The British Dance Music Industry: A Case Study of Independent Cultural Production Author(s): David Hesmondhalgh Source: The

British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 234-251 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/591311 . Accessed: 07/10/2011 00:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

David Hesmondhalgh

a The Britishdancemusicindustry: casestudyof production independentcultural

ABSTRACT This article analyses the British dance music industry and assesses claims that it offers a powerful alternative to the 'mainstream' music business. Two unusual features of the sector are identified. Whereas the recording industry as a whole is marked by concentration and centralization, the UK dance music industry is relatively decentralized and is made up of large numbers of 'independent' companies. Reasons for the success of small, local companies are offered, in particular the emphasis amongst dance audiences on genre, rather than on performer identity; and the low promotional costs enabled by negative press coverage of 'acid house' in the late 1980s. But the article argues that a number of features of the British dance music industry work against a view of the sector as a radical challenge to prevailing cultural-industry practices. These are as follows: firstly, the reliance of dance music companies on crossover hits and compilation albums; secondly, close ties between the independents and corporate partners; and thirdly, the pressures placed upon small companies to follow the standard ways of dealing with risk in the recording industry- in particular, the development of a star system.

KEYWORDS:Cultural industries; music business; independent record companies; youth culture; dance music

Dance music has long been dismissed or ignored by sociologists and other academic commentators. But since the 'acid house' explosion in Britain in the late 1980s, this disregard has been difficult to sustain. Given the radical claims made by many dance insiders about the democratic nature of posthouse clubbing and dancing (e.g. Eshun 1992), it is hardly surprising that nearly all academic accounts, up until now, have concentrated on dance music culture as a site of consumption (e.g. Redhead 1993, Thornton 1995, Pini 1997). But in dance institutions (magazines, fanzines, web-sites, clubs, record companies), issues of production have been hotly debated. For many of its proponents (e.g. Manning 1996), dance music resists certain key features of other sections of the music industry. It is common to hear the claim, for example, that the lack of a star system within dance music concentrates attention on 'the music itself', rather than on personality and
Volume no. 49 Issue no. 2 Brit.Jnl. of Sociology June 1998 ISSN 0007-1315
t

I.ondon School of Economics 1998

TheBritishdance music industry

235

'image'. The appropriation of digital technologies of production by musiciansis felt by manyjournalistsand dance fans to have democratized music-making(e.g. Toop 1995: 214-6). In particular,the explosion of small independent record companies in Britain since the dance music boom of the late 1980shas been seen as a challenge to dominationof the music industryby multinationalcorporations,land many commentators havecomparedthe interventionof the dance indieswith that of punk companies in the late 1970sand early 1980s.Savage(1991:600), for example describespost-housedance musicas 'punk'saccessprinciplefuelled bynew technology' (and see O'Hagan 1987). But do the large numbers of independents,and the intense focus on them in the dance world,add up to the provision of a genuinely democratizing alternative?Has dance music culture substantially affected the structureand organizationof the British music industry? I explore these issues below. I begin by analysingsome featuresof UK dance music which partially confirm the viewsof dance music proponents about the radicalism this (sub)culture.I discussthe decentralizednature of of the networksof dance clubs, record shops, independent record companies and musiciansat the core of the Britishdance music industry;and I focus on the relationshipbetween the dynamicsof genre and of authorship in dance music and in particular relativelackof concernwith perthe formeridentityin some partsof the dance musicworld (see Straw1993). I argue that this politics of anonymityhas meant that independent dance music record companies have been able to take advantage of certain economies, and this has helped to produce a thrivingsector, with great prestigeamongstyouth audiences. In the later part of this article,however,I want to raise some problems with claimsmade by manydance musicfans and commentatorsthat dance music culture representsa thoroughlyradicalundermining of corporate dominationof the organizational and aestheticforms taken by the British music business.Firstly, examine the complex relationships I between economic and cultural capital amongst dance music producers, and suggest some of the contradictions within dance music discoursesover the nature of the oppositionit providesto establishedmusic-industry practices.These contradictionsare particularly apparentin attitudestowardsa number of recorded-music commodities,such as 'whitelabels' and compilations.Secondly, I look at the very close relationshipswhich have been formed between the dance independents and the major corporations,and the success of the big firms in dealing with the anti-corporate rhetoricwhich dance music culture inherited from punk and the 1960scounterculture.I argue that the notion of 'branding'is a useful one in understandingthe relationshipsbetween independent record companiesand majorcorporations. Finally,I look at the pressuresbearing upon the dance sector to produceits own new 'starsystem' in parallelto the popularmusicindustry as a whole and I assessdance music as an interventionin the music business. The discursive tensions,economic pressuresand creativeopenings at

Heswnondhalgh David traits of contemmusic industry are distinctive as in the work British dance This sector serves here, then, independent cultural production. or even possporary which 'independence' is effective, induscase a study of the extent to and internationalized cultural in the ible, increasingly concentrated beyond a purely economic analysis of to go of the tries l990s, but I attempt in which cultural producers at the discursive conditions sector, this to look help to create. and operate, which they
236

