It Takes Two to Symphony
The impact of policy networks in classical music production: Stockholm and Barcelona
Urban Research Project – Research master’s Urban Studies Marc Bosch i Matas – 10703675 (mboschmatas@gmail.com) Supervisor: Prof. Robert C. Kloosterman Second reader: Prof. Olav J. M. Velthuis Submitted on the 15th of August, 2019 Abstract
In this paper, I study the impact of policy networks (i.e. the relations between all actors in a certain field, policy measures, institutions, and context) in local classical music scenes. I hypothesise that differences
in classical music scenes can be explained by the dialectic relations between policy institutions and measures, actors, and context. I answer my research question through a qualitative analysis of two cities, Barcelona and Stockholm, and conclude that policy network theory explains many of the differences between the two scenes. This happens particularly in the impact of institutions of artist protection, consecration of determinate genres, and commodification of the arts on the one hand and on the other hand the adaptation strategies of artistic professionals.
Introduction
This paper analyses how artistic scenes and cultural policy relate to each other and how this relation affects the musical production. As of today, classical music scenes have been rather understudied in comparison with other creative activities (see Power and Scott 2004 with no mention of this field; cf. Stanbridge 2007). As well, the relation between cultural production and policies remains somewhat unexplored (cf. Power 2009; cf. Friedberg and Urfalino 1984). Thus, the objective of this paper is to generate new theoretical insights on this line that can be translated to wider research on cultural and creative economy. To this objective, I use the policy network framework by Marsh and Smith (2000), in which policy outcomes are explained by the dialectic relations between a network structure and its members, the network and its context, and the network and the policy itself and analyse the potential impacts of these relations on the cultural output.
The paper is structured as follows: firstly, I present a definition of my policy network and a revision existing theory on cultural production scenes and cultural policy. I hypothesise that policy networks in the cultural sector have a stronger impact than scene-specific or policy factors alone and try to understand in what ways this impact happens. I answer these questions through a qualitative empirical comparison between the scenes and policies of Barcelona and Stockholm. City comparison is a particularly appropriate strategy to tackle this research as the city is embedded in national and local policy traditions and is the main locus of artistic creation (see Scott 2009). I find striking similarities in the scene composition and the motivations, ideals, and preferences of its members on the one hand yet very different valuations of the scene output. Furthermore, I identify a strong impact of cultural policies and adaptation strategies from the scene to them. Thus, I validate my hypothesis that dialectic relations within policy networks have a strong impact in the cultural output of a certain scene, particularly in the following ways: artist support institutions, (non) commodification of culture, and consecration of determinate genres, to which artists and professionals adapt either by buying into policy frameworks and trying to make most of their cooperation, trying to provoke policy changes, or creating institutions of reciprocal cultural production in order to substitute state protection.
Theoretical framework
Friedberg and Urfalino (1984) proposed an explanation of cultural policy based on the interaction of the different stakeholders with government. This leads us to the concept of policy networks, which are the sum of actors around a certain policy issue and the institutions between them (Marsh and Smith 2000). These authors propose a causal model in which a certain policy outcome can be explained by the relations between the network structure and its members, who negotiate the different institutional constraints, the network and its context, and the network and the policy output itself.
In this article, I will understand the network as all professionals of a classical music scene and the cultural policy professionals. Policy design and governance institutions, summed to path dependence from previous decisions and policy traditions will constitute the structural part of this network, in a context of larger political-economic trends. I will use the relations within this network and with its context in order to explain potential changes in the output of local classical music scenes. Hence, we need to understand what scenes are and how they work and the different logics of (local) cultural policy.
Understanding a scene
We can define a scene as the sum of a place and the activities that take place in it (Silver and Clark 2015). In this case, a city and a series of venues (concert houses, conservatories, recording studios, meeting places) and all the activities related to music production, such as performing, learning, managing, or socialising. The relation between place and creative activity has been extensively studied, stressing the role of agglomeration economies and proximity as keys to understand these endeavours (Scott 2009; Velthuis 2013).
Even though global artistic trends have an impact across geographies, work in local scenes is defined by relations of trust and confidence that can only be achieved via proximity, be it physical, cognitive, social, institutional, or any combination of them. This can be either to avoid risks associated with working with unknown partners or to develop ideas, strategies, and concepts more effectively. However, on this later case, workers in a scene need a balance between physical proximity and cognitive proximity with agents abroad in order to avoid parochialism or stagnation (Velthuis 2013; Boschma 2005; Bathelt, Malmberg, and Maskell 2004). In order to achieve this balance, existing literature points at the role of artistic festivals, which function as temporary clusters, providing the benefits of agglomeration to niche sectors or smaller markets and allow for knowledge importation from other scenes (Bathelt and Schuldt 2008; Power 2008).
As well, geographic concentration of artistic creation creates positive externalities for the whole scene to enjoy (Scott 2009, 2017). This leads to the issue of common resources and their creation in cultural activities. Robert Kloosterman (2016) provides an example with a description of the Dutch architectural sector, pointing at the different commons and commoning arrangements that sustain a creative sector, from a pool of competent graduates to guarantees of quality that come from being part of a scene. Besides externalities, one can expect different institutions of co-operation,
exchange, or production, created by and for artists, such as peer learning or mutual support and protection which may substitute or complement those created by the state (see Scott 2017, 219–23). This leads to the often contradictory relation between artistic creation and market forces. From the classical critique of Theodor Adorno to the cultural industries (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002), there is an idea that the commodification and mass production of arts is detrimental to artistic quality. As well, cultural economics literature points at the difficulties for an unregulated artistic market to function without failures (Frey 2003; Throsby 2001). Even though mass-oriented production of ‘high’ culture can exist (Kloosterman 2014), such as large state-owned concert halls or classical music broadcasting, literature points at the fact that excessive market constraints lead cultural creation to repetition and loss of creative freedom. Hence, there is a need for spaces of protection in which more intense artistic activities can take place without having to respond to demand-based immediacy, either created by the state or by artists themselves (Brandellero and Kloosterman 2010).
