UK Live Music Census 2017 – update

As we announced back in November, the Live Music Exchange team are currently working on an exciting new project, the UK Live Music Census, the first exercise of its kind anywhere in the world to attempt to measure live music activity across an entire country.

Yesterday the University of Edinburgh published a press release about the Census and it has been very exciting to see the interest both from the media (BBC Online, BBC Radio Scotland – 2 hours 41 minutes in), Music Week, and CMU to name but a few), and also from live music lovers on social media via Facebook and Twitter. Hundreds of people are signing up to volunteer and be kept up-to-date via a web form on the project’s website.

So why is the UK Live Music Census capturing people’s imaginations in this way?

As the BBC Radio Scotland piece highlights by speaking to live music fans at the University of Glasgow, live music is different to recorded music: live music is special, it is an experience, something people pay for rather than illegally downloading, and something they might remember for the rest of your life. And as Alex Mann from the Musicians’ Union (MU) explains, ‘Live performance is the one aspect of being a musician that you can’t replicate’.

The Census aims to capture qualitative data such as this, but to enrich it with quantitative data as well, something that the smaller end of the music industry spectrum in particular – the open mic gigs, folk sessions, and grassroots music venues – has previously been lacking. As Beverley Whitrick from the Music Venue Trust (MVT) explains in the same piece:-

“Data is really important to us because what we are doing is making a change from the sort of anecdotal evidence that we’ve used in the past and really trying to bolster our conversations with government, local authorities, and also with funding bodies, and with the music industry about the need for support for these venues.”

And, according to UK Music’s Tom Kiehl:-

“It’ll give us a greater understanding about what is going on in the cities and regions which are being covered by the Census, and I think it’ll be really important to have the findings so we can pinpoint areas where we can probably work with individual cities and councils, perhaps to develop music strategies and music city vision statements.”

As well as our partners, the MU, MVT and UK Music, we have also been in consultation with stakeholders like Attitude Is Everything, Julie’s Bicycle, Help Musicians UK, Making Music,  PRS for Music and the PRS for Music Foundation and are currently working on the wording of the final surveys, which will open on 9th March.

We want to understand why audience members value live music – why they go, what they spend, and how often they attend. For musicians, we want to know how often they perform, what they earn and what they spend, how far do they travel to perform, and which venues are important to them and why. And for venues and promoters, what do they earn and what they spend, what are the barriers and pathways to success, and how do they perceive the social and cultural value of what they do.

The Census will consist of:-

(1) snapshot censuses on Thursday 9 March 2017 of Birmingham, Brighton, Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle, Oxford and Southampton;

(2) nationwide online surveys targeted at musicians, venues, promoters, and audiences which will remain open for three months from 9 March to 8 May 2017.

With this data, we hope to be able to understand better why live music continues to be a vital part of people’s lives, and so help to protect it in the future.

To sign up to be kept informed about the Census and to get directly involved, please go to http://uklivemusiccensus.org/

This post was originally published on the Live Music Exchange website – http://livemusicexchange.org/blog/uk-live-music-census-2017-update/

Advertisements

From Glyndebourne to Glastonbury: The Impact of British Music Festivals – Emma Webster and George McKay

A new report, written by Emma Webster and George McKay and published online last week, highlights the impact of British music festivals and shows that festivals are now at the heart of the British music industry, forming an essential part of the worlds of rock, classical, folk and jazz. Funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s (AHRC) Connected Communities programme, the report is based on a critical literature review of more than 170 books, papers and reports.

The sheer breadth of perspectives about festivals was surprising: from the economic impact of the Edinburgh Festivals to the experience of performers and audiences Gilbert and Sullivan Festival to the impact of a chamber music festival on a bat colony, the literature on festivals highlights the way that they have captured the imaginations of researchers across the world.

The following offers a brief summary of the report – to read the full report and the accompanying annotated bibliography, click here.

  • Economy and charity: Festivals are big business – they have significant direct and indirect economic impacts, although a lack of consensus about the methods for working out just how lucrative festivals are for the local area makes comparison between festivals difficult.
  • Politics and power: The frivolity of festivals sometimes masks deeper issues around race, religion, class, sexuality, and gender – line-ups are often white and male-dominated, for instance – although music festivals have been sites for social and political debate, and sometimes action – the links between CND and jazz festivals in the 1950s, for example, or the role of Glastonbury in raising funds and awareness about political issues.
  • Temporality and transformation: Music festivals allow for intense production and consumption of music over a relatively short period of time in a particular place, and are sites for the intensification of ideas and even behaviour. Motivation for attending music festivals is not purely about the music; other factors may be social – renewing old ties, for example, or (less so) making new ones.
  • Creativity: music and musicians: Performance at particular festivals can enhance musicians’ status and increase the chances of further festival bookings – festivals can act as showcases and platforms for exporting musicians abroad. Festivals can also be sites for musical experimentation and hybridity.
  • Place-making and tourism: Festivals have become ubiquitous within tourism and place marketing campaigns and are vehicles for celebrating, constructing and maintaining national or cultural identity – the flag waving at the Last Night of the Proms constructing a particular notion of Britain, for instance. Music festivals often contribute to a positive image of a locale, both internally to its residents and externally to visitors, and hence attract people to live in the place and tourists to visit.
  • Mediation and discourse: Multiplatform mediation on television, radio, press, and online pushes the festival concept into the national consciousness and exports ideas about and images of Britain and Britishness around the world, as well as being a useful means of audience development.
  • Health and well-being: Festivals are either associated with either well-being and wellness – healing fields and the psychological benefits of being outdoors – or with negative health issues such as over-consumption or injuries; festivals can also put pressure on local health services.
  • Environmental: local and global: Festivals have local and global environmental impacts – locally via a temporary increase in population and in the production of waste, and globally via the increased carbon footprint of touring international artists.

We also examined how academic research has also impacted on festivals – from providing economic impact assessments to providing opportunities for public engagement, research collaboration and debate.

Finally, we made a number of recommendations for further research, because even though there has been an increasing amount of academic interest around festivals and impact from a variety of disciplines, there are still many gaps within the current literature. Perhaps surprisingly, there appears to be more work on the impact of festivals within the folk and pop literature (rock, jazz, ‘world’, etc.) than from the classical/opera literature, the latter of which has traditionally been concerned with musical works and composers rather than concerts and performances. Also, there is a relative lack of literature about the impact of festivals on musicians, both in terms of the impact on how they tour but also the creative and economic impact of festivals.

We hope that the report will be useful to other people studying festivals but also to the festival community and to policy-makers as a means of showing the impact of British music festivals, economically, socially and culturally at local and international levels.

This blog post was first published on the Impact of Festivals project website here.

‘Festivalling’: Are jazz festivals utopian? – Emma Webster

I have just returned from the Rhythm Changes ‘Jazz Utopia’ conference in Birmingham (14-17 April 2016). The majority of the one hundred plus speakers really engaged with the theme of the conference and grappled with jazz’s potential for exploring and achieving utopia from a wide variety of perspectives: historical, musicological, sociological and interdisciplinary.

My paper gave a brief overview of a literature review currently in review with the Jazz Research Journal about the impact of jazz festivals; based on the final part of my paper, this blog post will consider briefly the ways in which jazz festivals have been or could be considered to be utopian. Continue reading ‘Festivalling’: Are jazz festivals utopian? – Emma Webster

Bye bye nightclubs in the Big Stay-At-Home Society? – Emma Webster

The Times’ leader on Wednesday 16th March ‘Bye Bye Bada Bing’ (p. 27) looked at the new retail price index’s ‘basket of goods’ (used to measure inflation) which this year saw nightclub admission removed as a measure of how we spend our money (‘due to collection difficulties and reduced expenditure as the number of nightclubs is declining’, ONS 2016). The article outlines some of the reasons for the seeming decline of the nightclub – cheap alcohol, home entertainment, student debt – but then offers its own ideas about the industry’s decline in a curiously crowing manner:-

‘For many people nightclubs were an unreliable and expensive way of meeting boyfriends or girlfriends. Deafened, fleeced, leered at and leering, young adults have braved the prices, the DJs and queuing in the cold hours for taxis home in order to socialise’.

There are many things to say about this and later quotes – the seeming horror at the inefficiency of the process, a latent hatred of nightclubs (perhaps stemming from unfortunate personal experience?), an implicit fear of gathering crowds, and the delight in the pursuit of individual rather than group pleasure. It is worth at this point remembering that the word ‘nightclub’ covers a wide variety of types of venue, from the local high street club with sticky carpets, to the epoch-shaping clubs of 1989’s second summer of love like the Hacienda, to superclubs like Ministry of Sound and Cream, the latter of which are multi-million pound, multi-platform concerns, both in terms of CD exports but also in bringing in ‘music tourists’ to the country. Although not all nightclubs are superclubs, the economic argument for clubs is compelling: even the Daily Mail recognises that the Ministry of Sound employs 200 people and brings 300,000 people through its doors every year, half of whom are tourists. Clubs may also double as music venues, or vice versa, and even the Science Museum now hosts silent discos. The night time economy, of which nightclubs form a significant part, is said to be worth £66 billion a year to the UK, and employs 1.3 million people – can we really afford to be so happy at its decline? The social argument is just as compelling as the economic one. Remember that while clubbers may go to clubs to meet members of the opposite or same sex, that is not their only purpose: they are also vital sites of escapism, safety valves for young people, and for what Durkheim would have described as ‘collective effervescence’ (1912/2001). The Times begs to differ, however:-

