Beat connection : an explorative study of the mechanisms behind the diffusion of house music to the Netherlands and France

(1)

BEAT CONNECTION

An explorative study of the mechanisms behind the diffusion of house music to the Netherlands

and France

R.A. Everts, BSc 5959845 12-2-2016

Master’s Thesis 15.000 words

Dr. A.T. van Venrooij Dr. S.M.G Chauvin

Research Master Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

ABSTRACT

Using a mixed methods approach, in this article the mechanisms are explored that influence the diffusion of house music and the establishment of national house fields to gain more understanding of expressive isomorphism of popular culture phenomena. In a process tracing analysis France and the Netherlands were compared, showing that in the Netherlands early adopters, British tourists and Dutch media played an important role in the establishment of house, while in France house music was initially less successful, but media attention and success of artists in the UK had a positive effect in the long term. This was further investigated by means of a negative binomial regression analysis using data of house fields in six European countries and their pop chart success in the dominant house country the UK over the period 1986-2005. Most notable results are the positive effects of chart success of local artists in the UK, the house field growth in other countries and the local increase in labels on new artists that arrive each year in the national house fields.

(2)

1. BEAT CONNECTION

‘While the melody blows through your head, you feel the bass in your lower body and your

feet, your legs, your hips, your arms, your hands and your fingers react to the rhythm of

the bass, the hi-hat and the drum rolls that forebode new peaks. On a crowded dance floor,

surrounded by those flickering lights, the smoke machine and the enormous uplifting

sound, an energy and euphoria arise, incomparable to any other musical experience’ (De

Wit, 2013, p. 7, translation RAE).

House is collective term for all kinds of rave music (Reynolds, 2013) and is characterised by ‘a straight pulse of a disco beat in a nervous fast paced tempo of 120 BPM. 120 Beats per minute: a heartbeat in a too high gear, pushed forward by snare rolls, synthesiser bass and sizzling computer hi-hats’ (Van Veen, 1988, translation RAE). The music originally developed into a distinctive genre in the US in the midst of the 80s (Brewster & Broughton, 2006; Savage, 1993), and its accompanying rave parties developed in the US and UK (Hill, 2002; Spring, 2004; Tepper, 2009). Even though the UK and the US have been the dominant countries in the international house field from that early beginning, over the course of 30 years other countries have developed local house scenes which became part of the worldwide network. The global field has its own international superstars, such as DJ Tiësto and David Guetta, its own festivals such as Tomorrowland, organised by entertainment company ID&T, and is embraced by major record labels and corporate organisations. The sound has a worldwide pervasiveness, expresses global modernity, and has had an enormous impact on national popular music fields. In addition, lively local house scenes emphasise the global character of a city or country (Regev, 2013).

Research has been done on the development of art fields (e.g. Baumann, 2001, 2007; White & White, 1965), popular music fields (e.g. Gans, 2008; Peterson, 1997), and on the process of expressive isomorphism of national pop fields and the global pop rock music (Regev, 2013), which is understood as ‘the process through which national uniqueness is standardized so that expressive culture of various different nations, or of prominent socials sectors within them, comes to consist of similar – although not identical – expressive forms, stylistic elements, and aesthetic idioms’ (ibid, p. 11). However, across case analysis of pop music field development is scarce (van Venrooij, 2015) and thus our knowledge of how this process of isomorphism takes place is limited. The development of a local music genre is often described as relatively autonomous and independent from other similar music scenes and national fields are believed to draw from popular music conventions of the global field (e.g. Regev, 2013). How music genres actually cross national boarders, how new music scenes consequently become established, and

(4)

which factors facilitate such a spread is ill-understood. Therefore, the study of art fields could benefit from research that explores how expressive isomorphism takes place by examining the spread of a music genre from one country to another.

In this article I will study the introduction of house music and the establishment of house music fields in the Netherlands and France to learn more about the factors and mechanisms that influence the diffusion and establishment of popular music genres. In line with Crossley (2009), my goal is to explain these developments, rather than to formulate a predicting model. After this, I will quantify these variables and test them in a statistical model.

I will draw from diffusion theory (such as Mayer & Timberlake, 2014), which provides a model to analyse whether the components required for the diffusion of a cultural idea are present in the explored cases. In addition I will use cultural sociology theory (such as Bourdieu, 1983; Crossley, 2009; Peterson & Anand, 2004) and social movement theory (Baumann, 2007) for these theories provide additional tools to understand which institutional factors have influenced this diffusion process and the further establishment of the genre into art worlds. Together these theories form one model which can be used to analyse the different aspects of the process of diffusion and art field development, and to compare the different cases with respect to the characteristics required for these processes.

The research will exist out of two parts. In the first part, a case comparing process tracing study is conducted in order to identify variables and mechanisms that have played a positive or negative role in the diffusion of house music. The Netherlands and France are two interesting cases for the purpose of this article, for these two countries have become two successful players in the worldwide field of house music, but have followed very different paths en route. The Netherlands provide an excellent opportunity to learn about the institutional and social factors that have had an effect on the diffusion of house music through Europe, and to learn about the mechanisms by which these effects took place. The house field in France has taken another, slower, route, and a comparison between the two cases may shed light on which variables or mechanisms are of decisive importance. In their own way, the countries function as 'extreme' cases (Seawright & Gerring, 2008) of house music diffusion, and are therefore very suited to teach more about the pathway (Gerring, 2007) of the spread of cultural ideas.

In the second part, I will compare these results with a quantitative dataset to see whether the identified mechanisms can be supported by examining systematic data. Furthermore I will build a negative binomial regression model to statistically test the effects of several variables on the growth of the number

(5)

of new artists in local house fields of several European countries, in order to be able to triangulate and to generalise the findings of the model.

This research project serves multiple purposes. First or all, this research project can function as a practical empirical explanation of how expressive isomorphism of popular music takes place. Furthermore, a case study like this can provide valuable insights in the mechanisms and variables influencing diffusion, which could benefit that field of theory. With regard to cultural sociology, further research is needed on what factors influence the establishment of popular music fields. Lastly, the results of this study can contribute to a better understanding of the reasons behind the success and failures of the spread of popular music genres, which might be interesting for cultural policy organisations interested in supporting popular arts by improving the developments of popular music fields.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Diffusion theory

REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFUSION

Diffusion theory, derived from network analysis theory (e.g. Knox, Savage, & Harvey, 2006), provides a model that can be used to analyse empirical cases with regard to the presence of required factors for the diffusion of cultural ideas (such as house music). Diffusion, here, is defined as 'an innovation [that] is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system' (Rogers 1962, as cited in Strang & Meyer, 1993). For cross-national diffusion to take place

activist-transmitters, ‘a person, group, or organization that serves as the emitter or transmitter’ (McAdam &

Rucht, 1993, p. 59), and activist-adopters, ‘who define themselves as similar to the transmitters and the idea or item in question as relevant to their situation’ (ibid., p. 59), are needed. Direct ties between these two actors encourage initial identification (ibid.). Once this is established, non-relational channels, such as mass media, often function as the principal information transmitter (ibid., Strang & Meyer 1993). Internet, for example, has functioned as a strong catalyst for the spread of pop music (Mayer & Timberlake, 2014). But mainstream media sources can play an active mediating role as well in reaching an audience for a music genre (Smith Maguire & Matthews, 2012): one reason why house did not become a mainstream success in the early 1990s in the US was that it was not embraced by mainstream media sources. Therefore, it became adopted only by a marginal white young urban population that was active in the party scene (and this way a striving house scene developed) (Spring, 2004).

(6)

Besides the mainstream media, other more decentralised channels, which could be understood here as small scale initiatives, have been identified as playing a role in the diffusion of the house sound. One example is the distribution of flyers, informing the public about upcoming parties - which was an innovation in club circuits (Rietveld, 1998).

Furthermore, the diffusion of house involved not only the spread of the sound, but involved the diffusion of other facets as well: house is consumed in specific settings, where people dress and behave in certain ways and where conventions exists on how one should dance. In this sense, house music is embedded in cultural capital and embodied (DeNora, 2000), just as any other popular music culture (see also Byrne, 2012). This limits the transnational diffusion of the house sound (Thornton, 1996), for the way it had to be consumed had to spread as well. It is therefore important to look at channels of distribution that are able to communicate this aspect of house, such as tourism.

INSTITUTIONALISATION AND THEORISATION

The previous section described the basic characteristics of a process of diffusion. However, besides these relational aspects, other factors influence the diffusion as well. Strang and Meyer (1993) suggest that for the adoption of an idea it is important that actors develop shared understandings and have the possibility to learn about each other’s experiences. In this context these authors propose that the degree of institutionalisation of a cultural idea has a strong impact on its diffusion: if diffusion is understood as a process in which ‘actors jointly construct an understanding of the appropriateness and worth of some practice (ibid., p. 489)’, the level of institutionalisation of a cultural idea increases the chance that the adopters appreciate and implement it. Furthermore, ties between groups are constructed when a cultural understanding exists that social entities belong to a common category such as a (new) genre, leading to a mutual identification between transmitters and adopters. Institutionalised models develop standardised categories which achieve a taken-for-granted status that enhances the chance of adaptation (Rostan & Vaira, 2012). The institutionalisation of categories produce structural conditions accelerating diffusion, often more effectively then direct ties (ibid.). So, the level of institutionalisation of a cultural idea has an effect on its diffusion-generating power.

Besides the institutionalisation of a cultural idea, its theorisation can have a positive effect on its diffusion: ‘theorization increases the zone of acceptance by creating perceptions of similarity among potential adopters and by providing rationales for the practices to be adopted’ (Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003, p. 816, on the basis of Strang and Meyer, 1993). The theorisation of a cultural idea can be explained as the attempt to provide a stronger legitimating basis for a construct (Rostan and Vaira, 2012) by the

(7)

development of abstract categories and the formulation of patterned relationships. This has a positive effect on the speed and range of diffusion, for it 'facilitates meaningful communication and influence between weakly related actors' (Strang and Meyer, 1993, p. 493).

In addition to the level of institutionalisation and theorisation, the kind of backing of a diffusion process is important: Mayer and Timberlake (2014) charted different types (or ideal-types (Weber, 1978)) of diffusion systems, being diffusion driven by an economic or political-cultural motivation and stimulated by a centralised advocate or without institutional backing. Although more research is needed to understand the conditions under which these types of diffusion are likely to occur (McAdam & Rucht, 1993), these types can help us to gain insights on how house music spread throughout Europe.

Literature on pop music genre diffusion suggests that several genres of pop music faced a decentralised spread, so without institutional backing in the typification of Mayer and Timberlake (2014), but more centralised examples have been found as well. Heavy metal music is an example of decentralized diffusion (ibid.), as it spread peer to peer via the internet. Ferreira and Waldfogel (2013) have shown that the diffusion of popular music from one country to another is influenced by their geographical closeness and shared language, suggesting a decentralised diffusion model (a model found as well by the spread of Swedish trade unions, Hedström, 1994). This effect is enhanced by the presence of non-relational communication channels as MTV and the internet. On the other hand, national policies supporting local culture have a positive effect on local music consumption, pointing towards a centralised model (Ferreira and Waldfogel, 2013). Furthermore, Hesmondhalgh (1998) has pointed out that the organisational structure of the house music scene is decentralised in nature. Major record labels were conservative with regard to new music genres, forcing house to develop independent from these labels (Rietveld, 1998).

OTHER ASPECTS OF DIFFUSION

The model of diffusion theory that is presented here has encountered critiques: Kaufman and Patterson (2005) have argued that cases are overlooked where 'innovations are transmitted but eventually rejected, as well as cases where adoption might have been expected but did not occur' (p. 83). Other factors may be at play that influence the diffusion of cultural ideas. Moreover, the authors warn that the diffusion itself is not enough for the spread of an idea: processes after the adoption might take place resulting in the fact that no further establishment occurs. For a valid model it is therefore important to also take other factors into account that contribute to these further developments after the initial adoption. Kaufman and Patterson suggest for example that elites play an important role, for they can promote cultural ideas, or frustrate its spread by obstructing the participation of other groups.

(8)

Furthermore, cultural entrepreneurs can popularise cultural ideas, and in this way, keep the public interested.

Cultural entrepreneurs, according to Scott (2012), are often young people who pursue an artistic

career, often without economic capital. In order to stay in the cultural, they need to convince other cultural actors with more resources about their ideas, who can open up larger markets for them. Success of the cultural products they are occupied with has an exchange value as source of recognition, which can have a positive influence on one’s career.

2.2. Cultural sociology and social movement theory

If we want to pay attention to the further developments after the initial diffusion, we thus should broaden our perspective beyond diffusion theory: here, cultural sociology can make a useful contribution. To understand the establishment of music genres it is important to approach the art fields from a relational perspective (Bourdieu, 1983). Art is created in art worlds, which exist out of networks (Becker, 1982), and as a consequence, the art that is created is a social product: 'the range of art that is produced results from the structure of rewards to which artists respond and the organizational systems that select and transmit artistic work to the public at any given time' (DiMaggio & Stenberg, 1985, p. 108). Becker furthermore proposes that the development of new art worlds is based on the mobilisation of people to participate in the new art form (which might be based on a technological innovation, the development of a new concept or a new audience, Becker, 1982).

