Is this a proper use of royal patronage?
In a latest desperate attempt to generate street cred for our monarch, the royal spin doctors have created an Apple Music playlist for King Charles. Leaving aside concerns that supporting a rapacious streaming service is hardly the best way to help the UK's creative industries, Charles has a somewhat worrying track record as a music influencer.
When a leading orchestra proposed programming Michael Tippett's innocuous Suite for the Birthday of Prince Charles at a concert to be attended by the future monarch, the Suite was vetoed because the orchestra's managing director was told "Charles hates it". The dangers of King Charles' creative myopia were chronicled by the inimitable John Drummond in his autobiography:
I have always found [Prince Charles'] lack of interest in anything to do with the arts in our time depressing, since all his opinions get so widely reported. It seems to me that he has had unrivalled opportunities to get to understand the twentieth century, but he has rejected it without hesitation. Both Denys Lasdun and Colin St John Wilson of the British Library, found work hard to get in the UK in the aftermath of the Prince's criticisms.
I cannot believe it is a proper use of royal patronage to increase unemployment among architects. And it is the same with music. Having listened together at a Bath Festival concert to a superb performance of Alban Berg's String Quartet, written in 1910, the Prince turned to me and said, "Well you can't call that music, but I suppose you would John". "And so should you, sir" I replied defiantly. We had quite an argument, and later that evening he told our host that he liked me but unfortunately I was wrong about everything.
Comments