I think reflects a comparatively narrow view of music, its history, and its currency in contemporary society.

P.S. P2P has been with us before the advent of recorded music.

Not exactly. You left the word “comparatively” off the end of the sentence, which changes it’s meaning slightly. Obviously some people think it’s important, otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

“And now you’re saying that the survival of art doesn’t depend on grants whereas medical and scientific research does.”

Yes I am. Because it’s true.

“I think this plays into a self-hating stereotype artists that weighs on artists where we are expected to be happy creating without any sort of compensation for our work”

I’m neither happy nor sad about it: I simply accept it and go on with my day. One must accept that if one is creating art of very limited interest to the public, one will more than likley not recieve a lot of money in exchange for that art. There’s no self-hate involved. I’m simply realistic about it. I create the art I do because I would go batshit insane if I didn’t. Simple as that. The fact that I have been able to be compensated for some of it is just gravy.

“I don’t know if you’ve ever had to confront someone who didn’t pay you for a gig, or explained in detail to a grant giving organization how specifically you will use the small amount of money they might award you,”

I’ve been left unpaid, as has nearly every gigging musician, and it sucks. But that is a case of breach of contract – would I have agreed to play the gig were it unpaid? Probably not. But I still would have written the songs. I still would have recorded them. Nobody paid me to do that.

I have never and will never apply for a grant.

Of course… everything costs money, and we do place a value on our work. I’m just saying I (and most of the world, I suspect) place greater value on cars that run on dog poo and cures for horrible diseases. I never suggested that music was valueless. It simply has less monetary or societal value than, say, stem cell research.

Though in the era of P2P, music may well be literally “valueless” before long…

Then again, in today’s economic climate, every musician I personally know is hurting. And that translates into stress, less time to create, sometimes leaving the city you’ve lived in for years because you can’t make a living there, etc. I’ve been through 9/11, I watched what my New Orleans friends went through after hurricane Katrina, and know that lack of money, lack of care, lack of recognition all adds up to a lack of art.

Actually, good/great art requires time, which in turn requires money. No, art will not cease to exist if people no longer receive money for it. But I guarantee you that the amount of quality art in any form, medium and genre will decrease significantly.

Of course we’re talking about a private foundation. But you said “what we (meaning composers and other artists) do isn’t terribly important.” And now you’re saying that the survival of art doesn’t depend on grants whereas medical and scientific research does.

And I think this plays into a self-hating stereotype artists that weighs on artists where we are expected to be happy creating without any sort of compensation for our work. I don’t know if you’ve ever had to confront someone who didn’t pay you for a gig, or explained in detail to a grant giving organization how specifically you will use the small amount of money they might award you, or contracted another musician to play some of your music.

Or put on a festival of music.

Or consistently put out recorded music that actually pulls together the various disciplines we’re discussing (Dave Soldier’s Mulatta label being the example I’m thinking of).

Doing all of the above requires money and/or that we place a value upon our creative work.

Taking art for granted is kind of like taking the climate or the environment for granted Look at New Orleans.

Art will not cease to exist if people no longer recieve grants to make it. As long as there is life, art will exist. On the other hand, great medical and scientific advances can be directly tied to private and/or pubic philanthropy.

–

To whoever suggested I was being “campy” – hmmm. You’ve obviously never met me.

But then shouting into The Void seems a futile endeavor.

–

“Not to pick on Seth, but I believe this notion that science and medicine is somehow “separate” and more “important” than the creative arts is really old fashioned. Would Oliver Sacks agree?”

Some call it “old-fashioned” – I call it “classic” – and we all know what happend with New Coke vs. Coke Classic…

And while an entertaining writer, I don’t particularly care what Oliver Sacks thinks re: the distribution of philanthropic funds.

–

All that said, it’s a private foundation. They can spend the money however they like.