IN THE STICKS OUT

has been the basis one regard seems clear: it success of dance music in The music production. of British subcultural homes to a ofsignificant decentralization as cultural backwaters are could easily be disrnissed which the wideTowns This is partly a result of dance scenes (Randall 1992). thriving by the metaphor technology, symbolized (though availability of production spread Green 1996) - relatively affordableRyan and the of 'bedroom studio' (e.g. (Ourant 1991, recording technology geo'cheap') compact digital not also has its roots in the of 1993). But this decentralization Peterson form. With the disco boom of club dancing as a leisure many spread and graphical opening up all over Britain, 1970s, new night-clubs were the been converted to disbands had previously used for live big only availdance-halls laws meant that pubs were Britain's strict licensing but the local cotheques. people up until llp.m., social space for young on drinkas able a the small hours. The focus the offered an extension into night-club linked) lesser reliance on youth leisure and the (partly a in ing British of a particular town guaranteed that the young population afficionmeant car early networks of dance level of attendance. In addition, discotheques, most notably the certain of these 'underwere forming around some adoes 1985: 140-1). Fashionable Soul' scene (Chambers capitals 'Northern British regional were primarily based in TtlUSiC began ground'clubs, however, as the credibility of dance university towns. In the 1980s, the urban in and the relationship between amongst middle-class audiences, torise began to change (Hesand the provincial 'mainstream' this 'underground' of the late 1980s reinforced The GL997a). 'acid house' boom acid mondhalgh of which preceded warehouse parties (many dance shift:semi-legal and illegal raves took 'fashionable' it) and but became associated vfith these events house, Although these rnetropolitan sites. music culture out beyond was exposed to dance music out-of-city youth often disappeared quickly, perceptions of urban helped reduce divisions between of in a way that culture Rietveld 1993 for an account and provincial naivety (see a club with at sophistication had late 1980s, many towns have forms some early raves). Since the kind of underground dance in the garage, techno, least one night which specializes post-rave culture: house, which thrived in rave and Although some of these some mixture of these.2 influences), jungle/drum and bass, or (using Euro-pop and 'Kraut-rock' forms originated in the USA

DYNAMICS OF GENRE D AUTHOEHIP: EERY D WO new sounds as of a networkof pirate radio stations, provided exposure to IS A

TheBritish dancemusicindustry

237

a Do-It-Yourselfappropriation of relatively inexpensive digital technology by British musicians meant that these genres of music have formed the basis of the 'independent' sector of the British dance music industry. Unlike previous forms of 'underground' dance music culture, then, post-house dance music became linked to a politics of production. Another key institution in the formation of local dance music infrastructures outside the major cities has been the specialist record shop. In the late 1980s, there was a drastic reduction in the number of specialist independent retailers operating in the UK. Such shops had been at the heart of punk's challenge to the mainstream music industry (Hesmondhalgh 1997b), and the decline of the culture of the alternative rock/pop record shop undoubtedly contributed to the burning-out of the oppositional status of post-punk music in the late 1980s. Significantly, though, the one area of music in which record retail specialists burgeoned in the early l990s was dance. The 1994 Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report on the UK music industry reported an estimated 13 per cent fall in the total number of retail outlets for recorded music between 1989 and 1994, a fall which particularly affected consumers outside big towns (MMC 1994: 278). But dance shops are opening while other specialists and general small stores go bankrupt.3 In addition, many of the remaining independent rock/pop shops now have dance sections. Perhaps the most significant factor in the creation of local dance scenes has been the relatively low costs of promotion for dance music compared with other genres. The low costs of recording made possible by the rise of the 'bedroom studio' have been the object of much comment, but the minimal promotional costs allowed by the massive press coverage of the early rave scene represent an even more significant factor in decentralization. The history of punk suggests that when a genre gains special subcultural credibility, a particularly active audience is created, one which is hungry for product, and which is prepared to seek out information about new styles, performers and record labels. The 'moral panic' associated with early rave culture was a vital factor in constructing dance music as oppositional (Thornton 1994; McRobbie and Thornton 1995: 565-6). As with the media attention paid to punk, this obviated the need for promotional skills and marketing costs on the part of the incipient independent sector. A thriving dance press (including fanzines, and sections in the more estaS lished rock publications, as well as the mainstream dance magazines) and course did the clubs, which served as local promotional fora.

STAR?

There was another distinctive feature of dance music culture which allowed independent record companies to thrive. This was the focus amongst

238

Hesmondhalgh David

of performers.Two on audiences shiftsin styleratherthan on the identity (and, in connect producersand audiencesin the music industry dynamics authorshipand sectorssuch as film): ways, different in other entertainment have creativeand commercialfunctions.They allow Both dynamics genre. of and understanding codes and conventionsof meaning, organization the allow publicity and promotion to offer audiences-asbutthey also to indicationsof the potentialpleasuresand meaningsavailable consumers end of the indusif them they purchasea tape CD or video. At the higher to become less in try, the world of big promotionalbudgets, genre tends the well-known performer, than important authorship.In general, the less genre information:the themore importantit is that the consumer has Madonna) stars (e.g. Prince, MichaelJackson, George Michael, biggest a genre unto to tend be thought of as 'beyond' genre, or as representing of various (although their music is often a pastiche hybrid themselves codes). generic less conDance music cultures have, over many years,been somewhat other than is the case in with authorship,with performeridentity, cerned Soul subculculturessuch as rock (see Straw1991). The Northern music about,and records for turef example,involvedthe collection of knowledge and themes veryobscureartists.Ratherthan tracingthe changingstyles patterns by, on a knowledgeof artist'scareer,the emphasiswas ina particular singers,but representedby the namesof particular sub-genres, ofemerging statements,as in regardfor these singersas creatorsof individual without than on authorrockaesthetics.This focus on genre and sub-genre,rather in record shops. In the big ship,within dance music culture can be seen 1994), the which now dominateBritishretailing(Du Gayand Negus stores rap and classical.The CD jazz, main categories of music are popXrock, dance these categoriesare arrangedaccordingto artist.But within albums the multiples) sell mainly shops (and, increasingly,dance sections within to a constantly 12-inchvinyl singles, and these are categorizedaccording and MergersCommission The 1994 Monopolies shiftingset of suWgenres. sub-genres referredto above, reported an estimatethat 38 dance Report, 81). were currentin the UK at the time (MMC1994: dance music The relativelackof concernwith authorshipwithinpostwar and other forms) perhaps culture (as compared to that within rock in rock notions of reflected a lack of interest amongst dance audiences a preference for other values: authenticity,sincerityand integrity, and suggests,a pleasimmediacyand sensuality,but also, as Will Straw(1993) that a sound would not become ure in secrecyand obscurity,in the idea provinceof the dance knownto everyone,but would remainthe particular dance music, the relativelack of fan and hisXherassociates.In post-house keyideologicalgoal. emphasison authorshipwithindance musicbecame a is in the high degree of credibilityattached The clearestevidence of this with no detailsof for manyyearsto the 'whitelabel' - a 12-inchvinylsingle for this view: who made the record. But there is other significantsupport of pseudonyms to dance musicians often deliberatelyadopted a series

