What does UK music need? I've got millions to play with.

Simple: UK music needs an outlet that isn't hype-obsessed or patronising. Where can I go for new music in the UK? Radio One? Radio One's has three hours of rap coverage a week. How much of that is taken up by UK rappers? Fuck all, that's how much, because Tim Westwood would rather ram Jay-Z down our throats. I mean, yeah, "Izzo"'s an OK song, but not six times in three hours it isn't, especially when you've got Roots Manuva, Phi Life Cypher, Scratch Perverts, Blak Twang, Riddla, Wildflower, etc etc around you.

The NME? Just no. The idea of anyone outside of a bunch of scruffy "hey, we're not indie man, we're like... rock. And stuff" buttfucks getting any NME coverage nowadays is preposterous. And they do more damage than good with their overcoverage, Gay Dad being the perfect example of all that.

The TV? Dermot fucking Leary introducing The Coral or some such piece of shit stumbling blindly through a set whilst a bunch of art and design students from UCL more interested in showing off what they've brought from River Island that week than the music sway around in front of them? No.

It just needs an outlet. There's 100 great bands in the UK, playing 100 different styles. Just give them an area to make some noise, free of all the usual UK music scene bullshit, and we'll all be better off.

I take issue with arguments about the "bullshit" in the industry because the industry constantly produces acts which I love and so I think it's quite reliable.

Is this a record?

Yours Etc

Ronan.

The problem is how to give the big brand what they want - i.e. exposure and sales and presumably 'cool' - without tainting the event/thing via sponsorship. There have been so so many cool-but- worthy sponsored events/competitions/promotions all of which seem to feature no-mark post-Oasis rock bands and generally play it very safe. Saying "here's a lot of money, go off and be creative and talented" isn't going to help, it strikes me - there are a lot of people in the UK music business who talk a good game re. creativity and talent and haven't actually got any. I will keep thinking about this, as it's a good general question - is it possible to turn loads of money into 'better UK music'?

(Dom's initial idea is pretty good though - if you're going to sponsor anyone in the UK, UK MCs are a fine place to start looking)

Or to ask a side question - how many really creative and talented UK musicians would have benefitted from big injections of outside money?

That's the question I should have asked really. But also do you trust the eh "system"? I mean are there amazing bands that never get discovered? I think not generally.

Oh good. More corporate branding supporting the 'underground'. Like, duh.

OK other actual ideas:

- start a 'fund' to help small-scale struggling musicians, across as broad a range of music as possible, with high quality control but with a bias towards ideas and innovation. Grants from the fund would be small - a few hundred pounds to finish pressing a CD, stuff like that. Once the grant is made the fund would ask for it to be acknowledged on any eventual release but this wouldn't be compulsory, and absolute non-interference from the fund would be guaranteed.

- sponsor an award, again rewarding innovation. There's definitely room for another Mercury-style winner-takes-all award, but without the whiff of the academy that clings to the Mercury. This option wouldn't have the grass-roots positive effects a fund might but would get the client more publicity, which I assume they care about.

Sorry, missed Ronan's rather facile comment.

Are there amazing bands that don't get 'discovered' - well, it rathe depends on yr definitions of 'amazing' and 'discovered' but... fuck yeah. Of course. Some people don't even make music thinking they gonna be discovered or release a record or make money. Imagine that.

Can we get people to think about how music affects their lives. To think about the soundtrack of our lives (not the band, mind). Maybe by doing this we could change the 'demand' for music? At the moment much of it is driven by image /personality rather than emotion.

We could put a series of big events on in interesting locations - like soundscapes. Try to get people thinking about music as an artform/mood alterer rather than a business with stars and limos (or struggling creative types). Like Handel and fireworks rather than Pop Idol. All a bit cerebral at the moment but I think there may be something in it...

Oh!

Why do these people do this? Don't they want their music to exist?

Existence = futile

Star Trek? God how can you be so facile?

Can we get people to think about how music affects their lives. To think about the soundtrack of our lives (not the band, mind). Maybe by doing this we could change the 'demand' for music? At the moment much of it is driven by image /personality rather than emotion.

Yes - this (and your other comments) is interesting, a focus on the music rather than the musicians. But saying things like "it is driven by image/personality rather than emotion" immediately seems judgemental about the people you're trying to reach - I suspect that almost everybody buying music does find emotional value in music, even if that emotional value is mediated through the image/personality, i.e. what a PRML SCRM fan feels when they listen to the records is genuine if in part directed by and caught up in their identification/admiration for Bobby G. Same goes for people buying a Westlife single.

