This document discusses how corporate sponsorship of music may affect both musicians and consumers. It provides background on BP, a large oil company that sponsors various art forms, and quotes a professor arguing this sponsorship can betray critically anti-capitalist art. The document also discusses Apple's iTunes Festival free music performances and how cultural capital allows dominant classes to define their culture as worthy. It concludes by asking how corporate sponsorship of classical music versus popular music impacts perceived value and audiences.

1. RETAIL – PART 2

2. QUESTIONS
How has arts/charity funding affected
musicians?
How do you think corporate sponsorship of
music has affected music consumers?

3. • Corporate - relating to a large company or
group
• Sponsorship – financial support

4. Case Study – BP
1. Who is BP?
2. What art(s) do they sponsor?
3. Why do they sponsor them?

5. “Much avant-garde and contemporary art
is actively hostile towards capitalism. If an
artist who is critiquing corporate power is
presented as part of this branded
apparatus, the work is being betrayed
quite fundamentally.”
Professor Julian Stallabrass.
Quoted from (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4313691c-3513-11e4-aa47-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz3FSnTHa8d)

6. Platform – arts, activism,
education, research

7. iTunes Festival is a full-volume celebration of
live music, with free performances from
artists we love. Local fans can win tickets to
see the gigs in person while fans around the
world can watch for free—live or for a limited
time afterward—on iTunes or with Apple TV.
Quoted from http://www.itunesfestival.com/

8. Digital Music Nation

9. Pierre Bourdieu (a sociologist) created the idea of
Cultural Capital.
‘Dominant classes have the power to impose
meanings and to impose them as legitimate. They
are able to define their own culture as worthy of
being sought and possessed and to establish it as
the basis for knowledge in the education system.’
Quoted in http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_capital.htm

10. Three questions in the conclusion:
1. What does the sponsorship of ‘classical’ music
through large corporations say about the value of
‘classical’ music?
2. How does this compare with the manner in which
‘popular’ music is sponsored?
3. What does this say about the audiences or
consumers of these two broad genres of music?