Has a new Arts Council scheme to support emerging musicians lost sight of its purpose?

The most recent figure for the music industry’s contribution to the UK economy was an estimated £4.1 billion. A sum that is believed to be “an underestimate and based on a flawed methodology” by UK Music, an organisation currently in the throws of their own national audit. Regardless, with music a great earner for Britain a new Arts Council scheme enabling emerging talent is a sound investment.

The Momentum Music Fund has been designed to award individual grants of up to £15,000 to emerging acts from a pot of £500,000. Give the grant to the right act and a quick return will follow; before the annual report is out we’ll all be singing Sly and the Family Stone ‘Celebration’ – sequin trousers and all, while congaing across the Arts Council’s offices. Party time. OK, well maybe, but it’s an exiting initiative. none the less. One that is long overdue. 

But this week, while impoverished musicians were sharpening their pencils ready to apply,  Alan Davey chief executive of Arts Council England had a surprise for them, “They [the music industry] want talent to be delivered to them ready-made. They’re not prepared to take a risk over a long period of time investing in talent.” Placing the blame right at the feet of Simon Cowell and his unique business model. 

Responding to which David Joseph Chief Executive of Universal Music wrote to the Times claiming, “[the Arts Council] should get their facts straight, record labels like Island, Decca, Polydor and Virgin have been investing in new music for decades. The X Factor,” for which Davey’s argument can solely be levelled, “is a facet of modern pop music, and to characterise an entire industry by one TV show feeding into one label is breathtakingly simplistic any ignorant.” Mr Davey’s ignorance was only magnified when Geoff Taylor BPI Chief Executive claimed, “UK labels have invested £1 billion over the last 5 years on new music.” 

A music industry report finds that it costs around £1 million to break an artist in a developed market. Equally I’ve sat with record executives boasting how they could break the right act with £250,000 “easy”. To me, if Mr. Davey wants the money to go towards the next pop star he is completely misguided. And it shocks me that the chief executive of Arts Council England has such a poor grasp of such a major creative industry. 

Tempting as it is to ignore Mr. Davey’s statement, which Mr. Joseph correctly lambasts as a foolish short sighted criticism of the industry, there’s still the problem of a £500,000 Arts Council cheque ready to be spent. Indeed, taking a step back from their dispute it appears that Mr. Joseph is speaking out of turn as well. So horrendously misguided was Mr. Davey’s statement that he managed to involve the exact person he was trying to sideline, and find himself in a dispute that completely misses the point of the fund. That good creative investment is due to be hijacked by bureaucrats and politicians, and overlook those best suited to the support. 

What his point misses specifically is the context of how the music industry has changed. It is not the emerging talent who are missing out, rather the experimental artists. When once major labels like Motown would have their pop acts generating revenue, while they invested money into artistic projects, the latter has been shut down. Equally this problem has become muddled as many independents today complete alongside the major labels, and that their Independent title is no longer a byword for ‘artistic’. Rather they exist in a tertiary commercial market, seldom infiltrating the primary market. 

If the Arts Council is to invest in artists who are being neglected by the current model, there is a worry that the money would be used productively in a Social Capitalism light to support solvent acts on smaller labels. The problem with this is that in this scenario the money would act as little more than quantitative easing. Commercially viable artists struggle because of an overcrowded market place, not because of a paucity in business acumen nor funds. To select one commercially viable product over another is little more than financial doping. And will not promote a competitive market place. 

What there has been, and if I were to come to Alan Davey’s defence, is a slowing down in innovative music culture and there is a conservatism within the music industry, a long untreated raging virus, that has crippled experimentation. Were we to run a comb through the new talent that David Joseph and his peers are chucking endless money at, we’d be eyeing a group of preened chancers, short sighted imitators, and identi-kit acts. 

The Momentum Music Fund is a great project for the Arts Council and PRS for Music. Handled well it can help artists expand their operations and realise projects they previously wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do. Were I presiding over the money, acts like Dean Blunt, Maria Minerva, Karen Gwyer, Demdike Stare, and Triad God would all come to mind as suitable candidates – not just because their level of financial resource is suitable, but because the options available to them are limited in terms of commercial viability. That theirs is the art marginalised by the current model. In that their music is not of a type tolerated by the current commercial markets, primary, nor tertiary. They have fans, they make great music, they are perfectly eligible for the scheme, and they could grow rapidly with investment. they could, given the investment, advance pop music innovation. The reticence to invest in music has gone on too long, and this scheme comes as sweet relief. 

The PRS are leading the consultation, and have some control over the pot. Whether they invest the money well will be an argument for when the results are in. My belief is that it’s very possible to put that money to good use, as long as it’s in the right hands, and this is exactly the type of scheme the Arts Council should be looking to grow in years to come. However the focus should be small exceptional artists whose work demands a dependence on an alternative financial model, rather than sub-pop artists who are operating at an inferior level than their commercially-just-viable work could command. 

However Mr Davey’s comments are so wide of the mark in terms of what could be done, and what could be realised, there’s a real concern that those working on the Fund are as blind to its possibilities as he is.