Lone Shark >> RESOURCES >> Art Vs Commerce

Art Vs Commerce >>
History and Appreciation of Popular Music
Discussing Art vs. Commerce

Introductory Quotes and Essay Question
‘The myth of binary opposition between the Authentic Artist and Commerce has continued to be regnant for three decades because it produces secondary gains, because it functions for the various interests that combine the rock world. That is, the myth is sustained by the benefits it provides to the musicians, fans, the commercial media and critics’
Weinstein, D. ‘Art Versus Commerce: Deconstruction a (Useful) Romantic Illusion’
in Kelly, K. & McDonnell, E. (1999) ‘Stars Don’t Still in the Sky: Music and Myth’ Routledge (P. 63)

‘Record companies are no longer run by people who, despite their innumerable other flaws, rose up through the ranks and may even have been musicians – or at least fanatical fans – themselves. They are owned by multinational conglomerates – Sony, Bertelsmann, Time Warner, and so on – with many other holdings, and they are expected to show the same type of steady returns as other, more traditional, less creative business’.
DeCurtis, A. ‘Lost in the Supermarket’: Myth and Commerce in the Music Business’ in Kelly, K. & McDonnell, E. (1999) ‘Stars Don’t Still in the Sky: Music and Myth’ Routledge (P. 35)

With reference to one contemporary music genre of your choice; to what extent do you agree or disagree with these quotations?

Essay
An Introduction
‘Three more inches of hair is a whole fucking world of rebellion/ honesty is a beautiful lie/
People say what they will to get by/ All the girls sing along to that song’
(Jay, 2000)

The first quote (Weinstein) argues that the myth of binary opposition between Art and Commerce is happily sustained by those involved in the music industry (i.e. critics, fans, labels, artists), as there are secondary gains for all areas For example, the image of an artists fighting against a record company is seen as almost heroic, and adds authenticity to his ‘passion’. This romanticism of the artist, created by the myth, helps to sell records (i.e. gains for the artist and label).

It is often easier for an artist to remain credible if they are seen as being part of a ‘credible’ genre. Critics also have an easier job writing within certain genres, as they know who the audience are and what they expect. The consumers benefit mostly in terms of being fans – they can be influenced by the aesthetics and attitudes of certain artists and form a sense of individual and collective identity, often feeling ‘rebellious by association’.
Fabbri’s rules of genre (See Appendix 1) show that there are a number of different aspects involved in genre formation as it is not purely based on the sound (musicological aspects) but aspects of the (sub)culture that comes with it.

In terms of genre formation, DeCurtis’ quote is similar in that record companies like to have pigeon-holes in order to successfully market artists and therefore make ‘steady returns’ (DeCurtis, 1999). It is argued that modern record companies purely seek financial gain, as they are run by faceless corporations rather than people who ‘rose up through the ranks, and may even have been musicians – or at least fanatical fans.’ (DeCurtis, 1999). It is different from the first quote, however, in the implications that creativity and commerce cannot co-exist; that however creative an artist (in terms of individual ‘genius’, unique sound, revolutionary image etc.), they won’t be considered unless they are financially viable (in terms of production/ marketing/ returns etc.). Whilst it may be easier to market/ discuss/ find (i.e. a CD in a record shop) an artist within a certain genre, there are difficulties with genre. For instance, boundaries in music can never be completely clear, as there will always be a certain amount of ‘crossover’ by artists between genres. Also there is the problem of ‘defining’ the genre in the first place (record companies can ‘define’ genres from what is already there, rather than the marketing team ‘creating’ genres from scratch.) (Frith, 1999).

Shuker (1998) argues that it can be considered in the context of ‘textual analysis’ (with music being a cultural ‘text’) or in terms of the relationship between the music and it’s fans. (See Appendix 2).

In this essay, I intend to dissect the genre of ‘indie’, by which I refer in particular to the Britpop period of the mid-nineties (e.g. Blur, Oasis, Cast), and also acknowledging the precursory ‘baggy’ Manchester scene of around 1989/ 90 (e.g. The Stone Roses, Happy Mondays)

Production
DeCurtis basically argues that creativity is stifled by corporate influence, which can be exerted in a number of ways. Firstly, the judgements that make up a corporate business strategy. (Negus, 1999). (See Appendix 3).
Within the context of Britpop, these decisions led to the signing and marketing of many similar bands after the (financial) success of other bands, in particular; Oasis. From 1995 onwards there was a large influx of bands that not only had a similar sound, but were also aesthetically similar with the same ‘rebellious’ attitudes and political opinions. It is described by Peterson (1997, cited in Negus, 1999) as, “the ironically knowing task of fabricating authenticity”.

The very fact that record labels were keen to sign seemingly rebellious acts concurs with Weinstein’s theory of ‘sustaining the myth’. Another method of corporate influence is employing business classifications to organise the roster. There are countless examples within the genre of Britpop of portfolio management decisions made to make major labels (and the acts on them) seem more ‘credible’. A seemingly knowledgeable indie fan may proudly tell you that Oasis, Blur, The Stone Roses, Catatonia and Paul Weller are all signed to ‘independent’ labels (Creation, Food, Geffen, Blanco Y Negro and Island respectively), unaware that in fact each of them is (at least partially) owned by one of the five major record companies (see Appendix 4). The majors tend to either create ‘sub-labels’ (often known as ‘imprints’) or simply buy out existing independent labels, keeping the brand name. This allows for bands to appear independent, even though they are funded by multinational conglomerates. Again, this fuels the myth but is beneficial (in terms of credibility) all round. Not many so-called ‘indie’ (originally from the word independent) bands were actually on independent labels, or therefore eligible for the ‘indie charts’, whereas global giants such as The Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears were officially ‘indie’ (signed to Jive/ Zomba). Does that make them more ‘credible’ than the likes of Blur and Paul Weller?

Another method of corporate influence in the context of business classifications is the ‘measuring’ of creativity (in terms of commercial performance). This is celebrated by the industry, fans and artists alike when a record achieves a high chart position or earns a ‘gold disc’ (see Appendix 5).
These issues seem to back up the claim that record companies are interested only in business. However, it isn’t just record companies that perpetuate the myth; critics get secondary gains too. Not only is it easier to write agreeable material in given conventions, but also there is more chance to sensationalise articles when then content deals with ‘rebellious’ ideologies. For example, Oasis gained a wealth of publicity from drugs stories, a famous example being Noel Gallagher’s comment at a Q awards ceremony that, “taking drugs is like having a cup of tea”. This was given even more coverage due to the backlash from the right wing. “Conservative critics apparently have more faith in rock’s mythic power than alternative cynics do.” (DeCurtis, 1999).

Sensationalism and hype sell more issues and stories relating to sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, or hype (e.g. the infamous Blur vs. Oasis ‘battle of the bands’) are an editors dream. Although record companies may often distance themselves from controversial actions by bands, they are actually far from unhappy with the result; increased record sales and ‘credibility’ in the alternative market.

Consumption
Fans of Britpop felt they could identify with certain figures, such as Liam Gallagher as ‘rebels’. There was a strong ideology of ‘authenticity’ and bands that didn’t play ‘real’ instruments or write their own songs were often disregarded. By being part of the indie scene, they could forge a collective identity, like a kind of youth rebellion. Their identity or credibility as a fan is often based on aspects of ‘sub-cultural capital’ such as the specific haircut, clothing, gestures and attitudes, copied from their idols. Examples of this in Britpop include the popularity of anoraks (the trademark of many indie bands), fishing hats (popularised by The Stone Roses, and later by Ocean Colour Scene), certain ways of walking (e.g. the Liam Gallagher ‘strut’) and even lingo (e.g. ‘Mad for it!’). Some of the stylistic traits seem to come straight from the sixties, and some observers criticised this.
“Imagine your generation – cracked up to be an apologetic, broken mass, fated to wish it had been alive (thirty) years before – had suddenly created it’s own myths as worthy of serious contention as any of the legends that had been chronicled before.”
(John Harris, 1995, on the emergence of the Manchester scene.)

Sociological aspects such as social stratification (class) were often an issue too, with working-class credentials almost essential for success. Blur, one of the biggest names in Britpop were frequently criticised for their ‘mockney’ accents, accused of trying to act working class when some claimed they were ‘public school boys’. The fact that they were so quick to deny this in an episode of ‘The South Bank Show’ (in which Blur singer, Damon Albarn visited his old comprehensive school) shows what an important issue this seemed. The irony is that a large proportion of the fans (i.e. those criticising class differences) were middle-class and following the romantic ideology of the ‘working-class hero’, rebelling against society. As with most sub-cultural fashions, the Britpop fans were ironically as stylistically recognisable as a group (i.e. not individual) as the Goths or ‘townies’ that they despised for ‘all looking the same’.

Conclusion
It doesn’t matter whether the ideas that form the myth (Art vs. Commerce, Weinstein, 1999) are themselves credible or reasonable, but the fact that the myth exists undoubtedly affects many decisions by labels, fans and critics. The idea that there is NO ex-musicians or fans working in the industry is less plausible, although the general point of records companies running simply for profit is a contentious issue. At the end of the day, society likes to look up to rebels that fight the corporate system, and such heroes have existed for centuries. Whether this is purely a marketing exercise doesn’t really matter to a lot of music fans, who like to have something to look up to, that influences and inspires. Is ignorance bliss?

Appendix
1.) Fabbri’s rules of genre: (As interpreted by Frith, 1999)
*Formal/ technical rules (i.e. play conventions/ sound/ instruments/ song structure)
2.) Shuker, 1998: Towards a definition of ‘music genre’
*Traditionally considered in the context of ‘textual analysis’
-What does it sound like?
-What is the visual style?
*In terms of the relationship between music and fans:
-Authenticity
-Musical virtuosity
-Commerciality
3.) Negus, 1999: Judgements in a corporate business strategy:
*Marketing judgements
*Aesthetic judgements
*Economic judgements
*Political judgements
*Pragmatic judgements
4.) The five ‘majors’:
There are currently five global ‘major’ record labels (EMI, Sony, AOL-Time Warner, BMG, Vivendi-Universal) that control around 80% of global record sales. A ‘major’ label generally not only has a large market share, but is fully vertically integrated, controlling all aspects of the operation, from the initial concept to manufacture and distribution.
5.) Platinum, gold and silver discs are awarded by the BPI (British Phonographic Industries) for sales of recorded music in the UK as follows
Award Album Single
Platinum 300,000 600,000
Gold 100,000 400,000
Silver 60,000 200,000