rwillmsen ([info]rwillmsen) wrote,
@ 2006-08-24 19:03:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:globalisation

The end of Communism and the death of vinyl


How much is an album worth these days? On CD, surprisingly little, given that I haven't bought a CD since, erm, 2002. You can pick up a physical copy of the marvellous new Pet Shop Boys album for only £7.95 at HMV. Online, if you care to make a donation to the ailing record companies, you can get it track by track for merely 79p a pop. But why pay for a physical product? Music is now in the air, floating around for free. And according to Bob Dylan, it's not worth paying for:

"It was like, 'everybody's gettin' music for free'. I was like, 'well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway'."

There is of course a marked difference between price and value. I'm sure Dylan didn't feel the same way about the folk and blues discs he treasured when he was growing up. Tom Stoppard's new(ish) play 'Rock n' Roll' is on one level an elegy to rock music as preserved on vinyl. In one of the most memorable scenes the main character returns to his flat in Prague to find that all of his beloved records have been smashed to pieces by the Communist secret police. His immediate reaction is to go to the bathroom and violently throw up.

Anyone who grew up with 12 inch LPs will immediately be able to sympathise. As someone recently wrote:

Entire lifestyles built up around albums, smoking dope to albums, having sex to albums. You lent your favourite albums out with trepidation; you ruefully replaced them, on CD, when they didn't come back. Getting hitched paled into insignificance next to merging record collections with your loved one. Getting rid of the doubles made divorce unthinkable. Elastica once sang, of waking: 'Make a cup of tea, put a record on.' That's how generations of hip young (and not so young) people have lived.

People's relationship with their physical albums - and singles too - was an intensely personal and jealously guarded one. Tom Stoppard chose several of his favourite tunes to be interspersed throughout the performance. His choices are fairly predictable ones, covering the broad canon of late-sixties early-seventies rock music, but then he is getting on for sixty or so; I would have made quite a different selection, with maybe more Motorhead and Momus and less Pink fucking Floyd and no Guns n' bleedin' Roses, but then I am only twenty-seven years old. In my mind, anyway. But I digress.

There's no doubt that the songs he chose are those that have been most important to him, and the titles and names of the performers are displayed on a screen between each scene, emphasising just how much these little details are or were so important in the fetishing of each individual record. But if nostalgia for the days when rock music assumed such critical importance in our lives is one theme, the main one is the role of rock music in the ideological struggle against the repressive Czech regime. The characters argue bitterly and passionately about music and about politics. The polarisation of the debates about materialism, about sex, about human happiness, and about what could be endured (in the name of freedom) and what must be resisted (in the name of freedom) is very clear. There is an appetite for ideas and a willingness to explore the implications of a particular stance; just as a vinyl disc had two sides, every idea must have its counterpart, both in the mind and in the 'real world'. In the era of the two tribes, nobody could deny the existence of an alternative way to organise society, however pitiful and repressive that alternative might eventually turn out to be.

Perhaps since the advent of the CD, and certainly since the revolutions of 1989 and 1990, the debate about how we organise our economic and social life has become considerably more one-sided. A couple of weeks ago I visited the Museum of Communism in Prague, which proudly advertises itself as 'above McDonalds, right next to the Casino'. It stands on a street which looks, with its Mango and Zara and Starbucks et al, not too dissimilar to the centre of Leeds. Consumer capitalism has swept all before it; who now would defend the Communist project, or argue for any different kind of society?

As a friend of ours pointed out during the interval, it's unusual to hear passionate debates about basic political questions these days. And about music too; maybe because it's harder to defend something that exists only as a list of ones and zeros on a device that may stop working from one moment to the next, rather than a physical artefact which you have held and cherished and studied intently for hours on end. The days of getting to know someone that bit more intimately by flicking eagerly through their record collection, making connections and laughing at their occasional folly, are long over. These days the question 'what kind of music are you into' reveals the unfortunate truth that so many of us have no longer have any discretion.

Discretion. There is an irony in the fact that, as we chat after the play to one of the actors about how quickly so many political arguments about the past and future of our planet simply dried up in the six months after the Berlin Wall fell, we do so sitting in one of central London's many Caffe Unos (or maybe that should be Caffe Uni?!). Not a place I would choose to go, you know, it was raining and, hey, what's the alternative?

One day in Prague an Australian businessman we got chatting to recalled how in 1990 he had seen trucks belonging to French antique dealers queuing up at the border into Czechslovakia waiting to load up with as much heritage and history they could get for a handful of francs and cart off back to France to sell for une fortune. It's a truism that since then capitalism has run riot across that whole swathe of countries that were then just emerging from forty or more years of isolation and deprivation. But it struck me watching the play that we have experienced something akin to what James Connolly called a 'Carnival of reaction'. The euphoric triumph of big business capitalism can be seen just as clearly in London, Lisbon or Leeds as it can in Prague or in Poland. Now everything has, as Bill Hicks put it, a price tag on it; usually, in the case of our own service-station nightmare of a nation, a highly inflated one.

