Читать книгу Death Is Not So Bad! - Tim Renner - Страница 4

INTRODUCTION

This is the story of a failure. My failure. After all, I did not enter the music business 18 years ago in order to have a career. On the contrary, I wanted to unmask the industry. My job as a so-called junior A&R and product manager with music group PolyGram (in other words a scout who discovers artists, organizes and supervises their recordings, and dreams up marketing campaigns to coincide with the release of their records) was a disguise. As an undercover journalist I wanted to conduct clandestine research and turn my discoveries into the first German exposé of the music industry.

My plan failed completely. This book is not the belated fruit of my original ambition to become the Bob Woodward of the music world, for my aim here is not to expose the industry as such. At best I would be able to reveal that the industry is not malevolent – as I believed at the time – but stupid. But who could get excited about that? And would it really be appropriate to base a book on finding humor in an industry’s misfortune? A more interesting approach would be to see the industry as a seismograph.

The tremors of digitalization could have been felt in the music business well over a decade ago if only anyone had had the will to do so. The business has been battered for some considerable time by the crisis of content that can occur when capital is allowed to clash, unrestrained and improperly managed, with culture. The battle between the public, artists, and managers for identity, differentiation and, of course, power, has forever been part of the plot. The future of the media industry therefore has more than a little in common with the past of the music business.

My pupils, at my job interview in June 1986, were dilated. I allowed the two Polydor managers who sat facing me to ask precisely three questions. Then I talked almost uninterrupted for more than an hour. Shortly before the interview I had suffered a hay fever attack and Avil, a brand new medication prescribed by my doctor, had produced some strong side effects. It has now been taken off the market, but back then, right before my interview, it caused my girlfriend Petra to find me slumped over the kitchen table. There was no way she could let me go to my interview in that state. A half bottle of Sekt, German sparkling wine, would be just the thing to give me the kick-start I needed, she thought. This cocktail of Sekt and Avil turned out to be a perfect substitute for speed. Later we used it from time to time when we were out partying.

I sat there at my interview with jittery legs, staring at the Polydor catalog. Listed were the names of all the German artists under contract to the record company, (which was owned by the PolyGram group). A catalog of horrors, I thought then as a 21year-old, and told my astonished interviewers as much: this artist should have been dropped years ago, that artist should have been banned completely from playing or performing, and a third should consider retraining as a homeopath. In my opinion they were all too old, and I made it clear that I thought Polydor had been doing a lousy job for years. In almost any other industry that would have started the countdown to the end of my interview and seconds later the impertinent Tim Renner, who also gave every appearance of being a drugs-user, would have been ejected from the building by a well-aimed kick up the backside. Instead, the Polydor CEO and the head of national repertoire listened attentively. They had long been aware that the industry sold revolution via pressed vinyl, and this youngster had just hoisted a red flag in their office. My contract arrived in the mail the next day.

The story of pop music has always been one of rebellion. The horrors of war were resisted with swing, the middle-class cosiness of the 1950s – and the racism that was never far away – with “Negro music” (otherwise known as rock ’n’ roll), the parental generation burdened by war guilt (whose at best harmless hits were meant to help them forget the past) with earnest singersongwriters, the hippies, with their eternal striving for meaning and security with coarse punk, and the 68ers, schooled in critical theory, with minimalist, “cold” techno. Popular music is youth’s first form of self-expression and will always be so. From a technical point of view, music can be easier to produce than almost any other art form. To get started, all you need are three chords (this we discovered with punk if not before) or alternatively two record players, a mixer, and a bit of practice. The results make themselves felt very quickly: you can be admired on stage or else make an enemy of your parents at home with all the noise.

Initially, rock and pop music are all about two things: sexuality and differentiation. Later, as one gets older, a third can be added: the desire for eternal youth.

No computer game can replace the special bond between live performance and audience. At your computer or games console you play alone or at best networked. On the other hand, the concert or party at which a DJ performs is always a collective and intensely physical experience. Young people who are not yet sure how to approach members of the opposite sex, how to talk to them or win them over, have music and movement as a bridge. Enviable are those who find themselves on stage or standing behind the turntables. If you are not one of them you should at least know the guitarist or be able to give an informed appraisal of the songs and performances of the protagonists in order to make sure you don’t end up in the dark on your own afterward. Once this pattern has been learned and internalized, it continues to function for years after puberty and at the same time guarantees generation after generation of new pop fans.