Cultural policy: objectives, instruments, and traditions
Following Joseph Dye (1987, 1), cultural policy is ‘whatever governments choose to do or not to do’ in the cultural sector. This begs for a definition of culture. Most cultural policy puts culture in a continuum between the arts and a way of life, even though clear definitions are rare (Gray 2006, 2009). Yet, even when cultural policy is only explicitly concerned with the formal arts, as it was in the better part of the 20th Century, it remains a strong promoter of values and tools that ‘influence
people to think and feel’ (Duelund 2008, 11).
One can distinguish between commodified and non-commodified approaches to cultural policy which parallels the Marxist distinction between exchange and use value (Gray 2007). Commodified approaches generate what is known as cultural instrumentalism, that is, the practice of valuing culture as a means for an end (Mulcahy 2006). Beyond that, one can identify two main intrinsic rationales of cultural policy. First, democratisation of culture, which promotes the expansion of
high culture to the general population in order to increase their cultural capital. Secondly, cultural
democracy, which criticises the top-down approach of the former policy and advocates for the right of everyone ‘to be culturally active in their own terms’ (Mulcahy 2006, 324).
Mulcahy (2006) also lists several strategies of making decisions and implementing programmes. Assuming a democratic system, the mode with less citizen involvement would be delegating all decision-making powers to elected officers, who can manage cultural affairs directly or further delegate them in non-elected managerial bodies. If non-state actors are involved in policy-making it can be through ‘elitism through stakeholders’, that is, restricted participation of key actors, such as representatives of artists’ organisations (Mulcahy 2006, 512), direct voting, or different tactics of citizen deliberation.
In practice, cultural policies tend to use a mixture of rationales and practices. In the two cases at hand (local cultural policy and classical music), we should expect a certain prevalence of both instrumentalism and democratisation of culture. Local cultural policy is often linked to
commodified approaches such neighbourhood revitalisation, city marketing within a New Public Management and exhaustion of the traditional welfare state rationale (Rodríguez Morató 2005). Conversely, policies around classical music are concerned with the diffusion of a canon through public or subsidised venues and ensembles, classical music broadcasting, and musical education (Stanbridge 2007).
Zimmer and Toepler (1996) presented a division of cultural policy traditions coherent with the differentiation between Nordic, Continental, and Anglo-Saxon welfare state traditions, where Nordic cultural policy stresses protection of individual artists and correcting market failures, Continental policies have a strong statist and canon-building component, and Anglo-Saxon policies tend to facilitate private financing of the arts, either for-profit or philanthropically. Even though this approach refers to national policy, the fact that local government traditions also tend to be aligned with welfare state models (Bennett 1993), should make us expect a similar differentiation in local cultural policies. There are two caveats to this hypothesis. First, that differences in policy do not seem to have a particularly large impact in cultural consumption and participation with empirical studies pointing at a geographical rather than political divide between North-western, Southern, and Eastern European clusters of cultural habits and policies (Srakar, Čopič, and Verbič 2018) and that trends towards commodification and instrumentalism have been rather universal across the different policy models which may blur policy and institutional differences (Duelund 2008; Gray 2007).
Musical quality and cultural value
Underlying the conflicts between artistic activity and market force and the tension between instrumental and non-instrumental cultural policy is the tension between economic and cultural value of the arts which echoes the Marxist distinction between use and exchange values (see Throsby 2001). Somewhat tautologically, cultural value is the ‘worth attributed to activities in [cultural] areas’ (Crossick and Kaszynska 2016, 13) or, in other words, the characteristics of a cultural product or activity that distinguish it from a non-cultural one other than its market price. Even though there are several attempts to operationalise and define it (see Angelini and Castellani 2019), I hold that it should be understood always as dependent on a field and context. Following the logic of consecration and recognition by audience, state, and other performers presented by Pierre Bourdieu (1993), authors such as Arjo Klamer (2008) or Eleonora Belfiore and Oliver Bennett (2007) have highlighted how larger normative traditions and intra-field dynamics of conflict and consensus determine what makes art value and why. The result of this is the consecration of certain art forms and genres, that is, that they become the standard which is worthy of being studied and receiving public support. This is the approach that I will take in this paper, and thus, scenes will be analysed according to the visions of their members, rather than external standards.
I have reviewed the main theoretical knowledge about scenes, cultural industries, and cultural policy. The research question then becomes what explains differences between classical music
scenes? my hypothesis being that the main explanatory factor is the dialectic relations between
institutions, actors, and context as presented by Marsh and Smith (2000). Alternatively, this relations may have no explanatory power, and differences could be attributed to scene-specific factors or to cultural policy alone. From here follows the question of how is the impact, if any, of
these networks concreted? If there is an impact, we should see reactions of adaptation or
opposition to policy decisions in the scene, and similar relations with the policies and the context. Furthermore, there should be a reasonable link between these relations and the output of the studied classical music scenes. As I explain in the following sections, I have chosen two cities with relatively similar scene compositions but different policy frameworks. For my hypothesis to be true, this similarities and differences should be confirmed by the empirical analysis, which should also find differences in the artistic output as perceived by scene members. These differences ought to be reasonably linked to the differences in the relations within the policy network and with its context.
Methodology
This article gathers its results from a case-based comparison of two cities: Barcelona and Stockholm, i.e. a ‘rich description of a few instances of a certain phenomenon’ (Della Porta 2008, 198). The complex relations within the scene and between scene, policy, and context make this approach particularly suitable for this study as it allows for the presentation and analysis of fields with different phenomena and dynamics, where the focus on one variable alone may be unfeasible or obscure the impact of contextual factors.
Barcelona and Stockholm show diversity of both outcomes and inputs in what is known as a ‘diverse cases’ comparison (Gerring 2007, 97), having similar scene compositions but very differing output perceptions and policy frameworks as explained in the empirical findings section. Hence, studying in-depth two different cities will allow to understand the policy-field relations in order to compare them and draw theoretically relevant conclusions.
