The 27 Club
Self-destructive patterns in creative work seen as the neoliberal path to salvation
In 2011 Amy Winehouse followed in the footsteps of a group of musicians whose tragic premature death made the age of 27 a mythical age. In line with rock 'n roll stars Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, and 90’s grunge founder Kurt Cobain, Winehouse her death was caused by alcohol and drug abuse. Besides the ill fate of an overdose, what does Winehouse have in common with the members of the 27 club considering their creative process and emotional investment in their artistic work? If investment in work leads to addiction, what are the limits of "self-exploitation"? Was dying young and tragic a mere coincidence, or does it relate to the general experience of creative labour in our day and age? And how do the tensions between creativity and commerce pushed these musicians to high levels of stress, misery and anxiety?
In this blogpost, we will analyse the creative process relating to the anxieties that come with being a musician and the damage it can inflict on the artist. The main argument is that Amy Winehouse dramatic lifestory is a recurring narrative in the music industry today, as is indicated by the 27 club. We will argue that the public struggle is part of the artist’s reaction to market pressures on creative work. Researcher Vicki Mayer, in the Introduction to the book Making Media Production Visible, refers to ethnomusicologist Timothy D.Taylor who connects this growing pressures and lack of autonomy of artists. The way musicians like Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, Cobain and Winehouse experience the creative process seems emblematic for creative workers in general, especially in the way they deal with commercial aims overruling at times their artistic autonomy. Struggle is seen as part of a performance of the dichotomy between commerce and creativity. In the case of the 27 club, these are performance gone awry.
Amy Winehouse her musical background was linked to the underground scene, she was not unfamiliar with the (ab)use of drugs and alcohol. However, when she became part of the mainstream music industry, she was obliged to deal with huge audiences, fans, journalists, interviews, talk shows, photo sessions etcetera. The recurring intoxication at public appearances and the lyrical references to her substance abuse problems in songs like ‘Rehab’, make it seem that addiction was part of the promotional image she wanted to convey as a musician. At a certain point this new reality blocked her capacity to create, when eventually her addiction worsened resulting in her death. As we will see, these facts relate to a sustained myth of the suffering artist. This myth is not only part of the culture of production but also has a clear function in the modern economy as a whole.
A CNN Espanol journalist approached Amy Winehouse, who was just 23 at the time, when she released her first album Frank in June 2007. The reporter started the conversation with an awkward joke referring to Winehouse’ drug (ab)use, when he said he felt that ‘something was missing’ when he listened the album and heard the phrase “so I took a bottle of red wine…” The Media’s interest in Winehouse’s personal life is driven by a society who is increasingly interested to hear personal details about celebrities. Today’s society seems continuously affected by voyeurism and is characterized by the pleasure in watching behaviours that invite for the disapproval of the audience, but at the same time are joined by the enjoyment thereof as entertaining performances of extreme excess.
While celebrity culture takes a toll on artists, the depiction of relatable elements from their personal life is important and indispensable for artists to present themselves to the audience.The interviewer interpreted Winehouse her behaviour: “and it's simply like [...] she wishes to say: 'I'm a human being, just a singer'.” Winehouse confirmed: “Just a singer!” Therefore, fame and the public portrayal of personal life, is an offer artists seemingly have to make in order to pursue a successful career as a creative performer. If an artist does not engage with celebrity culture, there is the danger of invisibility or falling into oblivion. Winehouse explicated her worries about the audience being unaware of her products. Winehouse: “My greatest fear is dying with no one knowing of any contribution I have ever made to creative music […] If I die tomorrow [...] you know I would still feel fulfilled in a way [...]”.
So the image of Winehouse as a publicly struggling and tortured artist, was actively pursued by the media. But still, it was not resisted by Winehouse herself. When the reporter asked how she felt about the music business at the time and how she places herself within this business; Winehouse keeps to her short, laconic answers. Winehouse’s celebrity status was for a large part based on her ‘rock-and-roll’ lifestyle of drugs and alcohol. Winehouse therefore did not resist the image the media gave her, giving answers like: I don't know... Again I don't know” and “It's nice. It's nice”. The editing and montage of the interview further framed Winehouse as unprofessional and passive. Because of the absence of long answers, the interview is edited with lots of video clips of Winehouse. The footage of the interview is edited with film fragments which constantly interrupt the interview. This makes it look as though Winehouse is unprofessional on a personal level, while at the same time it symbolized her profession as an successful artist.
Besides Winehouse and the media, the music industry’s agents like executives, managers, producers, have a clear gain of Winehouse self-exploitation. As a fan commented on the youtube post: "She wasn't drugged! She was drunk for days and her managers kidnapped her and made her perform against her will." Although this is a rather dark depiction of inner workings media industries, it is true that by celebrating singular artists as 'stars', the industry tries to ensure investment return. If there is one thing the 27 club proves, it is that celebrity drama greatly influences album sales. Here we are presented with the tensions between creativity and commerce, and the thigh hold commercial enterprise has over creative activity.
