National Arts and Media Strategy 1992 – Flawed, but the Arts Council had a go

In 1992 the Arts Council published a National Arts and Media Strategy. The whole process was flawed from the start as the Arts Council had restructured first and then tried to concoct a policy to fit the structure. Regrettably life does not work like that strategy comes first and structure to expedite the strategy comes second. The Stage and Television today published my analysis of the strategy process in August 1992. My grateful thanks for the Stage for allowing me to reproduce this article.

“The National Arts and Media Strategy (NAMS) has already provoked such comments as the ‘Silence of the NAMS’ (Arts and Management Weekly 11th June 1992) and ‘The good, the bad and the execrable’ (Brian Sewell Evening Standard 4th June 1992) …………………………..”

Please see full article: National Arts and Media Strategy 1992

Public investment in jazz 2012 to 2022

Stuart Nicholson in his book “Jazz and Culture in a Global Age” stated:

“But if adequate remuneration had become one problem facing American jazz musicians, then falling audience
numbers was another. Yet those who attempted to highlight issues such as these often found their words
unwelcome, un- American even, and likely to be shouted down – „Jazz has more than its fair share of
handwringers‟, thundered the New York Times when concern was raised at the results of the 2009 National
Endowment for the Arts survey on the audience participation for the arts, which revealed the audience for jazz,
especially for younger fans, was in decline”.

Britain too has its share of people who think everything in the jazz garden is rosy. The music is of the highest
order but the infrastructure is not there to sustain it.

Public investment in jazz 2012 to 2022 examines:

 Arts Council funding of jazz and the National Portfolio round 1991/92 to 2021/22
 A level playing field for jazz
 The lack of a coherent policy for jazz and music in the UK
 Keep music live

Public investment in jazz 2012 to 2022

How music streaming saved the music industry?

There was an article in the G2 section of the Guardian on the 25th April 2018 saying music streaming saved the music industry.

Streaming may have saved some parts of the music industry but it carries problems for under-represented music such as jazz.

The nub of the problem with streaming for the jazz musician is the pitiful sums that can be earned. A musician recently sent me a statement of his/her earnings from streaming for the three month period ending the 1st April 2018. The total number of streams was 58,377 and earned $59. At current exchange rates $59 would buy £42.03. Therefore estimated earnings per annum are £169 from 235,508 streams. To earn the National Average Annual Wage of £27,600 in 2015 this particular musician would have to have his or her music streamed 38,461,659 times.

Comparisons are drawn with Ed Sheeran who earned $6.6 million from the “Shape of You” on Spotify. However it took 1.318 billion streams to do it. For musicians such as Adele and Ed Sheeran over a billion streams is feasible and has been achieved, for the jazz musician, especially in a world where people have got used to free music, paltry earnings from streaming poses a problem of endemic proportions.

Observations on streaming

A friend of mine sent me a statement of earnings from streaming their music. Set out below is their redacted email and my observations:

From: Redacted
Date: 17 April 2018 at 09:29
Subject: Streaming
To: “Chris Hodgkins Esq.” <>


Woke up this morning to find my latest quarterly commission statement, 1st January to 1st April 2018, in my emails. Interesting facts: 

1. My music has earned $149 these past three months of which I get 40% so $59 dollars.

2. 41,788 streams earned me $44.2681

3 Radio Broadcast with 16,589 impressions earned $14.7307

I’m never going to be rich.


Observations on streaming

The total number of streams is 58,377 and earned $59. At current exchange rates $59 would buy £42.03

Therefore estimated earnings per annum is £169 from 235,508 streams

To earn the National Average Annual Wage of £27,600 2015 this particular musician would have to have his or her music streamed 38,461,659 times yes that is right 38 million times.

In a guest post on   at   by Bobby Owsinski of Music 3.0 who countered the argument that streaming music is worse than piracy and cannot earn big money. He used Ed Sheeran’s “Shape of You” as an example. Ed Sheeran earned $6.6 million from this particular track on Spotify. However it took 1.318 billion streams to do it. This did not include revenue from Apple Music, Amazon, Tidal, Deezer and the other streaming companies.