Because of this relational character of art field, I assume that 'interactions, relations and networks are shaped, constrained and enabled by resource distributions and established conventions but not entirely' (Crossley, 2009, p. 31). Therefore, we should focus on the dynamics between different groups of actors, institutions and fields (McAndrew & Everett, 2014). One theory in cultural sociology that embraces these aspects is derived from social movement theory (Baumann, 2007). This theory can be used to analyse what is necessary for a new art form to become legitimated, which is an important step in the eventual establishment of an art field. In order to become a legitimated field, it needs to be justified. Baumann distinguishes three factors that influence this process. Opportunity space, which is the environment, can have a positive effect on the likelihood of the success of the legitimisation. Resources, or the lack thereof, influence the process, where it should be noted that the art itself too functions as a resource, for it is used as a building brick for building an art world (Regev, 2013). Thirdly, Baumann shows that an explanatory discourse or frame has a positive effect, which corresponds to the theorisation discussed above. The discourse then functions as the underlying validating argumentative groundwork

(9)

which takes place after the initial diffusion. These three aspects together can be used to analyse the establishment of art forms in scenes. In the following two sections I will elaborate on the insights from house literature with regard to opportunity space and the explanatory discourse. Resources, however, will not be explored here, for they turned out to be understudied in house research (perhaps due to the low resource requirements of the scene due to its do-it-yourself character).

OPPORTUNITY SPACE

With regard to opportunity space it is important to look at factors such as 'technology, law and regulation, industry structure, organization structure, occupational careers, and market' (Peterson & Anand 2004, p. 311), for they influence the shape of the art that is created in art fields. Several underlying institutional factors have been identified that contributed to the development and spread of house music. The development of electronic instruments, for example, has been mentioned as a driving force behind the creation of the house sound. These technological innovations were not just incorporated in pop music, but should be understood as new semiotic units that brought with them a new understanding of music (Regev, 2013), creating these new music fields with DJ's and producers as their key artists (Thornton, 1996; Van Veelen & De Kloet, 2007). The fact that house music was often purely instrumental, took away the language barrier for this sound (Smith, 2004). The technological structure also resulted in the fact that means of production were very accessible, which gave the scene a 'do it yourself' character and contributed to the fast spread of house music (Tepper, 2009).

Also, national laws have influenced the development of house: in the US a process of 'quiet regulation' took place, where DJs and rave parties were criminalised (Tepper, 2009). However, no moral campaign against the subculture took place, making it difficult for the rave public to mobilise against these regulations. In the UK too, the introduction of house music and accompanying rave parties met with a negative reaction from the government. First, a bill was implemented that raised fines on unlicensed parties, and in 1994 raves convoys of cars and dancing in public with house music (or other music with beats) was banned (James, 2003). These regulations were the outcome of the assumption that young people formed a vulnerable group and needed protection (Hill, 2002). Furthermore, rave parties caused noise problems, and the drug use at those parties and the violation of licensing laws caused these strong regulations under Thatcher's authoritarian regime (ibid.). House music culture was seen as a reaction against the Thatcher government (ibid). In opposition to the US, here thus a moral crusade took place, providing the possibility to mobilise against these regulations, which contributed to the success of house and rave in the UK.

(10)

EXPLANATORY DISCOURSE

With regard to Baumann's notion of the explanatory discourse, studies on popular music have taught us that, where mainstream media play a role in the diffusion of cultural ideas as a communication channel, they can also contribute to the explanatory discourse. Newspapers and popular music magazines, for example, are co-creators of subcultures, for they identify movements and formulate the ideas that underlie them. In this way, they create the scenes on the one hand, by formulating the underlying cultural ideas, but the other hand report about them (Thornton, 1996). The audience of these media sources on their turn talk about this and in this way these ideas spread through populations (ibid.). On this route a set of well-timed events can be framed in the media as a larger movement (see also theorisation), and give the impression that something big is happening, which will then be distributed among the media consumers. But the opposite can happen as well: in the UK the house sound benefited from the negative press, which turned out to be a low-cost promotional source for the field (Hesmondhalgh, 1998).

Whereas in diffusion theory the focus lies more on the spread of cultural ideas and the role of actors within that process, in Baumann's model attention is paid to the institutional factors that influence the further development of those cultural ideas in a scene. My aim is to find the middle ground between these two approaches, and to base this research project both on actor (bottom-up, see Crossley, 2009) and structure oriented (top-down, ibid.) theories. Figure 1 provides a schematic overview of the discussed analytical model. Using this toolbox I will explore the cases of house in France and the Netherlands.

(11)

3. PART 1: PROCESS TRACING ANALYSIS

3.1. Methods

In order to distinguish explanatory variables that have influenced the diffusion and establishment of house music to the Netherlands and France, I have performed an explorative process tracing study (Beach & Pedersen, 2010). First, I will present two brief historical narratives on the introduction and establishment of house in the Netherlands and France. This will function as the groundwork for the process tracing analysis, which I will discuss after the narratives. There, I will draw from the theories as described in the previous section.

The focus of the study lies on the earliest introduction of the house sound in the Netherlands and France and the eventual breakthrough of house music and rave parties to the larger public. Here, I will pay attention to the diffusion to both cultural elites (such as DJs, cultural entrepreneurs) and the wider public, for together they create the art world. The aim is to look to what extent various factors, as described in the analytical framework and depicted in figure 1, were present and what their influence was, in order to understand the different paths of both cases. It is important to note however, that an exhaustive comparison between the two cases is not possible and not the intention of this article. The cases complement each other, rather than of being each other’s negative.

For both cases I have charted the historical developments and examined the sequence of the different variables (Bennett & Checkel, 2014). By means of counterfactual argumentation (are factors sufficient or necessary for the result) (Fearon, 1991) I have analysed which variables and mechanisms played a vital causal role in the development of the two fields. Here, I follow Beach and Pedersen (2010) in their definition of a causal mechanism as 'a series of interacting parts composed of entities that undertake activities that transmit causal forces from the explanatory variable(s) through a mechanism to produce a given outcome Y' (ibid., p. 1). I will argue that the identified variables have affected the chance of success of house in the Netherlands and France. So here, the focus lies more on the mechanisms that contributed to the developments of these art fields, rather than on the networks and key actors (as in e.g. Crossley, 2009). As mentioned, in the second part of this article I will quantitatively test these identified mechanisms and variables.

For this part of the article I have studied a wide range of sources, the most important being journalistic narratives drawing from interviews and other journalistic sources, both from the time of the introduction of house itself, such as newspaper articles, and from later years looking back on this period.

(12)

In addition I have used sociological studies (literature studies or studies based on other data such as interviews), policy documents such as transcripts of political debates and legislative documents, web articles and reports produced by representatives of the house and popular music field. By means of triangulation, crosschecking the sources (and quantitative testing later) I have aimed to overcome the limitations of the used sources, which for example are: lack of scientific rigour, concealing romanticism of pop journalists, an over-emphasis on actors instead of other factors, unknown journalistic biases and so forth.