The results were obtained via document analysis and qualitative interviews with key actors in the different sectors of classical music production (16 in Stockholm and 16 plus a focus group in Barcelona). Interviews lasted one hour on average, and were only partially structured, so that to make sure issues related to research question were discussed but allowing for other topics to come out as the interview developed and were fully transcribed and coded. When interviewing artists and managers, I strived to achieve a balance between more and less popular forms of classical music in order to avoid biases linked to preferences or institutional practices embedded in certain subfields and interviewed in each subfield were stopped when reasonable saturation was reached. A total list of interviewees can be found in the annex at the end of the document but they represented the following groups.
• Local artists and conductors, both amateur and professional (either freelance or employed in stable ensembles).
• Freelance artists having participated in the Stockholm Early Music Festival.
• (Former) managers of the following houses and ensembles: Swedish Radio Choir, Berwaldhallen, Auditori de Barcelona, Palau de la Música Catalana, Gran Teatre del Liceu, and Barcelona Wind Orchestra.
• (Former) managers of the following festivals: Baltic Sea Festival, Stockholm Early Music Festival, Uppsala Guitar Festival, Festival Bachcelona, Festival Coral de la FCEC (Barcelona Choral Week), and Barcelona Obertura Spring Festival.
• Workers and executives of the Stockholm and Barcelona municipal governments, Barcelona provincial government, and Catalan government.
Findings
In order to answer the research questions, I have gathered the following information. Firstly, what scene members value in a scene. Then, the socio-economic and policy context in which the two cities are embedded, the specific cultural policies of the two cities, and an analysis of the composition of the two scenes, focusing on the actors and their roles, aspirations, and motivation. I have studied this aspects in isolation from one another, assuming the hypothesis of no interaction between them. In the second half of the section, I analyse whether they relate to each other and if so, how, concluding that scene and policy influence one another as predicted and that this affects cultural production.
Valuing the cultural output of a scene
A large consensus on what distinguishes a ‘good’ interpretation from a ‘bad’ one can be summed up as follows. Firstly, technical prowess and understanding of the conventions of the field (what is known as ‘musicality’), either to follow them or to consciously break them. Secondly, the capacity of transmitting a message through the interpretation. Finally, the capacity to discover new repertoire or providing new insights on existing pieces: lack of diversity or of innovation in programming was almost unanimously seen as poor value and a sign of a scene being run by heteronomous principles (i.e. market demand), as seen in the following sections. This, then, gives more weight to the idea that cultural value is linked to a series of knowledge items and skills that can be learned and shared, within the participants of a field.
Context factors: policy history and global trends
In the theoretical framework I have already introduced the role of both cultural and local policy trends which are bound to define their policy frameworks. Stockholm partakes in Nordic traditions of local government and of cultural policy. Nordic local government traditions are characterised by a strong municipal administrative, implementation and financial power, even though its actual political autonomy is relatively low (Bennett 1993). Nordic cultural policy is characterised by providing cultural public goods, protection of artists, and combatting market failures, even though it has tended towards instrumentalism in the later years (Zimmer and Toepler 1996; Duelund 2008). Barcelona, on the other hand, has a somewhat smaller degree of administrative and financial power but stronger autonomy to deviate from Catalan and Spanish policy directives
creating a model described in the following section (Rius-Ulldemolins and Sánchez-Belando 2015; Sánchez-Belando, Rius-Ulldemolins, and Zarlenga 2012; Rius-Ulldemolins, Martínez Illa, and Martín Zamorano 2018). Table 1 reflects the different public funding structures of the cultural sector of the two cities.
There is a second key contextual factor also introduced in the theoretical framework: global policy trends towards instrumentalisation of culture, promotion of the cultural industries, and, more recently, policy austerity. These trends span from the 1970s crises to our days and have affected the objectives and instruments of cultural policy. In big lines, they have instituted a logic of decision making based in measurable social and economic results and promoting public-private cooperation to achieve them rather than centralised provision of public goods (Gray 2007; Scott 2009; Rius-Ulldemolins, Martínez Illa, and Martín Zamorano 2018). In this sense both cities have adapted themselves to these trends, with an increase on commodification and promotion of the knowledge economy, as I explain in the next section.
Levels of funding Stockholm Barcelona
Local government funding per capita 134€ 91,24€ Regional government funding per capita 20,20€ 10,76€ Central government funding per capita1 4€ 14,22€
Total funding per capita 158,2€ 116,22€
Table 1: Own elaboration, 2017 data from official sources (Stockholms Kommun, Stockholm Region,
Kulturrådet Sverige, Ajuntament de Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya, Gobierno de España). Policy framework: protection and promotion
All interviewees agreed on the need for a strong public sector that takes responsibility in supporting quality cultural creation (see Frey 2003; and Brandellero and Kloosterman 2010). Here I will describe the cultural policy framework in the two cities and hypothesise about its effects on the scene and its output.
Regarding the objectives, both cities (as well as the Swedish and Catalan governments) seek to promote ‘quality’ art and democratising its access. As well, both cities have a tradition of incorporating a spatial component to their democratisation of culture policies (Interviewees #9; #17; #20, Stockholm and Barcelona municipality workers). Barcelona had a particular tradition of linking spatial development to cultural policies (Rius-Ulldemolins and Sánchez-Belando 2015). However, at this moment, these policies are being changed: in words of two municipality workers,
[it] had made sense at some point, not any longer […] it has reached its limit. (Interviewee #20) We’d done [it] before, and some institutions still do it […], but it makes no sense. Measuring culture by hotel stays would be a really simplistic analysis. (Interviewee #28).
1 Region and State funding per capita are average values and they do not take into account capital city effect or redistributive policies. Hence, actual funding received may vary.
