Hi JWC! Well written post, some of which I agree with - totally agree re the scene is the thing, and for sure the funding & governance systems are hot insider garbage. But I disagree entirely about the free market being any good for music. In fact the commodification of music is the biggest enemy of music and the people who love it. Nowadays the free market is... Spotify? Wherein the penniless cannot compete against giant megacorps. Hard nope here. And, what do you mean by "identity politics"? Please say more about that.
Hi Allison, thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comment! I’m glad we agree on the importance of the scene and the need to fix those funding and governance systems.
You make a strong point about the challenges of the free market in music—I’ll give that more thought.
As for "identity politics," as I’m using the term, refers to when political or cultural debates focus more on group identity—such as race, gender, or background—than on individual ideas, values, or contributions. While identity can be an important part of understanding society, the concern is when it becomes the main lens for decision-making, sometimes leading to division, exclusion, or a narrowing of perspective rather than open discussion and shared goals. I do appreciate this is a conventional Hindenburg turn of phrase, I just don't have another shorthand... yet.
I understand the term itself - but I'd like to understand better is what you think is the role of "identity politics" in respect of music funding and governance. I say this as a former insider who saw very clearly that among the many problems in the funding system, systemic racism and sexism was a significant operator. If one agrees that this is a problem to be fixed, then how does one address it without raising the spectre of "identity politics"? I've often been the lone woman being shouted down in a room full of men, and I promise you the "open discussion" you are imagining doesn't occur unless we recognize that some voices and perspectives must be amplified to be heard over the din. (And conversely, some voices must be told to pipe the heck down!)
I hear you. My question is: How do we ensure fairness in music funding without introducing a new form of gatekeeping? I’m concerned about replacing one unfair pick-a-winner system with another. What would an ideal, bias-free funding model look like to you?
I've made my model. I've proposed my alternative and worked over many years to get it up and running. It's an industrial, labour-based, fully refundable tax credit system. That was my wild big idea.
And here’s the thing: it works. In Nova Scotia alone, it 20x’d the size of our industry and created a system that was acceptable to everyone. It doesn’t require identity slicing and dicing people, picking winners, lobbying, or loud voices—it simply rewards people for doing the work they say they will. No picking winners. No gatekeepers deciding whose voice deserves amplification.
Hi JWC! Well written post, some of which I agree with - totally agree re the scene is the thing, and for sure the funding & governance systems are hot insider garbage. But I disagree entirely about the free market being any good for music. In fact the commodification of music is the biggest enemy of music and the people who love it. Nowadays the free market is... Spotify? Wherein the penniless cannot compete against giant megacorps. Hard nope here. And, what do you mean by "identity politics"? Please say more about that.
Hi Allison, thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comment! I’m glad we agree on the importance of the scene and the need to fix those funding and governance systems.
You make a strong point about the challenges of the free market in music—I’ll give that more thought.
As for "identity politics," as I’m using the term, refers to when political or cultural debates focus more on group identity—such as race, gender, or background—than on individual ideas, values, or contributions. While identity can be an important part of understanding society, the concern is when it becomes the main lens for decision-making, sometimes leading to division, exclusion, or a narrowing of perspective rather than open discussion and shared goals. I do appreciate this is a conventional Hindenburg turn of phrase, I just don't have another shorthand... yet.
I understand the term itself - but I'd like to understand better is what you think is the role of "identity politics" in respect of music funding and governance. I say this as a former insider who saw very clearly that among the many problems in the funding system, systemic racism and sexism was a significant operator. If one agrees that this is a problem to be fixed, then how does one address it without raising the spectre of "identity politics"? I've often been the lone woman being shouted down in a room full of men, and I promise you the "open discussion" you are imagining doesn't occur unless we recognize that some voices and perspectives must be amplified to be heard over the din. (And conversely, some voices must be told to pipe the heck down!)
I hear you. My question is: How do we ensure fairness in music funding without introducing a new form of gatekeeping? I’m concerned about replacing one unfair pick-a-winner system with another. What would an ideal, bias-free funding model look like to you?
I've made my model. I've proposed my alternative and worked over many years to get it up and running. It's an industrial, labour-based, fully refundable tax credit system. That was my wild big idea.
And here’s the thing: it works. In Nova Scotia alone, it 20x’d the size of our industry and created a system that was acceptable to everyone. It doesn’t require identity slicing and dicing people, picking winners, lobbying, or loud voices—it simply rewards people for doing the work they say they will. No picking winners. No gatekeepers deciding whose voice deserves amplification.
Oof... Easy there. Just interested, that's all, no agenda. See ya around.
Tremendously on point!
Thank you.
The creators should be the dog wagging the tail that is/are “the rest”…
Long gone are the years when an organization like ECMA served a relevant useful purpose for its membership…especially those starting their journey.
Collaboration in place of competition for pointless awards.