TheBrsitish dance music industry

239

create confusion over their identities. Commentatorsin the dance press often remarkedthat the lack of a star systemwas a distinctiveand challenging feature of the genre as a production culture. There was a strong implicationin such viewsthat the starsystemrepresenteda fetishizationof certainindividuals, and dance music culture,like manyyouth music movements, was based on a celebrationof collectivism.Whateverthe problems of such views,the associationof the corporateentertainmentindustrywith the starsystemwasaccurate.This is because,once promotionalmoney has been spent on establishingan artist'sname and identity,record companies profitablealbums.The artist'sname aim to produce a seriesof increasingly servesas a brand,aroundwhich meanings can be attachedand varied,in accordancewith changing audience patterns. But in earlypost-housedance music culture,the concentrationon shifts in stylefar outweighedthe importanceof individualartists.One reasonfor this was the tendency, already noted, for dance music audiences to be attractedto obscurity,to secret knowledgeabout music which kept their culture awayfrom the prying eyes of the mainstream.A second factor derivesfrom aestheticfeaturesof dance musicas a genre. Becausethe voice was only one element in dance music, alongside rhythm,texture and the total sound of the record,singerswould be broughtin by record producers (i.e. sound mixers) to perform vocals, but would then often move on to other commissions.This high degree of turnoverof singersreinforcedthe lack of an authorshipsystemin dance music. The 'real' authorswere the in sound mixers.Onlyoccasionally the historyof popularmusichas it been possible for record companies to base promotionalstrategiesaround the identityof sound mixers,and usuallythis has been the case only when this functionwascombinedwith that of the arranger(e.g. Phil Spector).When raveculturebegan to constructthis lackof authorshipas radical,and white labels and performerpseudonymswere seen as a disruptionof the authorship categories prevalentin pop and rock culture, the record company came to serveas a brandinsteadof the name of the performer.Dancefans, flicking through 12-inchsingles in record shops, often look for the name of the companyissuing the record as much as the name of the artistand the song, in order to gain an indicationof what the recordwill sound like. and And, because dance music culture had inherited the countercultural punk distastefor the musiccorporations(though, as we shallsee, in a pragrecord commatic and somewhatmuted form) it was mainly independent panies which came to serve as the means by which a record could be identified. This attention to small companies drew on pre-house dance music culture traditionstoo: soul afficionadoes,for example,would pay as much attention to record labels as to the often obscure performers- and jazz, soul and R&Blabelswere independents. manyof the greatAmerican But, to re-affirmthe point, post-housedance music culture took this relative lack of interest in artistauthorshipeven further,and made it an ideolog2cal goal. Crucially,this lack of a star systemmeant that small record companies

240

David Hesmondhalgh

did not haveto spend time and Inoneybuildingup a profilefor a new artist. There was no need, for example, for the promotional videos and live need to breakthroughinto a wider concerttourswhichrockand pop artists small dance companies,like the punk 'Xerox' labels of the market.WIany as late 1970s (see Laing 1985) disappeared,often voluntarily, soon as they dance independents issueda record.But dozens of smalland medium-sized have suruved and rnanyof them are basedoutside the London hub which dominatesrock and pop producton. Se, there are two featuresof dance as musicculturewhich I thlnkcan be portrayed allowinga democratization and of music production:its decerltralization, the rise of an independent sector which was able to co-existwith the Inajors.I turn nowbhowever,to of an analysis some waysirlwhichdarlcemusiccan be understoodas limited to an in its abilityto pro+iide 'alternative' the corporatefflUSiC industry.
AND CROSSOVERS COMPlIATIONS THE MAINTAINING SECTOR:

Recordingand promotion costs are low in dance music, as we have seen. The 12-inchsinglesat the centre of dance musicare cheap to pressbecause capacity.'Micrcscompanies', the rise of the CD has left sparevinyl-pressing very small record companies formed by individualsor small groups of friends,who wishto put out one or tworecordsunder theirownlabelname, can break even with relative ease. Hundreds of such companies have appeared and disappearedin Britainover the last ten years, beyond the But reach of trade-bodyindustry stal;istics. to sustain companies over a some recordswill achieveless Inevitably, numberof yearsis more difficult. point maybe as low, the break-even successthan others, and even though as 1,000sales manyreleaseswill not achievethis level.These in some cases by less successfulrecordsneed to be cross-subsidized recordswhich make two main waysin which such 'seriousmoney' can more motley.There are hit. be made. The firstis to have a 'crossover' A recordmightbe pickedup press, by an influentialclub DJ, or by a big radio show. The by the dance smallrecord companymight then enter into a distributionand marketing deal with a bigger companyto ensure that the demandis capitalizedupon. However, such crossovers,and the organizationalstrategies needed to achievethem, raisea keyissuewthin the productionpoliticsof dance music culture (and indeed, one common to all contemporarywestern popular This is musiccultureswidelyconstructedby their audiencesas subversive). the presence of contradictoryattitudes towardspopularaty itself.4 While musicbelieve that they should be heard in some sectionsof a 'subcultural' others argue that the music'sforce comes from its resistthe mainstreatn, ance to co-optation.But manyaudiencesand producersbelieveboth at the sametime.There is evidenceof such splits,betweenandwithindance music afficionadoes,in dance music, and I want to explore it here via a look at the relationshipsbetween economic and cultural capital. Dance music culture, as Sarah Thornton (1995) has shown in her study of dance

