The Permanent Underground

[antboy]

Hi all,
Has anyone read Peter Rechniewski's book 'The Permanent Underground'?
I am curious to read it and have already written to the publishers to order a copy but no response yet ...
Any feedback anyone?

[shaggaz]

um, the topic PR vs PG is about the launch of that book.

[antboy]

yeah, I saw that after I posted
: )
however, has anyone read it yet??

[ironguts]

Hey antboy, haven't read it but from all reports it's very inconsistent uninformed and basically a bit of a winge. Nothing positive in the title that's for sure. The only thing it's done is at least is prompt some discussion. It seems to me that he is calling for more funded venues for 'Jazz' to be played in. I'd rather see more Artists be funded to play and develop as there are venues that put on music and I'd rather the artists get the money directly than create more admin of the money, at least then the artists are in control. PR himself has run SIMA for years and it seems to me he supports his own ideas of what Jazz is by the programming, sometimes limiting or suggesting the music that the artists should play. This is just shit. This is what's great about the Fringe/Jazz groove/MUIC etc, they're artist run and far more open to all styles of improvised music. I'd really like people like PR and Albare have much less input into the scene altogether, they have no idea about music, only opinion and personal taste, not the way to go.

[aj]

Have to say I think you're a bit harsh on PR there, Guts. Obviously you've had a bad experience with SIMA (or several?), but they wouldn't be still running 20+ years later if that was the norm, and Peter has put a lot of unpaid time into the organistaion over those years.

As to his book : I'm in general agreement with his assessment of the scene, in that he talks about the viatlity of the music being created here, but bemoans the fact that musicians can't make a decent living from their music because of factors like the scarcity of venues, shortage of govt subsidies, shortage of media exposure.

I would be surprised if any musicians (including several who post on OJF) would argue against his proposition that musicians playing jazz at a high standard don't earn the sort of income that their skills deserve. It's easy to look at the level of support that funding bodies routinely allocate to organisations like Opera Australia and the various symphony orchestra, and think, 'Well, why can't jazz get some of that?'

Peter advocates forming a lobby group, to develop a National Plan that can address the problems the scene faces, and suggest solutions. (Feel free to chip in if you think I've misrepresented his arguments). I believe he wants to present his ideas for discussion & development, rather than as non-negotiable solutions.

The point is to generate discussion. eg
Are there other major problems he has overlooked?

Can we get extra govt funding? ie, is this a realistic, achievable solution? If not, what then?
Are there ways (eg tax incentives) for the govt to encourage greater private sector support of the arts, which could benefit jazz?

If we can get increased funding, how best to direct it? To artists directly? To subsidised venues or presenting organisations?

Anyone have other/better ideas to suggest?

[ironguts]

Fair cop aj, I certainly agree that more discussion is good and needed, I agree more funding would be great, tax incentives a very good place to start, look at Ireland (?) no tax for artists right? The issue with relating more funding to things like Opera or Classical is that large established bodies/organizations get that money and then it filters through much admin down to the performer. There are not any bodies like that in the jazz/improvised world bar the AAO, and as much as I like the AAO I wouldn't like to be full time in a group like that as it would/could restrict my individual output. This is why I like the idea that the artists get the money more directly. Jazz/improvised music has a large tradition of the small ensemble, it's the main area of output I guess. It's great to see a group get a grant to do a CD for example, but it's such a drop in the ocean of what is needed to develop that groups direction. If say Phil Slater got $100 grand for his quartet to do 6 months intensive workshoping/writting/touring the potential for development of the group and then the scene, is huge. Now 100grand sounds like a lot but it's only a one year salary for many in the Arts admin and that's government money. In fact there is heaps of money in the Arts but it is unfortunately lost to bureaucracy.
You talk of PR doing heaps of unpaid work, well that's something every improvising musician understands only too well. Yes he may have been very active in supporting the scene in the way he sees fit but this does not put him in a position of understanding the direction that the scene needs to be nurtured, only the way he wants it nurtured. Bottom line is I believe that some of the most interesting things that are taking place in this country are well beyond his enjoyment or understanding, now this is fine, there is no reason for him not to enjoy the music he likes and call it Jazz or whatever.
If more money were solely to go into Venues and presenting organizations then what do they put on? Unprepared underdeveloped work? No use unless the bulk of the money goes to the creation and development of the work.
Look at the Brisbane gallery? They spent so much on the building, way over budget, that they couldn't afford to put any decent work in the place, now this may have changed, but what a fuck up. This seems to be an overwhelming attitude in the arts in general. Some great spaces, highly paid Artistic Directors and not enough money for the Artists to actually have the time to create the work. What ends up happening is the Artist spends heaps of time for no money ( the romantic poor picture) and yet the work goes to a place of opulence with rich peoples names on the back of seats.
Now I'm just winging I guess, it's just the structure that shits me. More venues? No, more money to create great work then venues will be found and pop up because there is a need for them because there is so much to put on in them.
More press will be interested because there is more interesting work, and if not so be it, at least there is some creation going on and it's the artist getting the money.
Look at the fringe fest, even on their tiny money they manage to have a commission each year, this is hip, they offer the chance for creation of work, not just a gig! Excellent in my book. You've been great at wang for that too, a chance for Aussies to collaborate with internationals, some more successful than others but it's a great thing, it creates new situations. People can also get development money on the back of a Wang invite, that's positive stuff. So yes some money, more money, needs to go to Festivals etc too, but with the aim of there being initial support for the artist to create work for it.
Fuck I've never even read these many words let alone written them, I'm not proof reading, far too much work.