‘Now, thanks to the revolution in social media, they no longer need to [go to nightclubs]. If you like a certain type of music and want to meet like-minded people, then Spotify, the music streaming service, and music festival are far better bets than a late night at Paradise or the Bada Bing’.

Spotify is a Swedish company with offices in London. The majority of British nightclubs are owned by British interests, therefore recommending that we all ditch nightclubs in favour of Spotify seems an odd choice for a paper which purports to support British business. In addition, Spotify is a controversial service which is not universally loved by the artists whose music it sells. Last December, a collective of artists sued Spotify for at least $150m for allegedly knowingly and willingly reproducing and distributing their music without permission. It is also worth checking out this piece on how much Spotify (and other streaming sites) pay for 1 million plays – answer: not as much as you think. The point about festivals is also telling – while festivals may indeed be a good place to meet like-minded people, they are necessarily cyclical and often only happen once a year, unlike a club where people may go every week (and maybe actually get to meet people more than once!). I should also raise the obvious point here that it is far easier to sell someone stuff they don’t need online than in the inherently chaotic live music space

The final paragraph is the most telling:-

‘Otherwise dating sites such as Tinder, which these days carry none of the social stigma once associated with “lonely hearts” dating, offer an instant and unembarassing way to discover potential body and soul mates. It is very hard to see such choice as representing anything other than progress’.

Far from the progression suggested by the author (who, presumably hates all nightclubs), instead I see a move away from social spaces such as nightclubs as a complete regression. I admit to some bias, however; my first job after university was working as a flyerer for a club night in Sheffield, and some of my fondest memories are of lost weekends with friends, old and new, dancing for hours to acid techno and hard trance – it was liberating, social, and most of all, fun. Live music venues, nightclubs and pubs are all under threat in this country – great British businesses which make our towns and cities attractive, vibrant places to live and work. As Isabelle Szmigin says, ‘social media and apps … will never replace the excitement of a night out drinking and dancing with friends’, and a move away from socialisation (in all senses of the word) does not represent progress.

The glee at the demise of a social institution such as the nightclub and the push towards online marketing tools – sorry, dating and music apps – are just further examples of neoliberal individualisation; perfect illustrations of what could be described as ‘the efforts of the financial elite and their marketing machines to atomize people so they will be complicit in the destruction of the commons’ (Girou, cited in Chomsky 2015, p. 12). It was John Major’s government which brought in the 1994 Criminal Justice Act which effectively criminalised raves – perhaps the Tories and the right wing press just don’t like dancing? Or perhaps a country where nobody ever goes out is their end goal – after all, we’re all in it together (watching Bake Off) in the Big Stay-At-Home Society.

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Because We Say So. San Francisco: City Lights Books

Durkheim, Émile. 2001. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics/University Press

I would like to thank Jan Webster for his always fabulous editing and insightful comments.

The Ecology of Live Music: the evolution of an idea – Live Music Exchange editorial team

To mark the publication of our academic article on the live music ecology [open access, via link], the LMX team is publishing our original discussion notes.   These illustrate the origins of the ideas that inform the article but include points that weren’t further developed (and perhaps should have been). We thought it worth making public—particularly in relation to this topic—an aspect of the academic process that is usually hidden.  Here then are the position papers we wrote before developing the article.

Simon Frith

At some stage—I don’t remember when—we started using the term ‘ecology’ to describe the way we were approaching the analysis of live music. We now apply the term routinely and claim that our ecological approach is what makes our work valuable and distinct.   Is this claim justifiable? There are two immediate points to make here. The first is that ‘ecology’ is a buzz term (like ‘creativity’) – it’s obviously a good thing to be ecological, to talk about the ‘ecosphere’, ‘eco-systems’, etc. Presumably there’s more to our use of this term than vague self-congratulation. Second ‘the ecological approach’ already has a distinct meaning in musicology (or, rather, in music psychology). Eric Clarke has pioneered an “ecological approach” to understanding the perception of music, arguing (to quote the blurb for his book) “that the way we hear and understand music is not simply a function of our brain structure or of the musical ‘codes’ given to us by culture, but must be considered within the physical and social contexts of listening.”  Clarke’s argument is certainly relevant to the study of live music, but it is not the reason for our use of ecological language.