Back in the 70s, Jimi Hendrix, guest in a British talk-show, describes his work as a process of trial and error.
“Hendrix: I like to play for myself. [...] Whenever I feel like down or depressed or whatever, you know. [...] I am just gonna play. [...] I can practise and it's always constantly like a jam [...] I'm constantly trying to create other things, that's why a make a lot of mistakes.
Anchor: You read music?
Hendrix: No, not at all.
Anchor: Ah... (pause).”
Jimi Hendrix’ performance of his music has strong personal meanings, for instance when he jams when he feels depressed. One of the distinctive characteristics of creative work, is the level of personal involvement workers feel for their job. Moreover, in music there is a strong connection between feelings of personal identity and the creative production. Artists like Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, Cobain and Winehouse do not only put in the hours, but they also pour their heart and soul into their work. The identification and emotional investment of the creative worker with his labour is an essential part of the figure of the artist. The artist doesn’t work, he ‘creates’ something that is deeply personal and part of a personal and progressive development. This falls in line with David Hesmondhalgh, Professor of Media, Music and Culture. In the book Labor and the Media Industry he emphasizes that "self-exploitation" results in "long working hours, high levels of stress and anxiety" and "where people invest themselves emotionally and physically in their work to a damaging degree". These elements make up for what we call the myth of the suffering artist; a story that ends with the artist sacrificing his life for the job.
It would be plausible to state that the profession of being a successful musician in the commercial music industry is restraining. These artists have chosen to face this high level of anxiety and stress with the help of drugs and alcohol (or both). For Hendrix, Morrison, Cobain and Winehouse the damage of their creative labour was irreversible.The public drama of these artists, of dying young because of addiction, is a result of their personal relationship to work and their artistic self-presentation. Because of the recurring appearance of these dramatic stories, it could be implied that these artists are performing certain societal schemas. In this performance the suffering creative genius is opposed with the oppressive commercial industry. In order to be taken serious as a creative authority and a legitimate artist, artist have to perform according to these schemas which are part of the myth of the suffering artist.
The myth of the artist is highly compliant with the modern economic system. As Max Weber stated, in capitalism work was revalued according to the Calvinist ethic as the path to salvation. In the modern economy human creativity and individual enterprise are increasingly seen as a source for growth, and (neoliberal) society is organized according to these concepts. The artist’s lives can therefore be seen as examples of the internationalization of neoliberal organizational goals, of autonomy, creativity and personal investment and progress. Expert in Management Studies Gideon Kunda stated: “The result of a combination of self-direction, initiative, and emotional attachment, and ultimately combines the organizational interest in productivity with the employee's personal interest in growth and maturity” (Kunda 1992, 10). The figure of the suffering artist is central to today’s society, and functions as a legitimation of capitalism and an example for labour in sectors elsewhere. The tragic stories are therefore not exceptions, but there’s a strong relationship to present day ideology: a view of labour with personal investment, even if it’s to a damaging degree.
During Winehouse her last performance she was booed by the audience several times. Winehouse laughs, this was alternated with some moments it seems as though she starts the cry and eventually she scoffs the audience. How far are cultural producers willing to take advantage of this “self-exploitation” and its grim consequences for commerce’s sake? In spite of the apparent privileges of cultural and media workers, we should not neglect some of the difficulties they face. Winehouse artistry is part of an all-too-familiar narrative of the self-harming and unstable artist. It’s an image that manifested itself in the tragic stories of the members of the 27 club. As we’ve seen, this image was actively pursued by the artist, the industry and the media. The celebration of these’ individuals creative genius relates to the concept of ‘work’ in neoliberal society. The narrative of the artist’s drama is central to capitalism, and functions as a legitimation of the hidden costs of flexible capitalism or liquid modernity. An uncertain society places the emphasis on creativity and individual enterprise and identification attachment to labour. The stories or the members of the 27 Club are not idiosyncratic, but are the result of the contemporary path to salvation through creative work.
Initials:
A.D.
E.T.
J.M.D.O.M.
M.v.d.V
M.v.R
Twitter: Death by work-induced complications. The members of the 27 club must’ve gone to heaven, because they hiked along today’s path to salvation. #neoliberalism
Bibliography:
- Hesmondhalgh, D. and Baker, S., 'Toward a Political Economy of Labor in the Media Industries', Wasko, Janet and Gragham Murdock & Helena Sousa (eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 381-400.
- Mayer, V. Making Media Production Visible, p.9, in: Vicki Mayer (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume II: Media Production. Blackwell Publishing, 2013.