But as music itself has got cheaper, political debate has too, to the point of having very little or next to no currency. Including, of course, in the realm of pop and rock music. The current consensus dictates that absolutely everyone, from Bill Gates to George Bush to Hu Jintao, and presumably Pol Pot if he were still around, has the interests of the poor and unfortunate of the world at heart. Is there any near equivalent to the Plastic People of the Universe, the dissident Czech rock group that Tom Stoppard's play celebrates? Well, there is always the most prominent of our rock n' roll heroes, Bongo of U2 and the UN, a defender of both the poor and the rich, and a man so politically stupid that he cannot see the contradiction between fighting for global justice and an end to poverty on the one hand, and studiously evading contributing to the cost of public hospitals, social welfare and schools on the other (fucking) one. Tax efficiency, they apparently call it. I'm sure Jesus Christ would have been very, very proud.

We stand outside in the rain mulling over these questions until the one-minute bell goes and then go back in for the second half of the play. The action has moved on to 1987 and so the curtain raises to the sound of ... U2. On the train on the way home some young Australians are discussing whether if they were rich they would buy a Lambroghini or a Ferrari, a group of drunken English people are talking about how much they love working for their software company, and someone is gloating over the defeat of a football team belonging to the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. I find myself wondering: is this oh-so-ironic Schadenfreude the very best kind of challenge to authority we can offer up these days?



(Post a new comment)


[info]colinmarshall
2006-08-24 06:54 pm UTC (link)
I want to see Rock & Roll so badly. So very, very, very badly. Stoppard is my drug of choice, theater-wise, and it's been a while since I've had a fix, though this one looks set to exceed my expectations. After all, who better to juxtapose the lives of a Marxist philosopher and an anti-communist rock band than Sir Tom?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]rwillmsen
2006-08-24 09:19 pm UTC (link)
I heard that they are in discussions to take it to New York. I love the way he is so interested in ideas and deals with them so confidently, especially in this piece and in Travesties. Mind you, I did take a strong dislike to the guy a few years ago when I saw a photo of him with Thatcher. It's difficult to tally with the content of this play, that's for sure; as Michael Billington says, the portrayal of the barely repentant CP Marxist is very sympathetic.

Actually a google for Stoppard and Thatcher turns up this very interesting article, inevitably from the Guardian again:

In the mid-70s Stoppard became active on behalf of Soviet dissidents and visited the Sakharovs in Moscow in 1977; he supported Charter 77 - a pressure group campaigning for human rights in Czechoslovakia - and went to Prague to meet the recently released playwright Václav Havel, whose work he admired. From this involvement came Every Good Boy Deserves Favour , his musical-theatrical collaboration with André Previn, and the TV play Professional Foul. It was the start of his gradual acknowledgment of his Jewish and central European roots.

Clever Tom's evolution into Caring Tom continued with Night and Day (1978), an exploration of the ethics of journalism whose attack on the union closed shop irritated the left. The irritation turned to fury when Stoppard's support for Mrs Thatcher became public. For Stoppard, Thatcher meant a renewal of politics, a sort of linguistic truth, and less punitive tax rates. "I was very pleased with Mrs Thatcher at the beginning," he told Gussow a few years after her fall. "I thought of her as a subversive influence, which I found very welcome. The Wilson-Callaghan pre-Thatcher years in English politics I thought were nauseating."


I'll shut up now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]colinmarshall
2006-08-24 10:03 pm UTC (link)
You actually took a strong dislike to the man simply because you saw a photograph of him standing next to Margaret Thatcher? Wouldn't you call that a bit... hasty? I mean, sure, if I happened upon a picture of Stoppard giving the thumbs up with his arm around, say, Charles Taylor, then I think my opinion would turn, but, uh, the Baroness? Different story. Fewer death squads.

I wouldn't say that I like Stoppard and his work expressly for his/its politics -- I can get that anywhere -- but I appreciate the fact that he's thought his political positions through before casting them into art which, as I doubt you need be assured, is not the case with every modern playwright. The promotion of human liberty is one of his chief drives, and, whether or not you or I agree with him, he's built a solid foundation of ideas using conservatism as a means to that end.

This recent Telegraph profile does him justice as well:
And then, intriguingly, there is "Conservative Tom" - the bold exception to the arts world's monolithic Leftist orthodoxy, the admirer of Margaret Thatcher, and subtle baiter - most effectively in plays like Night and Day - of liberal vanities.

When Harold Pinter was lobbying to have London's Comedy Theatre renamed the Pinter Theatre, Stoppard wrote back: "Have you thought, instead, of changing your name to Harold Comedy?" His liking for Lady Thatcher appears to have a theatrical as well as ideological dimension, for he saw in her radicalism the seeds of great drama. "In the period before the arrival of Mrs Thatcher," he once said, "politics had been in such low esteem. Everything was so hedged, so mealy-mouthed. Then along came this woman who seemed to have no manners at all and said exactly what she thought. Everyone's eyes were popping and their jaws were dropping, and I really enjoyed that."