TheBritishdance music industry

241

audiences, values the underground over the mainstream, and can be dismissive of any perceived attempt to appeal to the masses by being 'commercial'. Thornton draws on Bourdieu's work on consumption and taste in Distinction (Bourdieu 1984) but more significant for my analysis here is Bourdieu's work on fields of cultural production, and especially his analysis of the complex interplay between economics and aesthetics Producers and vendors of cultural goods who 'go commercial' condemn themselves, and not only from an ethical or aesthetic point of view, because they deprive theinselves of the opportunities open to those who the can recognize specific demands of this universe and who, by concealing from themselves and others the interests at stake in their practice, obtain the means of deriving profits from disinterestedness. (Bourdieu 1993: 75) The danger for an independent in 'crossing over' is, in the terms of dance music culture itself, the loss of 'credibility': gaining economic capital in the short-term by having a hit in the national pop singles chart (or even having exposure in the mainstream or rock press) can lead to a disastrous loss of cultural capital for an independent record company (or an artist), affecting long-term sales drastically. The second main way of making the level of profits which would allow the independents to subsidize risks elsewhere involves a more complex relationship between economic and cultural capital. At the heart of dance albums.These consist either of tracks origmusic economics are compilation inally issued by the company as 12-inch vinyl singles, or of a series of tracks licensed from other companies and grouped together under some uniXing theme. Compiling and packaging compilation albums sees the record company moving away from its traditional function as an originator and developer of sounds and musical talent, and taking on a different set of 'editorial' functions (Miege 1987): monitoring trends, co-ordinating licensing deals, and developing 'concepts' which would make a compilation attractive to buyers. The 'concept' is vital, and represents the company's chief creative input. Such multi-sourced compilations are usually sold on the basis of genre. The title might be a standard term, such as 'Best of Techno', but in the very competitive dance compilation market, the ideal is to develop a new name for a suSgenre, or to invent a clever variant on an existing style. The job of developing the concept might be subcontracted to a company which specializes in 'underground' styles and scenes less known to the independent company developing the album. React Recordings, for example, one of the most successful dance music labels specializing in compilations, which consisted had substantial success in 1995 with an album called Artcores of jungle tracks with a sophisticated flavour, a sub-style which some journalists had called 'ambientjungle'. The term 'artcore' is a pun on the subgenre of techno referred to above, hardcore. It was developed for React by a company called Stage One (who also serve as distributors within the 'happy hardcore' sub-genre). What Stage One were selling was their

242

David Hesmondhalgh

knowledge of the particular nuances of a contemporary subcultural language.5 Other methods of uniting the tracks on an album include linking it to the name of a well-known DJ (with the suggestion that the compilation represents a typical set by that DJ). This has the added advantage that, as with a conventional album by an artist, someone is available for publicity interviews and appearances. Some dance commentators have suggested that DJs blur traditional processes of production and consumption in music-making. In fact, as such cases show, they have become the basis of a new star system, in recording as well as in the clubs. There are a number of commercial reasons why such collections of material are profitable. Firstly,the costs of recording the tracks have already been undertaken when the tracks were released as singles. Secondly, the cost of a 12-inch single is usually between 4 and 5 at the time of writing, but the consumer can get 10 or 12 tracks on a CD compilation album for about 13. Thirdly, while many of the retail chains do not stock vinyl singles, they are much more likely to take such compilation CDs for a less specialist audience. Most of these compilations consist of tracks licensed from other independents. One reason is that major labels command a much higher royalty rate than independents. Their [the majors'] terms are very draconian, strong contracts heavily weighted in their favour, and they're also very careful who they give their material to (James Foley, of React Recordings, interview with author). Foley argues that the independents are more flexible and responsive in becoming involved in such licensing deals When we want to license a track from Deconstruction, we will apply to the central licensing person at BMG, who then goes through to Deconstruction, who may then have to go to the artist, depending on a contract. With an independent, that tends not to happen. You can send a fax in the morning, and get it back signed in the afternoon. Major labels also tend to work on the basis that they don't like doing small deals, they have high overheads, they have people on 40-50,000 salaries plus company BMWs . . . these people are not paid that kind of money to make $500 deals. The willingness of the independents to become involved in such licensing deals means that the compilation market acts as the commercial lifeblood of the independent dance sector, and sustains a network of labels which are separate from the ever-increasing ties between large and small companies. The irony is that the compilation album is a commodity which is looked down upon in the dance world, because of the high prestige attached to obscurity within such subcultures (Straw 1993) . Such compilations have the least credibility amongst dance crowds, whereas 'white labels' have in the past had the highest (Thornton 1994: 179).6 This is because compilation albums release carefully-accrued, subcultural knowledge into the mass market. The most important way in which small dance music labels have

TheBrsitish dance music industry

243

sustainedthemselvesis felt by many'underground'insidersto be a debased form - and this revealsthe contradictionsabout popularity faced by entrepreneurswithin dance music culture. Yet increasingly there are signs of the acceptanceof compilationalbums as a form.Some havecome to be consideredas keymomentsin the development of the genre, such as the compilationsbased on the North Midlands club Renaissance, issuedby Birmingham's Networklabel.Whilea hardcore of highly committedfans maysee such compilationsas a betrayal,there is now a huge and relativelystable audience for dance music which would have little truck with such accusations,even though the opposition of 'commercial'and 'underground'still worksto validatecertain styles and sounds.The relationships betweeneconomic and culturalcapitalare by no means staticin subculturalproductionand consumption,and are becoming increasingly complexin the dance musicworld,as the culturefragments and multiplies.Nevertheless,there are clearlycontradictions workhere: at the veryform which sustainsthe independent sector at the heart of dance music's institutionalchallenge is widely felt to be a problematic one. And while it would be strangeto expect consistencyfrom any subculture,such problemspoint to the difficultieswhich dance music productionhas had in livingup to the inflated claimsof commentatorsas to its democratizing force. For the veryprocessby which the dance music sector seeks to establish itself as a rivalto the 'mainstream' corporationsis widelyfelt, often by the very same entrepreneursthemselves,in certain moods, to erode the basisof dance music'ssubcultural opposition.

MAJOR/INDEPENDENT PARTNERSHIPAND THE 'CREDIBILITYn PROBLEM

Dance independentshaveinherited the anti-corporate rhetoricof the rock counterculture of punk.Smallrecordlabelsgenerallyclaimto be more and responsiveto subculturaltrends than majorcompanies,and to offer their artistsgreater artisticautonomy.Yet dance music has served as the most prestigiousindigenousform of subcultural music in Britainand Europein the 1980sand 1990sduringa time of unprecedentedcollaboration between majorsand independents.So how 'independent'is the dance musicsector? Manyrecent commentatorshave suggested that the independent/major divisionneeds to be dissolvedaltogether (e.g. Negus 1992: 16-18). Other writershave pointed out the similarity betweensuch views,and the emphasis in 'post-Fordist' writing on new, supposedlyconsensual relationships between small and large firms (Longhurst 1995: 36-9, Hesmondhalgh 1996a). Countercultural discourse clearly overstated the opposition between the two ideal-types,majorsand independents. Nevertheless,it is perhaps premature to dissolve the difference altogether. The most importanttaskin an era of unprecedentedcollaboration betweensmalland largefirmsin the culturalindustries,is to specifythe relationships carefully, and to analyse their implications.The varietiesof 'partnership'between

244

Da7vid tiesmondhalgh

corporations and 'independents' include a range of licensing, distribution, ownership and financing deals. Many small companies are distributed through a multinational corporation, although there are many independent distribution companies, offering alternative routes. Some distribution deals involve financing, whereby the rnajor company will put money up for development costs, such as touring and recording. The small company can also license its recordings to a particular company for release overseas, and going with a major means that such releases might be better co-ordinated. Increasingly, the lnajors have been keen to base their financing deals on buying a stake in a smaller company, with the option for either party to withdraw from the deal after a specified period (see Hesmondhalgh 1996a: 474-7 for a more detailed discussion of these relationships). Here I want to examine major-independent interaction in dance tnusic, and to analyse the ramifications of such 'post-Fordist' links for understanding the intervention of dance music in the industry as a whole. It is clearly beneficial for the majors to be able to attract musicians and staff with the kind of high-'credibility' subcultural knowledge at large within dance music culture. During any period, a particular genre will tend to attract many of the most talented young musicians. Such genres are often imbued with an anti-corporate attitude, for a mix of romantic? bohemian and political reasons. From the point of view of the majors, the main problem is how to attract such talented musicians and staff to the corporation, but allow them to retain their subcultural reputation, or 'credibility'. During the disco boom of the late 197()s, the job of dance specialists working within major corporations was to decide which of the parent company's IJ9originated records would be suitable for British release (Harrigan 1980). In order to compete with the dance specialist labels formed out of shops in the late 1970s (such as Groove, Elite, Record Shack and Bluebird), the majors formed specialist dance divisions. EMI set up Sidewalk, Pye/PRT had Calibre, and Polydor had Steppin' Out, for example (Lazell 1987). Disco insiders (e.g. Waterman 1978) complained that the British divisions were putting insufficient effort into boosting the style, and that separate divisions should be set up to nurture dance product until it 'crossed over' into chart success. But as its stock rose, dance music could no longer be treated as a fad by the majors. Increasingly, dance music was being made successfully not only by Arnerican acts, but by British musicians too, and the UK divisions of major companies became aware of the need to make A&R signings. From the early 1980s on, the majors began to enlist leading club DJs to help them with this process. One notable early case was the Kent-based DJ Pete Tong, who was brought in by PolyGram to revive the London imprint (formerly part of Decca in the 1960s) as a dance label in ] 983. It was Tong who co-ordinated the House Sound oJChicago compilation which popularized house music in the UK. Since rave culture intensified the commitment to an underground ideology in dance music (and therefore led to a much stronger questioning of the intervention of the multinationals in dance HlUSiC), the corporations

TheBritishdance music industry

245

have adopted various means of making it look as though dance specialists are autonomous of their parent companies. EMI brought in respected dance specialists from an independent label (XL, part of the Beggars Banquet network) in order to set up a company which has separate offices, and a separate name (Positiva), but which is eSectively part of the major company. PolyGram's holding company structure has been effective in creating the illusion that acquired, large independent companies such as Island are fully separate from the parent. In cases where these large subsidiaries have usually dealt in rock or other forms, they have tended to set up their own dance/black music offshoots, such as 4th and Broadway at Island, and Go!-Beat at Go! Discs. This is also the case at EMI's two main acquired subsidiaries, Virgin (10 and Circa) and Chrysalis (Cooltempo). The European branch of Sony has taken a distinctive approach, having set up a Licensed Repertoire Division (LRD) to carry out a series of ownership, financing and licensing deals with small labels, including Creation, Network, Nation and others. This creates an extra level of separation between 'independent' and major: the Licensed Repertoire Division can present itself as a rogue element within corporate culture. As Neil Rushton of Network puts it, 'Jeremy Pearce [then head of the LRD] is a real maverick down at Sony' (interview with author).7 The German-owned multinational BMG, meanwhile, signs funding and distribution deals with smaller companies on an ad hocbasis. Some (such as Deconstruction, the UK's most successful dance music label in the early 1990s) move into BMG's corporate headquarters, while others such as Dedicated (an indie rock/pop label set up by Doug D'Arcy, formerly of Chrysalis) stay in their own premises. PolyGram and EMI too have sometimes set up this kind of shortterm deal with specialist companies. Of the majors, only Warner Music has taken the approach of setting up a specialist dance division under the name of one of its fully-owned corporate companies (the East-West Dance Division), but it also has the Perfecto label, run by leading DJ and mixer Paul Oakenfold within its headquarters. It is vital for the corporations and their connected 'independents' to present the relationship between them as one which allows relative autonomy for the small company. Some popular music researchers have accepted this version of events. Keith Negus, for example, has argued that under the new 'tight-loose' regimes operated by major companies, staff within major entertainment companies and the labels connected to them experience a large degree of autonomy in carrying out their daily work. (Negus 1992: 19) But it is no more true to say that the small labels work autonomously of their parent companies, than to say that musicians work autonomously of the firms they are signed to. There is 'creative freedom' if the creative decisions of the contracted parties prove to be compatible with the long-term aims of the parent company, and result in commercially successful products. Power particularly resides in the parent company's right to hire and fire senior

Hesmondhalgh David to a major record company, attracted any artist, an independent find this Like staff. manager there, will often relationship with a senior good by a another country, job, in another company, of has figuremoved on to another can limit the intervention obligations of a sector.8 While contractual culture another of take-over can change the companies, the very fact parent who would lose credibility to those discompany by making it off-limits record Thus the ideology of independence, for a corporation. romantiworking by as the such as Negus (1992: 18) by missedrecent commentators to limit the power of the can serve of 'entrepreneurial capitalism', of majors cization Of course, some sub-divisions entertainment corporations. and develop major make prestigious signings, considerable autonomy to granted given are very much a licensed autonomy, for musicians. But this is who will careers audiences are targeted towards niche Polyto onlysub-divisions which be argued, is the case with This, it could to of which attracted 'quality' acts. be or EMI/Virgin's Circa, both acquired subsidiary, Island, Gram's a good deal of 'artistic control'. prestigious acts who are granted through their have operator of losing credibility amongst Therisk for the independent for by a number of factors, with a major is compensated advances, association and artist available for studio budgets the them greater financing can wield. Although, for the that the majors by and the distribution power through, the label manbe diminished, or refracted artists, control might majors, not having to deal with 'difficult' such joint ventures mean Such strategies agers, life. of the culture of corporate (Hesmay who well be suspicious of corporate 'flexibility' examples not be conceived of as of control. should its connotations of a relinquishing mondhalgh1996a), with multinational firms to a pragmatic response by they which runs Rather, can be seen as from rock and soul mythology anti-corporatism inherited the 1980s and early culture' in the late dance various forms of 'alternative through what are effectively specialist with They provide the majors 1990s. can be maincredibility separate identity so that but fact that sub-divisions, with a and producers. Besides the amongst subcultural audiences musicians and tained are often the source of key vanguard subcultural scenes for the majors such years to come, it is also important recordcompany staff for such tactics have to new trends. Not that toappear munificently responsive been widely used to 'pseudo-independence' has of staff at gone unnoticed. The term (see True 1993). One member from majors describe these new relationships been the object of approaches a company which has recently jungle/drum and fashionable underground interested in the company's succinctly: 'They'd companies' motivations with basssound, describes the larger Moving Shadow, interview cred from us' (Caroline Jones, be buying insiders, the process knowing scepticism of some the author) . In spite of the dance music has been limited the extent to which of pseudo-indification has which are genuinely production and distribution able to offer channels of The majors have worked to corporations. 'alternative' to the entertainment symbolic resonances attached to indethe assimilate as rapidly as possible pendent record companies.
246

TheBritishdance music industry

THE TENTATIVEINTERVENTIONS OF DANCE

247

There are other factorswhich are limiting the abilityand inclination of dance independentsto act as an 'alternative' the musicdivisionsof multito national entertainmentcorporations.One is the gradualunderminingof the politics of anonymitywhich, I argued above, has sustained low promotional costs in the dance sector. The more establishedsections of the dance musicindustryareverykeen to see the developmentof name artists, and the rise of a starsystemin the dance worldwhich would run in parallel to that of the popular music industryas a whole. In part, this is simply because, as we have seen, the logic of capitalaccumulationis in favourof the star system:groups and artistsact as brand names for music, and the fruitsof promotionalworkcan be transferred beyondone recordto a series, as audiences carrycertain expectationsabout sounds and messagesfrom one record to the next. In addition,albumsby establishedstarscan be sold as 'backcatalogue',a source of income which has become much more significantas the multi-media environmentof the late twentiethcenturyoffers more and more opportunities for copyright owners. The atmospheric, wordlessaestheticsof dance music make it particularly suitablefor use on film and TVsoundtracks, the corporations' and media cross-ownership can providetheir associatedindependentswithaccessto these opportunities for exploitingsecondaryrights.So the impulsetowards greaterconcern with a authorshiprepresentsa recognitionon the partof label owners,promoters and so on of their own economic interests. But the drive to develop recognizabledance acts also comes from the desire on the part of dance audiences to see the music they like have an effect within the mainstream, take its place alongsidethe indie, rap and to pop acts on MTV,for example. We return here to the issue, introduced above, of discursivesplits over the value of mass popularityand clashing definitions of success.The 1990shave seen the growthof an audience for dance musicwhich rejectsthe valuesof obscurity and anonymity discussed earlier. Instead, a new crossoverdance audience accepts the authorship politicspreviously associated withrockculture.The hugelysuccessfuldance act, The Prodigy,exemplifythis: they tour, they make videos, they release singles in order to promote albums.They are a dance act, with the industrialfeaturesof a rockact. But there are manyother such actsemerging.In addition, a number of musiciansinspired by dance music culture and its relatives,hip-hop and dub reggae, have become 'serious' album artists, nominatedfor industryprizes,the objectof criticalattentionin the 'quality' dailynewspapers. While the developmentof a stardance act will, of course, benefit a particularindependent companygreatly,the independent dance musicsector as a whole can only be disadvantaged such a move towardsa rock-style by starsystem. the promotionalcostsassociated As withsuch a shiftrise,majors and the pseudo-independentslinked to them will dominate the market, becausetheyare best able to absorbthe greatrisksassociated withincreased