[isaacs]

Guts.

There was a weakness in the original plan (c. 2001) where direct project funding for artists was seriously sidelined, even undermined. I was quite vocal about it at the time. If/when you read the book, you will see the new plan PR is proposing for discussion specifically cites the importance of direct funding to artists, and goes on to suggest ways to facilitate this.

Also, Guts, tax incentives do not mean artists don't pay tax. I don't know if that is the case in Ireland as you suggest it is but it certainly wouldn't work here. We'd be skinned alive. And I wouldn't blame them. Personally I want to pay tax. Tax incentives mean tax deductibility for private individuals who want to donate to the arts. It's already possible for jazz organisations to set themselves up that way. SIMA is on the Cultural Register. And artists would do well to look at the possibility - as I have been considering doing - of setting themselves up so donations to their projects are tax deductible. It's not just a case of tempting the big philanthropists. Aunties and uncles and parents and mates all might chip in a tax deductible $100 to your album recording costs. You only need 50 such donors and you're well on your way. Check out the Australia Cultural Fund www.abaf.org.au/giving/acf.html to see the mechanism to get there.

Sorry to be positive.

[ironguts]

Yes, isaacs, I'm glad you apologize for being positive, god I'd never do that.

[ironguts]

Jesus, isaacs, I don't recall complaining about paying Tax, simply cited an example of a country that supports artists in that way. I don't mind paying Tax at all, I've got kids in publics schools! I drive a car, etc etc, just suggesting it's one place that can help artists. Yes , isaacs, incentives can be for private donations by individuals to artists, did get that one, but surely there can be other ways incentives can work for the artist too. Maybe we all need to set ourselves up as not for profit organizations?
I'd like to think during those lean times artists could get tax deductible donations simply to pay bills and rent let alone produce a CD!
Look at my situation now. Got the fellowship which is fantastic and a wonderful support, came at a time too when I was looking at financial hardship and actually had even started working as a removalist for $20hr. Now I'm set for 2 yrs but I tell you, as you may well know, my tax is going be fucked up now. I'll most likely have to pay provisional tax the year that I don't get the money, yes it'll work out in the end, but this puts another financial strain on me. I'd like to see grant moneys be non taxable, this would be sensible, it's tax payers money given to an artist that has to then pay tax on it.
This is not being negative! Just trying to work through this shit and voice some ideas. Sorry for having an opinion! See I can be a touchy too.

[isaacs]

Review by Dr Bruce Johnson at [a href="http://www.jazz.org.au/features/284?regions[Region]="]http://www.jazz.org.au/features/284?regions[Region]=[/a]

I might mention that I have been invited to write a response/review of the essay for the Jazz Australia website and for Music Forum magazine.

[aj]

John Clare adds his 2 cents' worth on www.sima.org.au

[ironguts]

can't find it, doh, got a direct link?

This is a good read though, this guy knows some history.
www.sima.org.au/2008/05/05/reasons-for-hope-21st-century-jazz

[isaacs]

My review and response is now up at [a href="http://www.jazz.org.au/features/292?regions[Region]="]http://www.jazz.org.au/features/292?regions[Region]=[/a]

[alimcg]

I notice that Readings in Carlton have several copies on the shelf - the only music book to have multiple copies in stock... Mmm.

[captain]

Nice review Mark. I still think we need to look elsewhere (you make this point too) and to private money. Peter's quote, “As American critic Gary Giddins puts it, ‘Jazz musicians have virtually no access to the machinery of capitalism’ I'm less than enthusiastic about, I still think we need to work hard to create access points.