More Thoughts on Music Policy and Higher Ed

A bit of a rethink

Hi all.  First, I want to announce a few changes to #MakingPlacesBetter.  From now on, it will be free. If you would like to contribute, which is greatly appreciated, all money raised will be donated to the Center for Music Ecosystems. So if you wish to support the blog, you’re supporting all the research that we’re doing at the Center. So thank you. 

2024 is going to be a landmark year for the Center for Music Ecosystems. We will be publishing global research - free and accessible to everyone - to incorporate music into how to invest in global economic growth and livelihoods. We will be working with the UN to incorporate music into how we address global problems. If you want to read its work, check out the European Music Cities Policy Guide we published with the Music Cities Network, or the Global Guide to Music and the Sustainable Development Goals. 

We have a lot of work to do. Much of the world lacks effective copyright frameworks, which means that music - as an economy in its most basic sense - cannot function. Music education is unavailable to most. We can and must do better. And we will.

Now, more thoughts on music policy and higher ed. I appreciate all the comments related to the last post about a standalone ‘music policy’ course. It is encouraging that this is in development. But on further reflection, I do see a case against this idea, and it warrants further analysis. Here are some challenges that would require addressing, should we proceed.   

---

The first is, Music Policy For Whom?

This is an impossible task if we intend to make it truly equitable. It can’t be. First, if the course is taught in Scotland, for example, then it would have to be focused on Scottish, and British, planning, licensing and regulatory systems. And these systems are based, at their core, on an Anglo-Saxon Western land-use planning system, which itself has systemic and structural challenges. If the course only explores how music policy functions in countries that have a planning and land-use framework that the writers of the course understand, then the course is, in and of itself, inequitable. It is not right to say that what works in London would work in Kampala, for example, or that London is more musical than Kampala. It isn’t. And this poses an inherent challenge - would it only be possible, then, to create multiple versions focusing on the systems and frameworks in the place it's in? 

The second challenge is how to teach - and respect - the formal versus the informal. This is best explained by analyzing the ‘best places to live’ lists published by Western magazines. Most of them are, in effect, wrong. A village in Tanzania, for example, could offer as good or better quality of life than living in Zurich (often a city on the list). This is compounded by the dozens of cultural indexes that get published by governments, consultants and the press - all of them are written through implicit and explicit biases. What makes a place a place to live for, rather than just a place to live means different things to different people. How music interacts with this is equally messy. And I wouldn’t want this drive to compare unintentionally, or intentionally, create a model music city policy where one doesn’t exist. How could a music policy course not fall trap to these historical, racialized and biased choices, where the focus is on music cities in certain places that we deem as music cities, because there is a framework we understand. This is one of the constructive criticisms - and rightly so - of my book. I wrote about what I know, which is mainly cities in North America, Europe and Australia. The next book will address this. I promise.  

Photo by Derek Truninger on Unsplash

And lastly - is this all too much for one degree? 

If we were to create a standalone music policy class, is the knowledge required - or what I would hope to convey - too much to ask one person? Can someone learn enough specific knowledge across all these disparate topics - land use policy, economic development, tourism, history, music of course - and would learning too much about one dilute the other? Is it better to foster partnerships between departments teaching these things in isolation, rather than bundle it all together in one standalone course? I love the fact that many universities are creating music cities modules within music business courses - maybe expanding this is the best path? Already liberal arts courses are being cut (such as in the UK), with a focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and math), rather than STEAM (with arts added in). Such a course may simply be a step too far.  

I’ll keep musing and writing on this topic. I will also be adding to my global music policy series in early 2024. Until then, I want to wish all of you a happy holiday season as we approach a break. I for now am very much looking forward to a break and to refresh. I will be writing a lot more - whether it will be here, in Forbes, The Guardian or elsewhere about music, culture, cities and their impact on the decisions we take to make lives and places better. So if you’d like me to cover something, or if you’d like to collaborate, please do reach out.