Hesmondhalgh David
248

a genre whichhas such budgets.This riskis especiallygreatin promotional a complicatedlogic emerges.Dance fast a turnoverof stylesand fashions.So they love, but recognition is only call fans for recognition for the music And the starsystemitselfdestroysthe conditions via the granted starsystem. to thrive,and which I outlirsed allow which an independent music sector to seek out information a committed audience which is prepared above: low promotionalcosts which such new about sounds;and the consequent helps to bring about. audience an in the case of the British some extent, the dynamicsI have analysed popularmusic cultures To other music industryecho those present in dance producersand audienceswith have which been imbued by commentators, them). Clearly,longedge (jazz,rock, punk and rap amongst 'political' a are being and dilemmasabout creativity commerce in his post-romantic standing (1993), Just as Bourdieu in dramatizedthe dance music industry. firmscarriedout in the 1970s, publishing of analysisindependent Parisian result in deferred profitdisavowalsof commerce which could found must negotiate a course so making, contemporary dance companies and short-term profit. obscurityand the hit, between credibility dance music industry between the British However,there are certainfeaturesof independent casestudyof contemporary useful make which it a particularly whichdominatethe production.As we haveseen, the corporations the economicvalue cultural of industrieshavedevelopedan understanding for incorporating cultural a number of strategies 'credibility',and now have of This means that the old imbued with it into their organizations. the recording industry, musics model of majorsand independents in American unresponsivegiants, no longer portrayedthe majorsas lumbering, which But equally,'flexibility'theory as works, many recent criticshave argued. musiccorporations. The fact of the not does capturethe sheer knowingness musical style of the subcultural dance music is the most 'credible' that the music object of particularattention from l990s,and therefore the in analysis this context. objectfor appropriate makesit an especia]ly majors, in here are more complex than those represented The processesat work make sense of such and fans thenarrativewith which many musicians styles which are co-opted by of 'authentic' the dynamics: familiar story are strong For, as GeorginaBorn suggests,there capitalists. Machiavellian I would add, popular (and, psychicdrives amongst cultural producers and the 'mainstream', towards 'fusion culture audiences) towards 1993:236)?whichare not (Born merging',the 'communaland consensual' Mammon,but which can repof bowingdown before a necessarily matter to reach out beyond a more narrowly resenta potentiallypositiveattempt view,there are crucial sense of community.However,in my circumscribed to provide, and embody, a has failed waysin which dance music culture of collectivism downside of such strategies. Discourses e.g. Redhead critique of the as a whole (see, identified amongst dance music audiences and rave culture appropriated 1993) can be found within the industry, bring about arl erlcouraging to help certain technological developments

TheBritishdance music industry

249

decentralization of production and consumption. But the independent labels at the heart of the dance music recording industry exhibit a more provisional and less politicized anti-corporatism than the post-punk companies which preceded them. This fact is not merely a reflection of Thatcherism, late Capitalism, or any other label for the Times In Which We Live. It seems to me that the limited challenge oSered by dance music institutions to the British music industry is, at least in part, a function of the lack of attention to such issues which, as I argue elsewhere (Hesmondhalgh 1997a), is characteristic of dance music culture. In spite of a general scepticism about corporations, many dance labels turn very quickly to the multinationals for deals - and I have tried to indicate above some of the pressures bearing upon them to do so. Up until 1992, Inany small laloels were distributed by Pinnacle, the largest of the independent distributors in the UK But when Sony (in association with sales force 3MV) offered a new, cheaper deal, which undercut Pinnacle, dozens of companies transferred their distribuiion contracts (Neil Rushton, interview with author). And few dance labels oSer the more generous deals with musicians developed by the post-punk companies, involving 50/50 shares of profits (assuming, of course, that profit was made) and the reversion of copyrights to musicians after very short periods (Hesmondhalgh 1996b, 1997b). Those which do (such as Warp, of Sheffield) tend to be experimentalists, who explicitly derive their ideologies from post-punk and who set themselves somewhat apart from the rest of the dance music industry.9 So although the closedoff, subcultural nature of dance music provides a challenge to the majors, it has been a challenge that they have largely succeeded in answering. My sceptical analysis does not preclude the possibility that dance music culture has had radical impacts in other ways: in making club spaces less oppressive for young women, for example; in providing a utopian, collectivist discourse for youth at a time when the public sphere offered only individualism and the free market; or, at the level of the text, in forging more imaginative and creative visions of a politics of the body. I am sympathetic to all these claims, although they are of course often over-stated. But, in any attempt to provide a more general assessment of the history of dance music culture than is possible here, all of these innovations need to be set against the limited impact of dance music on the organization of musical creativity. (Date accepted: April 1997)

DavidHesmondhalgh Department Media&fCommunications of Goldsmiths College

NOTES 1. One source cites a figure of 8,500 labels and 25,000 releases for the UK as a whole in 1991 (DJ Dance Labels Supplement, November 1991: 8). Another mentions the setting up of 950 new labels in 1992 (GeoffTravisin True 1993:37). What is almost certain, in spite of the difficulties in compiling accurate data, is that the