Something encouraging people to *talk* about music might be a good idea. Make a tape, send it to a stranger, say - your standard small- community practise except extended to a massive number of people by big-money input.

True.

Also interesting is a trend towards eclecticism. When I was 18 we were only meant to like one genre of music.

I would have thought Pop Idol and Westlife etc are far more about emotion than other types of music.

I can only think of one song which made me have strong emotional reactions beyond just liking something*, whereas if I look at Westife live on TV everyone seems to be going fucking mental.

*obviously out in clubs it's a bit different.

Music seems to have a strong us-and-them element. Guest lists, VIPs, backstage, launch parties, the front section at Ozzfest etc. There may be a means to make music for the masses?

''It just needs an outlet. There's 100 great bands in the UK, playing 100 different styles. Just give them an area to make some noise, free of all the usual UK music scene bullshit, and we'll all be better off.''

Ha ha ha...corporate approved music is actually 'bullshit'. There's no fucking need to fund music. Sure, I'd like to see a descension album that is recorded well but music to sell a fucking retarded 'brand' is just not 'cool' OK.

''- start a 'fund' to help small-scale struggling musicians, across as broad a range of music as possible, with high quality control but with a bias towards ideas and innovation. Grants from the fund would be small - a few hundred pounds to finish pressing a CD, stuff like that. Once the grant is made the fund would ask for it to be acknowledged on any eventual release but this wouldn't be compulsory, and absolute non-interference from the fund would be guaranteed.''

So what's yr criteria for quality control, eh, tom? Musicians that actually have things to say, that have ideas, will get round to doing it regardless of whether they have money today or in two years.

''There may be a means to make music for the masses?''

Not everyone wants music. This is a ridiculous thread.

I take issue with arguments about the "bullshit" in the industry because the industry constantly produces acts which I love and so I think it's quite reliable.
The industry doesn't poduce acts as much as it promotes bands. (I fully realize it sometimes does.)

Julio - the fact of the brand and the money and the intention to spend it on music is a given. You can either go "no dont spend it on music corporate pig" or you can accept that and try to work out ideas that are less destructive than a clone of the Brat Awards or something horrible like that.

My criteria would be: "Is this interesting?" and "Is there no chance of them getting the money of a record company?". Your high-handed assertion that people who really have ideas will find a way to do it anyway is a step away from the standard right-wing approach to poverty in general - oh, well if they worked hard enough they'd not be poor. I for one would prefer to have a good record now rather than in two years' time, and the person who made that record can relax and get on with the next thing. Jerry's corporate money=tainted money seems to me a more arguable position that yours, which seems to suggest that any kind of financing arrangements are somehow unartistic.

But how would money improve the industry? I mean how can there be an improvement, it's all opinion. What "improvements" are we talking about? More bands? What exactly? It's not a snarky post, I actually want to know.

You want an antidote to Pop Idol, but I sense you want to have the same impact that Pop Idol has had on UK record-buying. So why not use the same medium: television? I've always felt that TV could serve new music in the UK better than it does now. So I would use the money to buy airtime on commercial TV and then commission a series of programmes about the artists/bands you wish to support. The brand would clearly be identified as 'presenting' the series (the title of the series could even reflect this), but would otherwise have no input into the programmes.

The programmes themselves would be made by one or more experienced production companies - and the artists themselves would have some input into the content, but not full control (to avoid self- indulgence). Editorial functions would be delegated entirely to the producers of the programme, who would be independent of the artist and whose only or main responsibility would be to get across the artist and their music to the TV audience in the best way they can. The format of the programme (documentary, live footage, analysis, video - or combinations of these) could thus vary wildly from week to week, depending on the artist/producer involved.

I'm getting into too much detail here. In short, what I mean is: give an artist 45 minutes in front of a prime time audience, without filtering their music through pre-established TV formats and without employing TV presenters/personalities as an additional filter.

Julio, I think you're right.

A brand being involved in music is never going to be 'cool'. We're not trying to be cool, we're trying to sell stuff. The easy route would be a straight sponsorship of an artist or an event. But that doesn't really add anything. So we're just musing about what it could do. There's no right or wrong, just thoughts, so be nice.

Let's be clear - all music is funded.

How is Sony giving money to an artist any different from Orange doing it or even Virgin (record label turned airline).

''oh, well if they worked hard enough they'd not be poor.''

This is an unfair comparison. PPl who are poor have a lot more to fight against (it varies from country to country region to region but that's another story) than ppl who want to do music.

''Jerry's corporate money=tainted money seems to me a more arguable position that yours, which seems to suggest that any kind of financing arrangements are somehow unartistic.''

But what are the compromises the musician has to make? And what's the criteria for 'quality'?

And what if market research shows that brand 'awareness' has not been increased by the company's support of the music. How would the criteria for 'quality' change?

Julio, you didn't read what I said - the fund would not ask any compromises of the musician. Yes this may be a utopian idea but I think in a climate of increasing suspicion between the artistic and corporate worlds the idea of creative freedom will be something smarter corporations can leverage.

The idea of 'quality' would be up to whoever administrated this hypothetical fund - the actual criteria I suggested was 'interesting' and unlikely to get funding anywhere else. Now of course this sets up a hurdle to jump, and yes the musician might find themselves self- compromising to judge it - not a good thing. But the sums I'd be thinking about really would be quite small - a helping hand to get a record out, as you say, in a month not two years, for instance. Compromise shouldn't come into it.

If market research showed unchanged brand awareness, the sponsor would probably shut the fund/award/whatever down. Fine - if some good was done when it was around, what's the problem.

I rather agree with Julio here ... although I'll try to be more polite. I'm not sure sponsorship from a brand can do much for UK music.

Firstly, everyone thinks that these white knights should come down and enable / sponsor / select music which is better than the common dross. But the common dross is partly dross *because* it's common. Because it's like everything else it's easy to make (you can learn from many examples). And because it's easy to make, many people make it, and there's a lot of it around. And because it's so common, we find it uninteresting.

These facts interdefine each other. You can't make the "interesting" ie. the abnormal into the normal.

''Yes this may be a utopian idea but I think in a climate of increasing suspicion between the artistic and corporate worlds the idea of creative freedom will be something smarter corporations can leverage.''

I'd be amazed if something like this ever happened. A lot of say, creative musicians have all sorts of shall we say, 'arty' ideas.

Tom- its a good thing you're actually paying any attention to this. I think I'm just very cynical about all of this, really.

The brand needs to make sure it is removed from any artistic criteria - thats why the Mercury Prize is still important (long after Mercury the company disappeared). Its a risky strategy - what if the talent slags off the brand? but its the only one that works.

I'd go further than Tom's suggestion. Have a 'Make a CD' fund. Pick 100, or better still 1000 bands / person / whatever gets to record and press a 1000 CDs - picked at random, or at least verifibale independant judges. Give them administration support for booking the studio, making the CD, sorting out distribution. Make a big fuss about how fun it is to buy some of these CDs at random (this suggests a wee element of common branding though).

I still want to know how injecting money is meant to make a difference beyond swapping some places.

Also I agree with Julio about not everyone wanting music. It's a little romantic of us to imagine some fantastic mixcdathon. People don't care.

My point isn't that money should be injected (I happen to think Government funding for musicians is a generally good idea and corporate sponsorship a generally bad one) - it's that in this case the money is going to be injected whatever, it's already been committed. So the question isn't "should this money go into music?", it's "Given that this money is going into music what should happen to it?". My ideas weren't designed to make the abnormal normal - the normal is quite interesting enough to me as it stands.

(The following post is going to be rambling, ill-informed, badly written, unhelpful, cynical, naive and quite often downright wrong. Please skip it if you so wish.)

There are no decent music programmes on the telly. Last week I sat and despaired at two episodes of the 'New To Q' highlights packages of the recent Q shows from the Shepherd's Bush Empire. This would not have been so bad had it not been for the fact that they had to fit in five or six bands on every programme, and their concept of time distribution was, quite frankly, pish. The first programme featured The White Stripes, The Dirtbombs, Gemma Hayes, Josh Rouse and the Von Bondies, and ran thus - kicked off with a brief interview with the White Stripes, then they played Dead Leaves On The Dirty Ground (it might be And The Dirty Ground, I don't care) the whole way through. Nice enough. Then came the Dirtbombs - another brief interview, then about twenty seconds of Ode To A Black Man (again, probably the wrong title). This format was copied for all the other non-top 40 bands - ten second interview, thirty seconds footage - and then they ended the programme with The White Stripes doing the whole of Hotel Yorba. Whathefuckzatallabaaht? You're promoting new music (which must have been the intention, surely) by filling half your programme with a band that most people have already heard of playing two songs off a top 40 album that came out about nine months ago, then shoving in four 'new' acts and giving them barely enough time to say hello, never mind give anyone a decent account of what they actually sound like. The whole approach to handling new music on television (like Jools Holland and stuff) appears to be along the lines of 'Hey, we're willing to take risks, so long as everyone else has taken them first...'

That said, the radio isn't much better. This is a backstage picture of Blak Twang from 1 Big Sunday (yesterday):



Hands up anyone who reckons Rajesh Mirchandani (him on the right) has the faintest idea who those nice young people on the left are? Radio 1 just seems to be filled with DJ people that don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about, yet are in some way vaunted as championing new music. Then there's 6Music, which appears to be a bit of a nightmare in that it's somehow dedicated to 'proper music', i.e. music with guitars in.

I might post more later, my thoughts are going a bit funny, and I'm starting to wonder if my distaste is just due to me being bitter at the realisation that ballboy will never be on Top of The Pops... Basically, I just don't think that the people who are charged with promoting new music in the UK give two shits about the music itself, but rather about the associated glory that they will get. Bit like the swathe of World Cup adverts around at the moment, if you see what I mean.

Oh, and the picture can be found here.

Alright then - HERE.

it's odd how INSTANTLY suspicious the (non-classical/jazz) music world is of what amounts to free money => by contrast the arts and crafts worlds entirely live on an elaborate network of funding, at a variety of levels, from setting-up grants (for equipment and studios) for new graduates, to commissioned works for a variety of situations (making ugly buildings look a wee bit nicer; making attractive ceremonial objects to help distract bored officials during stupid occasions), to an entire safety-web of academic and vocational information and resource sharing... Film too accepts money from a wide variety of sponsors.

Kneejerk hostility to "the Man" = very deepset indeed within this particular region of pop culture. (FUCK I wish we cd have snagged some cash when I was editing the Wire.)

''by contrast the arts and crafts worlds entirely live on an elaborate network of funding, at a variety of levels, from setting-up grants (for equipment and studios) for new graduates, to commissioned works for a variety of situations (making ugly buildings look a wee bit nicer; making attractive ceremonial objects to help distract bored officials during stupid occasions), to an entire safety-web of academic and vocational information and resource sharing...''

If the music cannot sustain itself then shouldn't it die? Who funds and why fund (is it just for some sort of 'credibility')?

Fund because it helps people make PRETTY THINGS!

If [x] cannot sustain itself then shouldn't it die?

Now I know what to say when you ask me for a round, Julio

blimey thatcher's children ahoy!! erm julio, w/o govt support NO company week, NO LMC, i think arguably no brit improv tradition (and the wire in fact was of course subsidised HUGELY by its own owner-publisher naim att*ll*h, so no wire also... )

also no boulez, no stockhausen, no Mills College mob, no RCA-Columbia syntheisiser, post-war electronic avant-garde, probably no avant garde AT ALL

haha except the velvet underground: warhol made his own money... (but no john cale as member, as he wd nevah have left wales)

Oh...that's OK then. Don't call me one of thatcher's children OK. The question was erm...'badly phrased'?

Suggestions so far are trying to support a music INDUSTRY. Why does it have to be about commerce? Focus on people MAKING music and getting PLEASURE out of the act of making music. As a HOBBY. You don't have to (aim to) be a professional musician te enjoy (making) music. I'm thinking of youth centres, practice spaces, music therapy, instrument subsidies, etc. Think of how many people will benefit from THAT!

Job does this happen in Europe?

Well it does here, to some degree. I know that some bands get money to sit on their ASSES coming up with youth anthems for us jaded lot. hah. Some clubs and organisations also get subsidized.

First off, Docker, I doubt you have millions to play with for the music component of your promotion, no matter how big your company's brand is.

Secondly - and to answer your question - I think the best thing you could do is run a series of TV adverts for your company, featuring some excellent visuals by an up-and-coming independent directors and some excellent music by excellent independent bands/ artists.

Pay everyone involved in the project, maybe even credit them on the adverts themselves. Then sit back and watch while the series gains exposure for the artists who contributed, and builds a story for your brand (you can see the headline now: "the brand that launched a thousand hits").

Its not about money but about brains. The 'industry' in the UK is a complete joke. Utter stupidity and ignorance of even the basics of business, let alone the music, from top to bottom (and especially the middle).