When the Government owns the Game.....

Did you love the opening and closing ceremonies of the London Olympics? I did. Did you laugh at the way the Poms sent themselves up at every opportunity and did it with such lavish panache? I did. Did you wonder where they got the tens of millions to pay for this extravagant pageant? I did.

Do you know where they got that bottomless pool of arts funding? The National Lottery.

That's right. All of that money, plus most of their film, music, visual and performing arts funding comes from mums', dads', and young people's spending on the vilest, most pointless waste of hard earned cash: the national lottery. According to British law; Film, music, visual and performing arts (and sport) are deemed 'good causes'.

The distribution of money to 'good causes' is not the responsibility of the operator (Camelot). It is the responsibility of The National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF), administered by the government Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Currently 18% each is given to arts, sports and heritage via government agencies and the remaining 46% is given to charitable, health, education and environment causes by the Big Lottery Fund.

I hate gambling. I think it destroys families, lives and dreams. It seduces people who have no idea of how to manage their world with promises that if they are LUCKY they will have the solution to all of their problems. They will be able to live like millionaires, take endless holidays, give up work (if they are employed) and pay off their accumulated gambling debts -  maybe even give some away. It encourages people to think that wealth (no matter how it is gained) is the solution to every problem imaginable. What bollocks - to use a Pommie expression.

However, what happens in the Land of Oz in this scenario?

Instead of lotteries run by the Australian government with a mandate to share the spoils with those areas that are 'not economically sustainable' but 'important to the cultural well being of the nation', we have given control of this appalling but lucrative cash cow/national addiction/destroyer of lives to people who have no moral compass or motivation other than to screw the community and 'keep the shareholders happy'. People like James Packer, Lloyd Williams ands Len Ainsworth.

Only this week, I read with disbelief how Tattslotto will sue the Victorian Government for almost a billion dollars because Ted has been a little negative about reissuing licences to allow Tattslotto to continue to fleece hard working Victorians of millions of dollars. Tattslotto even threatened to take their operation interstate thereby decreasing the number of Victorian jobs. I can feel my prohibitionist side coming on.

This single but epic blunder has destroyed our cultural potential like no other. The very people who own and support the gambling cash cow are the people that white-ant any cultural initiative that hasn't sold its soul to the man. They are the people that say our orchestras, opera and arts schools are too expensive to maintain. They are the people that pay big bucks to high profile artists for corporate arse licking but are not there a few years later when they have ceased to be flavour, colour or song of the month or if they are asked to fund arts education and cultural development.

Until governments wrest control of the gambling profits so that they can be spent on Australian culture instead of Asian casino expansion, our arts and culture will remain ravaged, denigrated, superficial, marginalised and parochial.

Australia - the 'Lucky' country? I don't think so.

The best things in life....

Way back when, I believed I could actually eek out a modest but sustainable living as a working musician. Times have changed. Fewer gigs, more entertainment options, an ageing audience all conspire to make a fallacy  of this. For a while I struggled to deal with this, but the reality would not go away. Anyone who thinks they can create music to achieve some economic master plan is either naive or a fool whose time has not yet come.

So what does a musician do? Musicians need to play. They need to test their talent continuously. They need the applause. But if nobody offers them gigs what do they do? Do they just not play? Do they stop practising and composing? How do they respond to their supporters when they are asked when is their next gig?

I think we need to look back to the very dawn of time for the answer. When humankind began to organise their tribes into villages, each member of the village took on the roles that combined to provide a sustainable community. Villagers of no particular skill needed to feel needed and wanted by the villages they lived in. In order to share the harvest these villagers took on new roles and established themselves as reliable providers of specific community services. Alongside the healers, the cooks, the midwifes, the teachers and the shop keepers were the musicians.
Musicians provided the village with the means to express and celebrate the important milestones that punctuated the history of the village.  Musicians were at the centre of the stage whenever marriages, funerals, births, deaths, good harvests, bad harvests and political gatherings were held. Musicians were often the people who expressed best the feelings of the community at these events. In return, the village provided food and shelter and embraced music as an essential part of village life.
In the 21st century, music has no economic power. Communities expect their musicians to play for free and published music has no worth because of the ease of digital download and duplication. However, communities still require the services of musicians to do the things they've always done. The spiritual rewards for musicians who perform and celebrate the life of their community still exist. The artistic challenges and triumphs that drive musicians to excel are still there. 
What has always been at issue is payment. What is a musical performance worth in dollars? Why do people sometimes pay hundreds of dollars to see an overseas act play in their community but at the same time are unaware of equally deserving musicians who live in the same street?
Should musicians be bitter that their performances are not respected and are measured against noise meters instead of cultural significance?
To me, the answer lies within each musician. Music can enrich a community but it can also enrich the life of musicians themselves. Exercising their talent in their own community allows them a thrilling way of interacting with their fellow humans, cultivating their art and often raising the money or awareness essential for progressing the integrity of the community. To me, these gifts more than compensate for side stepping the setting of a price for services, they compensate for travelling through cold nights to rehearse with similar musicians and (sometimes) they soften the harshness of indifferent audience reaction.