 |
| What does this photo of up and coming singer Jocelyn Arndt have to do with the conomy? She spends money she makes as a singer. She has band members who spend money they make as musicians. She's talented enough that one day she be making and spending even more money, and generating jobs and revenue for others. |
The
current administration's excuse for cutting funding to the arts is to
save money. I'm not going to talk about how ludicrous this is in
light of the small amount of funding goes towards the arts. Only
someone who is corrupt or willfully ignorant would think that the
approximately $152 million for the National Endowment for the Arts is
having a major impact on the deficit. (By comparison Trump's golf
trips so far have cost over $122 million.)
Of
course, local governments have been cutting funding to the arts in
the schools long before Trump took office. The idea is that if a
school must make a choice between programs designed to help students
do better on their various tests and arts funding is well-ingrained
in the minds of school officials, in favor of the testing (often,
money for athletic programs is the left of the table). However,
studies have shown that students involved in arts programs,
especially music, do better in other subjects.
My
personal experience bears that out, as my fellow band, orchestra and
chorale members when I was growing up made up the bulk of students on
the honors list. Yes, there is something behind the brainy “band
geek” persona.
I think
the persona creative/arts people project is part of the reason why
some non-artists can be so eager to cut funding for the arts. Because
creative types tend to also be more liberal, more questioning of
authority, and more apt to speak out as activists against social
issues and injustice (songs can be especially powerful influencers of
public thought) those in power want to squelch potential protest and
public opposition by controlling the development of artists,
musicians, poets, writers, dancers, actors et al. I see this as the
main reason Trump is doing what he does to strip the federal budget
of any arts funding as well has having Education Secretary Nancy
Devos make things tough for arts education.
What I
want to discuss, though, is the potential impact lack of adequate
funding for the arts-music in particular-can have on the economy as a
whole. The music industry alone generated over $9.8 billion
in 2018, with a third straight year of double-digit growth (other
industries wish they could match growth like that). Again, that's
just the music industry: movies, TV, and internet productions,
including sites such as YouTube contribute ten times that amount. I
didn't even research figures on visual art, dance and written work.
Needless
to say, creative people generate a lot of money for the U.S. economy.
They create a lot of jobs. In addition to the direct revenue,
billions more is spent on the devices used to generate, record and
replay music, video and still images and written word. Tens of
millions of people are employed either directly or by manufacturing
and distributing materials and devices used in creative arts.
Here's
a scenario to consider:
DaNika
always had a sweet singing voice. By the time she was ten she was
giving serious thought to becoming a professional singer. In fifth
grade her school offered piano lessons, so since her parents could
afford them on their own, she signed up. She struggled a bit, but she
stuck with it.
When
she got to middle school, she immediately joined the choir. She was a
good singer already, but once exposed to the discipline of choir, and
the coaching her instructor provided, she truly blossomed. She was
able to continue her piano lessons, as well as vocal coaching, with
her choir instructor, who taught her for a nominal fee. She was
earning enough as a music teacher that teaching piano was as much
about helping her students as making extra money.
DaNika
was so good that by the time she was sixteen, she was getting gigs on
the weekend, saving up money for college. By the time she graduated,
she had saved enough for her first two years of music school. But she
also earned a full scholarship due to her talent, and the fact that
the discipline she learned studying music contributed to her 4.0
grade point average.
She
continued to play gigs while in college. She landed a tour gig as the
opener for a national level act during the summer after her sophomore
year. She made more on that seen week tour than her mother made per
year in her part time retail job. (Her father worked full time in a
factory.) The summer after her junior year, she toured on her own.
That got the attention of a record label. She dropped out of college
to sign with them.
Fast
forward 10 years and DaNika is a Grammy award-winning performer.
She's had 3 platinum and 8 gold records. She's bought not only a
great house for herself, but for her parents. Her mother was able to
stop working part time to pursue her own desire to paint. Her father
is planning on retiring early. Not only did she put her younger
brothers through college (one is studying to become a physician), she
set up a scholarship fund for students at her old high school.
DaNika's
own production company employs twenty people and grosses $25 million
per year. When on tour, she hires a road production crew of ten
people. At each appearance, local people get work as marketing,
vendors, security maintenance etc. Many venues DaNika appears at use
the high revenue from her shows to help support less profitable shows
by local performers.
Of
course, production of her albums and merchandise is another source of
jobs and revenue not only directly but in contributing to the various
wholesalers and retailers who sell her music and merchandise.
When
her father retired, she set up a scholarship fund for children of
workers at the factory where her dad had worked.
Economically,
DaNika does a lot for the economy as part of a huge industry. Yet
even less famous performers contribute in much the same way.
In
an alternate history, DaNika wasn't able to start piano lessons
because of funding cuts to her school. There was no middle school
choir program. When she got to high school, the choir was an
extracurricular program that met only once a week with an itinerant
instructor. She still wanted to become a professional singer, but
didn't quite have the training, or the discipline, to really pursue
it. She didn't qualify for any scholarships for college because her
grades were not quite good enough.
When
DaNika graduated high school she took a job at the department store
where her mother worked. She managed to snag the occasional Saturday
gig playing a wedding or local club, but felt she wasn't going
anywhere as a musician. Then a chance came along with a local
audition for
“America's
God Talent”. She did well and made it to the next round judged by
the celebrity panel. She did her very best at that audition, but was
told that she needed to take voice lessons and develop more polish
before she could move to the next round. Come back later.
Ten
years later DaNika a department manager at the store. Her brothers
never made it to college. Her mother still works part time at the
same store, and hasn't touched a paint brush in years. DaNika's eight
year old daughter has a sweet singing voice...
Artistic
people can generate revenue and help provide jobs. Period.