However, there is still an implicit instrumentalist policy objective, namely city branding through culture. The Barcelona Obertura Spring Festival, managed by the three main concert venues and the Barcelona Global business association, was mainly geared to promoting the position of Barcelona in the global classical music scene (Vega i Rofes 2019; Interviewees #29; #33; #35) and received support from both the Barcelona and Catalan governments (Interviewee #34, Catalan government worker). On the other hand, Stockholm keeps using a strong instrumentalist logic in making decisions about cultural strategy, and is, at the time of writing, developing a cultural value tool (Kulturvärdverktyg) that measures the contribution of culture to social and economic dynamics. Also, both cities strive to promote a series of social values in their cultural policies, such as gender or race/ethnicity equality (Rius-Ulldemolins and Gisbert 2018; Stockholm Kulturförvaltning 2018; Interviewees #9; #20, Stockholm and Barcelona municipality workers). Both cities have accessible musical education as an objective. Almost all interviewees portrayed institutions of musical education as key parts of a classical music scene and highlighted its importance, as well as the need for public provision and support in order to guarantee its quality and accessibility. Musical education had two roles: creating competent artists and giving the tools to understand and appreciate more complex and less mainstream cultural forms. The larger availability of municipality-funded music schools in Stockholm, 20 versus 5 and one professional conservatory, the latter giving access to higher music education (Stockholms stad n.d.; Ajuntament de Barcelona n.d.), was interpreted by many artists and conductors as explaining part of the lower quality of the scene in Barcelona even though it was agreed that it was improving and the effects could be felt.
Interviewee #23 (conductor): The Catalan Superior School of Music [Esmuc] was a turning point, but basic and intermediate music education still has a lot of room for improvement […] Interviewee #24 (ensemble artist and conductor): Yes, intermediate education is catastrophic, but there’s just no funding, they have almost no resources!
Interviewee #35 (Catalan Government Worker): There is an ‘Esmuc effect’, you start getting a lot more ensembles composed of locally-educated artists.
Regarding policy governance and implementation, both cities stated that they did not attempt to create a consensus with the sector in their objective-setting, either because it was either unfeasible, for being too diverse (Interviewee #12, Stockholm municipality worker); or unnecessary, because it makes no sense if no instrumentalist policies are undertaken (Interviewee #20, Barcelona municipality worker). However, this has not always been the case in Barcelona: in 1996, all cultural policy activity was delegated to a managerial body, the Institute of Culture of Barcelona (ICUB) and the 1999 master plan institutionalised the idea of public-private co-operation in order to achieve their objectives in cultural policy, very often linked to neighbour redevelopment, in what was known as the ‘Barcelona Model’. As seen, this mode of governance still continues in the city branding policies. However, the city involves representatives of artistic associations and prestige professionals by means of a Council of Culture which emits non-binding reports and has a say in
grant assignations (Ulldemolins and Sánchez-Belando 2015; Patricio-Mulero and Rius-Ulldemolins 2017; Ajuntament de Barcelona 2008). Stockholm, on the other hand includes stakeholders in grant giving in a similar way but its modes of decision-making and implementation are much more top down and still under more direct control of political power (Borén and Young 2017; Interviewees #9; #17; Stockholm municipality workers). The Barcelona model was defined by both policy-models and academics as a reaction to a constraining policy framework which did not allow for direct governmental action to achieve its own goals, which included creating a strong cultural identity besides (or complementary to) the Catalan identity promoted by the regional government (Rius-Ulldemolins, Martínez Illa, and Martín Zamorano 2018; Interviewees #20; #28, Barcelona municipality workers).
Both cities had similar logics of private culture support, mainly based on quality, as assessed by municipality workers and independent experts, with the same situation at regional and state levels. The Stockholm system, incorporated a greater element of care and relation-building with artists, coherent with the Nordic tradition of artist protection (Zimmer and Toepler 1996), with initiatives such as ‘open houses’ for new artists, and stronger institutions of artist-municipality relationships, which in Barcelona are restricted to the largest initiatives (Interviewees #9, #11, Stockholm municipality workers; #8; #19, festival organisers; Stockholm Kulturförvaltning 2018).
Both policy models are somewhat contradictory. Stockholm combines a strong tradition of cultural democratisation with a social instrumentalism vision and top-down redistributive provision of cultural goods, while Barcelona is currently abandoning a strongly instrumentalist approach while maintaining a somewhat more network structure to it. Thus, both cities have differing traditions of instrumentalism and commodification which coexist with a will to democratise culture. In Stockholm, however, there seems to be a stronger element of artist protection than in Barcelona, while in this latter city development through culture policies still linger, despite the political efforts to change them.
Scene valuation by their members
The output of the two cities was valued very differently. Actors in Stockholm tended to be either neutral or satisfied while most of my Barcelona informants who were not related to public institutions referred to the classical music offer being somewhat dull, repetitive, and restricted to ‘blockbusters’, even though they agreed that the city was able to attract ‘big names’, particularly in the early music sector. Programmers and managers of concert venues and ensembles reflected on the risk of becoming too commercial and how to avoid it while balancing the ‘conservative tastes’ of the public (Interviewees #18; #29; #35). Here, it must be noted that the former directive of a private house was substantially more critical than the others, stating the need for political compromise with a quality programming and long-term planning (Interviewee #29). Policy-makers and civil servants did not refer to this circumstance, but rather insisted that their policies promoted ‘quality’ cultural production, which was also the case in Stockholm (Interviewees #9; #12; #16; #20; #28; #34).
The workings of a scene: actors, commons, and commodities
When it comes to actors in the scenes, both cities were also remarkably similar, with the following categories of actors.
Actors Motivations and goals Role in the scene Constraints Ensemble artists Quality music, respect for
their job. Competent professionals, teachers of amateurs. Lack of creative freedom. Amateur artists Quality music,
self-enjoyment, socialising Non-commodified production of culture and cultural education, ‘cultivated audience’. Sometimes substitute professionals (choir-orchestra productions).
Less competent than professionals, less time.
Freelance artists Quality music, respect for their job, promotion of their genre, achieving policy support. Learning, innovating.
Creative freedom, introducing artistic diversity, knowledge importers
Less support, often practice niche subgenres. If not, usually in
precarious positions. Festival organisers Quality music, respect for
their job, promotion of their genre, achieving policy support, participating in city branding strategies (sometimes). Learning, innovating. Creative freedom, introducing artistic diversity, knowledge importers. City promoters, agents of public-private cooperation.
Potentially less support if niche subgenres. Policy support sometimes linked to public-private
cooperation.
Venue managers and
concert promoters Quality music, respect for their job, finding attractive performers, balancing commercial success and artistic interest
Space providers, knowledge importers. City promoters, democratisators of culture agents of public-private cooperation.
Policy support sometimes linked to public-private cooperation. Eventual need to generate revenues by themselves.
Table 2: Actors summary. Source: fieldwork – qualitative interviews
We see a mixture of actors, rationales, and motivations, but all seem to have as a priority the idea of ‘quality’ music, where actors employ different strategies to achieve. Within the scene both commodified and non-commodified approaches can be found, all having different impacts in policy-making.
First, stable ensemble artists. These actors receive most support, either private or state, but, in contrast, have less creative freedom, the top-down nature of their job being one of the recurring issues in their statements (interviewees #13; #14; #15; #17). However, they play a key role in materialising artistic projects, hence well-trained artists were seen as a key part of a successful scene.
Interviewee #23 (conductor): I listened to a French ensemble the other day, and you just can’t have that here, they were just so good! […] I’m constantly doing auditions for a professional choir, and you don’t have the singers.
In this case, little difference was found between the two cities, except for those that could be accounted to political and economic context which will be dealt with in the following sections.
Amateurs are the main producers of non-commodified art in a scene, mostly for their own enjoyment. However, they are mostly dependent on external funding to function, usually public but also of large organisations such as the Swedish church in Stockholm, which supports most choirs in the country (Svenska Kyrkan n.d.). They are also the starting point of many professionals (Interviewees #15; #17, ensemble musicians) and provide free of charge education for their members in a horizontal way (interviewees #31; #32, choir singers and managers). In the case of Barcelona, they often played a role of substituting state action not found in Stockholm. In concrete, amateur choirs sing regularly with state-owned ensembles and basic training for aspiring or novice conductors is usually organised by choir federations (Interviewees #23-#27; conductors; #30, choir federation manager; #31; #32, choir singers and managers). However, in most cases (except when performing for public or private organisations) they were mostly limited only by the proficiency and interests of artists and conductors.
Freelance artists are usually focused in a certain artistic niche, characterised often by receiving less public support than the mainstream classical music (chamber music, early music, contemporary, between others). Many artists reported starting out as freelance in the mainstream repertoire but agreed that it was a rather precarious profession, except for those working as soloists (Interviewees #15; #17; #21). Thus, building a human and cultural capital enough to develop themselves in less supported subgenres seems a necessary condition for success as a freelance artist. These artists were the most active in learning from others and collaborating.
Interviewee #4: That’s what I love about playing in festivals, the spotlight you get, and being able to share your work with other, to appreciate and to be appreciated.
Festivals, then, become a key part of the work of this musicians. Niche festivals in both cities, even though they clearly had quantifiable economic and social impacts have a non commodified aspect, with organisers quoting doing their work for art’s own sake and often seeking little economic retribution. In many cases, they defined their spaces as promoters of artistic creation, coherently with the theory exposed by Brandellero and Kloosterman (2010; also interviewees #2; #3; #5; #8; #11; #19; #30). On the other hand, other festivals exists with clearly more commodified intent, be it directly generating revenues or promoting tourism or city branding. These festivals have usually more mainstream repertoire but were often also positively valued by their artistic quality, if they had the possibility to attract the ‘big names’ of the sector (Interviewee #34, Catalan government worker).
Thus, we see that scenes, seen in isolation, have relatively similar components and dynamics in the two cities. This, then, points at either a unidirectional effect of policy and contextual factors on scene quality or the hypothesised dialectic relation between scene and policy. In the next section, I will study whether and how actors and policy adapt to one another.
Relations between scene and policy
Arts professionals reported very different experiences about dealing with the public administration. Those in Barcelona often complained about unreliability, tardiness, and lack of communication,
while in Stockholm even though there could be disagreement about the funding logics, festival organisers and ensemble managers had frequent and direct contact with top-level executives of the Culture Administration department, and initiatives that had already been given funding had often a personal relation with department workers (Interviewees #5; #8; #11; #19, festival organisers). In what refers to the satisfaction with other aspects cultural policy, artists in Stockholm were somewhat more satisfied than those in Barcelona. However, in both cities there were criticisms about the lack of political will to support quality culture or to the fact that policy-makers did not understand the particularities of the sector.
Here in Sweden, there’s an interest for the arts but they don’t really value interesting things, they just give money to everyone… Still, there is money and we get support (Interviewee #8, festival organiser).
The model of venue and financing go hand-in-hand, that’s why the public administrations don’t give instructions, because if they’d want to be innovative or pioneering they’d have to invest a lot more, and if they’d want to keep the artistic line as is, they’d be criticised for it. (Interviewee #29, former house manager).
Maybe you just don’t have [resources] but what we really need is a clear idea about where to go. Even if they just said ‘there’s no money, we can’t do this, but we see why it would be good’ (Interviewee #23, conductor).
I get very well treated when I meet with the ICUB representatives, but they just want to keep things as they are… They want to please their audience, but that’s a vicious circle! There’s a lack of understanding on their side (Interviewee #36, conductor).
We neither fit on general music funding nor on popular culture… We get treated like popular culture […] but it’s clear we’re very different than, say, folk dancing. Some groups can access [cultural industries] grants, but it’s really difficult (Interviewee #30, choral federation manager). Most artists in both cities agreed that that if managers of public venues programmed exclusively to make revenues, quality would eventually suffer. As well, there was a nearly unanimous plea of musicians towards the administration to engage in the democratisation of high culture.
Sometimes you can’t follow demand, mass audience has got their own expectations which have little to do with what we offer. Some people just want familiar tunes even if it makes no sense artistically (Interviewee #2, independent artist and festival organiser).
We need to socialise the orchestra… We don’t need to [...] make a show of Haydn’s Creation, it’s already a show by itself! The same with screening films with live music, sure you make revenues, but you give a false idea of what the orchestra is […] You end up creating an elitist circuit on the one hand and the popular things on the other hand (Interviewee #24, ensemble musician and conductor).
The origin of the money affects us, of course. If we depended more on our own money we would need to raise the prices, then maybe there’d be less audience, or [...] we’d need to do the Concierto de Aranjuez or Ravel’s Bolero each year. (Interviewee #33, house manager).