3.2. Historical narratives

DUTCH DANCE

House in the Netherlands experienced its breakthrough over the course of 1988. House music was consumed on a large scale in the clubs and raves and attracted a large public. Before that period, only a small group of DJs and other professionals in the popular music field was aware of the success of the sound in the US and the UK (starting in 1986, Mutsaers, 1998), reading about it in magazines such as the British The Face (De Wit, 2013). Also, some of these pioneers had encountered the music on Ibiza, where the music was played in clubs (ibid.) since the summer of 1985 (Mutsaers, 1998) and in clubs in the UK. Another early adopting country was Belgium, where avant-garde music label R&S had introduced the sound (Brewster & Broughton, 2006) and club Boccaccio inspired Dutch DJs (Nabben, 2010). In 1986, the Dutch music magazine Vinyl published for the first time about the success of the house sound in the US, introducing it to the wider Dutch public. In November 1987, national newspaper Algemeen Dagblad noted that house was a new trend in the Netherlands (De Wit, 2013), being the first media source to present house music as a new and separate music genre to a large public. This marks the start of the explorative phase in the Netherlands (Nabben, 2010).

From 1987 onward the Amsterdam club RoXY started to program house evenings, initiated by DJ Eddy de Clercq (Van Terphoven & Beemsterboer, 2004). In the first months, those club nights were unsuccessful in their attempt to enthuse an audience, but it did introduce other DJs to the new sound (De Wit, 2013; Mutsaers, 1998). Furthermore, the opportunity to perform in this club and to experiment with house music attracted DJs from other parts of the Netherlands and from the UK (De Wit, 2013).

During the end of 1987 and the beginning of 1988 other groups started to organise house events as well. This happened in Amsterdam: inspired by house parties in the US, Department Store organised several parties. Here too, UK DJs were invited, as happened likewise in other venues in Amsterdam (De Wit, 2013), showing both to colleagues and to the public how to create and consume the new music. Furthermore, British party organisers organised raves for a British public in Amsterdam (Rietveld, 1998).

(13)

But at other venues in the ‘Randstad’, a megalopolis in the west of the Netherlands, new initiatives took place as well, and on a smaller scale also in the rest of the Netherlands (Mutsaers, 1998). One example is the Blue Tiek-in in Rotterdam, which imported US and UK house-acts. On several occasions attempts were made to introduce house in Rotterdam, but this was met with resistance (Rietveld, 1998). However, at this point, the music was still only appreciated by an elite public (Mutsaers, 1998).

Since the ongoing attempts to attract a public for the house evenings in the RoXY were unsuccessful and the pressure on De Clerq and consorts to stop playing this music increased, De Clerq decided to organise a party in the first half of 1988 at another venue in Amsterdam, in order to show the potential of such parties. This party, called 'The house of architecture, beauty & love: Disco Hippies on Acid', was well-received (and received media attention from Dutch pop magazine Oor), inspired other pioneers and journalists, but, again, did not force a breakthrough with a bigger audience (De Wit, 2013; Nabben, 2010; Van Terphoven & Beemsterboer, 2004)

Meanwhile, another group of house frontrunners, the Soho Connection, started to organise parties in Amsterdam following a British recipe (house music, stroboscope lights, smoke and the innovation of promotional flyers) (De Wit, 2013). This group existed out of British musicians living in the Netherlands and started to function as a connection with the London scene, by organising weekenders - weekend long parties with British DJs where groups of British tourists were brought in by boat (Rietveld, 1998). These parties were again well-received by an elite, but, again, did not immediately result in the breakthrough of house. During the same period, the first Dutch house productions reached the charts with moderate success, with for example the single Love House from Samantha Fox produced by Dutch producers Bolland and Bolland (De Wit, 2013).

The big breakthrough of house music in the Netherlands happened in the first weekend of September 1988. In the period leading up to this weekend several articles were published in magazines on house culture (Rietveld, 1998). After that weekend, for the first time in the Netherlands, house parties throughout the country were well-visited. This weekend is remarkable because of a conjunction of three independent incidents that took place: a lyrical article appeared in the national newspaper De Volkskrant devoted to the new sound of acid house, which described how music at rave parties was to be consumed (Van Veen, 1988). The Soho Connection organised an unexpectedly successful weekender existing out of three consequential parties (Nabben, 2010), featuring the British DJ Danny Rampling who played an important role in the breakthrough of house in the UK (Van Terphoven & Beemsterboer 2004). 300 British tourists were expected, but over 2000 arrived. Lastly, that Saturday, club RoXY was full for the first time

(14)

with a public that specifically came there looking for house music. Waiting lines filled the street outside (De Wit, 2013).

After this weekend, the house virus spread quickly, and a new phase in the development of the house field began, which was marked by the widespread consumption of house (Nabben, 2004). That summer and autumn were named the Second Summer of Love, referring to the Summer of Love from the Flower Power era (Van Terphoven & Beemsterboer 2004). Other venues in Amsterdam started to organise regular house evenings, and the Soho Connection was invited to organise evenings in other Dutch cities (De Wit, 2013). That being said, in those first months not every party was immediately successful (De Wit, 2013). In the spring of 1989 the house oriented discotheque iT opened, which would later play an important role in the development of the gabber sound in 1992 (Mutsaers, 1998). In the summer of 1989 for the first time a house song (French Kiss by Lil Louis) reached the number one spot in the pop chart Top 40.1_{In 1990 in every disco in the Netherlands house music was played (Mutsaers, 1998), and the first}

Dutch Dance Awards were held (ibid.). From 1991 raves were held on a large scale (the first party called Rave of the Nineties was held in football stadium Ahoy and attracted 6000 visitors), and in the second half of 1992 at least sixteen parties were organised attracting each over 10.000 visitors (ibid.). House had reached the Dutch public.2

FRENCH TOUCH

House did not reach a significant audience before 1991 in France, even though the first entrance of house in 1989 received a considerable amount of media attention (Birgy, 2003). Also, the introduction of MTV in France in 1987, the presence of the house oriented Rough Trade record store in Paris, and the fact that several French house acts became successful in the UK in 1990, made the French familiar with the house sound (Looseley, 2003), but did not lead to a breakthrough. It was at the same time that French musicians became inspired by these new sounds and learned from independent house labels in the US and UK (James, 2003)3_{. DJ Pedro (Laurent Garnier), for example, who first achieved success in the UK,}

would later play a vital role in the Parisian house club scene.

1_{www.top40.nl/lil-louis/lil-louis -french-kiss_6793, visited 6-2-2016}

2_{However, the breakthrough did not always benefit the earliest cultural entrepreneurs. In a private conversation with one of} the early DJ’s and house music importers I learned that the breakthrough caused a re-institutionalisation of the house sound as more commercial (also on the basis of the French Kiss hit song in 1989), and the larger public disliked the earlier house sound (the sound which was based on the Detroit and Chicago scenes) that was played by the avant-garde, making it more difficult for them to pursue a career in the house field, without altering the house sound they were focusing on.

