Popular music has been suffering from some growing pains. Where
artists once cast themselves as being against big business and the man, they
now have to present themselves as budding entrepreneurs. Take Jack Garratt, for
example. Q magazine
has described him as being ‘part of a new breed of pop star, led by Taylor
Swift and Ed Sheeran, who as well as making music see themselves as CEOs, team
leaders, motivational speakers and HR departments of their own brand’. This is
quite a change. When I was younger, bands would pose as rebellious outsiders.
Stiff Little Fingers, for example, announced themselves by saying ‘we’re going
to blow up in their face’. Here, in contrast, is how Garratt talks about his
career: ‘it’s been a very natural and organic growth from being an unsigned,
undeveloped artist then development through my management and then upstreaming
onto a record label’.
Garratt’s language is hugely
unappealing. And yet it could be argued that he is taking a stronger stand
against the industry than punk bands ever did. He is building is own career and
he is in control. The problem, as ever, is that such talk flies in the face of
popular music’s romantic ideology. Romanticism, as Jon Stratton argued
back in 1983, ‘expresses itself as contrary to all that capitalism stands
for’. Artists aren’t supposed to be interested in business; they are supposed
to recoil in horror from business.
The irony, as Stratton has
pointed out, is that romanticism supports the capitalist practices of the
record industry. This is because the individualism of the romantic artist
‘operates to counteract the “distancing” associated with the music’s
commodification and substitute for it an essential unity between artist and
consumer which elides the function – and existence – of the record companies
and thus of the capitalist process which has called the music into being’. In
other words, record companies differentiate their products by promoting the
genius, sensitivity and anti-capitalist nature of their artists. This is how
they turn rebellion into money.
Conversely, it is capitalism that
supports, or even creates, romanticism. As art is commodified, it is
‘distanced, alienated, from the artist’. On the one hand, this enables creators
to blame the cultural industries for the commercialisation of their art. On the
other hand, it is this commodification that enables artists to present themselves
as visionary outsiders. Stratton argues that ‘the creator/producer is only able
to exist as an “artist” because of the ideological elaboration of the
capitalist order, and because of the cash nexus which separates him/her from
the consumers’. Ultimately, Stratton believes that the whole economic structure
of the record industry is dependent on ‘the apparent conflict between art and
capitalism’. Without art, capitalism would not prosper; and without capitalism, art would have nothing to fight against. They need each other to present themselves as special.
No comments:
Post a Comment