Negus, Keith

English

Goldsmiths Research Online

GOLDSMITHS Research OnlineBook Negus, Keith R.Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music IndustryCopyright out of print. Please cite the publisher's version.You may cite this version as: Negus, Keith R., 2011. Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry. London: out of print. [Book]: Goldsmiths Research Online.Available at: http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/5453/This document is the author’s final manuscript version of the journal article, incorporating any revisions agreed during peer review. Some differences between this version and the publisher’s version remain. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners.http://eprints-gro.goldsmiths.ac.ukContact Goldsmiths Research Online at: lib-eprints@gold.ac.uk     Producing Pop  Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry     Keith Negus  Department of Music Goldsmiths University of London SE14 6NW    Producing Pop was first published in 1992 by Edward Arnold. It is now out of print and the rights have reverted to Keith Negus.   Producing Pop by Keith Negus is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.  iIntroduction 2011Producing Pop is based on research carried out between 1988 and 1991, withmuch of the material derived from interviews conducted with musicindustry personnel in London, and during a short 3 week trip to New Yorkand Los Angeles. In many respects it is a snapshot of the recording industryat a particular historical moment – a time when the business was structuredaround the manufacture and distribution of physical artefacts. It was a timewhen I could while away an afternoon wandering around the large andsmall record shops that were then to be found in close proximity to eachother in central London - stores selling albums as vinyl, cassette or CD, andoffering a mind boggling array of single formats.Much has changed. Most obviously, digital technologies have redefined theway repertoire is packaged and distributed. But, much has endured. Recordcompanies still place considerable emphasis on artist and repertoire  (A &R) – finding, acquiring and exploiting individual tracks, or back catalogueor the creative outputs of individual musicians and bands (‘discoveringtalent’).Record companies (or, music companies as they are increasingly called) arestill engaged in marketing; still recruit or subcontract staff to work onpublicity and public relations; and musicians still make music in studios –even if the physical space of the ‘studio’ has become far more flexible (frombedroom to cabin in a forest to luxury facility on a Caribbean island).Despite numerous apocalyptic warnings lamenting or celebrating thedemise of the record company, the major music and entertainmentcorporations, and numerous independent labels, are still here – albeit withrecording occupying a much more integrated and nuanced location withina bundle of rights; and revenue generated in multiple ways rather thanthrough the direct purchase of sound recordings (an intensification ofprocesses that were apparent and described, if briefly, in this book).I have heard and read many times that the so-called 360 degree deal (the‘multiple rights’ contract) – by which a company takes a cut of all revenuestreams from an artist’s earnings – is becoming an industry standard,whether a musician is negotiating for the first or fifth time. As they havealways done, the labels provide finance upfront along with knowledge andexpertise, and then seek a return on that investment. Whilst musicians have(in recent years) gained economic support from alternative sources –private equity firms, distillers, sportswear manufacturers – many deals ofthis type have benefited neither party, and the major companies haveconsistently continued to take the gamble of investing upfront in newmusic and ‘unknown’ musicians (in many respects, this continues bydefault rather than design – no one else seems to be prepared to take therisk).iiThe ‘records’ that the companies are now investing in, archiving andexploiting are far more than sound recordings. And the return oninvestment may come from a percentage of an artist’s CD sales and digitaldownloads, or income derived from T-shirts, DVDs, films, books, songpublishing, synchronisation across games and adverts, or a plethora ofmerchandise. The music corporation may be ‘active’ and the artist mayhave assigned their song publishing, an autobiography or live promotiondirectly to the corporation, and make use of the in-house merchandisingoperation. Or, the company and artist may have struck a deal for certainactivities with publishing, for example, assigned to another company (the360 degree deal allowing for a ‘passive’ cut of profits made elsewhere).Whilst such arrangements keep managers on their toes, accountantsbalancing the books and lawyers in work, they are the logical outcome andintensification of a type of cross-collateralisation that was being structuredinto contracts when I was writing this book, an effort to take advantage of‘media synergies’ (a buzzword of the 1980s). In turn, this is traceable backto the commercial possibilities introduced by the links between recordings,radio and film, connections that were used in business practices adopted byBing Crosby (such synergies are referred to briefly in Chapters 1 and 2here).Any book on the recording industry is bound to be partial and shaped bythe times and circumstances in which it was researched and written. I amaware that Producing Pop has certain shortcomings (some of which I tried toaddress in Music Genres and Corporate Cultures, 1999, and others that I amstill thinking about). I have some reservations about my use of the notion ofthe ‘cultural intermediary’ as a way of characterising and framing the workof music industry personnel. I adopted the idea because it allowed me tomove away from a model of music industry personnel as ‘gatekeepers’ andgave me a route into debates about the ‘cultural economy’ of production.But it meant that I downplayed and devoted less attention to how theworkers I discuss in this book are contributing to the commodification ofmusicians and their music.  Despite these reservations about the theoreticalframing of the book, I believe that the details are historically valuable andpractices still relevant to the way the industry operates. I know that thebook continues to be used in teaching and research. I am happy for thiscopy to be circulated and made available in any freely accessible locations.Keith NegusMarch 2011

Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Goldsmiths Research Online