3_{Here, one link can be found with the Netherlands: DJ Néliaz moving to Amsterdam where she saw De Clerq at work, bringing} the sound back to France (James, 2003).

(15)

Given this slow start, the diffusion of house to France that took place in the middle and late nineties can be understood as developing via two tracks: rave parties on the one side and the music production and club circuit on the other. These paths did not develop completely independent from each other. Rather, mutual influence can be detected.

Even though in the beginning house music was unsuccessful, in 1991 the concept of rave parties was introduced in France (again, relatively late compared to e.g. The Netherlands). A small group of frontrunners, such as Luc Bertagnol, Pat Cash and Manu Casana, copied the model of British rave parties, and organised free parties until 1993 (ibid.). These parties were moderately successful. In the early years the governmental reaction against rave parties was lenient, compared to e.g. the United Kingdom. This tolerant attitude of the French government attracted party organisers from that country, who met great difficulties in their attempt to organise raves (ibid.).

A group of activist-adopters persisted in their attempt to reach a French audience for the house sound. In Paris, initiatives were undertaken to develop a club culture. In 1992 Eric Morand started a club night called 'Wake Up!'Paris', which would later function as an important network hub for the developing national music scene. But again, this did not lead to a breakthrough, such as already had happened in the Netherlands. The sound of house did reach an audience, but it was a selective one. In the mid-90s the music was embraced in 'the burgeoning network of gay clubs, shops and bars' (Warne, 2006, p. 56), but no widespread club culture developed (James, 2003). That the music was adopted by these specific groups might even have been counter effective for reaching the general public, for French youth started to associate the music with the 'decadent pleasures' that these clubs had to offer (Birgy, 2003). Over the period of 1989 to 1995 several record labels, radio stations and magazines promoted house music. These attempts never captured a large enough audience, and were, as a consequence, discontinued (ibid.).

Because no widespread subculture came into being that evolved around those rave parties, a negative image for house music developed: the rave parties were perceived to be focused only on drugs (James, 2003). The parties became associated with drug addiction, criminality and subversive behaviour in general (ibid.) and as a consequence, rave parties were seen as a problem for the social order and a danger to the health of youth (Warne, 2006). From 1993 onward, the police started to break up parties, and in 1995 the government forbade illegal rave parties (Birgy, 2003; James, 2003; Looseley, 2003). The negative image of the rave parties and the resulting restrictions left no room for governmental or corporate support to be established, as happened in other countries (James, 2003). Nevertheless, even though the parties became more restricted, in Paris eventually a rave culture developed, with its own

(16)

dress codes and fanzines, and its own monthly magazine called Coda (established in 1993, Birgy, 2003). In 1996 after another party was banned in Lyon, Technopol was established in order to promote the music (ibid.).

The big breakthrough of house music in France took place as a result of the international recognition that was achieved by several French artists. The international success of artists such as Etien de Crecy (with his album Super Discount in 1996), Daft Punk (with their hit Da Funk in 1995) and The Micronauts (several hits in the UK in 19954_{) led to increased attention for the French house music from}

several foreign popular music magazines such as Melody Maker, NME, MIXMAG, Dance Ages, Orbit, Vibes, Klike Generator and Muzik (Birgy, 2003). The French scene was seen to have a distinctive French sound, for which the media coined the term 'French Touch'. This triggered the interest of the French media, who started to write about these musicians, which on its turn led to increased sales of French house labels (James, 2003). It was also this international recognition that made governmental organisations start to pay interest, for it provided economic opportunities and the chance to promote France abroad through this music (Warne, 2006).

The increased attention for house music led to the establishment of a promotional organisation called Techno Plus. Media such as the magazines Coda and Trace and the radio stations FG, Fun, Nova and Voltage started to pay attention to the music (Warne, 2006). In 1996 a compilation of French house tracks was brought out called 'Source Lab 2' that represented the national house scene. This CD obtained media attention from national and international magazines such as Mixmag, Muzik and received marketing support from Virgin Records UK (James, 2003). As a result a hype emerged that led to success of this record in France and abroad. Following the elections in 1997 house music received rehabilitation from the French government (hoping to win over the youth for their policies (Looseley, 2003), and this process continued in the following years (Smith, 2004).

The field of house became established in France as a result of the ongoing attempt to promote and to produce house music and parties, the role of the Parisian network and the international attention for the French house. In this way a connection was created with the existing popular music production and distribution organisations (Warne, 2003).

(17)

3.4. Suggested Variables and Mechanisms

During the process tracing analysis several variables and accompanying mechanisms were derived that influenced the success of the diffusion and establishment of house music in the Netherlands and France. In this section these will be discussed, using the theoretical notions as presented in the theoretical framework.

THE NETHERLANDS

As can be seen in the historical narrative, activist-adopters can easily be found in the Dutch scene, where DJ's and organisers learning from visiting parties in the UK, Belgium and Ibiza and tried to convince the Dutch public. These cultural entrepreneurs played an active role in the promotion of house music, with minimal resources and often investing their own financial capital in the projects, for they believed that house music would become a success. Most of these early enthusiasts later became important players in the house field (Van Bergen, 2013), which suggested that they often succeeded using the exchange value of their early successes as sources of recognition in the further developments of the field (but it is difficult to say how much of them succeeded). No indicators were found for a stimulating or obstructing elite, other than perhaps the first public of the RoXY, but no evidence was found on how they affected the diffusion of house.

On the other hand, activist-transmitters were active in the UK. A steady flow of actors from the British house scene came over to Amsterdam, drawn by its proximity and less restricting Dutch government (Rietveld, 1998). Furthermore, these actors experienced the London scene as too competitive (De Wit, 2013; Rietveld, 1998) and were looking for career opportunities in Amsterdam. This phenomenon can be understood as a spill-over effect: due to the saturation of the British field for artists and cultural entrepreneurs, they started to look for opportunities elsewhere. Due to the early arrival of these tourists, the fact that they initially came for the parties that were organised by British party organisers (who chose Amsterdam due to the mentioned reasons) and the fact that the Dutch public initially was bemused by the behaviour of the British (Rietveld, 1998), I suggest that this should be understood not as a mere consequence, but as a positive influence on the development of the Dutch house field. This direct

communication channel (travels to Amsterdam) introduced the Dutch public and artists to the new sound.

This was stimulated by the organisation of the fields and the accompanying institutions in the UK and the Netherlands, but the evidence suggests that the diffusion that took place had a decentralised backing and was marked by an economic motivation.

(18)

Another form of direct communication was the large number of British tourists that came to Amsterdam. They were attracted partly by the British artists who came over, and, again, by the favourable political climate. These tourists contributed to the spread of the cultural idea of house by introducing the Dutch public to the new ways of dancing and dressing, enabling them to consume the music appropriately (De Wit, 2013; Rietveld, 1998). In this way the Dutch audience learned from these kinds of parties what the new music was about.

British magazines such as The Face, i-D, Mixmag, NME and Sounds functioned as non-relational

channels. As these magazines were available in all Dutch cities, the Dutch public was informed early about

the new music (Rietveld, 1998). In general, the Dutch public was prone to follow British trends (which intensified after heavy oppression of rave parties started in the UK in 1994, ibid.). This media coverage, and the coverage by Dutch newspapers and magazines, contributed to the institutionalisation and theorisation of house and the explanatory discourse of house as a new and separate popular music genre. The article in De Volkskrant played a special role in this process; its impact was mentioned by various actors and journalists in the field.

Furthermore, the concurrence of events in the first weekend of September seems to have had a decisive influence in the diffusion of house music to a wider public and the institutionalisation of house music. Even though events might not have been able to reach the general public separately, the combination of the three events gave the impression that a bigger movement was going on, which led to the creation of an explanatory frame by the media. This on its turn might have aroused the interest of the Dutch public. In this way, the framing has contributed to the actual formation of the house field in the Netherlands.

Institutional factors have created an opportunity space for the diffusion of house music. Dutch local policies were lenient towards house parties, drug consumption and sexual behaviour, or even absent. In the case of Amsterdam this provided the opportunity for locations such as RoXY and warehouses to develop as laboratories for house music (Nabben, 2010). Especially in the early years of house in the Netherlands, permits were not requested, and illegal parties were tolerated (Van Bergen, 2013). Police interventions took place, but these were inconsistent and had little effect (Nabben, 2010). This provided the opportunity for party organisers to develop their skills with regard to festival organisations, which enabled them to grow into worldwide companies a decade later (Van Bergen, 2013). However, Van Klink’s (2015) claim that the Dutch government actively shaped preconditions, as mentioned in the introduction, seems exaggerated.

(19)

Other institutional factors that have contributed to the opportunity space for house music can be identified. In the 1980s a crisis took place in the music market. Record sales plummeted and costs for record labels increased as a consequence of the introduction of the CD: the idea arose that albums had to be brought out on both LP and CD (Rutten, Oud, & Mutsaers, 1991). Because the Netherlands was a relatively small market, in 1988 all multinational record companies, following Warner a couple of years before (ibid.), decided to let go all national musical acts (Mutsaers, 1998). Because of the lack of competition, smaller independent national record companies now got the opportunity to develop independently from large record companies and to become driving forces of the Dutch house scene (Mutsaers, 1998; Rutten et al., 1991). The house music scene profited more from this change than other popular music genres, for that scene was characterised by an international network and thus benefited from a global market, for this situation provided the opportunity to develop locally independent house music, which could be distributed internationally if successful (Rutten et al., 1991). This way house obtained the resources to grow.

Finally, in the second half of the 1980s, right before the introduction of house in the Netherlands, a subsidy was cancelled which was meant for venues that programmed live music (Rietveld, 1998). After that, it became financially attractive to program DJs over live bands, because they were much cheaper. A lot of venues started to program DJs (ibid.), which was another impulse for the house scene.

It was only several year later, after protests of the Dutch hospitality industry in 1992 (house parties often infringed regulations with regard to security, noise disturbance and such), and several ill-organised parties, that large scale reforms were made regulating the house field (Van Bergen, 2013). At that point, in 1992, 30 to 40 parties per weekend were organised of which 3 were illegal (as estimated by DJ Per, Rietveld, 1998). After the fast spread, house music consumption consolidated, the parties deteriorated and became criminalised (Nabben, 2010) and organisers were forced to professionalise. House party organisers were requested to work within the boundaries of the law (Van Bergen, 2013). Furthermore, in 1993 organisers of house parties in Amsterdam had to inform the local government eight weeks before a party and had to acquire several permits (Mutsaers, 1998) and police started to arrest house party organisers (Kuipers 1993, in Nabben, 2010). These policy changes happened as a result of public debates, and it were those parties that led to the perception of house parties as problematic (Rietveld, 1998). In 1994 a nationwide law was implemented that established (low) noise limits for house parties (Mutsaers, 1998, Nabben, 2010), further limiting the options for party organisers. And in 1995

(20)

further regulations were implemented that aimed to regulate and repress drug consumption at house parties (Nabben, 2010).

To sum up: in the case of the Netherlands, activist adopters were present, activist-transmitters, such as artists and cultural entrepreneurs, came over from the UK attracted by the opportunities and the less restricting political climate. Tourists introduced the public to the new house culture. British media functioned as communication channels. Opportunity space existed because of a lenient government, a record sale crisis and the disappearance of a subsidy. Lastly, a weekend where a newspaper payed attention to the scene (contributing to the theorisation) and several successful parties triggered a threshold for a nation-wide breakthrough.

FRANCE

As shown, house had a difficult start in France. Like in the Netherlands, activist-transmitters and activist-adopters can be found during the earliest introduction of house, as well as direct communication channels (the British coming to France, the French musicians going abroad), and some indirect communication channels (the early media attention). However, success abroad was needed for house to gain serious attention in France.

So given the presence of these necessary components for the diffusion of the cultural idea of house music, we should focus on the institutional organisation of the popular music field in France before the arrival of house in order to understand why house had this difficult start. As shown in the historical narrative the development of the house sound can be traced via two paths, the rave/club scene and music production. Here two intermingled yet different mechanisms play an important role in the deferred success of house.

First, the French raving scene met strong opposition of the French government, the scene obtained a negative image (from which it did not benefit, as the scene in the UK had done), the sound was only embraced by an elite public ('the burgeoning network'), and even though numerous efforts were made to reach a wider public, these attempts mostly remained unsuccessful. It seems that this negative image emphasised the difference between the elite and the wider public, instead of emphasizing the ‘similarity among potential adopters’ such as is the case with more theorised cultural ideas.

Second, with regard to the music production side, the lack of resources and opportunity space had a negative influence. In the late 1970s disco music, an electronic music predecessor of house, was very successful export product of France (James, 2003). In the slipstream of the worldwide success of the

(21)

French disco artist Cerrone a disco field developed. However, this did not continue in the first half of the 80s. The most dominant disco label in the field mostly focused on Cerrone productions, and as a consequence did not develop into a distribution network for new artists (James, 2003). No attention was paid to the development of national musicians, and this conservative spirit remained dominant until French house experienced its big break at the end of the 1990s. In other words, the institutions created in the disco era limited the opportunity space and resources available for the house scene. Because of this, the public perceived a gap after disco, which made them hesitant to embrace the new sound (Birgy, 2003). These limitations of the French music landscape that made that house did not reach a significant French audience before 1991.

