|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: 22:00:29, 24-09-2007 » |
|
And, speaking of untenable arguments .... you're not very good at sport as a nation? Aaron, we're British - we never talk-up our own abilities or achievements  That's all fine and good, but at the very least, the "we're not very good at sport anyway so why should we spend money on it" argument is a lousy one. An argument that says 'We're not very good at sport at present, thus we should spend more money on it' would seem much more consistent. But whether or not we produce competitive sportspeople in international games, the argument for providing good sport in schools is utterly compelling. In some ways it's rather easier to argue for the innate merits of sport than it is for art and music. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
IgnorantRockFan
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 22:05:28, 24-09-2007 » |
|
I've now read the full text of the speech, and, goodness, with all due respect ...
... Hm. I guess the most polite way to say this is that of all the candidates running in the US presidential election from either major party, only Dennis Kucinich, who has been polling b/t 1-3% in most national polls, comes even remotely close to supporting the sorts of positions that were discussed in today's speech. Every other one of the 20 or so candidates (including all of the front-runners in the Democratic party) sits well to the political right of the policies promoted in Brown's speech.
I suppose what I'm saying is, I'll trade you. Any takers?
That's something that's always amazed me when talking to American friends. Their idea of where the left lies in politics is so far to the right of my concept that we can't even use common terminology in political discussions. I've always suspected that they would have found Thatcher a bit too left wing  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Allegro, ma non tanto
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 22:07:14, 24-09-2007 » |
|
I've now read the full text of the speech, and, goodness, with all due respect ...
... Hm. I guess the most polite way to say this is that of all the candidates running in the US presidential election from either major party, only Dennis Kucinich, who has been polling b/t 1-3% in most national polls, comes even remotely close to supporting the sorts of positions that were discussed in today's speech. Every other one of the 20 or so candidates (including all of the front-runners in the Democratic party) sits well to the political right of the policies promoted in Brown's speech.
I suppose what I'm saying is, I'll trade you. Any takers?
I'd be very interested to know whether, on the whole, you'd say that politicians on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties remain to the left of the major politicians in the US, also? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 22:10:10, 24-09-2007 » |
|
I think it's worse than that. I increasingly feel that sport is what we do now we haven't got an empire any more; the obsession with competitive sport is about being Top Nation, about beating the foreigner and feeling good about ourselves; flag-waving, nationalistic ranting in the tabloids, the generation of a spurious "identity" around eleven men kicking a piece of leather to mask the deep divisions in our society. Politicians milk these things for that reason; hence the twaddle about the London Olympics "bringing people together". It's about pretending we are a unified cohesive society when in reality we have never been more divided, and it appeases all those myths about white men in particular losing their identity (and to that extent is the purest escapism). It reflects our deep insecurity as a society, insecurity to which mainstream politicians have not even the beginnings of an answer. Sport helps us wave the flag and paper over the cracks. This may all be true, but I would be surprised if a similar situation doesn't apply in just about every other country as well. Also, as far as 'white men' are concerned, in running, athletics, boxing, etc., aren't most of our top athletes black? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 22:20:54, 24-09-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 22:16:17, 24-09-2007 » |
|
That's something that's always amazed me when talking to American friends. Their idea of where the left lies in politics is so far to the right of my concept that we can't even use common terminology in political discussions. I've always suspected that they would have found Thatcher a bit too left wing In the Bush-Dukakis election of 1988, I remember Dukakis's opposition to the invasion of Grenada being used to paint him as some sort of leftist extremist - yet Thatcher opposed that (and very publicly) as well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 22:34:04, 24-09-2007 » |
|
I think it's worse than that. I increasingly feel that sport is what we do now we haven't got an empire any more; the obsession with competitive sport is about being Top Nation, about beating the foreigner and feeling good about ourselves; flag-waving, nationalistic ranting in the tabloids, the generation of a spurious "identity" around eleven men kicking a piece of leather to mask the deep divisions in our society. Politicians milk these things for that reason; hence the twaddle about the London Olympics "bringing people together". It's about pretending we are a unified cohesive society when in reality we have never been more divided, and it appeases all those myths about white men in particular losing their identity (and to that extent is the purest escapism). It reflects our deep insecurity as a society, insecurity to which mainstream politicians have not even the beginnings of an answer. Sport helps us wave the flag and paper over the cracks. This may all be true, but I would be surprised if a similar situation doesn't apply in just about every other country as well. I don't get the sense that there is the same degree of political buy-in in other European countries, at least. At a level of personal experience, I happened to spend some time working in Stockholm just before the start of the last football world cup, and the mood was certainly very different (I don't recall seeing a single flag being waved or flown)
Also, as far as 'white men' are concerned, in running, athletics, boxing, etc., aren't most of our top athletes black?