For a long time now, most consumers of pop music have been over 30, but the renewal of the art form still comes from the young. In music they discover forms of expression that are not immediately comprehensible to parents and teachers; music helps them to discover their personalities. Only when we realize we are individuals in our own right can we become truly independent.

But this process of differentiation becomes more and more difficult from generation to generation. Recently, with techno music, it has been achieved in innovative fashion through the total elimination of any traditional song structure. However, it’s a godsend that pop music as a cultural form is so closely associated with puberty. It ensures that it is continually being called into question. This makes it the most innovative of art forms, and because there is such an urgent need for it, one of the most commercial.

Pop = art + capital • mass media. Being a means to an end is a fate with which art has long had to live and which it has repeatedly survived with a deep inner weariness. People have sung, com posed, written and painted for the sake of Christianity, for the glorification of wealthy, powerful patrons and, latterly, after the Industrial Revolution, to accompany the launch of soaps, technical equipment, fried chicken, and much more. Artists, quite justifiably, do not want to be poor. This is a form of romanticism they can do without. It is only required by a public that hopes, voyeur-like, to increase the authenticity of a work by increasing the genuine suffering of the artist. Ideally, this public would prefer to discover and promote artists only after their death. And in this it is strongly supported by the arts and review sections of newspapers, which are frequently suspicious of successful living artists.

Artists do not care about this. What they need is to find any kind of audience, any kind of canvas onto which to project themselves and their art. They express their condition, which they cannot communicate in everyday life, through music, the image, the written word, the performance. They yearn for fame and recognition (all the more, admittedly, the louder their stomachs rumble). Naturally they are prepared to place their craft at the disposal of some other cause as long as it doesn’t go against their artistic principles – not too obviously at any rate.

What fascinates me about pop is that pop culture has the most relaxed relationship with capital. True, the history of art has always been one of financial dependence, but pop doesn’t moan about it. The genius of pop culture lies not in coyly denying money, in trying to make people believe in the ideal of a work of art unsullied by finance, but rather in using it, playing with it, even (from time to time) mocking it. As money has no soul, it doesn’t give a damn. It took me a while to grasp this.

“You fucked up your life, why don’t you smile?” sang Element of Crime, the first band I signed as an employee of the mighty Polydor record company, at Hamburg’s Westwerk concert hall in 1986. I hugged my girlfriend (today the mother of our children) tight, for instead of a smile there were tears on my face. I felt I had been trapped, that I was going to become one of those people who waste their lives working for a corporation with no soul. In my attempt to follow in Bob Woodward’s footsteps, that might perhaps have been the only thing I would have succeeded in exposing. But now that I had urged these nice lads from Berlin Kreuzberg to sign with my company, I had become part of the system. However, the system let itself be used without complaining.

Using the system’s money, we persuaded living legend John Cale, the John Lennon of Velvet Underground, to produce the band. In every other respect the company saved every cent it could. The four members of the band lived together in a room in Swiss Cottage, an area of London as far removed from an Alpine dreamworld as it is possible to get. If you wanted heat, you had to put money into the meter every ten minutes. One thing we had in our favor, though, were pictures by Derek Ridgers, one of the most sought after of all pop photographers, who worked for music paper NME (New Musical Express). Pop needs capital, but even more than that it needs the mass media, which depend in turn on capital investment and operate according to the laws of capitalism. We got the media (the press at least) onto our side for Element of Crime because the names John Cale and Derek Ridgers were redolent of the big, wide world while the record Try To Be Mensch had such a sweet “boys next door” flavor.

For the media the way a pop product is presented is an integral part of that product. The mass media are responsible for conveying a piece of work into the heart of the viewer, reader or listener’s everyday life. Ideally, this happens without warning; it grabs your attention and it moves you – a song heard in a taxi, an article in the newspaper, a picture on TV. It is not unusual for the medium itself to become pop. Pop functions at its best when everyday life is influenced by … the everyday. Pop measures its success by the extent – how deeply and how broadly – to which it achieves this. A decisive factor here is how frequently and how intensely the work reaches the consumer. Pop’s offensive and honest relationship with the mass media and capital also make it incredibly vulnerable – when it results in the responsibility of the artist and of the management structures that surround the artist being overlooked.

