“I Tote and I Vote”: Australian live
music and cultural policy
Shane Homan
Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine recent government policies that have had direct
and indirect effects upon Australian live music venues.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a review of relevant government policies
relating to live music and a case study approach examining live music’s role in concepts of the
“creative city”.
Findings – Policy affecting venues remains tied to wider governmental notions of risk management.
The rise of evidence-based research about venue activity is one effective means of negating instinctive
policies that regard live music activity as simply problematic to night-time economies.
Originality/value – The paper reveals the current debates and practical obstacles facing live music
venues. Its Australian case studies are relevant to similar global debates in the live music industries,
and how live music is marketed as part of “creative city” and “cultural city” campaigns.
Keywords Music venues, Creative industries, Cultural city, Government policy, Australia
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Introduced formally as a series of policy measures in the 1980s, conceptualizations and
development of the “creative industries” remains a strong point of debate in both the
academy and the arts. The Blair Labour government’s policy directions for “the arts” in
1998 (Smith, 1998) is broadly understood as the foundational moment for cultural/
creative industry policy. Yet this was preceded by the Australian Labour government’s
Creative Nation, a policy blueprint that foreshadowed much of the rhetoric adopted by
later governments in how to bind cultural, arts and media policies to a narrative of
nation and economy (Department of Communications and the Arts, 1994). Envisaged
and funded by a Prime Minister who loved Mahler and was once a rock and roll band
manager, popular music’s place in everyday Australian life was expressed in Creative
Nation as one of a series of creative and cultural activities deemed important
to Australian self-expression and identity. The “creative industries” continue to be
prominent in government strategies, with their policy muscle deriving from several
quarters: as a set of industries revealing demonstrable growth in revenues and
market share as a significant employer (Cunningham, 2006); and as a major player in
related “copyright industries” (Australian Copyright Council and Centre for Copyright
Studies, 2001) and/or “knowledge economies” (New Zealand Ministry of Economic
Development, 1999).
In similar fashion, earlier conceptions of and arguments for the “creative” or
“cultural” city (e.g. Hall, 1998, Landry and Bianchini, 1995) are now an established part
of city and government planning (Stevenson, 2000), with “culture” argued to be one of
the drivers to revitalise cities suffering various forms of post-industrial malaise
(Florida, 2002, 2005). Popular music has subsequently played an important role in
broader city policies that attach increasingly specific benefits and targets to cultural
activity in terms of economic and social health. At the same time, why governments
have responded to creative industries and “creative city” or “cultural city” arguments
for increased support, and how the case has been made, has caused unease for some
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-2084.htm
Arts Marketing: An International
Journal
Vol. 1 No. 2, 2011
pp. 96-107
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2044-2084
DOI 10.1108/20442081111180322
96
AM
1,2