In praise of part-time musicians
Musicians with jobs invariably make the most exciting music, due to the liberation of
seperating creativity from financial reward
Keith Kahn-Harris
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 December 2008 11.00 GMT
In a recent Guardian article, John Harris surveyed the music industry's increasingly
desperate attempt to deal with the twin threats of the recession and the impact of illegal
downloading. He argued that emerging tendency for music to be given away free will
"sully the magic of music".
Harris is right to be concerned that the music industry's attempts to cope with falling
profits could result in the tightening of the corporate screw. But he is wrong to see the
growing expectation that music should be free is necessarily a threat to musical pleasure
and creativity. In fact, separating music from financial reward can be immensely
liberating.
At this point, some readers will undoubtedly groan and brace themselves for a mistyeyed
"spirit of '77" attack on the evils of the music business and the impossibility of
mixing true creativity with commerce. Yet my argument is not that participation in
capitalist society compromises musical excellence, but that participation in capitalist
society can support musical excellence provided that musicians earn a living away from
music. Yes, I am writing in praise of the "day job".
Let me give an example: The mysterious Norwegian known as Fenriz has made 13
albums as drummer, vocalist and guitarist of the cult black metal band Darkthrone. He
is known and admired worldwide as one of the founders of black metal. Most days
though, he is Gyvle Nagell, a 37-year-old who works in Oslo's central postal sorting
office. For all their renown, Darkthrone, like most other extreme metal bands, simply do
not make enough money for Fenriz/Nagell to give up the day job. But this hasn't
stopped him being a prolific and legendary musician.
Such double-lives are common throughout the metal underground and in many other
music scenes. There are entire genres that do not permit artists to survive off music
alone. A huge amount of music is subsidised through day jobs.
Of course, the importance of other sources of income for musicians - and the dole in
particular - has long been recognised. But I am not here to praise the bohemian artist,
freezing in a bedsit and spending any money they have on ramen noodles, heroin and
plectrums. I'm here to praise the music fanatic who holds down a reasonable if
unexciting job, turning in a decent day's work after spending the night in a recording
studio or driving back from a gig in Stoke.
It is this kind of musician - dedicated, self-sacrificing, self-disciplined - whose efforts are
the lifeblood of a host of vibrant music scenes and who will be least affected by the
current turmoil in the music industry. Any money they made was only ever ploughed
back into music. Lower revenues will certainly make them dig deeper and sacrifice more
for their art, but it will not stop the music.
What the free music revolution threatens is not music per se, but the idea that you have
to be a musician full time to be truly creative. You don't. Too often the commercially
viable musician sinks into an effete preciousness that is the death knell of creativity.
Being a "full time" musician didn't seem to spur Axl Rose into making Chinese
Democracy any quicker.
It is time that the importance of day job-supported musicians was more widely
recognised – for it is they who will ensure that music will survive the death of the music
industry.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Musicians with jobs invariably make the most exciting music, due to the liberation of
seperating creativity from financial reward
Keith Kahn-Harris
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 December 2008 11.00 GMT
In a recent Guardian article, John Harris surveyed the music industry's increasingly
desperate attempt to deal with the twin threats of the recession and the impact of illegal
downloading. He argued that emerging tendency for music to be given away free will
"sully the magic of music".
Harris is right to be concerned that the music industry's attempts to cope with falling
profits could result in the tightening of the corporate screw. But he is wrong to see the
growing expectation that music should be free is necessarily a threat to musical pleasure
and creativity. In fact, separating music from financial reward can be immensely
liberating.
At this point, some readers will undoubtedly groan and brace themselves for a mistyeyed
"spirit of '77" attack on the evils of the music business and the impossibility of
mixing true creativity with commerce. Yet my argument is not that participation in
capitalist society compromises musical excellence, but that participation in capitalist
society can support musical excellence provided that musicians earn a living away from
music. Yes, I am writing in praise of the "day job".
Let me give an example: The mysterious Norwegian known as Fenriz has made 13
albums as drummer, vocalist and guitarist of the cult black metal band Darkthrone. He
is known and admired worldwide as one of the founders of black metal. Most days
though, he is Gyvle Nagell, a 37-year-old who works in Oslo's central postal sorting
office. For all their renown, Darkthrone, like most other extreme metal bands, simply do
not make enough money for Fenriz/Nagell to give up the day job. But this hasn't
stopped him being a prolific and legendary musician.
Such double-lives are common throughout the metal underground and in many other
music scenes. There are entire genres that do not permit artists to survive off music
alone. A huge amount of music is subsidised through day jobs.
Of course, the importance of other sources of income for musicians - and the dole in
particular - has long been recognised. But I am not here to praise the bohemian artist,
freezing in a bedsit and spending any money they have on ramen noodles, heroin and
plectrums. I'm here to praise the music fanatic who holds down a reasonable if
unexciting job, turning in a decent day's work after spending the night in a recording
studio or driving back from a gig in Stoke.
It is this kind of musician - dedicated, self-sacrificing, self-disciplined - whose efforts are
the lifeblood of a host of vibrant music scenes and who will be least affected by the
current turmoil in the music industry. Any money they made was only ever ploughed
back into music. Lower revenues will certainly make them dig deeper and sacrifice more
for their art, but it will not stop the music.
What the free music revolution threatens is not music per se, but the idea that you have
to be a musician full time to be truly creative. You don't. Too often the commercially
viable musician sinks into an effete preciousness that is the death knell of creativity.
Being a "full time" musician didn't seem to spur Axl Rose into making Chinese
Democracy any quicker.
It is time that the importance of day job-supported musicians was more widely
recognised – for it is they who will ensure that music will survive the death of the music
industry.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário