The electronic music scene’s spatial milieu How space and place influence the formation of electronic music scenes – a comparison of the electronic music industries of Berlin and Amsterdam Research Master Urban Studies Hade Dorst – 5921791 [email protected] Supervisor: prof. Robert Kloosterman Abstract Music industries draw on the identity of their locations, and thrive under certain spatial conditions – or so it is hypothesized in this article. An overview is presented of the spatial conditions most beneficial for a flourishing electronic music industry, followed by a qualitative exploration of the development of two of the industry’s epicentres, Berlin and Amsterdam. It is shown that factors such as affordable spaces for music production, the existence of distinctive locations, affordability of living costs, and the density and type of actors in the scene have a significant impact on the structure of the electronic music scene. In Berlin, due to an abundance of vacant spaces and a lack of (enforcement of) regulation after the fall of the wall, a world-renowned club scene has emerged. A stricter enforcement of regulation and a shortage of inner-city space for creative activity in Amsterdam have resulted in a music scene where festivals and promoters predominate. Keywords economic geography, electronic music industry, music scenes, Berlin, Amsterdam Introduction The origins of many music genres can be related back to particular places, and in turn several cities are known to foster clusters of certain strands of the music industry (Lovering, 1998; Johansson and Bell, 2012). This also holds for electronic music; although the origins of techno and house can be traced back to Detroit and Chicago respectively, these genres matured in Germany and the Netherlands, especially in their capitals Berlin and Amsterdam. But what made these cities such suitable breeding grounds? Cultural industries1 are increasingly seen as one of the main driving forces behind the prosperity of urban areas (Scott, 2000). For their part, these industries draw on the cultural identities of their location (Currid, 2007). Cultural industries mostly reside in urban areas (Scott, 2000). Here, with a density and wide variety of people, chances of a creative atmosphere and demand for cultural products are higher. In this article it is hypothesized that a cultural industry will thrive economically 1 The interchanged use of the concepts creative and cultural is somewhat vague. According to Krätke (2003), culture can mean two different things: a shared value system of a certain group of people on the one hand and a more functional definition of intellectual, artistic and symbolic expressions of social life on the other. It seems the confusion or interchangeability with creativity stems from the latter definition. However, this definition is more useful when it comes to cultural production. Cultural production is, of course, creative, but it is often not the result of inputs from a single actor, but rather of multiple actors influenced through culture (Becker, 1976; Scott, 2000). For the sake of clarity, I refer to the cultural industries instead of the creative industries. 2 when certain spatial conditions are met. This hypothesis is applied to the electronic music industry. What exactly is it in urban areas that steers the development of a music industry scene? Does such an industry have certain spatial ‘needs’? These questions lead to the following ones, which are central to this article: Which spatial conditions are crucial for the development of a successful electronic music industry, and to what extent can differences in these conditions explain the divergent trajectories of the scenes in Berlin and Amsterdam? The music industry is a particularly precarious industry, where both productivity and demand, and thus revenue and income, are uncertain (Bader and Scharenberg, 2010; Power and Hallencreutz, 2002). Lack of affordable space for living, meeting and working can affect the entrepreneurial and financial capacity of actors in this industry (Hracs et al., 2011). In addition, aesthetics and symbolism are valued highly (Scott, 1999; Caves, 2000). Distinctiveness and authenticity of urban surroundings, of actual living and working spaces and of actors in the scene itself are valued accordingly, and may influence the attractiveness of a city for actors involved (Watson et al., 2009; Bader and Scharenberg, 2010). The form these types of spatial requirements have taken and their influences on the structure of the electronic music industry scenes in Berlin and Amsterdam will be analyzed in this article. According to music fans worldwide, Berlin is the ‘capital’ of techno and electronic music (Rapp, 2009; Kühn, 2011). In the Netherlands, Amsterdam’s club and festival circuit is attracting an ever widening audience from outside the city’s borders, but its local scene seems to be disconnected from the successfully exported Dutch dance music industry (Van Bergen, 2013; Krynen and Remmerswaal, 2014). The spatial milieus for music production in these two cities thus serve as interesting sites for this analysis.2 In the light of this research, the similarity between Berlin and Amsterdam lies in the type of industry they harbour. Therefore, the electronic music industry’s general requirements in relation to its urban environment will first be outlined. This forms the basis of further analysis, a comparison of the development trajectories of both electronic music scenes and an assessment of the urban conditions that made these scenes prosper. The analysis is based on secondary literature on both scenes, such as books, newspaper and music magazine articles and interviews, as well as observations. It is further supplemented with interviews with various actors in both scenes. With this qualitative, comparative approach I hope to shed new light on what it is in the urban realm that makes this relatively new cultural industry – this year several festivities in both Germany and the Netherlands have marked the 25th anniversary of electronic (dance) music – develop and thrive. 2 Although the differentiation of dominant music styles and genres in both scenes is an interesting topic, it is outside the scope of this article, as the article focuses on the spatial dynamics of the electronic music scene´s in general. 3 The electronic music scene’s spatial requirements The creative world of music production – encompassing the ‘social’ and the ‘economic’ – is often called a ‘scene’, described by Florida and Jackson (2010) as a geographical concentration of artistic and business talents – including producers, engineers, artists but also audiences – meeting each other across social networks and physical spaces, hereby producing music. This definition shows similarities with Becker’s (1976: 703) conception of ‘art worlds’; creative worlds consisting of ‘the people and organizations who produce those events and objects that world defines as art’, where art is the result of coordinated activities, made possible by shared conventions about the manner in which this art is produced and about its quality. These musical art worlds, further referred to as scenes, are the main focus of analysis in this article. Several properties distinguish the (electronic) music industry from other cultural scenes. In this section I will outline these attributes, connecting the properties and peculiarities of the music production process to its requirements in relation to its spatial context. An overview of the distinctive properties of the electronic music industry that substantiate its spatial requirements forms the point of departure. Naturally, these different factors are all intertwined to a certain degree. For the sake of clarity, I have nevertheless attempted to disentangle these characteristics, and defined three main factors essential for determining the electronic music industry’s spatial requirements: space for creativity, affordability of living and the scene’s creative atmosphere. These factors will each be elaborated upon in the following section. Space for creativity Creativity is generally not an individual characteristic; it thrives in communities, group culture and scenes (Becker, 1974; Bader and Scharenberg, 2010). Personal participation in and collective reception of music, as well as the feeling of belonging to a certain lifestyle, are valued highly by all involved in the music scene (Meyer, 1998). Clusters can evolve around the success of certain music genres, prominent examples being Detroit’s Motown, country in Nashville and the Manchester ‘indie’ scene (Halfacree and Kitchin, 1996; Florida and Jackson, 2010). Places such as bars, clubs and music events are of importance for this creativity to be expressed, and for social connections to be made and sustained (Currid, 2007; Fraser, 2012). These characteristics, in combination with the high mobility of musicians and DJs, result in the functioning of clubs as the main meeting places and locations for the exchange and promotion of styles and music (Denk and Von Thülen, 2012; Fraser, 2012). As authenticity, style and exclusivity are treasured, original, distinctive locations for venues and events as well as for the origins of music productions contribute to the ‘branding’ of the music and appeal to subcultures and their preferences (Watson et al., 2009; Hracs et al., 2011). Actors in 4 the electronic music scene are regularly in search of distinctive, ‘abandoned’ (former industrial) sites for parties, festivals and club nights, as these add