Synthesisers: Friend or Foe?The British Musicians’ Union and

technology

John Williamson This Is The Modern World. Pour une histoire sociale du rock

13 June 2013

NME

The Musicians’ Union

Formed in 1893 as Amalgamated Musicians’ Union, merger in 1921 to become Musicians’ Union

Between 30-40 000 members for the last fifty years Currently 31 482 members; Income around £8m

per year; operating surplus (2011) = £1.2m JB Williams: “a protecting Union: one that will

protect us from amateurs; protect us from unscrupulous employers and protect us from ourselves”

Technological Disruption . . .

Street: “as each innovation appears to threaten jobs, the MU has resisted each one in turn, first opposing multi-track recording, then mellotrons and finally synthesisers and drum machines” (1986: 147)

3 major threats to live music employment during twentieth century: Broadcasting / Radio “The Talkies” – end of silent films accompanied by

orchestras The recording industry

Technological Disruption /Broadcasting

BBC (British Broadcasting Company / Corporation) formed in 1923

Opposed by theatre, concert and Music Hall owners MU: “our policy shall be one of regulating terms. .

an extra fee to be negotiated with the management on the lines of the difference between once and twice nightly terms”

1925: broadcasting “had not reduced employment of entertainers but, on the contrary, has increased it. It should not be discouraged but controlled.”

Technological Disruption / The Talkies

Number of musicians working in cinemas increased to 16000 by 1928 before advent of films with sound

Union membership dropped from 20000 in 1929 to 6740 in 1936 – mass unemployment among former cinema musicians

Farmer: “big cinema combines, controlled by the film manufacturers, would soon be masters of the situation.”

Technological Disruption / Recording

Greenwood (1931): “developments of such an ominous nature”

Growth (and subsequent decline) of recording industry

Formation of Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) in 1934

Agreement between MU and PPL (1946); PPL and BBC (1947) give union influence and control over uses of recorded music in UK – also a source of income

So . . .

MU members are instinctively hostile to technology which is seen to threaten live work – BUT varying responses to emergent threats.

Technological Disruption / synthesisers

Could be viewed as internal conflict: young vs. old; live performers vs. recording artists; classical vs. pop; employees vs. freelance workers

First evidence of decline in number of string players used in orchestras: West End (London) shows: West End Shows, Barry Manilow, Dennis Waterman, etc

Central London Branch

“This branch request the Executive Committee to institute an official ruling to proscribe and prohibit, for the purposes of recording or live performances, the use of all electronic devices that make audible imitation or simulation of any musical or percussion instrument” (20th May 1982)

Vote carried by 38-16

Reaction

Stephen Luscombe: “when synth bands first came out, there was a lot of resistance from the Musicians’ Union. They said they were going to ban us and put us all out of work.”

Gary Numan: “the Musicians’ Union tried to ban me, and ban synthesisers, which is a bit like trying to stop a bulldozer with your hand.”

1977 policy. .

Differentiates between synthesisers used to replace or reduce “the employment of conventional instrumentalists where these may be reasonably expected to be used” and those which “produce sounds that cannot be produced by conventional instruments” (1979: 105)

Conclusions

MU attempting to “ban” synthesisers = oft-repeated myth

MU actually adopted “common-sense” approach to appease various factions within membership

MU was often powerless to act due to wider socio-political / economic changes over which it had no control

Instinctive resistance + accommodation with employers Shifting and flexible; pragmatic rather than progressive