Pop, politics and lots of problems

When you read the word pop you think of fun, moments of glory and how everything feels somehow right. But in the case of a discussion group initiated by the SPD on Friday afternoon in the Europe Hall of the Paul Löbe House, pop and politics only result in problems, problems, problems.

The problems in politics are obvious: the SPD has to win a federal election faster than it thought. Pop will probably not be an issue again in the election campaign. But the Social Democrats’ fear of a right-wing increase in power is so great that any means is acceptable to them. Even that: to ask pop culture to help support democracy (“Get involved!”).

She can’t mean all of pop culture. In the last state elections in Saxony and Thuringia, an above-average number of young people voted for human rights parties. And “Donald Trump is now pop culture,” it was said at one point on the podium.

It is also not entirely clear what exactly SPD politicians mean when they talk about pop culture. That was already the case with Sigmar Gabriel, his party’s former pop representative. At the time, he saved himself by treating pop as a domestic industry. Helge Lindh, who has effectively succeeded Gabriel, quoted U2’s “One” and appealed to create “this one society” that is designed in pop as a lived utopia.

However, the lived share of it is in poor condition. The music market has undergone fundamental change. While popular culture once made us forget that Western societies lived beyond their means, it has become a victim of this exploitation.

Around 15 percent of the top artists now generate 85 percent of sales. While the broader cultural landscape finds itself unable to absorb the rising costs, a few like Taylor Swift earn so much that Swift’s last tour resulted in a net profit of a billion dollars – for them alone.

Rising costs, dwindling audience

That’s where the fun ends. Because what the big names are drawing from the market, others are missing out on. The problems don’t just affect the event business, which finds itself sandwiched between rising operating costs, dwindling audiences and ever-increasing offerings. In addition, there are shamefully low remuneration for artists through streaming platforms, compiled funding budgets and the administrative effort.

Hearing this, competently presented by association representatives and industry experts who formulate sensible suggestions for improvement this afternoon, makes you just want to go home after half an hour. The initial question about how pop can help politics is reversed and becomes: How can pop be helped?

What passion does the state bring with it?

At this point, Lindh and his deputy Daniel Schneider would have liked to point to successes that they had negotiated into the 2025 budget, but that is now history. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of a brilliant idea as to how the unequal distribution of resources in an unregulated market can generally be countered. Discussed measures such as a ticket tax come from other countries.

The talk of cultural heritage (“from everyone for everyone with everyone”) is misleading. Because the value of pop music is measured by what people are willing to give for it. She feeds on this alliance of passion. If people in the digital age are willing to give less than the device costs, the state cannot step in. Because what passion would he bring with him?

Nevertheless, a balance is sorely needed. “There are no fair rules in the streaming age,” says one musician. The market power of the platforms is too great and too dysfunctional. Although streaming providers only exploit the technological advantage of an innovation, as former record companies like Philips do, they operate according to rules that are not disclosed. Because no one can understand how the system works, it cannot be circumcised.