If so, that's an extremely worrying development - either subsume one's organisation within the new music administrative cartel/monopoly/call-it-what-you-will, or perish?

(not that, on various levels of things, that process hasn't been occurring in new music for some years. The possibility of a genuinely independent fringe for new musical production is much less than it was c. 15 years ago, when I started out on that scene)

Another touchingly personal and enlightening mail from Mr Knight:


02/01/08

Thanks for your email.
 
We have made clear our concerns to LMC in writing, and have set out the evidence by which we do not believe they deliver strong value against the investment of public money.
While it is our intention not to renew funding to LMC from 1 April 2008, it should be noted that this is not a final decision.

The organisation is entitled to submit a response to our regional council outlining why they consider that our recommendation is wrong.

The rationale for our decision was given in our funding letter of 14 December 07 to LMC.

Any response made by LMC will then be considered alongside our recommendation when our regional council meets in January.

Given their right of response to our proposal, it is for LMC to chose whether or not to share the detail of our concerns publicly.
 
Best regards
 
Graham Knight
Music Unit
Arts Council London
2 Pear Tree Court
London
EC1R 0DS
graham.knight@artscouncil.org.uk
0207 608 4198


Time to give up, I think, seeing that my efforts seem neither to have been read or replied to, although this of course is exactly what ACE is banking on.

That's not the point really.

As I think I said over at M&S when this issue came up there, I don't know about the specifics concerning LMC's funding, but in the case of spnm, bmic and the other partner organisations in 'The New Organisation', the Arts Council informed them about three years ago (when the organisations would normally have expected to have the usual three-year committment re-affirmed) that individual funding would be suspended from 2008. The only way to secure ACE funding thereafter would be to amalgamate in some way to create an organisation of 'sufficient' size to 'justify' it.
Spnm (and all the others) did very speedy calculations to see if survival would be possible without ACE funding. It was, in spnm's case (and I'd be surprised if that wasn't true of bmic too), but on an extremely grey-looking and piddly prospectus. So those orgs decided to pursue the possibility of pooling resources, and not without VERY extensive negotiating with each other and with ACE. It's worth remembering too that such an idea (or amalgamation, that is) has been around for many years anyway, usually centred around the potential for a physical 'centre' for new music encompassing performance/rehearsal spaces, bar/cafe, exhibition space etc. etc.

So, it's beginning to look to me as if
actually means "they didn't want to be involved in our streamlining exercise." While I can see BMIC and SPNM cohabiting quite easily (as they used to when both were at 10 Stratford Place), my feeling would be that the history, nature and aims of LMC are rather different from those other organisations (eg. in being an artists' collective). Of course such considerations play no role in the decision-making in these matters, which is entirely about making spurious justifications for cutting here rather than there.

A similar exercise took place not that long ago in Amsterdam, with the result that most of the main organisations involved in contemporary music there are now housed under one roof, the difference with the ACE's plan being that, "rationalising" aside, the roof in question also covers a new building in the harbour containing two concert halls.



(the taller building behind it is the very nice hotel where visiting musicians stay.)

I would imagine that no such plan exists for the "New Organisation" in London.

Hope the rum helped.

No, but I wasn't clear whether you were talking about the expected funding cut which martle mentions, or some new proposal to cut funding even further.

There is indeed 'something like'   a freedom of information act here. I am a battle-scarred member of the bill team that drew it up and defended it against the forces of darkness in getting it, not exactly unscathed, onto the statute book <walking wounded emoticom>. A small thing but our own. ACE is indeed covered by the the Act.

Like you though, and being a simple soul, I don't quite understand what there is against just asking LMC itself whether they would be prepared to say what ACE's 'ongoing concerns' are. It is in their gift to make this information available if they want to. I've <gulp> put my clumsy boots on and done so. I hope that doesn't cut across what others are doing but I can't see any downside myself.