Let me see if I can clarify my the notion of significance. I think of significance like physical mass. You mentioned Mozart earlier- a very significant composer, who’s music you don’t like. And yet, your personal opinion of him does not diminish his significance to you. (After all, why bother naming him in your dichotomous pairing? Surely, Mendelssohn would have done just as well?) Anyway, in my understanding of significance, it works a lot like organized religion, in that it produces a notion you can either affirm (yes! Mozart is the master of the german culture!) or deny (as you did). (I do not know Flying Lotus, but I will check it out). In other words, you may worship or sin, as your will moves you. I really appreciate kosher laws, for instance, because they make shrimp taste so much better. I also really appreciate The Wall, because I have this love/hate relationship with it that parallels my love/hate relationship with myself at 14. In both cases, I gain pleasure and insight by imbuing an object with significance.
I totally agree that manufacturing significance is very difficult. I do, however, think it is more worthwhile than manufacturing relevance, which is totally ridiculous. Without the notion of significance one is only left with materialistic dichotomies (record sales vs. artistic merit) which are, I feel, tired and repetitive. (Plus Beyonce is so much hotter than any alt classical composer I have ever seen.) If one leaves out any claims of worth beyond onerself, all one is left with is a pretty depressing position of continuously affirming the total waste of time one’s work is. Those kids with cracked software you mention: who would BOTHER noticing them, if they deny their worth? I’m not saying one should try to insert their music into music appreciation course books, but shouldn’t musicians try to enhance the mass of their music’s impact by design?

At least in the US, I think state funding for the arts is kind of horrible. It’s not horrible *in principle*. But in practice, it’s an insider’s joke.

You hit on the reason why yourself. As a jazz musician, your opportunities for these grants are certainly limited. But I disagree that you have the worst of it.

Most of the music I listen to these days is probably made by teenagers with cracked software, toiling away in their bedrooms. The lucky ones get signed to a digital-only label, where they’ll sell a few hundred mp3s, maybe get to play a couple gigs in Eastern Europe, and (if they get paid at all), probably earn the cost of their rent for a couple months. The rest of them give their music away for free at places like MySpace and Soundcloud and hope that someone will notice.

These folks are absolutely ineligible for “arts” grants of any kind. To the folks that grant those grants, this music is commercially viable; because “commercially viable” is academic code for “you don’t have the appropriate credentials.”

And sorry, but if you’re writing music for 4 helicopters, do you need a grant? No. You’re either Stockhausen, and therefore don’t need a subsidy. Or you’re not Stockhausen and you need to be realistic.

Sorry, a bunch of your comments got flagged as spam by my overzealous spam filters. Working on it…

Good discussion.

In one area, however, I basically agree with you. Why should any performer take the time to learn my music? I found myself increasingly unable to answer this question, which is why I don’t really write music for people anymore. I don’t have to worry about this problem with computers.

But “Significance” (with or without the capital S) feels no different to me than relevance. You’re not going to be able to tell me what it means. You MIGHT be able to tell me what it means TO YOU or to some other particular person, but when you try to apply it to something as large as a culture – or even a single audience – then it becomes meaningless again. These just aren’t the sorts of words that can have anything close to an absolute meaning.