‘Nepo babies should be doing stuff like this’: are rich people ruining or reviving club culture?

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Wealthy Promoters in London Club Scene: Opportunities and Challenges for Underground Culture"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.5
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Venue MOT, a 350-capacity nightclub in south London, has become a significant part of the city’s underground music scene since its opening in 2018. The owner, Jan Mohammed, initially opened the venue based on his belief that music could thrive in an industrial setting, despite facing financial losses. The club has garnered praise from notable artists and publications, with Time Out naming it the best nightclub in London. Mohammed describes the atmosphere as 'deep, dark, and sweaty,' and acknowledges the challenges of maintaining a financially viable operation amidst changing licensing rules and urban development. However, the club's success is juxtaposed with the emergence of wealthy promoters in London's nightlife, raising questions about the impact of affluence on the grassroots culture of clubbing. Promoters like Ollie Ashley, the son of billionaire Mike Ashley, and Magnus Rausing of Tetra Pak, have entered the scene, leading to concerns over inflated artist fees and the sustainability of the overall club culture.

The influx of wealthy individuals into the underground club scene has sparked a debate about their role and influence. While some argue that their financial backing could lead to exciting opportunities and a revitalization of the culture, others worry that it undermines the grassroots ethos of the scene. DJ and producer I Jordan highlights the need for accountability among wealthy promoters, suggesting that their presence can perpetuate a cycle of exploitative capitalism. Conversely, some event organizers, like Cyndi Anafo, view the involvement of affluent backers as a chance for wealth redistribution, using their resources to support underrepresented artists. Despite the challenges posed by rising costs and a declining audience due to the cost of living crisis, many in the scene remain passionate about nurturing a community that fosters creativity and inclusivity, even as they navigate the complexities introduced by wealth in the club culture landscape.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a nuanced perspective on the intersection of wealth and underground club culture in London. It highlights the struggles of independent venues while also acknowledging the influence of affluent individuals in shaping the nightlife scene. This duality raises questions about authenticity, accessibility, and the future of club culture in a city known for its vibrant music scene.

Wealth and Influence in Club Culture

The article begins by detailing the story of Venue MOT, a small nightclub that has gained recognition despite financial challenges. The owner, Jan Mohammed, embodies the spirit of resilience and creativity that characterizes many grassroots venues. However, the narrative shifts to reveal that many promoters and event organizers in London’s club scene come from privileged backgrounds. This contrast suggests a tension between the grassroots nature of club culture and the impact of wealth on its evolution.

Authenticity vs. Commercialization

As it contrasts independent venues with those backed by wealthy individuals, the article prompts readers to consider what constitutes genuine club culture. The mention of successful brands like Krankbrother and Boiler Room raises concerns about whether the commercialization of nightlife dilutes its original spirit. This aspect of the article could evoke feelings of unease among those who cherish the DIY ethos of underground music.

Potential Omission of Broader Context

While the article effectively portrays the duality of the club scene, it may overlook broader economic factors affecting nightlife. For instance, the struggle of venues like Venue MOT could be tied to urban redevelopment pressures and shifting cultural trends that are not fully explored. This omission could lead to a narrow understanding of the challenges facing the underground scene.

Manipulative Elements and Trustworthiness

The article does have a slight manipulative quality, particularly in how it emphasizes the divide between wealthy promoters and independent venues. While it effectively highlights the challenges faced by smaller venues, it may inadvertently paint a simplistic picture of the club scene. The language used to describe the affluent individuals involved in club promotion could foster resentment rather than encourage constructive dialogue about inclusivity and accessibility in nightlife.

Community Response and Societal Impact

The article is likely to resonate with those who value grassroots movements and may inspire discussions about the future of club culture. It could galvanize support for local venues and initiatives aimed at preserving the authenticity of nightlife. However, it may also alienate those who view the intertwining of wealth and culture as a natural evolution rather than a threat.

Economic and Political Implications

In terms of economic impact, this article could influence public perception of nightlife and local economies. If readers perceive a threat to independent venues, it may lead to increased support for local businesses and advocacy for policies that protect them. The political landscape regarding urban redevelopment and nightlife licensing could also be affected as communities rally around preserving their cultural spaces.

Target Audiences

The article likely appeals to a diverse audience, including music enthusiasts, local community advocates, and those concerned with social equity in cultural spaces. It resonates particularly with individuals who prioritize authenticity and are wary of the influence of wealth in creative industries.

Global Context and Relevance

While the article focuses on London, the themes of wealth’s influence on culture are globally relevant. Many cities face similar challenges in preserving local culture against the backdrop of commercialization. This connection may prompt readers to reflect on their own communities and the dynamics at play.

Potential Use of AI in Writing

There is no overt indication that AI was used in crafting this article, but it is possible that AI tools could assist in data gathering or stylistic suggestions. However, the nuanced understanding of cultural dynamics suggests a human touch in the writing. The narrative’s depth and ability to evoke emotion point to the expertise of a writer familiar with the subject matter.