There is an important difference between the two cities about the relation between policy and scene, which is the attitudes of artists and professionals towards commodification of culture. In Stockholm the attitude was in general of ambivalence or either mild support (when it referred to
social welfare or education objectives) or mild displeasure (Interviewees #5; #8; #10; #11). In Barcelona, conversely, there was a very clear divide between top-level house and ensemble managers and artists and lower-level professionals. The former group had very positive opinions to city branding through culture and public-private collaboration (Interviewees #29; #33; #35), while the opposite was true for the latter, doubting that it was a priority and that policy should be centred on promoting artistic quality and education. They also had very negative opinions about amateurs substituting professional work and the public sector sponsoring it (interviewees #19; #22; #23-#27; #30-#32). The contrast with Stockholm is very clear, as actors in that city did not conceptualise their relation to the public administration as one of co-operation or as having joint objectives, but rather as one in which they received help in order to proceed with their activities.
Barcelona will be remembered as a city of architects because of Gaudí, not because of Norman Foster […] […] I don’t want to support endogamy, but other countries are very open and yet they protect their own, we should be doing the same (Interviewee #24, ensemble musician and conductor).
These relations can be conceptualised as a competition for state support in a material form but also in the form of consecration, that is, that one culture form is considered more worthy of support than others. This is greatly influenced by state action and gives a head start on the competition for scarce state resources. Municipality workers were aware that, even if they tried to keep open to all forms of arts, they would always eventually favour some above others (interviewees #12; #20, Stockholm and Barcelona municipality workers). As put by a festival organiser in Stockholm,
Early music covers many years, yet it receives very little support. We leave one thousand years of music out of the grants [...]. [Through] the festival we pressure the cultural policy apparatus to establish permanent early music scenes in the country (Interviewee #5).
However, state consecration and stable support may not be obtained and here emerge different self-organised solutions, particularly festivals, which temporally substitute state support for more mainstream forms of music. Yet, these spaces live in complex relations with instrumental policy goals, as they are bound to have an impact on city promotion, neighbourhood revitalisation and/or gentrification, and democratisation of culture. Thus, a part of the value they produce becomes commodified, even without an intent to do so. On the other hand, professionals participating in more commodified forms of culture often did so as a form of adaptation to said goals in order to try to improve the quality of their music, for instance, by attracting better foreign performers by positioning their cities in the international scene (Interviewee #33, venue manager).
Discussion
Having described the cultural policy framework and classical music scenes of Barcelona and Stockholm, I will point out in this section the main relations of my findings to the theory and research question.
First of all, we have seen that scenes, in themselves, are not very different between the two cities: we find similar actors and intrinsic motivations. Rather, what makes the distinction between outputs is the dialectic relation between scene and policy, as well impacts from and adaptations to
a larger political-economic context. It is true that this study does not take into account historical scene-specific factors. This points to a marginal explanatory role of the scene taken in isolation from other factors.
Regarding the relation between policy and scene, we see that policy influences the strategies of the scene. In Barcelona promoters and managers actively participate in the commodification of culture, especially for city branding purposes, as is clearly seen in the Barcelona Obertura Spring Festival case (Interviewees #29; #33; #35). Actors with less decision-making power, conversely, tend to be more critical of instrumental and commodifying approaches. On the other hand, in Stockholm, attitudes at all levels (house managers, festival organisers, freelance and ensemble artists) tended to have similar attitudes with respect to commodification of culture, mostly being unfamiliar with it or mildly in favour, particularly when its objectives were about education, welfare, or employment (Interviewees #2; #7; #10). On the other hand, Barcelona cultural policy-makers have adapted to the strong amateur scene, relying on them to provide certain types of musical education or collaborating with state-funded ensembles. Hence, relations between scene actors and policy take a dialectic form, as expected.
This relation has a clear implication on the quality of the scene output as perceived by the scene members. Results point at similar criteria across cities and subgenres but rather different evaluations of the scene. I believe that three interrelated political-economic factors can explain this: the level of commodification in cultural production, the democratisation of classical music, and the artist protection institutions. We find that Stockholm, despite having a stronger instrumentalist focus in its cultural policy than Barcelona, puts greater emphasis in musical education, together with the three state-sponsored venues and in artist protection, including strong institutions of care and facilitating access to public support. In Barcelona, even though the municipality has formally abandoned instrumental policy, this study points at strong remaining commodification practices with the objective of city branding shared by main houses and the municipality. Even though this strategy can in part raise the quality of the scene by bringing in big names, it forgoes the second leg of quality, that is, the promotion of a local scene that can develop ideas and talent from abroad. This brings us to the democratisation of culture and, particularly, of musical education. In general, we have seen that competent performers are a key part of successful classical music scene, as well as an audience that can appreciate the products. Thus, the larger availability of classical music education in Stockholm clearly explains part of the differences between the two scenes, as horizontal and peer learning was not perceived as particularly important compared to formal learning. This, however, was not as true for niche subgenres such as early music. Even though formal training was perceived as important, there was a stronger element of learning and self-organisation, with festivals having a stronger role. This puts such subgenres closer to ‘modern’ creative industries (see Power and Scott 2004) which I argue that can be explained by the concept of consecration, where more consecrated genres have both a stronger canon with more set expectations and more public support as they become legitimised as ‘worthy’ genres, so resources
for the artistic practice are better provided vertically by the state, which explains the lack of interest on festivals and similar resources for musicians in larger symphonic genres. Less consecrated genres, then, rely more on experimentation and self-made institutions of protection and proximity, such as festivals (see Bathelt and Schuldt 2008). Still, consecration can also be a result of horizontal activities, provoking policy change afterwards, as it is the case of early music. Today, even though it is clearly more experimental than classical music strictu sensu, it has very clearly set expectations and historically informed performance is taught in many conservatories. Thus, canons and resources for further learning can also be established by reciprocal institutions and practices. As well, we have seen how practitioners of less consecrated subgenres try to promote their products so that they also achieve this recognition from the state and the audience.