At its best, management means moderation; it means applying the brakes in the interests of both sides when content is threatened by capital and/or the medium. Not only does a dearth of content eventually destroy society, it also destroys business. How can consumers be expected to part with their money for something that no longer seems to have any substance? When the only value is the generation of profit, no one should wonder if the charts are reduced to a kind of karaoke bar. Good karaoke singers no doubt make perfectly nice neighbors or work colleagues, but they are not pop stars. Innovation has no place in television talent quests. But a culture that does not renew itself will, at some point, level out.

Pop provides an impressive example of how careers can be ruined when content is lacking over the long term. It is precisely this content that the consumers are searching for in order to be able to define themselves. We are no longer stuck on the fourth level of the famous “hierarchy of needs” pyramid devised more than 60 years ago by behavioral scientist Abraham Maslow. After the need for food, propagation and security comes a need for belonging. In highly developed countries, another need, the need for self-actualization, beckons us one stage higher, to level five.

No longer are we content to be simply a part of the teeming masses; we turn away from the traditional mainstream in an attempt to display originality. In most cases this succeeds only to a certain point. However, it brings about a situation in which it is no longer the “ideal” son-in-law or the dumb blonde sex bomb who make up the new mainstream, but highly individual types who represent the very best within their respective subcultures.

Consumers reveal their putative originality by assembling musical bouquets: Norah Jones, U2, Shania Twain, Eminem and Robbie Williams (naturally). In other words combinations of jazz, alternative rock, country, hip-hop and of course pop – artists from different genres whose styles conflict. Together they form a music collection that would have struck people as schizophrenic a few years ago, as I often discovered. All these performers have a strongly individual profile, are authentic exponents of their respective genres, and stand, each in their own way, for content. They are also, incidentally, the most successful pop artists in the world …

For a long time the music industry ignored the fact that in their thirst for individuality, consumers had actually created a new mainstream. I don’t mean the even-textured sauce that was traditionally considered to be the mainstream. The new mixture consists of the very best in their genres. Instead of building up new icons in these different areas, the music industry responded by creating its own idea of a mainstream: TV talent show acts and instant hits by faceless producers. If the music industry ignores this need for individuality and if, on top of everything else, the next wave of digitalization brings a change of format (such as the change from CD to Internet) that promotes the individuality of the consumer to an extreme degree, this will create a very real problem. One that threatens to suffocate the music industry and which, moreover, is heading inexorably in the direction of movies and television, and possibly other areas too.

The music industry is in the vanguard here because pop songs represent only small volumes of data. But the greater the progress made with data compression and download speeds, the more this problem will affect other media. These other media can learn from the music industry by making sure they don’t ignore the warning signals.

At PolyGram’s first international management conference, which I was permitted to attend as the brand new head of Motor Music in 1994, the guest speaker was Nicholas Negroponte, the founder and head of the legendary Media Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The visionary Negroponte, who was also co-founder of the magazine Wired, explained how data compression and peer-to-peer networking would work. He predicted that in ten years’ time half of all music titles would be obtained via the net. The managing director of A&M Records was asleep during his talk, other managers started to chat among themselves, and in the break Negroponte was left standing by himself. After he had gone, the chairman apologized to his colleagues. Obviously it was all rubbish; people were predisposed to touch and hold things, downloading something would never be seen as owning it. At the same time, thousands of kids were buying computer games at more than DM100 a throw, chucking away the packaging and calling a game icon on the screen their own.

Both Negroponte and the PolyGram chairman were wrong: just seven years later, more titles were being downloaded from the Internet than were being sold over the counter. The stupid part was that this was taking place almost exclusively via illegal sources. Consumers had the perfect excuse: the industry had abandoned them, all too often they had been forced to discover that the music companies’ content was no more than an illusion, the product was not being made available legally on the internet, and so they could become thieves in good conscience. As wannabe Robin Hoods they could roam the net taking from the supposed rich and stupid and giving to … well, themselves. And now imagine how the same consumers could soon be treating movies on the Internet, Internet and mobile radio, TV, recorded by digital video recorder and stripped of advertising for later consumption, and even, using a different type of screen, and books. If providers do not take a lead by creating credible content and legal structures, the consumer democracy will degenerate into consumer anarchy, into a short-term, self-destructive wallow in cultural excess. All this and much more can be learned from the experience of the music industry. Once the lesson has been learned and the new conditions adapted to, the death of the old structures and business models will not seem quite so bad.