“Like radio, where the more airplay you get the bigger the hit, the more streams you get the better. The only thing that’s changed is the scale, and that’s what many in the music business don’t understand. Where in the past, a million of anything was a lot, in our new digital world that number hardly creates a ripple. You get some industry interest at around 10 million views or streams, a minor hit at around 50 million, and a true hit at 100 million. Major hits are in the mid-100 millions, and of course, a big hit like Ed Sheeran’s “Shape Of Your” …….can top 1 billion.

There’s some real money to be made from streaming, but it’s not coming at 10,000 or even 100,000 streams. You got to adjust the way you think about this by a factor of 100”.

If you get a hit on Spotify then serious money can be paid but if you are working in jazz or any of the other “under-represented musics” then the chance of track being streamed a billion times is negligible. With streaming there is a real problem with the level of artists royalties that are paid. A physical product such as a CD will earn the performer around 12% of the published price to dealers. In the New York Times Zoe Keating a Californian musician provided a detailed case study of her earnings which painted a bleak picture. Over 6 months her songs were played 1.5 million times on Pandora earning her 1,652.74 dollars and on Spotify in the year 2012 131,000 plays earned her 547.71 dollars or an average of 0.42 cents a play. Ms Keating summed up the situation:

 “In certain types of music like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music”. (1)

The underlying malaise is that new media distribution has allowed a scale of mass consumption of music hitherto unknown and in the process lowered people’s expectations of the price they should pay.


1 Ben Sisario, As Music Streaming Grows Royalties Slows To A Trickle (New York Times. 28th January 2013, available at:, accessed on 7th April 2018

The National Windrush scandal – the Road to justice.

The Guardian’s coverage  of the past few weeks has exposed the present Government, with its disgraceful actions towards the migrants and their children who arrived in 1947 to help a tired nation drag itself up by its bootstraps. The Government’s policies and actions  demonstrate all the hallmarks and stock in trade of the far-right. The first rule of the far -right is find your scapegoat; immigrants generally and the Windrush generation in particular and the second rule is to suborn Government agencies to do the dirty work; the NHS, Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office.

Richard Griffiths in his book, Fellow Travellers of the Right concluded, “most people take their political stances from ignorance or from carelessness.” Add to this nastiness, vicious far-right ideology and the development of a national culture that trashes the notion of natural justice and you have the political philosophy of the present Government that wilfully and knowingly acts against its citizens instead of for them.


Response to the Industrial Strategy – Creative Industries Sector Deal

Industrial Strategy – Creative Industries Sector Deal

Set out below is my response to the recently published (March 2018) Creative Industries Sector Deal that forms part of the Government’s industrial strategy. The document can be downloaded at:

1 Analysis of the Creative Industries Deal

The first step in any strategy formulation is to ask and answer two questions:

Where are we now?

Where do we want to be?

It appears that the first question is for the main part addressed by the recommendations in Sir Peter Bazelgette’s “Independent Review of the Creative industries” in 2017. The second question is answered by the stated goals for each section of the Creative Industries Deal, places, ideas, business environment and people:

Places – developing more world-class creative industries clusters to narrow the gap between London, the South East and other regions.

Ideas – sustain growth: achieve forecast Gross Value Added (GVA) of £150bn by 2023.

Business Environment – sustain growth: forecast GVA of £150bn by 2023. Boost job creation: higher than average growth rate implies 600,000 new creative jobs by 2023.

People – strengthen the talent pipeline to address current and future skills needs, as well as ensure that it is more representative of UK society.

The flaw is there is no mention of the performing arts generally in terms of orchestras, opera, theatre West End shows and in particular a musician as creator, sole trader and promoter. In 2012/13 there were 4,094 jazz musicians active in the UK. In 2010 there were 869 active jazz promoters and 3,473 active venues who promoted jazz. The creative industries in the UK is an ecology and it seems that crucial parts of the ecology have been left out in the Creative Industries Deal. It would appear that in the creation of the Creative Industries deal they omitted to ask of the performing arts “where are we now”? and “where do we want to be?”