In conclusion, the article serves as a thought-provoking commentary on the complexities of club culture in London, balancing the celebration of grassroots venues with the critique of wealth’s role in shaping the scene. Its mixed messages prompt important discussions about authenticity, community, and the future of nightlife.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Nestled between Millwall FC stadium and an intersection of southLondonrailway lines, the 350-capacity Venue MOT – once an actual MOT garage – is a cornerstone of the city’s underground music scene. But every Tuesday, owner Jan Mohammed gathers his staff at the bar and tells them how much money it has lost since the weekend.

Mohammed, a sculptor, started renting a nearby space to use as a studio more than a decade ago. With no residential neighbours and relatively low costs, he opened Venue MOT in 2018 based on simple intuition: “I thought music could thrive here,” he says. Despite the losses and Mohammed calling his operation a “comedy of errors”, it does. Time Outrecently labelledVenue MOT the best nightclub in London and Jamie xxcalled it“one of the last places in London that feels genuinely free and DIY” after his 10-night residency last year with guests including Charli xcx and Daphni. Mohammed describes the club’s atmosphere as “DDS” – deep, dark and sweaty. Indomitable characters like him are the lifeblood of a financially unstable scene that must constantly adapt to licensing rules and urban redevelopment.

But there is another side to London’s underground clubland: numerous promoters, including some who organise events in nightclubs such as Venue MOT, are from very wealthy backgrounds.

Some of London’s most successful and longstanding dance brands were set up by highly privileged individuals: Krankbrother, known for its parties in Finsbury Park with headliners including Four Tet and Solomun, is run by Danny and Kieran Clancy, the sons of the late construction magnate Dermot Clancy. Blaise Bellville, founder of dance music livestreamers Boiler Room is English gentry: the Marlborough College-educated son of Lady Lucinda Wallop (though he has said he “didn’t have any money” growing up). Today, newer ventures include Figura, an ambitious new project founded last year and funded by Tetra Pak heir Magnus Rausing, and one of the latest people to hire out Venue MOT is Ollie Ashley, the son of billionaire Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley.

Ollie Ashley’s last venture, the loss-making London-based online radio station Radar Radio, stopped operating in 2018 amida storm of allegationsincluding sexual harassment by station staff – Ashley himself wasn’t accused, but he did preside over a dysfunctional working environment and a station accused of cultural appropriation. (In a company statement at the time, Radar said “we don’t agree with all the opinions” made in the allegations, but said it was “capable of making mistakes” and apologised “to anybody who has felt unsafe or discriminated against”.)

Ashley didn’t comment further, and has kept a fairly low profile since. But last year he launched a new club night, Virus, and his Venue MOT-hosted lineup in February included big names such as Hudson Mohawke, the night after he supported Justice at Alexandra Palace.

Some in the scene fear that monied promoters will pay over the odds for star DJs like these, leading to over-inflated markets that end up making the overall scene less sustainable. “If there’s more money, things get frothy, things become unreal, and it takes a long time for them to settle down afterwards,” says DJ, producer and promoter Rob Venning, who started putting on events in his home of Watford in 2013, and only made his first significant profit last year. “On a number of occasions, I didn’t break even,” he says, and had to make up the difference with his own savings.

It’s made harder by the fact that clubbing, though an important part of British cultural life, is rarely supported by the kind of philanthropy that often props up visual art, theatre, opera or dance, nor does it tend to receive public funding. The cost of living crisis also hits clubs from both sides: their costs increaseandtheir audience’s propensity to go out goes down. “You expect young people to go out, but how many have the money and how often can they do it?” asks Mohammed.

All of this contributes to an environment where those investing personal wealth can go a long way. It’s opened up a debate in the scene: are people like Ashley and Rausing buying their way into a grassroots culture? Or are they a new generation of arts patrons that could bring exciting opportunities?

When I meet Ashley outside of the Virus headquarters in east London, I expect him to be terse and tight-lipped, but he’s friendly and candid. Tattooed on one of his arms is a black circle, covering up what was once the Radar Radio logo. On the other is a black square. It was a tattoo of underground dance label Night Slugs’ logo, he tells me, until he and label founder Bok Bok fell out. The latter wrote under a recent post on Virus’s Instagram: “That billionaire money at work again”.

Virus is in the same building that once housed Radar, which now contains a number of recording studios that Ashley offers artists without payment, with recent guests including Skepta and Fred Again. Most artists who perform at Virus do so in exchange for studio time – so Ashley may not be driving up DJ fees, but this is a resource that very few others can offer. Despite his advantage over other promoters, Ashley says he wants to avoid going up against them: “We’re not trying to compete or discourage other promoters. That’s why we normally do pop-ups on odd days in the week like Tuesdays or Wednesdays and tend to announce events at the last minute.”