Possibly true. Without wanting to get into something I haven't really thought about, I suspect the issues around nationalism, race and sporting success are very complex; there's a very powerful poem by Benjamin Zephaniah (whose title I can't remember, and I haven't got to hand) about how he resented his well-meaning teachers pressing him to take up cricket when he actually wanted to be part of the academic mainstream. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
Guest
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 22:43:16, 24-09-2007 » |
|
This is all so depressing, I can't bear to read any more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 23:59:41, 24-09-2007 » |
|
This is all so depressing, I can't bear to read any more.
Well, it is supposedly about "Brown's new vision for music education" so, whilst I very much do not want you to feel depressed, I cannot honestly claim to be surprised that you are. In general terms, Brown is largely no different to many of his colleagues, predecessors, opponents, etc. in giving less than a stuff for the kinds of thing that mean so much to all of us here - not because he is a New Old Middle-aged Laboural Democrat Conservatory anyone at all, but simply because he is a professional politician; from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Benn, from John Sequoia to Dennis Skinflint, I wouldn't trust any of them to even think of addressing as many as one of the artistic issues that concern us - still less would I expect them to do so. We're on our own. People will love us. Other people will be contemptuous of us. Many more will remain indifferent, especially including the current (at any time) prime monster, chancer of the ex-cheque-er or Tavener of the Eng of Bankland... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 00:25:42, 25-09-2007 » |
|
In general terms, Brown is largely no different to many of his colleagues, predecessors, opponents, etc. in giving less than a stuff for the kinds of thing that mean so much to all of us here - not because he is a New Old Middle-aged Laboural Democrat Conservatory anyone at all, but simply because he is a professional politician; from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Benn, from John Sequoia to Dennis Skinflint, I wouldn't trust any of them to even think of addressing as many as one of the artistic issues that concern us - still less would I expect them to do so. For all I might have differences with Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner, it does no justice to write either of them off as merely 'professional politicians' - both were and are deeply principled people who could have acted very differently if self-advancement was their primary aim. Nor, for that matter, would I describe Margaret Thatcher in such a manner, for all I despise everything she stood for and everything she did to the nation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
stuart macrae
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 00:48:39, 25-09-2007 » |
|
Let's face it, we all suspect most of our politicians to be Philistines - who occasionally pay lip-service to the idea that the arts are a valuable part of the fabric of society. But we know they don't really get it, and that most of them have no hinterland to speak of, and no desire to involve themselves with the arts. Driven, ambitious and power-hungry people very rarely see value in things that are not directly concerned with their own advancement, and arts 'events' are reduced to networking and public-relations opportunities. Where the arts are valued, the justification is usually economic (ever heard the one about the amount of money London theatres contribute to the tourism industry?)
Let's wait and see if the so-called "Cultural Olympiad" idea that's being bandied about in arts/politics circles turns out to be a gigantic re-branding exercise, with little new money and plenty of PR fluff to 'sell' our 'culture' to the tourists who will flock to our shores (sorry, I mean to 'show off the diversity and quality of our arts throughout Britain')
Children are cynically regarded by politicians as engines of economic growth ('our future'), and as such are encouraged to focus not so much on skills and experiences that might enrich their lives (arts, languages, history...) but on those that will enable then to become more effective workers. I'm afraid the extra sports lessons (with which I cannot quibble) are partly motivated by a perfectly reasonable desire to limit future health spending and increase economic potential. The same economic considerations do not apply (at least in a direct sense) to an experience of the arts, and therefore do not seem worth prioritising to policy-makers who don't really see much intrinsic value in the arts anyway. (However, I only had 2 hours of scheduled sport a week, and then none after the age of 14, and I may not be the healthiest person in the world but I'm not obese. Why not? Perhaps obesity is more to do with poverty, poor nutrition and low self-esteem than it is to do with exercise.)
Phew...on a more positive note (though not with regard to education, which is where it should all start), artists in Scotland are due to get a tax rebate worth about £2000 p/a from the Scottish Executive (if the SNP follow through on pre-election promises). Now, I believe in paying my taxes and honestly wouldn't mind if they needed to go up, but I'm not planning on looking the gift-horse in the mouth. If the system works, maybe there will be calls for it to be implemented in England, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Who knows...
But that's a fairly small amount of direct funding to artists - what's really needed is a much larger investment in arts education from an earlier age, and I haven't heard much suggestion of that from any Parliament.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MT Wessel
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 01:01:15, 25-09-2007 » |
|
.... Why is sport considered so very very important? .....
