on 4/21/03 6:51 AM, Steve Smith at ssmith36@sprynet.com wrote:

(especially for performers like Skip who probably often slip between granting cracks)

Steve -- Nice thing to say about me, but not the case. By most accounts, I am indeed eminently fundable for a variety of organizations, but for the most part I don't agree with the idea of funding somebody like me to do what he already does. Unless I were to compose something where the resources where out of my practical grasp (something for full symphony orchestra or a ballet or something that expensive to rehearse, present, and record), I would personally feel like I was applying for welfare. I prefer to be commissioned to do specific things that people know I care about, whether it's my own music, or restorations of colloquial music (various historic Jewish or Chicano music functions in which I have been honored to take part). I'm a great believer in being practical with your art. To me, impractical is making something that will not sustain an audience and expecting to make your living from it. This doesn't mean dumbing things down (Ellery is doing pretty well, as are Dave Douglas and John Zorn). This means not only being your own boss, but also being the most demanding boss you ever had, and being the investor willing to take the most risks. It may seem impractical, but it's the best way to make sure your constantly out there doing something for people to come and check out and come back to, which is still the best way to build an audience. I'd rather do that for myself than go through fuss and feathers of finding an organization with some dollars. After seeing who gets funded and often enough who decides who gets funded, I'm pretty sure that the purposes of these foundations are not exactly in line with my purposes, and to modify my purposes for the sake of getting some money (out of a bunch of people I wouldn't align myself with if there isn't money) would be, again for me, like applying for welfare and lying on the forms about how many kids I have. sh