Before Radar, Ashley worked at London radio stations Rinse FM and NTS and flyered for the legendary, now-defunctdubstep night FWD>>. He presents himself as an enthusiast who is proud to be funding this scene. “The whole nepo baby set should be doing stuff like this,” he says. “We should be putting our money and resources into things we’re passionate about and that make people happy.” He’s under no illusion about his privilege, but says he wants to use it to build something that “inspires young people to learn how to DJ, make music, throw a party, the same way parties like FWD>> did for me when I was 18”. He’s also hosted promoters including Manchester-based Genesys and Evian Christ’s Trance Party in his studios. “We’re actively trying to build community between promoters,” he says.

DJ and producer I Jordan cancelled their Radar show in 2018. “We all benefited so much from it,” they say, “but at the same time there was this general lack of accountability and responsibility that often happens when people that come from wealth don’t think about the consequences of their actions.” (For his part, Ashley says he had “never run a company before, which isn’t an excuse. I was really trying my best, but I let people down. I’ve learned so much from it and if I could do it again I’d do nearly all of it differently.”)

For Jordan, the unequal clubbing economy is part of a wider problem: “We all exist under exploitative, unethical capitalism.” They and their agent have to make a case-by-case decision on who to work with and what fee to take. Recently, they took a well-paid gig and spent the money on gender-affirming surgery; it wouldn’t be fair to ask DJs like Jordan to routinely resist the draw of wealthy bookers. But it’s worth asking, as Jordan does, “how can we redistribute that wealth or use that wealth in good ways?”

Cyndi Anafo, who organises events with her husband Chris Ellis as the Handson Family, is happy to be a channel for wealth redistribution. For seven years, she’s been running free-to-attend events at Brixton Market, funded by its owner, property developer Taylor McWilliams. She’s glad to spend his money on organising nights that platform Black artists and pay them well, and believes that they give McWilliams something in return. “Wealthy people are currently on the back foot when it comes to their brand identity,” she says. “They want to make money – but their brands want to align with the good side.” So dance music can allow the rich to buy their way into a certain community, giving them cultural cachet.

That’s not a deal that Rausing, the Tetra Pak heir who funds Figura, seems interested in making: “I don’t like loud music and I like being in bed early,” he says. But he knows enough about London’s nightlife to believe that there’s room for improvement. “I just want there to be a better experience out there. And for it to be just that, an experience. A place for people to get lost in the music, the production, and the people around.” He wants his financial support to allow Figura “to be a celebration of art, and nothing else”.

This simple goal can be difficult for poorly funded promoters to achieve. Venning started his Watford events because he wanted to platform artists who might not be heard otherwise, but as his nights have grown to demand more of his time and money, he’s tempted to be more conservative in who he books, “and it’s an impulse I have to work against”.

No such problem for Figura’s founder and chief executive, John Becker, who started his career at Berlin club Tresor before consulting for nightlife brands such as Boneca and Unleash. Back then, he repeatedly booked the same artists who he knew would do well. With Figura, Rausing’s support reduces the immediate financial pressure on the project, and gives Becker the freedom to programme more experimental events: next month’sSeeing in Dreamswill have boundary-pushing musicians including Andy Stott, Crystallmess and the Sun Ra Arkestra.

Becker denies overpaying artists or competing unfairly with other promoters. He wants to position Figura not as a competitor but “a collaborator that tries to enable creative freedom, risk-taking and artist-first programming, rather than an arms race for booking fees”. Rausing’s funding, he says, instead allows him to encourage artists to work with them on less commercial projects and gigs. “We can take a bit more of a risk than others,” he says, “and maybe if we don’t exactly break even, that’s something we can cover”.

Figura is also hosting a takeover from Accidental Meetings, a club night by Lucien Calkin, who also works at Venue MOT and runs free-thinking Bristol music festivalSaccade. Accidental Meetings started in Brighton, where Calkin spent his student bank account overdraft on organising events. It still uses the same bank account, and when we speak, it’s £1,000 in the red. “You’re constantly having to top it up yourself, and that’s made me quite skint in the last few years,” Calkin says. “It has to be a passion project.”

It’s unfair that grassroots promoters have to dip into modest savings and hope to break even, running events on hard-mode, while their better funded counterparts play a lower-stakes game. In the case of Ashley, his wealth might be seen to have helped him weather controversy.

At the same time, the Rausing money that Calkin receives via Figura is useful – many of the best nights struggle to make a profit and it’s unrealistic to expect a scene to run solely on the passion that drives him, Mohammed and Venning. When I ask Mohammed and Calkin what the plan is for the next five years, they both laugh. “I don’t know what’s going on next week,” Mohammed tells me. “Because it’s so fragile, we’ve got no fucking clue,” says Calkin.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian