British Music Rights is an umbrella organisation whose members – the British Academy of Composers & Songwriters, the Music Publishers Association, and the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society and Performing Right Society - collectively represent more than 50,000 British music creators and publishers in the UK. We are a leading industry voice in raising awareness - through lobbying, research, education, and PR - of the value of music to the British economy, culture and society.

Our response to this consultation was drawn up following a small roundtable discussion of representatives from our member organisations, together with the Performing Right Society Foundation. A list of attendees is attached at the back of this submission.

1. What do you value about the arts?

Responses to this question were made from an individual point of view - it was felt impossible to answer this on behalf of an organisation as it is such a personal issue. The comments made around the table generally related specifically to music and reflected overall a sense of engagement being about a journey, stretching the imagination and emotions, exploring boundaries, new ideas, across all categories and genres, with the arts challenging established perceptions and traditions. Also that they perform an important role in reflecting and documenting society.

2. What principles should guide public funding of the arts today?
(NB some sections in this answer also in part answer Q3.)

“This means enabling artists and arts organisations to take creative risks and pursue new opportunities…there’s an important role for the Arts Council to play as a catalyst for change or growth, an investor, broker of partnerships, a knowledge bank and a development agency.”

“We will promote a climate in which musicians are encouraged to take artistic risk. We will prioritise opportunities for the most talented creative artists to develop their practice, learning new skills, taking time out for research and refreshment, and taking advantage of tailored development programmes here and abroad”.

(Arts Council Music Policy)

To not be afraid, to fund experimental work - pushing the boundaries - which is unlikely to be commercially viable, at least in the short-term.

It was stressed that public arts organisations, such as the Arts Council, should have a duty not just to promote ‘the arts’, and their value overall, but also the value of creators and performers. Furthermore, to recognise and respect the importance of copyright to creators, both artistically and economically.

It was suggested that an appropriate analogy for the overall approach of the Arts Council should be to reflect that taken in the scientific/medical world. As its key objectives would be twofold:

i. to act as an arts research and development body (akin to the Medical Research Council as a publicly funded organisation dedicated to improving human health); and

ii. to champion the interests of the professionals it represents, including promoting recognition of the value of creators and performers, and the need to adequately reward their creative endeavour, (as various bodies do for the scientific community, e.g. the BMA). This was felt particularly relevant given the high proportion of freelancers and micro-businesses in the arts sector.

It was also recommended that there should be an analysis of the overlap between the Arts Council and the British Council, with a view to promoting improved co-ordination so as to increase the synergy and value of the separate public funding involved. An example of an exemplary project of public arts funding cited at the meeting was the British Council in India and Sri Lanka commissioning the project that led to Dash Arts Indian-themed production of ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’. This initiative combined the British Council’s core priorities of intercultural dialogue and cultural diplomacy with innovative artistic development.

Public arts provision shouldn’t attempt to force everyone to have the same interests and experiences. There needs to be diversity, vision and risk-taking in arts funding. It should be apolitical, not a political football, with “arts for arts sake” being the overall guiding principle. Accountability should be to audiences, not to the paymaster (i.e. Government/quango).

The group strongly advocated that the Arts Council needed to refocus on what was perceived should be its primary purpose - arts development (disciplines and individual creators), including associated educational programmes. It was suggested that other activities, such as social and community programmes, would be better funded and administered directly by the relevant Government departments, such as the Home Office, Communities and Local Government, Department of Health, etc., enabling improved emphasis and delivery on pure arts policy. The Lottery was also cited as an appropriate source of funding for this over-extended area of current activity. A better understanding among these Government agencies of the value of the arts in delivering their agendas (social, health, crime, etc.) could also prove beneficial in helping support a portfolio of arts-related project opportunities for arts practitioners.

The Arts Councils across the United Kingdom must have a clear remit to support and deliver the arts in their respective regions, whilst liaising with one another in order to achieve some commonality in the way in which funding schemes are structured. This would help provide better support for migrant creators.

Public funding should be guided by people with practical management and performance experience within the arts. There also needs to be a clear joined-up approach to funding allocation, running from the start of the commissioning process, through delivery and beyond.

As well as promoting arts development and new projects and art forms, funding should be directed towards the arts sectors where Britain has traditionally been world class, e.g. the opera, orchestras, ballet. To sustain and grow these areas, and be proud of them, not embarrassed due to them being regarded by some as elitist. It was noted here that there have been some interesting new projects in this area, such as the ENO’s 2006 production of ‘Gadaffi’, in collaboration with the Asian Dub Foundation (developed in part with funding from the Performing Right Society Foundation (PRSF) – see P.4-5 more details on the PRSF). Public-funding of the arts should help support innovation by encouraging established arts organisations to move beyond their comfort zone to develop and deliver a more groundbreaking artistic vision for their sector.

A comparison in terms of the approach that should underlie public arts funding was made with music publishing, in terms of the way in which publishers invest in creators for longer term return. Similarly, public arts funding should be regarded as an investment and used to nurture the next generation of creators and culture.

There was also a discussion that it is not only pertinent to explore the principles that should guide public funding of the arts, but that it would also be relevant to consider the most appropriate methods for providing that funding. Several people felt that a greater degree of independence, e.g. invested endowment funds, with major arts organisations being encouraged to move towards a plurality of funding in the longer term, would be preferable to the current arrangements; and bursaries for individuals as in Ireland. It was suggested that a US style tax system which favours donations would be helpful in further increasing private patronage.

It was also noted that public arts funding may work more effectively in other European countries due to the impact of a stronger regional level of government. There should therefore be greater focus and co-ordination at the local level in England with improved linkages and synergies between the relevant economic (RDAs) and cultural (cultural consortia, etc.) bodies. This should generate improved management, strategic vision and accountability of the money spent in the name of the arts - e.g. music-making (commercial and cultural) - in the regions.

3. What are the responsibilities of a publicly funded arts organisation?

The people working within such an organisation need to be well informed, intelligent, and engaged individuals with relevant practical experience, working within a clear, robust and ‘fit for purpose’ remit.

To enable arts forms to be affordable to audiences.

To help sustain diversity of genres.

To nurture extreme excellence through focusing on the most talented individuals (again a comparison was made with the medical profession; the example of sports may also be relevant); providing space and support for the emerging elite to become professionals (e.g. in music, at the conservatoires and high quality further education).
“We are committed to working with partners in higher education and vocational training to anticipate the changing needs of musicians and support routes into the profession” (Arts Council Music Policy).

Greater transparency and communication, with expert leadership and promotion of excellence, not a faceless bureaucracy. It was noted here that the reduction within the Arts Council of individual arts form officers with direct experience and understanding of their specific sector has reduced the expertise available to input into programme development for these sectors. It was suggested that in order to enhance responsibility, consideration should be given to the establishment of an Arts Czar (or possibly Czars) – a person (people) with vision, credibility and respect to champion and channel publicly funded arts development of quality (separate from the Arts Council).

4. When should an artist receive public money?

At the early stages of artistic development when they cannot earn a living wage (or sometimes any income at all) from their creativity, and also through life-long bursaries (i.e. the ability to offer bursaries at any point in an artists’ career, as with the PRSF ATOM professional development awards, not bursaries which last a life-time). The bursaries were cited as a way in which public money could enable the continued and sustained development of artistic development and dissemination, preferably through small donations to a large number of creators, rather than vice versa. It is likely that there would need to be different structures and methods of engagement for the different genres within and between the arts sectors as appropriate.

It was added that support should be given for artists venturing out of their comfort zone within their specific sector, and when moving to work across other disciplines (but that this should not be the only criteria for funding).

The awarding body should not take any stake in the IP of the creator, particularly given public scepticism about the funding of individuals to realise their own commercial aspirations (as expressed during the Arts Council research). Furthermore, an organisation such as the Arts Council should promote public awareness about the needs of the artist, the level of awards made, possible matched funding and repayment where projects are successful, to help modify apparent public perceptions.

We believe that the PRS Foundation offers an exemplar of best practice in funding decisions for development within the new music sector. It is the largest independent funder solely for new music of any genre in the UK and provides over £1.2m of support per year. It is guided by artistic priorities and seeks to support, nurture and challenge the live music sector to be dynamic, relevant and successful (artistically, structurally & financially). It is realistic in that it does not have the resources to achieve this itself and so works with other partners to stimulate and sustain new musical activity, e.g.

• British Music Abroad scheme with Arts Council England, to support emerging acts to break new markets at overseas showcases
• Joint commissioning scheme with Scottish Arts Council and Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, to encourage multiple performances of newly commissioned work

The PRS Foundation supports organisations and individuals which are:

• Musically challenging, artistically risk-taking, progressive and forward-thinking
• Developing and supporting UK music creators (composers/songwriters/producers)
• Developing new audiences for new music, and keeping existing ones stimulated
• Integrating their areas of activity (e.g. live performances, education projects, professional development, recordings)
• Working collaboratively with others, either locally or further afield
• Financially stable, effectively managed and reliable

Specific schemes include core funding for: the new music infrastructure (c.55% of PRSF funds) e.g. for festivals, promoters and performance groups; for project-based work (25%) e.g. New Music Award, commissions and professional development projects, and for joint partnership initiatives (20%) to increase the impact of new music in the UK.
Further examples of ground-breaking music which the PRS Foundation has recently supported can be found on www.prsfoundation.co.uk

5. Should members of the public be involved in arts funding decisions?

Strong unanimous agreement that funding for arts development should not be on the basis of public opinion, but guided by expert visionaries from the arts world.

Another way of securing or demonstrating public validity is audience attendance - although there is an issue here that some of the art that we have suggested should be publicly funded may not be that which proves popular with the public. In order to move art forms forward there is therefore a need to support both the successful and the innovative.

Attendees

• Ellis Rich, Chairman Independent Music Group, and Chairman of MCPS-PRS Alliance
• Chris Butler, Chief Operating Officer, Music Sales Ltd
• Francis Shaw, composer
• Sarah Rodgers, composer
• Charlotte Ray, Director, Performing Right Society Foundation for New Music
• Chris Green, Chief Executive, The British Academy of Composers and Songwriters
• Jenny Goodwin, Assistant Chief Executive, Music Publishers Association
• (Transcribed by Sara Conway, Senior Policy Advisor, British Music Rights)