For all this, it might be fairer to call Stoppard a libertarian than a Conservative. In the 1970s, when the big names of British theatre - all of predictably uniform Leftist sympathies - reserved their denunciations for the United States and its supposedly nefarious doings in places like Nicaragua, Stoppard was quietly active among the dissident groups of the Eastern Bloc. In part this was attributable to his roots, but it speaks, equally, to the maturity of his thinking.
For the record, I also think Havel is great.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rwillmsen
2006-08-25 12:43 pm UTC (link)
I think you maybe don't understand quite how much opprobium a great deal of British people reserve for that woman. One of the reasons I moved back to the UK is so that I will (hopefully) be here to join in the celebrations on the day that she dies!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]colinmarshall
2006-08-25 05:08 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I understand the volume of opprobrium she gets. I'll never forget, for instance, the joy with which Richard E. Grant wrote in his memoirs about being free of the torturous Hudson Hawk and "her" on the very same day. I also understand the volume of praise she gets; I've met Brits and Yanks alike who consider one of the 20th century's greatest hero(ine)s. Naturally, because I'm interested in divisive figures, I'm interested in Thatcher, perhaps the ultimate one.

However, it may be wrong to say that I understand the opprobrium and praise; maybe I'm just familiar with both of them. After plowing through countless books and articles about the woman from every possible perspective, I can't say that I consider Thatcher to be a savior or a villain. Putting her on a pedestal of dizzying height shows a lack of perspective both politcal and historical, as does damning her name reflexively. For every person decrying her as a monster for revoking free primary school milk, there's another praising her for revoking free primary school milk, and yet another who mentions that she herself wasn't really behind revoking free primary school milk but had to push it for party solidarity, which was perhaps a greater good in the end. The story of her government is a complex, nuanced one, and truth is done a great disservice by characterizing it as absolutely good or evil.

I will say, however, that much of the modern criticism of her policies and character seems ill-thought out. Being a lifelong United States resident, I've come face to face with plenty of irrational hatred of government figureheads. Sure, there's Bush Derangement Syndrome, but there's Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Reagan Derangement Syndrome in equal measure. Having done my homework and then some, I have reason to believe that Thatcher Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. (Though, obviously, its has a counterpart in some sort of Thatcher Idolatry Syndrome.)

The worst thing about the demonization of the "Thatcher regime," though, is that it dilutes the condemnation so richly deserved by history's actual monsters. If you want to work up some opprobrium, do so at, say, the communist leaders with the blood of 100 million on their hands, not the Tories who've spilt some milk.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rwillmsen
2006-08-26 01:56 pm UTC (link)
After plowing through countless books and articles about the woman from every possible perspective, I can't say that I consider Thatcher to be a savior or a villain.

To be honest this may not have given you much of an idea about what it was (and is!) like to live with the real consequences of her policies. She was a self-proclaimed class warrior against the poor, and there was a great deal more to her rule and her ongoing legacy than the abolition of free milk (eg. privatisation, the poll tax, the Miners' Strike, the opposition to sanctions for South Africa, the illegal murder of Irish republicans, the hatred of Europe and foreigners in general (except Americans of course), the Falklands War, the dismantling of public services, Section 28 etc etc etc ad infinitum) although that gesture in itself tells us a great deal about her agenda.

As you say you've lived all your life in the United States, so you may find it difficult to understand the glee with which people from this country will dance and piss and piss and dance on her grave when she is finally dead and buried. Mind you, she's not quite out of the picture yet!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]colinmarshall
2006-08-26 04:54 pm UTC (link)
Well, I did try to get a balance, which meant, of couse, trudging through both the oh-the-unimaginable-pain-I-lived-in-after-losing-my-entitlements and the everyone-who-hates-Thatcher-is-an-idiot sentiments alike, which were at, uh, roughly the same level of credibility. While I don't exactly buy that she saved Britain from crumbling to dust by dismantling national services better handled outside the public sector or not at all, I do think that British political history -- before her and since -- has vindicated many of the tough decisions she made.

I'm not sure I'd call privatization an inherently bad thing; if you want the lot of the poor to improved, you've got to generate maximum amount of wealth as possible, and that doesn't happen under public incentive structures. It just doesn't. (Take a look, for example, at which third-world populations are fastest being lifted out of property and how. It's not the ones with self-perpetuating bureaucratic institutions posing as altruists at the wheel.) While I'm for flat taxation in general -- I consider forcing different income brackets to pay different percentages of their income to be indefensible and borderline immoral -- the poll tax as applied left too much local autonomy. The miners' strike was a side effect of the end of coal subsidies, which I'm not sure how one could make a clear case to defend, either. To see the havoc wreaked to this day by similar undead subsidies, look no further than the ruins of the Doha round.

Taking a look at the distribution of prosperity now, it's at least clear that Thatcher foresaw that a nation built on entitlement programs was a nation living on borrowed time, and she took the popularity bullet to extricate Britain from arrangements that would have caused France-esque (or worse) problems in the decades to come. If anything, she seems to have done a bigger favor for Labour than anyone else. Without her government's effect on the political climate at large, I don't think we would've seen the emergence of a (relatively) more pragmatic, electable Labour. If not for her, they might still be stuck in the wilderness, helmed by a modern-day Michael Foot muddling his way through. All the better for Labour, I suppose, if Thatcher left a bad taste in the voters' mouths and put them off the Tories anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…