How would you say the state of non-commercial music (as a whole) in 2012 differs from when you first entered the professional music world in the late 60's/early 70's?
In the late ‘60s there was a handful of
major labels and an almost non-existent independent sector. The idea that a
band could release its own LPs was not in the air (though there were a few
visionary exceptions, mostly in other fields—such as Sun Ra’s Saturn and Harry
Partch’s Gate V labels, though lacking any
general distribution, these were effectively invisible). And there was the
additional problem of distribution: you could make a record, but how would you
get it into the shops? A tiny monopoly of distributors dominated the market,
structurally tied into the needs of the majors; anything outside that was too
much trouble. So bands didn’t think of going it alone, instead they looked for
labels. And that meant major labels or their specialist subsidiaries.
On the other hand, in the late ‘60s and
early ‘70s—through a complex set of special circumstances—both labels and
public were looking for novelty and innovation, and these are things that an
essentially parasitic music industry can’t manufacture, so they had to chase
after them instead, meaning that it was still possible for outsiders to get
into the game. In addition, there was a moderately healthy gig circuit
routinely programming new bands, and these were gigs that paid. Support groups
didn’t play for nothing then, or ‘pay to play’ as now; they got reasonable money.
So the sign-posted way to success was to get onto the ladder and climb up into
the system. And it seemed to work. So there was no thought—and no reason to
think—of finding a public in any other way.
This picture has now changed beyond all
recognition. The old patriarchy
has long collapsed and the few surviving major labels face ever-diminishing
sales, so they invest what they have in safe mainstream product or dirt-cheap
back-catalogue reissues. The old practice of ploughing a healthy percentage of
turnover back into speculative releases—testing the water and discovering new
talent—has long since devolved onto more energetic, less profit-oriented,
independent labels, the first batch of which emerged in the late ‘70s, part of
the mini-revolution that was Punk (swiftly followed by its more canny
beneficiaries, the New Wave). In that environment, if a band rose to the top, a
major could buy it up, thereby avoiding the cost of speculative research. And
occasionally an independent might be able to hang on to a success and edge a little closer to mini-major
status.
In this climate, all but very mainstream
bands had to aim to be signed by independents or release their own records. The
independent marketplace expanded crazily throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s, at the
same time fragmenting into a mass of disconnected and self-contained specialist
niche communities. Everything changed: a relatively inclusive mainstream
(Beefheart and Sinatra had coexisted on the Warner catalogue) fractured into a
major, hits-only, mainstream while a multiplying catalogue of subcultures
peeled away, disappearing from the general conversation altogether. So, as the
nature of the listening public changed, bands’ ambitions changed along with it.
Looking back, Henry Cow was extraordinarily
lucky: we, like many other bands of our era, having strayed across—or broken
through—the common-practice fences, had been pitched into the wild, uncharted
territories of extended electrification, new instruments, hybrid compositional
techniques, cross genre borrowing, radical recording practices, unfettered
improvisation and controlled noise… a relatively uncharted terrain. Most of
those territories are mapped now, so the sense of possibility and discovery has
inevitably dimmed. Of course, there are other terrae novae, but they are not—as
they were for us—in such plain sight. I hasten to add that that is not because
we were smarter; it’s just that we were just lucky enough to be active during
an untypical historical hiccup.
The next musical breakthrough will come along in its own time, as they
always do. Meanwhile,
consolidation, revival and minor modifications of existing forms will continue
to dominate a musical climate no longer particularly supportive of experiment
and innovation. In other words, it couldn’t be much more different now than it
was it the late ‘60s, or much harder to survive in.