Glyndebourne quits touring England after 50% funding cut

Glyndebourne quits touring England after 50% funding cut

News

norman lebrecht

January 06, 2023

Glyndebourne said this morning it is unable to stage its autumn east of England tour after the Arts Council inflicted a 50% funding cut.

Glyndebourne’s application to join Arts Council England’s 2023 – 2026 National Portfolio was successful, but the £800,000 annual funding offered for that period is at a lower level than applied for. It is half the amount that was received during the previous NPO funding period.

The move leaves a large part of the country without live opera.

The west and centre will be further deprived when Welsh National Opera, similarly stricken, makes its expected decision.

The loss of Glyndebourne tour delivers a significant blow to the incomes of dozens of musicians, already suffering from shrunken schedules and rising costs.

There is no upside to this situation.

 

Comments

  • Siegfried says:

    This, along with the problems created for English National Opera, Welsh National Opera and other arts institutions, is the legacy of Nadine Dorries and Darren Henley; two of the most culturally illiterate people on these shores and neither fit for public office.

    • Malatesta says:

      Nadine Dorries is now trying to pin all the blame on ACE. She should be called out Norman, you’ve ignored the news reports today. As for Darren H he’s probably on the way to a knighthood, that’s the ghastly way it works here.

  • Elizabeth Owen says:

    Well the upside would be don’t vote Conservative at the next General Election.

    • Drew says:

      But what, pray tell, is the alternative?

    • sonicsinfonia says:

      Can’t vote Labour either – it hates supposedly elitism such as culture. Mind you with Angela Rayner having attended Glyndebourne last season, maybe there is yet hope…

      • Helen says:

        After Labour has thrown further billions at the NHS without insisting on any reforms whatsoever, there will be no money left.

        And yes, there’s a strong anti-elitist streak in Labour which didn’t exist in anything like the same form in Jennie Lee’s day.

  • Alexander Hall says:

    Cultural vandalism is a popular sport in the Conservative and Unionist Party, which also has a higher degree of philistinism in it than most other professions. The irreparable damage that Nadine Dorries did not only to the cultural health of the nation while Culture Secretary but also to the absurdly named levelling up agenda of the current government is vast. Such people are utter numbskulls not to see that there is a clear link between revenue gains for the hospitality sector, the associated transport network and the attractiveness to tourists from far and wide, and having a flourishing arts scene. The self-harm resulting from Brexit was bad enough. This is now like burning all our valuable paintings and melting down the family silver.

    • MuddyBoots says:

      As one of the overseas visitors who frequently travelled to the UK specifically for opera performances, I can tell you this is true.

  • Tamino says:

    I think only money invested in crypto and the military industrial complex makes this world a better place. Well done patrons of the Arts Council.

  • GCMP says:

    Speaking as an American, where there is almost no state funding for culture of any sort at any level (local, state, federal), non-profit groups have to fund raise. While there are hiccups from time to time, this largely works. There are many museums, symphonies, opera companies all over the USA. So much so that the Metropolitan Opera stopped touring some decades ago, and that was hardly a death-knell to the opera scene. I pass over the effects, still unknown because of Covid distortions, etc., of the Met HD broadcasts but ultimately those can only encourage opera-going.
    I understand that Glyndebourne does not take government money for their regular season, which means they must be adept at fund-raising already.
    So they appear to be saying that they cannot raise an additional 800,000 or so that they need to keep touring, but they appear not to have tried to do so.
    As for WNO, presumably they are not (yet) adept at fundraising. It seems likely they will need to develop these skills. As of course ENO, etc., will also have to do.

    • Elizabeth Owen says:

      Please remember that Britain is different to America :-
      a. People on the whole have less disposable incomes as they earn rather less than middle class Americans.
      b. Donors do not get the tax breaks in Britain that donors in America get.
      Both WNO and I suspect ENO have been adept at getting commercial sponsorships, individuals not so much due to the above reasons.
      WNO was one of the first companies in Britain to get commercial sponsorship – from Renault back I think in the late 1970’s. The job of arts councils is to support arts not decimate them.

      • Glynne Williams says:

        Couldn’t agree more. America is definitely not Britain in any respect, not least in the arts. 12 years of Tory government have been a disaster for the arts – which are not respected in government or in the population as a whole (with some very honourable exceptions) because they are not taught in schools. We need a complete re-set of our attitude to the arts.

    • MuddyBoots says:

      You can’t compare these situations given the different tax systems. In the US, the choice is donate to a charitable org and get a tax deduction or pay more taxes. With Britain’s VAT, you pay these taxes every day, with the expectation that those taxes are used to support the arts as well as to provide other essential services.