Finally, artist protection. Stockholm exceeded Barcelona in this aspect, with both what was perceived as better institutions of access to funding and a tradition of protecting the individual artist against market forces. This is an interesting difference between the two cities on adaptations to an economic context. Whereas both cities had incorporated instrumentalist visions in their policies, Stockholm has kept on with its traditional institutions of artist protection to try to mitigate the effects of instrumentalism, with apparent success.
These phenomena also point at path-dependency. In the case of Stockholm, we find that the social democratic traditions have allowed to navigate new public management expectations more successfully than in Barcelona. This latter city, on the other hand, is still using policy frameworks and institutions from its first culture strategic plan which enthusiastically embraced public-private cooperation and instrumentalism, even if it has set out to change its cultural policies in the last years.
Conclusions
In this paper, I have analysed how policy networks explain cultural production using the case of classical music in Barcelona and Stockholm. Doing so, I have shown how the dialectic relation between a policy network which includes the artistic scene and policy makers, its working institutions, policy objectives and instruments, and the political-economic context makes a greater impact on cultural production than does only the scene configuration or a hypothetical unidirectional impact of policy, with issues of commodification, consecration, and artist protection making strong differences between cities. Hence, the presented hypothesis remains verified.
Classical music (and particularly, its more mainstream forms) depend more on state resource redistribution than other, less consecrated forms of cultural production. However, even in the less mainstream subgenres, formal education and public support remains a key part of their functioning. This is also bound to happen in other cultural industries, which also benefit from public education programmes and receive public support, even if their degree of consecration is smaller than classical music. Hence, I hope that this framework becomes useful for future research in the cultural industries, to cast more light on the complex relations between actors, structure, and context.
References
Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2008. Consell de La Cultura de Barcelona. Reglament de
Funcionament Intern. http://www.conselldecultura.cat/91/reglament.
———. n.d. ‘Escoles Municipals de Música | Educació’. Accessed 10 May 2019. http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/educacio/ca/ensenyaments-musicals.
Angelini, Francesco, and Massimiliano Castellani. 2019. ‘Cultural and Economic Value: A Critical Review’. Journal of Cultural Economics 43 (2): 173–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-018-9334-4.
Bathelt, Harald, Anders Malmberg, and Peter Maskell. 2004. ‘Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation’. Progress in Human Geography 28 (1): 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.
Bathelt, Harald, and Nina Schuldt. 2008. ‘Between Luminaires and Meat Grinders: International Trade Fairs as Temporary Clusters’. Regional Studies 42 (6): 853–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543298.
Belfiore, Eleonora, and Oliver Bennett. 2007. ‘Rethinking the Social Impacts of the Arts’.
International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2): 135–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701342741.
Bennett, Robert J., ed. 1993. Local Government in the New Europe. 1 edition. Belhaven Press. Borén, Thomas, and Craig Young. 2017. ‘Artists and Creative City Policy: Resistance, the Mundane
and Engagement in Stockholm, Sweden’. City, Culture and Society, Against the creative city: Activism in the creative city: When cultural workers fight against creative city policy, 8 (March): 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2016.05.002.
Boschma, Ron. 2005. ‘Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment’. Regional Studies 39 (1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press.
Brandellero, Amanda M. C., and Robert C. Kloosterman. 2010. ‘Keeping the Market at Bay: Exploring the Loci of Innovation in the Cultural Industries’. Creative Industries Journal 3 (1): 61–77.
Crossick, Geoffrey, and Patrycja Kaszynska. 2016. ‘Understanding the Value of Arts & Culture | The AHRC Cultural Value Project’. Arts and Humanities Research Council. https://ahrc.ukri.org/documents/publications/cultural-value-project-final-report/.
Della Porta, Donatella. 2008. ‘Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented versus Variable-Oriented Research’. In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist
Perspective, edited by Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, 198–228. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Duelund, Peter. 2008. ‘Nordic Cultural Policies: A Critical View’. International Journal of Cultural
Policy 14 (1): 7–24.
Dye, Thomas R. 1987. Understanding Public Policy. Prentice Hall PTR.
Frey, Bruno S. 2003. Arts & Economics: Analysis & Cultural Policy. 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer. Friedberg, Erhard, and Philippe Urfalino. 1984. Le jeu du catalogue: les contraintes de l’action
culturelle dans les villes. La Documentation française.
Gerring, John. 2007. ‘Techniques for Choosing Cases’. In Case Study Research: Principles and
Practices, 86–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, Clive. 2006. ‘Managing the Unmanageable: The Politics of Cultural Planning’. Public Policy
and Administration 21 (2): 101–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670602100208.
———. 2007. ‘Commodification and Instrumentality in Cultural Policy’. International Journal of
Cultural Policy 13 (2): 203–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701342899.
———. 2009. ‘Managing Cultural Policy: Pitfalls and Prospects’. Public Administration 87 (3): 574– 85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01748.x.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press.
Klamer, Arjo. 2008. ‘The Lives of Cultural Goods’. In Sublime Economy: On the Intersection of Art
and Economics, by J. Amariglio, J. W. Childers, and S. E. Cullenberg, 250–72. London:
Routledge.
Kloosterman, Robert C. 2014. ‘Cultural Amenities: Large and Small, Mainstream and Niche—A Conceptual Framework for Cultural Planning in an Age of Austerity’. European Planning
Studies 22 (12): 2510–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.790594.
———. 2016. ‘The Urban Commons and Cultural Industries; An Exploration of the Institutional Embeddedness of Architectural Design in the Netherlands’. In The Routledge Handbook of
Institutions in Action, edited by William Salet, 289–99. New York, NY: Routledge.
Marsh, David, and Martin Smith. 2000. ‘Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach’. Political Studies 48 (1): 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00247.
Mulcahy, Kevin V. 2006. ‘Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches’. The Journal of
Arts Management, Law, and Society 35 (4): 319–30. https://doi.org/10.3200/JAML.35.4.319-330.
Patricio-Mulero, Maria, and Joaquim Rius-Ulldemolins. 2017. ‘From Creative City to Generative Governance of the Cultural Policy System? The Case of Barcelona’s Candidature as UNESCO City of Literature’. City, Culture and Society 10 (September): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.05.001.
Power, Dominic. 2008. ‘L’accès Au Marché Des Produits Culturels Suédois: Réflexions Depuis La « périphérie »’. In L’économie Culturelle et Ses Territoires, edited by Frédéric Leriche, Sylvie Daviet, Mariette Sibertin-Blanc, and Jean-Marc Zuliani, 55–68. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
———. 2009. ‘Culture, Creativity and Experience in Nordic and Scandinavian Cultural Policy’.
International Journal of Cultural Policy 15 (4): 445–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902893690.
Power, Dominic, and Allen John Scott. 2004. Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
Rius-Ulldemolins, Joaquim, and Verònica Gisbert. 2018. ‘¿Por qué las políticas culturales locales no cambian? Constricciones del modelo urbano, inercia en la gestión y batallas culturales en los «gobiernos del cambio» en Madrid y Barcelona (2015-2018)’. Revista Española de
Ciencia Política 0 (47): 93–122.
Rius-Ulldemolins, Joaquim, Santi Martínez Illa, and Mariano Martín Zamorano. 2018.
Governança cultural, identitat i territori: polítiques culturals a Catalunya, 1980-2016.
Barcelona: Fundació Josep Irla.
Rius-Ulldemolins, Joaquim, and M. Victoria Sánchez-Belando. 2015. ‘Modelo Barcelona y política cultural: usos y abusos de la cultura por parte de un modelo emprendedor de desarrollo local’. Revista EURE - Revista de Estudios Urbano Regionales 41 (122): 103–23.
Rodríguez Morató, Arturo. 2005. ‘La Reinvención de La Política Cultural a Escala Local: El Caso de Barcelona’. Sociedade e Estado 20 (2): 351–76. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69922005000200005.
Sánchez-Belando, Ma Victoria, Joaquim Rius-Ulldemolins, and Matías I. Zarlenga. 2012. ‘¿Ciudad creativa y ciudad sostenible?: Un análisis crítico del “modelo Barcelona” de políticas culturales’. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, no. 99 (December): 31–50. https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.5101.
Scott, Allen J. 2009. Social Economy of the Metropolis: Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the
Global Resurgence of Cities. 1 edition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2017. The Constitution of the City: Economy, Society, and Urbanization in the Capitalist
Era. 1st ed. 2017 edition. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Silver, Daniel, and Terry Nichols Clark. 2015. ‘The Power of Scenes’. Cultural Studies 29 (3): 425– 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2014.937946.
Srakar, Andrej, Vesna Čopič, and Miroslav Verbič. 2018. ‘European Cultural Statistics in a Comparative Perspective: Index of Economic and Social Condition of Culture for the EU Countries’. Journal of Cultural Economics 42 (2): 163–99.
Stanbridge, Alan. 2007. ‘The Tradition of All the Dead Generations’. International Journal of
Cultural Policy 13 (3): 255–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630701556431.
Stockholm Kulturförvaltning. 2018. ‘Kultur För Alla’. Stockholm: Stockholms stad. http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/1024387/Kulturrapport2018_uppslag_180418.pdf. Stockholms stad. n.d. ‘Kontakt - Kulturskolan Stockholm’. Accessed 10 May 2019.
https://kulturskolan.stockholm.se/kontakt/.
Svenska Kyrkan. n.d. ‘Musik - Stockholms Stift’. Accessed 19 April 2019. https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/stockholmsstift/musik.
Throsby, David. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press.
Vega i Rofes, Aina. 2019. ‘Barcelona Obertura Spring Festival’. Núvol, 7 February 2019.
https://www.nuvol.com/noticies/victor-medem-barcelona-obertura-spring-festival-posicionara-internacionalment-la-ciutat-en-el-terreny-de-la-musica-classica/.
Velthuis, Olav. 2013. ‘Globalization of Markets for Contemporary Art’. European Societies 15 (2): 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2013.767929.
Zimmer, Annette, and Stefan Toepler. 1996. ‘Cultural Policies and the Welfare State: The Cases of Sweden, Germany, and the United States’. The Journal of Arts Management Law (October): 167–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.1996.9942961.
Annex: List of interviewees
Interviewee number Role Date and place
Interviewee #1 Artist (Independent) 4/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #2 Artist (Independent) and festival
organiser in Finland 6/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #3 Artist (Independent) and festival
organiser in Austria 8/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #4 Artist (Independent) 8/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #5 Festival organiser 8/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #6 Artist (Independent) and artistic manager 19/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #7 Artist (Independent) 26/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #8 Festival organiser 26/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #9 Municipality worker (mid-level) 29/10/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #10 Ensemble manager 30/11/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #11 Festival organiser 13/12/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #12 Municipality worker (lower-level) 17/12/2018 Stockholm
Interviewee #13 Artist (Ensemble) 18/1/2019 Stockholm
Interviewee #14 Artist (Ensemble) 19/1/2019 Stockholm
Interviewee #15 Artist (Ensemble) 20/1/2019 Stockholm
Interviewee #16 Provincial government worker
(mid-level) 21/2/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #17 Artist (Ensemble) 25/2/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #18 Ensemble manager 25/2/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #19 Festival organiser 13/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #20 Municipality worker (mid-level) 14/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #21 Artist (Ensemble) 14/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #22 Ensemble manager 15/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #23 Artist (Conductor)
15/3/2019 Barcelona (Focus group)
Interviewee #24 Ensemble artist and conductor
Interviewee #25 Artist (Conductor)
Interviewee #26 Artist (Conductor)
Interviewee #27 Artist (Conductor) 16/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #28 Municipality worker (top-level) 19/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #29 Former venue executive (mid-level) 25/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #30 Choral federation manager 27/3/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #31 Choir chairperson and amateur artist
28/3/2019 Barcelona (joint interview)
Interviewee #32 Choir agent and amateur artist
Interviewee #33 Venue executive (top-level) 1/4/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #34 Catalan government worker (mid-level) 5/4/2019 Barcelona
Interviewee #35 Venue executive (top-level) 2/5/2019 Barcelona