Ecology is the scientific study of the relationship between living organisms and their environment; it is a branch of the natural sciences. The only live music organisation to think in these terms is Julie’s Bicycle, which is precisely concerned with the effects of, say, festivals, on the environment in this sense—in terms of carbon emissions, environmental damage, etc. Our perspective is different: we are interested in the relationship between social organisms (groups of people, social institutions, etc) and their cultural environment (social spaces, ideologies, other institutions, etc), i.e. material conditions which are not just physical or biological. These relations have always the central topic of study for both sociologists and social geographers, so what’s the purpose of claiming to be ‘ecological’?

Bear in mind that we are not taking an ecological approach to music (or music institutions) in general. We are using the term to get at the particular conditions of live music making. There is both a positive and a negative impetus here.   The most obvious characteristic of live music is that it has to happen in a particular place, a particular acoustic and geographical setting. The social context for a live music event thus necessarily involves a physical as well as a cultural environment. The ecological approach here (which is probably not that much different from social geography) thus means understanding the relationship between different spaces and how they are mutually sustaining (whether across territories, as in the case of touring, or within urban environments, as in the case of planning ‘zones’). The space-specific nature of live music is thus a positive impetus to develop an ecological approach. (As it was for Clarke in the context of music psychology.)

The negative impetus that shaped our approach was the rejection of ways of thinking about live music that understand the promotional business in straight market terms or else assume that there are clear distinctions between different music worlds. We call our approach ecological because we want to draw attention to the importance of collaboration and mutual dependency between different businesses (even competitive businesses) and to blur the dividing lines usually drawn between different kinds of music-making and music-makers. To put this another way, we want to show that what seems like irrational behaviour in terms of market economics (putting on or playing at a concert which will not bring any financial returns; charging less for tickets than people are willing to pay; trusting a promoter …) can be seen as quite reasonable if understood in terms of its real-life environment (which has to be understood across time as well as space). Live music is interesting to study because it can only be understood by refusing to accept the usual distinctions of music sociology—between state and commercial interests, between amateur and professional players, between high and low music, between big and small promoters, and so forth.   We call this an ecological approach to emphasise that there is a single environment in which all these activities happen (an environment that these activities themselves shape).

Martin Cloonan

I also can’t recall at which point we first used the term ecology but I’m pretty certain that what we meant by it was some sort of holistic approach to understanding live music. So while our initial research focus was on promoters, we soon found that understanding them and their world meant understanding the key relationships in which they are involved – with artists and their agents/managers, with venues (even if they own them), with ticket agents (ditto), with other promoters (including both adversarial and cooperative relationships), with various regulatory authorities and so on and so forth. It meant asking what promoters need to do to continue to make a living or simply to keep promoting for the love of it.

Meanwhile, the fact that live music has to happen somewhere immediately brought to our attention a whole host of relationships involving regulations which simply don’t apply to recorded music. In the general run of things, if I put out a record it doesn’t have health and safety implications but if I put on a gig it does. Understanding live music ecologically means consideration of such things.

Simon betrays his Marxist heritage with his reference to the ‘material conditions’ of live music, but that is indeed what we are talking about. Simon is right that decisions about the promotion of live music often defy crude market logic in the sense that the profit is not always a prime consideration for promoters or even a consideration at all. But the laws of supply and demand hold some sway. A key moment in many promoters’ careers comes when after making money booking a lot of acts that they liked, they find that in order to carry on being they have to book acts that other people like. The logic of the market dictates that any promoter booking only acts that she personally likes is unlikely make a fortune. Much like record companies, promoters second guess public taste–and the best ones do so ecologically, That is, they look at the bigger picture. They are very aware of the wider world and their place in it. Survival is dependent on this.

Competition plays a key role here and it is worth reflecting that across the Western world at least, only two concert promotions companies really matter: AEG and Live Nation. At the top end of the food chain you may not have to deal with one of these companies, but life is much easier if you do. Interestingly they tend to think of themselves as events organisers and so music does not always have to be their focus. Thus DF Concerts (which is co-owned by Live Nation) can put on both Bruce Springsteen at Hampden Park and the Pope at Bellahouston Park. Logistically these events have much in common and to understand live music ecologically means knowing something about the wider entertainment and leisure industries. After all, pubs remain key sites of live music.

There is much to be said about the fact that a great deal of live music (I would suggest the majority) takes place in venues that were not purpose built for music. To think ecologically I would suggest reflecting on your local town/place of residence and consider the various venues, their histories, what music they put on, who owns them and how they survive. Perhaps, following Ruth Finnegan, we might think of live music pathways, for promoters, musicians and audiences. Or we might think about the huge amounts of public money that have been ploughed in to the Arenas which have transformed the concert circuit in the UK and ask where the money made in these places ends up.

For me, then, to think ecologically about live music must involve some consideration of who is controlling the means of production in a situation where for audiences the ‘product’ means so much more than such a term generally implies. To think ecologically is not the same as thinking economically, but to start with the economy might not be a bad way to begin thinking ecologically.

Matt Brennan

In 2011 IASPM Canada held a conference at McGill University on the theme of ‘Music and Environment’. The call for papers noted that ”in recent academic discourse we have observed a turn towards the ecology of sound, which can imply political advocacy of the preservation of an environment’s sonority”. Martin, Emma, and I did a panel session, and my paper was unsubtly titled ‘The ecology of live music in Britain’. What follows are some arguments from that paper with added hindsight.

The term ecology is creeping its way into the discourse of music sociology, and is loosely used to describe the study of the relationships between people, social groups, and their environment, and how such relationships can operate in a dynamic system – not unlike an ecosystem. Frith, Cloonan, and Williamson touched on this approach without explicitly mentioning the word ‘ecology’ when they argued, 2009, that one of the necessary ingredients for a healthy local musical culture is a diversity of musical spaces: “the variety of places to play, rehearse and see all kinds of music – rooms, venues, clubs, colleges, universities. Variety is the key term here, variety in terms of size, genre, time of opening, kind of audience, etc.’ (Frith et al 2009).

Emma and I then used this notion and the explicit term ‘live music ecology’ in a 2011 article expressing our concern at the increasing consolidated ownership of venues, agents, and promoters by Live Nation, AEG Live, and their subsidiaries, in which we also discussed the impact of the live music sector’s economic structure on the live music environment:

The growth of corporate concert promotion, Live-Nation style, is bound to have effects on the ecology of live music. If the live music sector is to be sustained, new talent must develop, and for this to happen venues are needed for new ‘amateur’ artists as well as for established professionals. Indeed, live music needs an environment in which the amateur and professional spheres overlap and interact. This is why ‘top-down’ organisations such as Live Nation are potentially problematic: if the balance between venues and ownership leans too far in one direction, then the whole ecology is endangered. On the other hand, the fact that live music is inevitably embedded in particular localities with their own unique set of contingencies makes it difficult for a corporate promoter ever to impose a completely standardised network of facilities. It will be interesting to see if the Live Nation model of promotion will continue to grow – it could [just as easily] collapse. (Brennan and Webster 2011, 17-18)

I therefore agree with Simon and Martin that an ecological approach to understanding live music is useful but I want to play devil’s advocate for a moment and interrogate the dangers of using ecology as an analogy. It’s tempting to map concerns about the consolidation of the live music industry onto common narratives of ecological crisis. Consider this familiar idea: creating a monoculture leaves an ecosystem more susceptible to being wiped out by a single disease. The mirror question is ‘if the current live duopoly of Live Nation and AEG Live runs into trouble, will it devastate the British live music ecosystem?’ Armchair science also tells us that different species are linked together in an interdependent chain: if bees become extinct, for instance, it’s not just bad for bees but has serious negative ramifications for the entire ecosystem. The mirror question is ‘if small venues are struggling while large arenas thrive, will the whole system eventually become unsustainable?’

A third ecological narrative is that the introduction of a foreign species into an ecosystem can sometimes wreak havoc on the environment (the negative impact of the North American grey squirrel on British woodlands and native species like the red squirrel is a much cited example). The mirror narrative is that promoters operating at a transnational level may muscle out smaller local promoters with local expertise that has been naturally developed over time.

The question is: do these analogies bear out in practice?  It is easy to leap from an understanding of the fragility of an ecosystem to an equivalent concern for the UK’s live music ecology. But this may be misleading! Our historical research shows us that at the end of the 1950s the music press ran many stories on the decline of the country’s network of variety theatres and dance halls, but we now know this predated one of the most exciting and vibrant periods in the history of British live music. We need to look at evidence without making assumptions and build our theories from the evidence not the other way round.

Emma Webster

The concept of ecology informed my doctoral work, and the term is used liberally within my thesis. My research examined three case study cities – Sheffield, Glasgow, and Bristol – comparing the promotion of live music within each city and exploring how infrastructural factors affect live music culture in each place. Ecology is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the study of the relationships between people, social groups, and their environment, while an ecosystem is defined as “a biological system composed of all the organisms found in a particular physical environment, interacting with it and with each other [and/or] a complex system resembling this”.

I thought of each locality, then, as a live music ‘ecosystem’ which exists within a wider ecology. Adding to Simon Frith’s formulation of the necessary ingredients for a healthy musical city, I suggested that as well as the physical spaces in which to produce music, a local live music ‘ecosystem’ consists of the networks between people, social groups, and their environment (Webster 2011, 12). A local live music ecosystem thus exists within unique local physical, social, industrial and economic infrastructures, but also within wider regional, national and international frameworks, hence ecologically speaking, the local is inextricably intertwined with a wider ecology. As ex-venue owner Andy Inglis states, “a new venue opening close to an existing one might have no immediate effect in a certain town, for instance, but may have in another, or may take a week, a month, or a year to gradually have an impact, resulting in the existing one closing; it may be the sole factor, or it may be the straw the broke the camel’s back.” (Inglis 2013).

The ethos of the live music project was from the start to research “all kinds of musical event, from orchestral and chamber music concerts to stadium shows and rock festivals, from rap and reggae gigs to acoustic and jazz club nights.” As my research showed, while venues within a local ecosystem are affected by other venues within the local ecosystem and within a wider economic and cultural ecology, the various music worlds may also intertwine within a venue itself (albeit with perhaps little actual overlap at any given event).

My research also found that while venues may be associated with a particular genre, they are by no means tied to it. In one month in 2009, for example, The Glasgow Royal Concert Hall, hosted concerts by the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, Alison Moyet, Runrig, and the East Dunbartonshire Council, the latter featuring 350 school pupils from across East Dunbartonshire singing Christmas carols. In a similar vein, venues may be affiliated with one of the different types of promoters identified by Frith et al (2013) – ‘state’, ‘enthusiast’, and ‘commercial’ – but, again, they are not necessarily restricted to one type (although ‘enthusiast’ promoters are unlikely to promote in very large venues).

Looked at in this way, the discursively separate worlds of classical and pop, folk and jazz, are interlinked via the physical spaces in which they are performed, the audiences who enjoy a range of different genres, and the ‘amateur’ and ‘professional’ musicians who perform therein. The Live Music Exchange live music news Twitter feed has taken on this ethos and hence tweets stories about opera, musicals, folk, jazz, pop, rock, electronic dance music – the list goes on. In a similar vein, we publish stories about tiny venues in Bath as well as massive arenas in Nottingham. The Twitter feed includes stories and articles about broader cultural issues, such as music education, the regulation of live music and arts funding (or lack thereof).

That venues and promoters within a local ecosystem are diverse and may share some characteristics but vary widely in others, is part of the reason that each local live music ecosystem is unique. We advocate diversity among the live music ecology because without such variety, as Matt suggests and I have discussed elsewhere (Webster 2011, pp. 237-8), live music in the UK would perhaps be relatively homogenous. As one promoter warned, concerned at the increasing spread of O2 Academies around the UK: ‘It’s like going to, say, West Berlin, and going, “Oh, it’s a Woolworths … Oh, it’s a WH Smiths. Oh, I was expecting something different”’ (Hobson 2008). 

Adam Behr

I come to the use of the term ecology from a slightly different point of origin. Being, as it were, the Ron Wood of the broader live music project I joined the KE project that became LMX, after the conclusion of the initial research project. The term ‘ecology’ was by then a fait accompli so my understanding of it was informed by the outputs of the original project (notably Brennan and Webster: 2011, Frith et al IASPM Journal) and also the proceedings of the Business of Live Music Conference [March – April 2011]

This isn’t to say that I had no preconceptions about how live music operates in a given area. In the very broadest sense – and this allows for all the variants of ‘ecology’, ‘environment’, etc. – it is a system of some sort. It is also a set of relationships – between venues, promoters, artists, agents, local councils and so on, and one way to approach this is to compare the ecological model other ways of conceiving socio-musical systems. The obvious comparators here are Becker’s ‘art worlds’ (1980) and Bourdieu’s ‘fields’ (1993). Becker’s understanding of art as collective activity within a network is clearly relevant to the much touted aspect of ‘interdependence’ within an ecology’, but it’s not clear to me that all of the aspects of an ecological system work to create meaning in the same way as the participants of an ‘art world’.

Bourdieu’s emphasis on competition also has some resonance. A key difference, however, between Bourdieu’s account of cultural fields and our understanding of the live music systems is that not all aspects of the latter are agents. It’s hard to think, for example, of a venue as an agent – notwithstanding that the promoters, musicians, etc. using it are – and yet venues are clearly key nodes in the live music ecology. The point here is that an ecology of live music has a concern for physical space and materiality that ‘cultural field’ and ‘art world’ approaches lack. Further, not even all of the key people who impact and shape the live music ecology are necessarily musical agents (or members of a music world) as such. A local councillor, say, or planning official, don’t have the same relationship to the cultural field as, say, a music critic or awards judge, yet their actions can have crucial and long-lasting consequences ecologically.

All this is to emphasise the material conditions of local music making and to agree that it is impossible to ignore that these conditions are entwined in economic structures. In this way I agree with Martin’s suggestion that we can use economics as a way into thinking about ecology. This means viewing the economic relationships as the system that acts on – and is affected by- the live music ecology, in a manner analogous to, say, the weather and the physical ecology. Politics (local and national) might also be described in this way.

As an addendum, there’s also perhaps a more opportunistic element to all of this. As Simon suggests, ‘ecology’ has become a buzzword in discussions of live music. It’s not just academics using the term but also journalists and, more significantly, policy makers and consultants. Ecological metaphors seem to have become a useful way of explaining academic research into cultural systems to lay readers (part of our required ‘knowledge exchange’ work) and of justifying local and national music investment strategies, whether by state or corporate agencies, to their constituents. It helps that there are, as Matt notes, structural resemblances between the live music ecology and the physical ecology: interdependence, parasitic behaviour, symbiosis an so on.   From this perspective we could say that thinking of live music in terms of ‘ecology’ is also an effect of the material conditions of the people doing the thinking, whether LMX, Edinburgh City Council or UK Music. Such people are, of course, themselves part of the live music ecology, which has the neat result that the concept of ‘ecology’ here is itself ecologically determined!

References

Becker, H. (1982), Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity.

Brennan, M. and Webster, E. (2011) Why concert promoters matter. Scottish Music Review, 2 (1), pp. 1-25

Frith, S., Brennan, M.. Cloonan, M. and Webster, E. (2010), Analysing Live Music in the UK: Findings One Year into a Three-Year Research Project, IASPM Journal,1:1

Frith, S., Brennan, M., Cloonan, M. and Webster, E. (2013) The History of Live Music in Britain, Volume I: 1950-1967. From Dance Hall to the 100 Club. Aldershot; Ashgate Publishing.

Frith, S., Cloonan, M. and Williamson, J.(2009) ‘On music as a creative industry’ in T. Jeffs and A. Pratt ed. Creativity, Innovation and the Culture Economy, London: Routledge, 2009, 74-89.

Hobson, M. (2008) Personal interview, Sheffield with Emma Webster, 21 August.

Inglis, I. (2013) Wanted: nine million affluent gig-goers. Live Music Exchange website. Available from: <http://livemusicexchange.org/blog/wanted-nine-million-affluent-gig-goers-andy-inglis/&gt; [Accessed 20 March 2014].

Webster, E. (2011) Promoting live music in the UK: a behind-the-scenes ethnography. PhD thesis: University of Glasgow.

Top 5 Tips for Engaging with Government as a Researcher – Emma Webster

APPJAG LJF launch
Emma Webster with Prof George McKay and David Jones, director of EFG London Jazz Festival, after All-Party Parliamentary Group Jazz Appreciation Group launch in November 2015

I was lucky enough to attend the three-day AHRC course, ‘Engaging with Government’, at the Institute for Government in London in March 2016. It was a superbly run course, with all aspects of the training obviously well planned and delivered, and some really inspiring guest speakers and course facilitators (Jill Rutter and Katie Thorpe). It was also a real privilege to spend three days with some very smart, passionate early career researchers, whose research interests ranged from genocide to secret intelligence to housing and architecture to live music.

The main messages of the course were that civil servants, Parliamentarians and ‘thinktanks’ are often open to academic research BUT they are always very busy and appreciate being told solutions as well as identifying problems, so to ensure that our research is presented as simply as possible.

We learned many top tips, but these next five are what I will personally be working on over the next few months – I hope that they’re useful to your own research.

  1. Get in contact with those people in government who are directly involved with your field of interest

These include:-

House of Commons and House of Lords libraries – these libraries prepare research briefings for ministers and Peers and their staff. Find out the author’s name(s) of any briefings relevant to your research and contact them to let them know about your research. A searchable list of briefings can be found here.

Select Committees – both the House of Lords and the House of Commons have Select Committees, which deal with specific aspects of government or specific issues. Work out which ones are relevant to your work, then follow them on Twitter and sign up for press alerts; also try to establish a relationship with Committee staff (e.g. ‘specialists’ and researchers). For links to lists of committees and committee members, click here.

All-Party Parliamentary Groups – informal cross-party groups for interested MPs and Lords, ranging from education to jazz to beer. For a register of groups and contacts, click here.

Civil Service directors of research – each of the government departments should have a director of research (or chief analyst or director of learning) – ring the relevant department to find out who this is and make yourself known to them.

  1. Triple-write all your publications

In order for your work to be as useful as possible to the widest number of people, consider preparing three versions of it: a journal article, a briefing sheet for ministers and civil servants, and a press release. These will all need to be written to suit each target audience – you can hold off sending out the briefing sheet and press release until your journal article has been published in order not to cause any problems with the publisher and to maximise impact .

Journal article: aimed at academics, so use of jargon is fine. Paywalls are restrictive and off-putting so ensure that your work is open access where possible.

Briefing sheet: aim for three pages, maximum six, use bullet points, ensure the main thesis is encapsulated in the first paragraph. Keep it simple and avoid jargon.

Press release: aimed at journalists so help them to find the ‘hook’ around which they can write their story.

For more about ‘triple writing’ and engaging with policy-makers more broadly, read this article.

  1. Ensure that your message is clear and engaging

Civil servants can often be more nuanced than ministers, who need definite solutions to problems rather than caveats and academic phraseology such as “on the one hand this, on the other hand that”. To help policy-makers and decision-makers quickly engage with how your research will be helpful to them, use phrases like: ‘This is the field and my latest research shows that ….’ and ‘This is why my research is useful to you …’ Tell stories and use drama and emotion to engage people’s interest – make people care.

  1. Build your online profile

Having a good online profile is crucial (and is the reason I started this blog!). One thing which became very apparent was how much Google is used as a research tool by civil servants and Parliamentary researchers (who often do not get past the first page of Google results), so make sure you appear on the first page of Google and that what comes up in the results is engaging. To climb Google’s page rankings, be sure to use keywords and link back to your blog as much as possible from other websites – cross-posting is one way of doing this. WordPress is easy to use and works well with Google – you can either have a personal blog (emmawebster.org) or one which is about your field (Live Music Exchange) – aim to update it every week if possible. Twitter is also highly recommended as a means of building contacts, keeping on top of latest research and government business, and getting your own research out there – combining your research postings with more personal stuff is not easy but aim to emulate other academics who you think use Twitter effectively.

  1. Keep up with the latest issues in Parliament

The sooner you can engage with policy-makers and decision-makers, the better, so keep an eye out for future ‘windows of opportunity’ for which your research may be relevant and useful. To ensure that you are up-to-date with issues within your field of interest, read the Queen’s speech at the start of each session as it sets out the government’s policies and proposed legislative programme for the new parliamentary session – for the Queen’s speech 2015, click here. The other place to keep an eye on Parliamentary business to track current bills, keep up with committees, and follow topical issues.

Finally, keep an eye out for the next ‘Engaging with Government’ course – it was a truly excellent three days and comes highly recommended!

FREE EVENT: Researching (Jazz) Festivals: A Day of Ideas and Discussion – Cheltenham Jazz Festival – Friday 29 April 2016

Researching (Jazz) Festivals: A Day of Ideas and Discussion
Cheltenham Jazz Festival
Friday 29 April 2016, 10-5pm

FREE attendance (must register via Cheltenham Jazz Festival box office)

The Impact of Festivals is a 12-month project funded under the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Connected Communities Programme, working with research partner organization, the EFG London Jazz Festival. The Principal Investigator is Professor George McKay, AHRC Leadership Fellow for the Connected Communities Programme, and Professor of Media Studies at the University of East Anglia. The Research Associate is Dr Emma Webster, co-founder and Director of Live Music Exchange. Continue reading FREE EVENT: Researching (Jazz) Festivals: A Day of Ideas and Discussion – Cheltenham Jazz Festival – Friday 29 April 2016