Portlet visor de organigrama

The musical underground, constituted by various independent actors and companies, serve as subcontractors, entrepreneurs or research and development departments for the development of Norwegian popular music. However, their role as developers of Norwegian music, both as cultural and industrial entrepreneurs, is not reflected in the appliance of public policy instruments. There is a need to emphasise the functions that these actors serve in the intersection of cultural diversity and industrial profitability.

The public policy directed at the music industry is characterised by a pronounced sectoral approach that leaves us with an artificial gap between trade and culture. It does not reflect the interconnectedness of cultural and business activities that constitute the actual functionality of the industry. This illustrates a need for an innovation policy towards this industry that transcends traditional sectors. Such a priority may be legitimised both as cultural policy, business policy, social policy and research policy. The recently established Forum for Culture and Trade is temporarily the only public body that aims at bridging this gap, meant to cover all cultural sectors. The intentions behind this approach are good, but the ambitions and the grants are rather meagre. Culture and trade might become more interconnected, but at a very slow pace.

Public support for Norwegian phonogram production has slightly decreased throughout the 1990’s50. Throughout the same period the Norwegian music industry has experienced a considerable growth in employment, companies, artists, events, concerts and media attention both nationally and internationally. Today there is no public body in Oslo that has control or an overview over the offer of localities for band practice in Oslo. Similarly there are various band practice localities that are being shut down in the capital or are threatened by shutdowns. This reflects how this field is being neglected as a prioritised area. These parallel tendencies leave us with a mismatch between the actual situation in the industry and the public awareness and attitude towards this sector.

To the degree that policy instruments are directed towards the popular music segment within the cultural sphere, it is characterized by the favouring of established and big actors. The public support schemes thus seem to be directed towards the winning team; either it is the biggest music festivals or the most promising artists. This pattern is actual for both the purchasing system and the grant for

music festivals. The purchasing system is a support scheme that has little significance for what record

productions are initiated, but instead awards the successful productions subsequent to the release of an album. This public support scheme is thus no incitement for innovation nor experimentation within music. The scope of music that is being collected is further narrowed by the fact that the system does not cover publications of Norwegian artists signed to foreign labels. The public support system is still nationally oriented in an international industry. Anthologies and compilations are also exempt from the system, which further limits the artistic and historic value and circumference of the system. The size of the public purchase system of music is more than ten times less than the corresponding system towards literature. This imbalance reflects how traditional barriers between high and low cultural expressions still characterize the institutional arrangements of public policy.

50

The target group of ‘The grant for music festivals’ is bigger festivals on a high artistic and professional level. Similarly, the TONO/GRAMO taxes function in favour of the most famous and established artists. The exception from this pattern is the tour, transport and festival grant, which is directed towards the promotion of new artists, and to promote stability and quality within the rhythmic music genres.

The ambitions to support entrepreneurialism and innovation in this sector are unconvincing. Public policy towards popular music thus contributes to maintain the vulnerability of the recruitment function of Norwegian music, where the prosperity and maintenance of content providers becomes occasional. Such a policy contradicts the ability to boost entrepreneurship and businesses through the vulnerable first years of existence.

Public policy should contribute to the creation of better frame conditions for exploitation and coordination of the complementary competencies and characteristics of the various actors that constitute the popular music industry. This is a challenge for both the music industry and for public policy formulation. Public policy should support the creation of arenas for the development and unfolding of independent activities and actors. Such arenas need to be supported by a coupling and synchronisation of cultural and business policy. Examples of such initiatives could be:

• To establish support channels for competence development, visibility and diffusion across the various actors and ‘production regimes’ of the industry

• To reconsider the allocation of cultural policy support between different cultural expressions

• To establish a forum for culture and trade within music

• To create larger visibility of the public support system across institutional and organisational arrangements

• Learning from international best practice in domestic music development, addressing the role of the agents that constitute the musical underground

• To arrange for musical entrepreneurship as business policy

• To attend to better access to practice localities and studios for recording

• A process of increasing awareness and further exploitation of the strengths of Norway’s music industry regarding the development and sales of national music

When the Market Takes Over: global commodity chains, and foreign