    • Nick2 says:

      This is the sort of totally uninformed comment made by many Americans. It also takes no account whatever of the development of the arts in the two countries. The great orchestras and opera companies in America were founded as playthings for the very rich and moderately famous. Many were European emigres used to a thriving arts scene in continental Europe who wanted a similar form of artistic entertainment to attend at their weekends. Thanks to a vast annual flow of cash for the best seats and boxes plus the engagement of a few astute managers and the availability of many excellent musicians – also emigres from Europe, starting up orchestras/opera companies which quickly developed high standards was hardly very difficult. Since then private patronage by the rich, leavened now by some from the emergent middle class, has paid for the arts throughout the USA. As pointed out, the tax breaks given to individuals and foundations makes arts funding vastly more easy than in the UK.

      You mention Glyndebourne. From the outset it was a tiny opera company in a private house – the plaything of a rich man for his soprano wife. It has always depended on arms being twisted, a very large and rich donor base, and an affluent audience prepared to dress in evening dress and enjoy lengthy intervals with champagne and picnic baskets on the lawns. Only relatively recently has it opened up to a much wider public through a larger House, provided they are prepared to travel well into the countryside for performances.

      Whereas in Britain and Europe the private sector did set up some of its arts organizations, the state stepped in as ruling courts and those individuals, wracked by taxes as high as 90% after WWII, ceased their contributions. It was the Labour government in the second half of the 1960s – a glorious era for the development of the arts in the UK – that cemented the role of the state in spreading the arts to far wider and less well off audiences. For by that time the arts were always regarded as for all – not just the middle class and the rich.

      Major corporations do often contribute. But generally speaking they want to impress their guests. Therefore they favour the big name companies in the bigger cities. Finding sponsorship for touring companies in less fashionable cities is far more difficult. Similar in many ways to the Met tour having to be cancelled because it was too much a drain on income. Touring 200 plus personnel made no sense economically and artists didn’t like it.

      Finally, take a look at the number of personnel in a US arts organization required to undertake all its sponsorship/donation programmes. At a minimum it is many dozens. UK companies can not afford such overheads, even if there was a public prepared to contribute. Then look at US Boards. Most have many dozens of members at differing levels who all have to pay a significant amount for the privilege. Try making that work in the UK! Only when income cannot be maintained can you compare the two countries. Either a company goes bust or it reduces its output very significantly.

      Think New York City Opera!

    • JBx says:

      Repertoire poverty is the end result of what you seem to praise.

  • Duncan says:

    The Touring Opera will now only operate in the Autumn at Glyndebourne itself – so much for the ‘levelling-up’ which ACE and the government boasted about. Glyndebourne Tour will now be accused of ‘elitism’ because they are not taking opera into the regions. What you might call a ‘lose-lose’ situation!

    • Nick2 says:

      By confining the Touring Opera to home base, the rationale for Glyndebourne on Tour dies. It was founded in large part so that Glyndebourne could get access to the some of the cash being dished out by ACE for touring companies. Thus the ACE paid all its costs less it’s ticket income.

      Although it provided a valuable outlet for younger British singers and conductors, the fact that it had to pay much less attention to its bottom line resulted in problems with other touring companies. For example, in the early 1970s, Equity threatened strike action against all companies unless the weekly touring allowance was raised from £14 to £28 almost immediately. The effect of such a draconian increase, however it might have been justified, was met with an agreement by all companies to negotiate with £18 as the proposed figure. By the time the combined companies met, Glyndebourne with its pot of ACE cash had already caved in and offered £21 in year 2 rising to £28 in year 2. The other companies had their bargaining position cut from under them!

      This from a company based almost 60 miles from London which then paid its artists £0 as a touring allowance when appearing in its main season!

  • Judith Ornstein says:

    But hey – the Blackpool illuminations have a grant so that’s ok. Not.

  • Nick says:

    As per usual (with this and most previous governments) nothing is thought through properly and no one seems to predict the outcomes that “ordinary” members of the public can see all too clearly, One wonders how we end up with such inept thinking from those who are supposed to be our guardians. Our country is sliding at an increasingly rapid rate into a cultural dessert. We will soon have no culture for anyone including those who are least able to afford it – surely the exact opposite of what was intended and entirely predictable to anyone with a grain of intelligence.

  • R and F says:

    …. the upside is Chineke has plenty of work for some musicians…..

  • MOST READ TODAY: