Music Could Help Make Brexit A Success: But Only Through Education
The last seven days have been busy for the UK’s music industry. It started with the publishing of the DCMS Committee Music Streaming Report. In it was outlined that if artists are not put first, our £5.8bn industry would decline. Here is the report, verbatim:
“Streaming has undoubtedly helped save the music industry following two decades of digital piracy but it is clear that what has been saved does not work for everyone. The issues ostensibly created by streaming simply reflect more fundamental, structural problems within the recorded music industry. Streaming needs a complete reset.”
This is a government committee, not the government. While a members bill will be introduced in December for debate, it is up to the government — which is controlled by ministers — to implement the recommendations.
Four days later, The Guardian reported that the new Office for Students (which isn’t run by students) has confirmed a reduction in funding for arts, humanities, design, archeology and music degrees. The article states:
The controversial reforms affect a specific funding stream which is directed at high-cost subjects in higher education and will result in money being taken away from creative arts subjects, while more is invested in other high-cost subjects, including science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), medicine and healthcare, in line the government’s priorities.
In response, here is Education Secretary Gavin Williamson’s statement:
The reprioritisation is designed to target taxpayers’ money towards subjects that support the NHS, science, technology and engineering, and the specific needs of the labour market including archeology [given a reprieve from the cuts] which is vital to key industries such as construction and transport.”
Overarching this, like with everything else, is Brexit. To support this newfound ‘independence’, policies have been drawn up to create a Global Britain, Level Up and Invest in Skills. Brexit is communicated in these (and other policies) as an opportunity to invest in local skills and foster a new outlook — international, high skilled & technologically advanced.
This is what makes these decisions more perplexing. Moreover, below are further investments the government is making where music (and culture as a whole) adds value (improve places, etc.)
- £830m to improve high streets
- £3.6bn for small towns
- £1.67bn for cultural recovery
- £120m for a Festival of Britain in 2022
In addition, elected Ministers, after commissioning a review of the sector, deemed it in dire need of reform. To state that something requires fixing infers it is worth fixing - because it has worth. In this case, £5.8bn to UK Plc.
By substantially reducing state funding for arts and culture subjects in favour of STEM subjects, the justification is:
- These subjects are too ‘high cost’
- They do not support government priorities, which are focused on “NHS, science, technology, and engineering.”
Imagine clearing a field of rubbish, nourishing the soil and planting a garden, tilling and caring for it for many years to get the most out of the land. Then, when it is time to harvest, instead of picking the spoils, you let the land go to seed, allow weeds and pests to settle, and ignore the watering. Yet, without this food, a shortage will happen, despite when talking about the land, proclaiming a will to grow our own and limit imports. This is what’s happening.
It is absurd to believe that a nation — whose very identity is built on years of cultural development, appropriation & creation — can be successful without recognising that all learnings are intertwined. Music is math as much as engineering is art. Scientific advances require designers and branding. The NHS incorporates music into its health and social care strategy. And so on.
Without The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Benjamin Britten, Adele, The Specials, Skepta, Ed Sheeran, Radiohead (the list goes on & on and surpasses far more than my knowledge, and then add in other artforms on top of that), What is Britain? The answer to this question may not lie in fostering new art and culture, because over time, the garden will wither.
This reduction in funding supposes that these artists just happen and will continue to. At a reduced rate, this may be true, but this garden that could bloom, flower and deliver more nourishment for all of us is being vandalised.
I wrote my Ph.D. about Canada’s popular music funding system. In it, I argued that the very notion of Canada is, like all national brands, created by its culture. Here it was deliberate and intentional (much like South Korea’s K-Pop). In an effort to be Canadian, Canada needed to be defined. This was done through a Canadian content radio quota, investment in culture, and other protectionist measures. Without these, being ‘Canadian’ would be defined as ‘not American’.
Is it more than the recorded music industry that needs a complete reset?