I agree Richard and Gordon Brown and Co should tell The Olympics Committee to take their drug fuelled, childish, money making rip off extravanganza somewhere else in 2012. Tell them to stick it where the monkey shoves its nuts. Cancel it now Gordon. It's robbing the poor (tax payer) to pay the rich. It is perhaps the largest load of bollox (er, sorry, balehooks (I got a bit carried away there)) that I have ever seen. Young Seb Coe and Co should be strung up. It is certain to be a complete £billion tax wasting nightmare ...  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01:06:56, 25-09-2007 by MT Wessel »
|
Logged
|
lignum crucis arbour scientiae
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 07:32:12, 25-09-2007 » |
|
In general terms, Brown is largely no different to many of his colleagues, predecessors, opponents, etc. in giving less than a stuff for the kinds of thing that mean so much to all of us here - not because he is a New Old Middle-aged Laboural Democrat Conservatory anyone at all, but simply because he is a professional politician; from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Benn, from John Sequoia to Dennis Skinflint, I wouldn't trust any of them to even think of addressing as many as one of the artistic issues that concern us - still less would I expect them to do so. For all I might have differences with Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner, it does no justice to write either of them off as merely 'professional politicians' - both were and are deeply principled people who could have acted very differently if self-advancement was their primary aim. Nor, for that matter, would I describe Margaret Thatcher in such a manner, for all I despise everything she stood for and everything she did to the nation. Much as appreciate and understand your point, Ian, I didn't use the word "merely" here; you introduced it! My point was and is that professional politicians for the most part have no use for or truck with the kinds of things that concern us, irrespective of the colour of their "wings" - and not necessarily because they prioritise self-advancement over it either. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 07:36:49, 25-09-2007 » |
|
That's something that's always amazed me when talking to American friends. Their idea of where the left lies in politics is so far to the right of my concept that we can't even use common terminology in political discussions. I've always suspected that they would have found Thatcher a bit too left wing In the Bush-Dukakis election of 1988, I remember Dukakis's opposition to the invasion of Grenada being used to paint him as some sort of leftist extremist - yet Thatcher opposed that (and very publicly) as well. Was that action on MT's part one of those everythings that she stood for and everythings she did to the nation that you reently told us that you so despise? Just curious... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 07:42:16, 25-09-2007 » |
|
.... Why is sport considered so very very important? .....
I agree Richard and Gordon Brown and Co should tell The Olympics Committee to take their drug fuelled, childish, money making rip off extravanganza somewhere else in 2012. Independently of one another, presumably... Tell them to stick it where the monkey shoves its nuts.
Isn't shoving monkey nuts one of the Olympic sports?... Cancel it now Gordon. It's robbing the poor (tax payer) to pay the rich. It is perhaps the largest load of bollox (er, sorry, balehooks (I got a bit carried away there)) that I have ever seen. Young Seb Coe and Co should be strung up. It is certain to be a complete £billion tax wasting nightmare ... If he and Alistair Darling (I wonder if anyone ever calls me that?) and their henchmen aren't careful (or possibly even if they are), there might be no Bank of England and no British Pound left with which to fund the 2012 Olympics anyway. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TimR-J
Guest
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 08:57:48, 25-09-2007 » |
|
Having started this thread, then run away, I suppose I should chip in.
As others have mentioned, my real gripe with Brown's attitude isn't that time is being set aside for sport in schools (nor is it with any initiative to help numeracy and literacy), but that the arts are so obviously an afterthought in his grand vision for a "Britain of all the talents". Sport is a great tool for politicians - not only is it popular, but it brings real benefits in building social cohesion, in the economy and in the personal well-being of those that take part. This is all really good. What bugs me is that school orchestras and theatre groups achieve exactly the same things (maybe less on tackling obesity, but I'm sure Ollie would concur that playing a wind instrument is no stroll in the park, aerobically speaking), but Brown seems reluctant to acknowledge them. To borrow an image he seems terribly fond of, what would happen to all my skinny, socially awkward, cack-handed school friends who weren't any good at football, rugby or cricket, but could hold a tune in a choir? Out in the cold it would seem.
I don't have much of a problem with philistine politicians (well, I do, but I've come not to expect any better), and Brown's among the most clunking of them all. I'm not completely surprised that he's been dazzled by the Olympics, and sees the 'regeneration' of the East End as a positive model for the rest of the country. But at the very least the economic argument for the arts in this country is peerless, and he still doesn't care. Even on his own terms, the arts are an irritating afterthought. And that's what really worries me about their future under a Brown government.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
