Not true, but some on the most retarded youtube comments I've ever stumbled upon.
There's some REALLY angry people out there. I thought they cheered up when nice Mr Key promised them their ponies?
He'll never cheer up...grumpy old fucker. He truly doesn't get it.
Simon, can you elaborate on what he's not getting and what's your take on the changes Gray suggests?
From where I sit, Gray's definition of "excellence" seems to focus on profitability and therefore seems a bit binary. Does excellence lead or follow commercial success? Gray's ideas are perhaps pragmatic in attempting to simplify the funding process by replacing subjective assessment of quality with the objective fact of the market.
The lure of profits already exists for those artists who happen to fit, or mould themselves towards commercial success, but what impact would any changes have where profits are not immediately likely, such as in maintaining a link to our musical history. Am I right in thinking that striking a balance between supporting commercial & non-commercial acts is a fine art in itself?
Should we seek to provide additional incentive where there are existing commercial incentives and the output is perhaps of little other value?
Does funding only those musicians who are likely to be commercially successful, really only interfere with turf of the labels, effectively to subsidize labels in pick-up NZ musicians, that the labels should be doing effectively.
Or, should we demand the creation an incentive to ignore the logic of the market by providing public funding for people to do something well that a large majority of people have nothing but a disregard for....( a disregard which seems even to be the case for the commercially successful music) ...under some notion of "cultural value"....(whatever that means)
Does this not lead us back towards a discussion regarding some musicians undertaking the creative process as a response to their own creative needs rather than for the purpose of commercial success?....In which case perhaps those artists don't need to be funded, because the were always going to find a way to do it.....that is if the artist really was "sufficiently determined" (again...whatever that means).
To what degree do Gray's ideas lead us towards excellence in marketing, rather than excellence in music making as is evident in the UK chart where style seems to dominate over substance.
Do Gray's ideas hold any water for the visual arts, or literature, or is music a special case?
From where I sit, Gray's definition of "excellence" seems to focus on profitability and therefore seems a bit binary.
for someone who just spouted his load about acknowledging the past he goes on to ignore it. 'Acknowledged excellence' has often been the little known underdog and not profitable, and what was profitable has in contrast often been a sad sad pile of steaming. Just cos it sells well to the masses doesn't mean its high on 'excellence'.
On another thread Simon's pointed me towards his blog, containing his thoughts on the matter....just for the sake of accuracy and completeness.
Dear oh dear...
The post comments section of this Youtube clip is completely mad. The main supporter of Gray Bartlett in the debate is obsessed with fisting and Helen Clark. This is all quite amusing because a friend of mine - who happens to be a well known NZ drummer - told me some kinky rumours about dirty old Gray.