250

David Hesmondhalgh

Monopolies and Mergers Commission success really' (Steve Beckett of Warp, figure of 600 independent record interviewwith author). companies in the UK (MMC 1994: 7) is a significant under-estimate;and that many of the small, obscure British record companies currentlyin operation are involved BIBLIOGRAPHY in the production of dance music. 2. There are signs of recentralizationin Born, G. 1993 'Against Negation, For a this respect, in that 'super-clubs' with Politics of Cultural Production', in Screen huge promotional budgets are beginning 34(3): 223-42. to dominate the dance scenes in particu- Bourdieu, P. Distinction,London: Routlar regions. See the discussion in Cole ledge. 1993 'The Production of Belief: 1996. 3. A 1993 DJ magazine supplement Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic (17-30June 1993) listed 334 dance special- Goods', in TheFieldof Cultural Production, ist record shops across the UK and this list Cambridge:Polity. is very unlikely to be comprehensive. Chambers,I. 1985 Urban Rhythms, London: 4. See Born ( 1993:236-8) for a valuable Methuen. discussion of the subjectivitiesof cultural Cole, B. 1996 'i-D's Dance Forum', in i-D producers, with regard to popularity. I March:24-8. Du Gay,P. and Negus, K 1994 'The Changreturn to these issues later. 5. See Lash and Urry (1994: chapter 4) ing Sites of Sound: MusicRetailingand the ia, on the increasing tendency for cultural Composition of Consumers', Med industries to marketsuch knowledge. Culture Society and 16(3): 395-413. 6. Though has changed in recent years Durant, A. 1994 'A New Day for Music? - see Lanaway 1993. There have been many Digital Technologies in Contemporary changes in dance music culture over the Music-Making', in P. Hayward (ed.) last ten years,and I can only present a snap- Culture, Technology Creativity, and London: shot of what I consider to be the dominant John Libbey. features. In particular, the rise of Eshun, K 1992 'Club Culture', The Wire jungle/drum and bass has drastically November:38-40. altered its cultural politics. Nevertheless, Green, D. 1996 'Reach for the Starsfrom DailyTelegraph ( Congiven the lack of attention paid to dance Mum'sBedroom', The music culture as a whole, it is vitalto talkon nected Supplement), 10 December: 4-5. a general level, before debates can move Harrigan, B. 1980 'Do Ya Still Like Soul YeahYeah!YeahYeah!'Record Busion to a more exact specification of chang- Music? ness12 May:11. ng c bynamlcs. 7. Since this interview, conducted in Hesmon&algh, D. 1996a 'Flexibility,PostDecember 1994, the relationship between Fordism and the Music Industries',Media, and 15(3): 469-88. Sony and Network has dissolved acrimo- Culture Society 1996b Independent RecordCompanies niously, Jeremy Pearce has left LRD for in another label, and networkhas gone out of and Democratisation the Popular Music Industry,Unpublished PhD thesis, Goldbusiness. 8. Some label-to-labelcontracts have a smiths College, Universityof London. 1997a 'The CulturalPolitics of Dance 'key man' provision, as do artistcontracts. 5: This makes the contract nul and void if a Music',in Soundings 167-78. 1997b 'Post-Punk's Attempt to certain executive leaves. 9. 'Our background's totally indie, Democratise the Music Industry: The really.That'swhywe got the attitude of the Success and Failure of Rough Trade', 16(3): label.... We alwayslook at Mute, Beggars PopularMusic and One Little Indian rather than any Lanaway,M. 1993 'Setting Up Your Own 11-24 February: 2-3. dance competitors.We've always marketed Label', DJSupplement of stuff like that . . . seen them as artists,and Lash, S. and Urry,J. 1994Economies Signs London: Sage. tried to do albums and tours and pro- and Spaces, motion, and that's been the key to the Lazell, B. 1987 'Dancing to a New Label',
. .

TheBritishdance music industry

Music Week, Disco/Dance Special 19 September: S9. Longhurst, B. 1995 Popular Music and Society, Cambridge:Polity. McRobbie, A. and Thornton S. L. 1995 'Rethinking Moral Panics for MultiMediated Social Worlds', Brztish Journalof Sociology 46(4): 559-74. Miege, B. 1987 'The Logics at Work in the New Cultural Industries', Media, Culture and Society 9(3): 273-89. MMC (Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Department of Trade and Industry, UK) 1994 The Supply of Recorded Music, London: HMSO. Morgan-Jones, C. 1993 'Symbols and Instruments',DJ3-16 June: 12-3. Negus, K 1992 ProducingPop, London: EdwardArnold. O'Hagan, S. 1987 'Yo Bum, Listen Punk' NME,18 April:29. Pini, M. 1997 'Women and the Early British Rave Scene', in A. McRobbie (ed.) Backto Reality TheSocialExperience Cul? of turalStudies, Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress. Randall, R. 1992 'Bright Lights, Small City!'DJJanuary: 10-11. Redhead, S. 1993 Rave Off Aldershot: Avebury. Rietveld, H. 1993 'Livingthe Dream', in S. 251 Redhead (ed.) Rave Off Aldershot: Avebury. Ryan, J. and Peterson, R. A. 1993 'Occupational and Organizational Consequences of the Digital Revolution in Music-Making',CurrentResearch Occuon pationsandProfessions 173-201. 8: Savage, J. 1991 England's Dreaming, London: Faber and Faber. Straw, W. 1991 'Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular Music'. Cultural Studies5(3):368-88. 1993 'The Booth, the Floor and the Wall:Dance Musicand the Fearof Falling', Public8: 169-83. Thornton, S. 1994 'MoralPanic, the Media and BritishRaveCulture',in A. Rossand T. Rose (eds) Microphone Fiends,New York: Routledge. 1995 ClubCultures, Cambridge:Polity. Toop, D. 1995 Oceanof Sound, London: Serpent's Tail. True, E. 1993 'Majorsv. Independents', Melody Maker April:35-8. 17 Waterman,P. 1978 '1978: the Year of the Disco?' Record Business, December: 17. 25