The only reference to musicians was the mention of the Momentum Fund operated by the Performing Right Society Foundation. The fund has funded 215 artistes since 2013 but there were 3,316 applications which give a success rate of 6.5%. The fund will support recording, touring (UK only), marketing and marketing promotions but not touring abroad. There appears to be no analysis of arts and culture that I can discern.

For jazz there is a clear need for:

Promoting excellent music (whether tours, gigs, festivals)

Developing current and future audiences

Leading and supporting education

Building strategic partnerships and networks

From the report of the needs of the community published by Jazz Services in 2016 the following was identified that also chimed with the Arts Councils goals in their strategic plan, Great Art and Culture for Everyone

“1.1       Broadly speaking the needs expressed by respondents fall into two main areas.  The first area highlights the problems of performing Jazz in the current economic and cultural climate and the second concerns the future of Jazz in the UK ten and more years hence.  In terms of the Arts Council England’s key objectives the needs of Jazz in the UK are as follows:

1.2        Funding.  While large events such as major jazz festivals have the resources and expertise to secure funding, smaller events and organisations struggle.  There is a need to help small organisations with the process of securing the funding they need.  Additionally Jazz must receive its fair share of the funding that is available.  Jazz Services has been widely praised for its activities.  Goal 1

1.3        Audience.  Many respondents complain about the problems of attracting and retaining new audiences.  This is all about marketing Jazz, appropriate venues and programme content and the use of new and existing media to reach the audience. Goal 2

1.4        Sponsorship. In reality, with many Jazz related organisations already run on a shoestring there is very little scope for cutting costs so there should be vigorous efforts to attract sponsorship from all available sources. Goal 3

1.5        Management and equal opportunity.  Some initiatives, both urban and rural, highlighted in this report, have been very successful in promoting Jazz and increasing the number of gigs available for young musicians to perform in, audiences have also increased.  Nationally however there are minorities who do not have sufficient opportunities.  Typically females and black ethnic groups are under-represented in all roles but another group feeling excluded is the Traditional Jazz performer. Goal 4

1.6        Education and Participation.  To many, educating young people is of supreme importance for the long term health of Jazz in the UK  Once again there are pockets of optimism where young people have been inspired to play Jazz, some university departments and local education authority arts organisations are thriving, but so much more needs to be done.  Provision of music and instruments in schools is a top priority, not just for Jazz, but for all music genres.  However while children and young people are enthusiastic about playing music of all types there are problems for young people when it comes to participation in Jazz as part of an audience. Goal 5.

The full Jazz Needs Report is available at:

Chris Hodgkins

2nd April 2018





Arts Council England – The Next Ten Years – The Conversation, Discussing a future strategy for arts, museums, libraries 2020 to 2030

Arts Council England has been conducting a “conversation” which is arts speak for consultation. The word that should have been used is debate. The consultation has been running for 12 weeks and concludes on the 12th April 2018.

The Arts Council asked a number of questions under the following subject headings:

Looking to the future.
Role of the sector.
The role of public funding in arts, museums and libraries.
Funding strategy – ‘great’ arts, museums and libraries.
Arts Council England’s role beyond funding.

Please see Arts Council England pdf below for my response to three of the questions; Looking to the future, funding strategy and Arts Council England’s role.

Arts Council England – The Next Ten Years – The Conversation, Discussing a future strategy for arts, museums, libraries 2020 to 2030 1.4.2018

“Opera is many things to me. Elitist is not one of them” – please debate

In the Guardian on the 21st March 2018 there was an article, “Opera is many things to me. Elitist is not one of them”. Opera is not elitest as music it is the inequality of funding that sets it apart and one could argue that it is conspicuous consuption writ large with two opera houses existing almost side by side.

Opera receives a disproportionate amount of public subsidy compared to other art form. In a time of continued austerity there are two opera house in London soaking up substantial public funding.

The Arts Council’s funding decisions are based on the bounded rationality of the past. The lack of art form polices guiding funding decisions has bedevilled the arts in England since the instigation of the National Portfolio bidding process in 2012.

