actual figures, but thought I'd post the following, from their 'key facts'. This is what is said about music:

•   there are currently 130 music organisations in our RFO portfolio, which is around the same number as in 1996/97 (129)
•   over that 10-year period, Arts Council funding for the music sector has grown by 82%
•   the music sector has become more financially stable: in 1996/97, 45% of organisations reported an accumulated deficit; by 2003/04 this had fallen to 28%
•   there is more diversity in the music sector and a greater proportion of the workforce is from Black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds – in 1996/97 1.4% of permanent staff were from BME groups; by 2003/04 this increased to 6.1%
•   in 2003/04 the eight symphony orchestras ran 4,950 education sessions with attendances of nearly 160,000 – up 35% since 1999/2000

Otherwise, one generally reads about how music and the arts in general are 'excellent', 'acclaimed' and 'vibrant', pretty meaningless generalities. But I was interested in anyone's thoughts on the above? The point about BME backgrounds is evidently important, but otherwise are there any other priorities other than that the arts make more money, that the Arts Council can boast about the growth in their funding (but I'm sure there's an awful lot of small print involved - could you enlighten, martle?) and that the orchestras run education sessions (shouldn't that be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science)? Anyhow, thought that what's going on in terms of funding policy might produce an interesting and worthwhile thread, spinning off from the Knussen one.

You think it's 'crass and idiotic' to question the situation whereby money designated for the arts is actually going to education, to save the DES's budget?

(do you have anything to contribute to this thread, by the way, or are we seeing your much-beloved testosterone talking again?)

Well, this thread has certainly got off to a good start.

The arts are more popular than ever, with 76 % of adults attending or participating in the arts.
Is this not just the result of the government taking a broader definition of what "the arts" are? - see, for example, this:

As well as the established artforms, attendance increases have also been seen at carnivals, street arts, circus, craft exhibitions and live music
Note that somehow "live music" seems not to come under the heading of "established artforms"

• By 2008, 12% of our RFOs will be Black and minority ethnic (BME) led
And of course this increase should have been in addition to rather than at the expense of the organisations who previously received funding.

The conclusion being that if the Arts Council is going to redefine "the arts" to include a lot of activity which it previously didn't include (who made these decisions?), which in principle it's hard to find exception to, it would require a massively larger government investment, but as usual with New Labour we find lip-service paid to "inclusiveness" while what actually happens is that slightly-less-limited means are spread much wider. All the loudly-trumpeted "increases" need to be seen in this context.

I find this a really peculiar statement. Taken as a whole (with classical concert music being a glaring exception here), the British music industry must be one of the most ethnically diverse in the world - a few seconds in any record shop will tell you this. Presumably 'the music sector' and 'the workforce' refer to people who work in Arts Council offices rather than who actually make music?

To Reiner's post: characteristically, you totally miss my point. Of course musicians being involved in educational projects is important (though I often think this is some ways a subsitute for proper funding and support of music education in schools and colleges), whether it should be mandatory is another matter. But the point at stake is whether this should come out of the Arts rather than Education budget - I believe the latter.

I knew that Rambert vs Royal Ballet rugby match was a bad idea....

Reiner, that's really out of order. Can we PLEASE have the discussion we ought to be having?

For what it's worth, I think there are very many people around for whom outreach work is a necessary evil to be endured in order to make it possible for the "real" work to be done. If there's no excuse for this, at least there are reasons. If the UK had proper provision for education in music under the state education system, which it simply doesn't have, the overall situation wouldn't be one of scrabbling for funds taking priority over the music (whether "the music" refers to giving concerts or to educational work, which I absolutely agree is a core activity, not an add-on).

And I don't think Ian is suggesting that outreach work be cancelled, just that it comes under a different heading as far as funding is concerned. As you say, this would tend to complicate the bureaucracy, and as such it doesn't sound like a good idea at all. But let's try to get out of wilful crosspurposes if we can.