Today we are launching our research project The Lost Age.
This starts with an initial question: Why are disabled artists aged 18-30 choosing not to engage with Drake Music and other arts organisations and how can we reach this age group?
Some ideas have already been put forward: • Music provision within schools leaving young musicians potentially unprepared or with a lack of confidence/experience• Struggling with issues around independent living• Inadequate financial support from the government• Other people speaking on behalf of the young person rather than us getting to speak directly with this age group• A lack of expectations about what is possible• Ill health• Less social interaction due to increased online interaction As part of this large scale piece of investigative research I want to have conversations with you whoever you are! I will also bring together senior people across arts organisations/music sector/disability sector, young disabled and non-disabled people within the lost age. This online discussion will be supported by a face-to-face discussion forum. I aim to develop some projects and write an article for publication. Please do chat to me about it if you have any thoughts, either on here, by email (annathorpetracey@drakemusic.org) or by twitter (@TheLostAge).
...I wonder how much this is to do with terminology? Many people don't think of themselves/ourselves as disabled even if they/we do face disabling barriers.
Is this kind of definition even more important at this age, perhaps even more connected with identity?
Artistic development should be based entirely on the individual artists/band. This is the same for any musician...
I had a brief conversation yesterday evening with a woman who had been a talented classical musician but due to a minor degenerative condition she is no longer playing. Her life took another direction and she now works in a successful job in the commercial sector. She does not think of herself as disabled and her health issue does not affect any other aspect of her day-to-day life.
Yet, Drake Music would describe this as a 'disabling barrier' to her music making - as she can't play her instrument for longer than 30 minutes at a time.
The interesting thing is that we might have been able to help her overcome the barrier, but her own view of what disability is and lack of knowledge about our work means she has never approached us (and possibly never will). I wonder if we should be marketing our work to health authorities as well as conservatoires and music colleges. If enough people knew about Drake Music prior to sustaining injury or becoming disabled then they might seek help from us afterwards. Our conversation was timely after meeting Clarence Adoo for the first time yesterday afternoon. You can find out more about his journey here.
This, of course, only touches on the much broader issue of using the term disability/disabled. Drake Music made a conscious effort to move away from any hint at the medical/charity model around 4 years ago, since cementing this with our recent re-branding: Breaking Down Disabling Barriers To Music Making.
I think the new branding is the best description of what we actually do, but these questions have to be asked:
Do many individuals within The Lost Age think of the barriers they/we face not as 'disabling' but as something else? Do Drake Music and other organisations need to readjust the way we describe what we do? Is the societal perception/stigma attached to disability as a term something the sector has the capacity to address and to change, or should we adjust the way we speak about our work to make sure we are reaching everyone?
I wonder if very politically aware young disabled people might see it as a negative attribute that many organisations such as Drake Music are technically/legally charities?
Just as Drake Music's focus is entirely on the music and we're emphatic that we are not a therapy organisation (I personally take issue with any assumptions that all disabled people need therapy), so there are a lot of musicians out there who are doing it for themselves, without the need for Drake Music to help remove the barriers they/we face.
There is an important point to be made around funding. Programmes of work for adults are harder to fundraise for generally from my experience (especially recently); the way we speak about our work makes the projects less likely to be funded by charities and individuals who want to feel as if the beneficiary is a 'worthy' cause.
I won't compromise the integrity of our work by talking about it in a way that doesn't do justice to the artistic content. In my opinion, in an ideal world there would be no need for Drake Music: disabled and non-disabled musicians would be measured on an equal basis and in all forums.
Along with the recent cuts made across the whole arts sector as well as cuts to the DLA, health and social services, education and local authorities, and other support services for disabled adults, it can be an almost impossible task to survive, let alone partake in your chosen career/creative pathway. So for it to succeed, our proposed programme of work must be free to the individual participants, or at least be heavily subsidised.
I like the Roundhouse Studio's approach, where they charge a small membership fee and then at a very low cost members can book sessions in their space and use their equipment, but this is only open to 11-25 year olds and they have a permanent base/venue that would be there unused without any membership programme.
Where are the grant makers who want to fund professional development for disabled artists? Where are the corporate sponsors who want to support something that isn't 'music therapy'? Where is the government provision for disabled artists to finance their own professional development?
How do you get a message to someone aged 18-30 if they have never heard of you and you don't know anything about them?
I was discussing this with DM Advocates Daryl Beeton and Charlotte White earlier this week.