Another development that limited the opportunity space and resources for French artists was that in 1981 radio stations were given the freedom to program any music and not a certain percentage of French music (James, 2003). As a consequence, the French public was brought into contact with new music styles from abroad (an indirect communication channel), but is became less attractive to develop French talent. However, in 1994 culture minister Jacques Toubon implemented a law (mockingly called the Allgood law), that stated that radio stations had to devote 40 percent of their time to French music (Loosely, 2003). As an attempt to stimulate French music, this did, however, not stimulate French house, for most of the house artists were using English lyrics (Morrison & Compagnon, 2010).5

Because of the small amount of media attention, the focus of record labels was on licensing music from abroad (James, 2003) and French record labels that received subsidies focused on music that was only suited for the French market, and that had no international ambitions (Loosely, 2003). Record production and distribution means were owned by the major labels, which limited the possibility for independent production in France (James, 2003). Smaller record labels and aspiring artists had to search for means abroad, e.g. vinyl pressing (Birgy, 2003), in order to produce their music. This meant that the resources were limited within France for the field of house.

In the course of the 1990s, because of the absence of a breakthrough of house and the limited resources and opportunities, it remained difficult for artists to have their music distributed. If artists wanted to release their productions they had to look across the border, for example in Germany, Belgium and The Netherlands (James, 2003). In the scene the idea rose that the only way to develop the scene was by becoming successful abroad (James, 2003), and the fact that house was mostly non-vocal made it easy

5_{It did provide a boost for French hip-hop, for radio stations were desperately in need for new French music (Morrison &} Compagnon, 2010).

(22)

for musicians to go abroad with their products (Smith, 2004). This mechanism can be understood as a direct communication channel which provided the resources that were absent for these artists in France. Over time, this resulted in national and world wide recognition.

It was especially the attention of British media sources that had a decisive influence on the recognition in France. It took this international, mostly British, recognition of the French house sound to obtain acknowledgement in France (Looseley, 2003; Warne, 2006). This mediation of the outsider was perceived as necessary, for the field of house lacked a supporter base in the French society (Birgy, 2003). French house music was framed abroad as 'French Touch' because it was thought to have a distinct melodic sound (Warne, 2006). This frame led to an increased interest of record labels operating in France that had not done much with house up until that point (James, 2003), providing new opportunities for French artists. This non-relational channel contributed to the institutionalisation and the opportunity space of house music, which was lacking during the early introduction of house in France.

The French house scene had little institutional opportunity space, no initial subculture, a negative image and was heavily regulated. Foreign, mostly British, media attention and resources provided a loop for artists in order to circumvent this.

3.5. Results

As argued in the analytical framework, when analysing the cross-national spread of a music genre it is important to focus on both the diffusion of the cultural idea and its establishment in an art field (using the toolbox from both strains of social theory). Examining both cases, we can conclude that with regard to the diffusion of house, activist transmitters, adopters and communication channels were found in both. This suggests that all factors were present that were necessary for the actual spread of the house sound from the UK. Nevertheless, the outcome of the two cases is different, and I suggest on the basis of the process tracing analysis that distinct mechanisms were at play in the countries, creating two distinct narratives.

In case of the Netherlands, the spill-over effect from the UK initially was much stronger than in France. France drew some party organisers from the UK, but because of the strict attitude of the French government this was not successful. For the Netherlands, this proved to be a strong force in the spread of the new music. Also, evidence was found for a dominant flow of British tourists and DJs, as a result of the relative proximity to the UK and the pleasant (political) climate of the city. This had a positive impact on the Dutch scene, for it introduced the Dutch public to the embodied aspects of house music culture.

(23)

This shows that only the diffusion of the cultural idea is not enough, but ideas on the way it should be used or consumed and the way it is institutionalised should be spread as well.

Differences in the institutional organisation of the popular music field can be found for both countries: even though in both countries no incentives or governmental support existed which provided

resources for the field, in the Netherlands at least no suppressing forces existed such as the major record

labels in France. This shows that resources should not be understood only as a provision of economic capital, but also as a freedom to develop new initiatives. French artists had to look abroad for

opportunities to produce and distribute their music.

One other difference was that house music was less institutionalised in France, and the lack theorisation of house worked against the establishment of the field (as opposed to the UK, where the negative image had a positive influence on the development of the scene). This could perhaps also be understood as a form of negative theorisation, a form of theorisation that has an excluding effect. However, this is not a formulation that has been found in the literature on theorisation.

Nevertheless, the field succeeded in acquiring recognition abroad, leading to national success. It seems thus that one powerful mechanism to overcome the absence of local recognition is to obtain media support in a country that has a dominant position in the international music field (in this case the UK). Therefore, we might expect that if no initial local recognition is acquired the development of a music field is preceded or accompanied by chart hits or media recognition in the dominant country.

As Kaufman and Patterson (2005) argued, cultural entrepreneurs play a fundamental role in this process, since the artists and other professionals looked for ways to reach a bigger audience. A mechanism as in France would not have happened if it was not for them. However, in addition to Kaufman and Patterson it should be noted that it would be a simplification to argue that it is only the effort of cultural entrepreneurs that influences the further establishment of music fields. I have shown that a combination of factors counteract such attempts. The fact, for example, that the sound was embraced by an elite public, which can both stimulate or curb the spread as argued by Kaufman and Patterson, has to some extent undermined the good intentions of the cultural entrepreneurs. Social relations and actions are influenced by a multitude of institutional factors, and while these factors do not constrain the behaviour of actors entirely, they have a significant effect on the path through which a field develops.

In both cases artists, cultural entrepreneurs and the public have looked for ways to obtain more recognition for the art field, and eventually succeeded in doing so. This tells us that it is not possible to

(24)

create one theory that explains the diffusion and establishment of every art field, but the analytical framework should rather be used as a model to analyse the different outcomes and think about the importance of different factors.

Table 1: Presence of factors of influence in the Netherlands and Fra nce, with +=present, -=not present, +/- = average influence and blank = unknown

4. PART 2: QUANTITATIVE TESTS

4.1. Introduction

The explored diffusion of house music from the UK to the Netherlands and France manifested itself in multiple ways: in order to promote house music and to establish a house music field in both countries, different routes came to being, or were purposely searched for, that contributed to the spread of the sound. In this section I will perform a quantitative and systematic test to check the mechanisms that were identified in the performed process tracing analysis. By doing so, we can learn more about whether the mechanisms can be either confirmed or rejected by this test. Also, this is an opportunity to examine what the values and shortcomings are of the both the qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Factors of influence the Netherlands France

Activist-transmitters + +/-

Activist-adopters + +

Direct communication channels + +

Non-relational channels + + Institutionalisation + Theorisation/explanatory discourse + - Centralised backing + Decentralised backing + +/- Economic motivation + Political-cultural motivation +

Underlying institutional factors + -

Opportunity space + -

Resources + -

Behaviour elites + -

(25)

This second part functions thus in the first place as a manner of triangulation. Furthermore, the potential of quantifying the identified mechanisms for the purpose of statistical hypothesis testing is investigated.

The mechanisms that I have chosen to examine in this section are 1) the positive influence of commercial chart success in the UK of artists from foreign countries on the local development of a house scene, 2) the positive influence of the development of the house field in the UK (spill-over effect) on the local development of a house scene, 3) the positive influence of other countries on the development of local house fields, and 4) the positive influence of the available resources in the local scene on the development of a house field. For this systematic check, I will create a negative binomial distribution

model, combining the data derived from several databases, where the effect of various variables is examined on the amount of new artists in a country. I have done this for the Netherlands, France, but also for Spain, Belgium, Italy and Germany between 1986 and 2005. Furthermore, on the basis of this new dataset I have created several descriptive tests.

However, I would like to emphasise that this model is only a first exploration. Various mechanisms that have been identified in the previous section have not been added to this model. One practical reason for this is that I did not find enough data for this: tourism from the UK to the Netherlands has been an important influence on the spread of house in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, I did not find existing datasets that contained within country tourism data between 1985 and 2005, let alone that such data was further specified on basis of age (because of the specific age group of the British tourists). Also, data on the public participation in the house fields (rave party participation) would have told us more about the wider house field, and not just the production part, but for these countries this was not found. A second reason is that even though some of the mechanisms were potentially suitable for a quantitative test, the labour intensive task to open up this data moved beyond the scope of this research project: media coverage in the UK (but also locally) seems to have had a decisive influence on the institutionalisation and framing of house music in the two countries, but analysing and quantifying these media sources in order to explore their influence on the development of house fields over time would be a whole new research project in itself. I have aimed to overcome most of the mentioned shortcomings by using proxies in the model, but further research is necessary to quantitatively test these mechanisms in depth. That being said, now I will introduce the cases, the variables and the model, after which I will discuss the results.

(26)

4.2. Cases

To test the mechanisms more systematically, I have decided to include not only the case of the Netherlands and France in the model, but also Spain, Belgium, Italy and Germany. These countries have all experienced a diffusion of house music, resulting in more or less successful local house scenes and in some cases even distinct subgenres (such ItaloDisco in Italy, or New Beat in Belgium, Reynolds, 2013). These countries were included in the dataset6_{from which I derived the data for the dependent and the}

independent variables, but beside this opportunistic argument, the reason behind the choice for these countries is the following: all these countries adopted house music, and due to their shared western European background they are similar to such an extent that the mechanisms can be tested on a broader scale. This contributes to a stronger external validity and provides the possibility to further generalise the findings. Because of this manner of purposive sampling, I will not generalize the findings of this study beyond the boundaries of western European countries: one can think of an infinite number of reasons why the diffusion of house music to other countries has worked out differently. The UK and the US too were available in the dataset, but I have chosen not to include these countries, for their role in the development and diffusion (as main developers and transmitters) was different in comparison with the other countries, increasing the risk there that other mechanisms might be at play.

The choice of the range of the years 1986 until 2005 is also inspired by the limitations of the dataset. Nevertheless, this period is relevant with regard to house, for it covers the historical development of the earliest introduction of house in the examined countries until the world wide success and stardom of the artists from these local fields. The mechanisms can thus be tested for the whole extent of this period. The used dataset contained the year 1985 as well, but this year was omitted in the model, for some variables were based previous years, meaning that 1985 became incomplete. The countries and years were combined in the dataset, in this way constructing 120 cases for the model. This functions as the groundwork for the negative binomial distribution model.

4.3. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable that will be used in this model is the amount of new artists that arrive each year in the local house fields of the included countries. Arriving means in this case that this artist presents music for the first time in this country. However, an artist can also launch new music in multiple countries at the same time, which makes him a newcomer in multiple countries. A house artist from one

(27)

field could potentially have his first hit in another country. Nevertheless, this variable is a good measure for the liveliness of the house scene and the amount of new initiatives that are undertaken locally. The notion of a national field in which only local music acts are embedded should be understood as an ideal-typical situation, and it is for that reason that I think that this variable is a good measure in any case. The data for this variable was collected by Alex van Venrooij on the basis of hit charts from all the countries and www.discogs.com, a discographic database which contains information on the genre of the music and its origin.7

4.4. Independent Variables

HOUSE HITS OF COUNTRY IN THE UK IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

The model is designed in such a way that several mechanisms can be tested step by step. In the first step, I will test what the effect is of the amount of house hits that each country had in the UK on the growth of new artists in the local house field. In this way I can explore the impact of success in the centre of the international house field (such as the French artist had – leading to the French Touch label) on the development of a national house field. If no such mechanism is found, I will interpret this as contradicting the mechanism I described earlier.

The data for this variable too was derived from the dataset from Van Venrooij (2015), who collected the chart data in the UK and the combined this with the genre and country information from Discogs.com. For this dataset contained information of all the songs in the UK charts, I have selected the songs from the included countries that were categorised as house music, but also the songs that were categorised as substyles.8_{Because the electronic music field has rapidly become divided in substyles, if I}

would have focused solely on the music that was framed only as house, the scope of this research would have become too narrow and would have excluded a significant number of songs that were framed as other styles, but nevertheless can be understood as products of the bigger house fields.

I have created a time-lag of one year for this variable, for I assume that it takes time for a successful song in the central country to have a positive effect on the local house scenes.

NEW HOUSE ARTISTS IN THE UK IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

After the first step, I will add three variables to the model: the first one is the amount of new artists in the UK in the previous year (again I assume it takes time for this to have a positive impact). As

7_{www.discogs.com, visited on 2-2-2016.}

8_{Included substyles are Acid, AcidHouse, BigBeat, Breakbeat, Breakcore, Breaks, Chiptune, DarkAmbient, DeepHouse, Drone,} DrumnBass, DubTechno, Dubstep, EuroHouse, Freestyle, Gabber, GarageHouse, Ghetto, Glitch, GoaTrance, Grime, HappyHardcore, HardHouse, HardTrance, Hardcore, Hardstyle, HipHouse, House, IDM, Illbient, Italodance, Jumpstyle, Jungle, Makina, NewBeat, ProgressiveHouse, ProgressiveTrance, PsyTrance, SpeedGarage, Speedcore, TechHouse, Techno, Trance, TribalHouse, TripHop and UKGarage. For Drone, Dubstep, Hardstyle, Jumpstyle, PsyTrance and Speedcore no hits in the UK were found.