The National Portfolio scheme was an abrogation of the Arts Council’s duty to ensure funding by art form on an equitable basis. The result is that in 2018/19, Opera will receive a total of £57.1 million of which 32.5% will be spent outside of London. Classical music will receive £19 million of which 55% is allocated to the English regions and jazz will receive a total of £1.6 million of which 30% is spent outside of London; 3.4 million people attend classical music concerts, 2.1 million people attend jazz concerts and 1.7 million people attend opera.

Equality for female and male composers promotes quality in the arts?

There was a leader article in the Guardian on the 8th March 2018,  “Equality for female and male composers promotes quality in the arts”.

Whilst gratifying to read it was regrettable that the article was only concerned with classical music; the problem is a lot deeper than public performance. For example the Huddersfield Contempary Music Festival has seven trustees of whom only two are women. In terms of jazz, an analysis of the teaching staff in January 2018 of the jazz departments at the 4 English Conservatoires  produced a total of 133 tutors of whom 122 were male and 11 were female – only 8.2% of teaching staff were female. The Scott Trust that funds the Guardian, has eleven trustees of whom four are women.  The Performing Rights Society Foundation has eleven trustees of whom only three are women. There needs to be a reformation in the sclerotic culture that still in this day and age ignores the fact fifty percent of the population in the UK are women.

Arts Council England funding of National Portfolio Organisations for jazz 2014/2018

Arts Council England funding of National Portfolio Organisations (NPO) for jazz 2014/2018

National Portfolio Organisations for jazz NPO








% increase or (decrease) on 14/15 NPO




% increase or (decrease) on 15/16 NPO




% increase or (decrease)

On 16/17

Total % increase or (decrease)


Emjazz 77,448 77,446 0 77,446 0 77,446 0 0
Jazz Services 287,028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jazz North 190,000 190,000 0 190,000 0 190,000 0 0
Jazz re:freshed 0 95,795 100 95,795 0 95,795 0 100
J Night 51,648 68,749 33 68,749 0 68,749 0 33
Manchester Jazz Festival 90,522 90,522 0 90,522 0 90,522 0 0
National Youth Collective 128,880 124,690 (3.25) 124,690 0 124,690 0 (3.25)
National Youth Jazz Orchestra 52,972 125,000 235.9 125,000 0 125,000 0 235.9
Serious Events Ltd 452,778 452,778 0 452,778 0 452,778 0 0
Tomorrows Warriors 178,244 208,744 17.1 208,744 0 208,744 0 17.1
Jazz Lines

Performance Birmingham Ltd

80,464 80,464 0 80,464 0 80,464 0 0
Brownswood Music Ltd 0 89,000 100 89,000 0 89,000 0 100
Otto Projects 0 74,933 100 74,933 0 74,933 0 100
Total 1,473,987 1.678,121 13.8% 1.678,121 0 1.678,121 0 13.8%

Table 1. Source: Arts Council England

 Notes to table 1

1 Jazz Services funds for 2014/15 are net of the National Youth Jazz Orchestra that was a NPO under the umbrella of Jazz Services.

2 Jazz North whilst technically not a NPO was funded as such

Notes to the National Portfolio Organisations (NPO) for jazz 2014/2018

The funding of the National Portfolio Organisations for 2015 to 2018 is compared to 2014/2015, the last year of the previous round. Please note only those organisations are included whose activity is a give or a take a percent, 100% jazz activity. They are the core jazz National Portfolio Organisations. Whilst the Turner Sims and other organisations such as the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival and Bristol Music Trust do an invaluable job, jazz is merely a portion of their regular programming and not their core activity. As table 1 shows the increase in Grant in Aid for core jazz organisations is 13.8%. However as a percentage of total funding of NPOs opera is at 64% and jazz at 1.8%

Please note that of the funding of core jazz NPOs only 30.2% of the funds went to organisations outside of London. Organisations based in London received 69.8% of the total funding of £1.678 million.

In 2018/19, Opera will receive a total of £57.1 million of which 32.5% will be spent outside of London. Classical music will receive £19 million of which 55% is allocated to the English regions and jazz will receive a total of £1.6 million of which 30% is spent outside of London. For the avoidance of doubt 3.4 million people attend classical music concerts, 2.1 million people attend jazz concerts and 1.7 million people attend opera.

Chris Hodgkins
23rd January 2018