Classism in Music: How Much Should Your Upbringing Matter?

Today was going to be my day off~ I vowed not to write or check work emails and give myself a much needed, full day off. Then, musicians started talking and I got the urge to write about it.

In today’s NME, my beloved Noel Gallagher had a rather interesting quote regarding the current state of the music industry. He said Muse’s drummer, Dominic Howard, was symbolic of an “instantly forgettable” Brit Awards and went on to say: “There are no characters left in the music business.” “When we first started going there was a healthy percentage of people, and we were all dirt-kickers from council estates, and we all couldn’t believe our luck that we were at the Brits. You go in now and everybody is a careerist. It’s very corporate, and you know what I’ve actually seen people doing at the Brits? Eating. I saw the drummer from Muse smoking an electronic cigarette. A cigarette with a battery in. I had to say to him: ‘Really? Really? Is that where you are at? Do me a favour, mate, either have a proper one outside, or don’t have one.’ It lit up green when he had a drag of it. Nonsense. He said that immortal line – ‘Oh you know how it is, mate’. And I said ‘I’m sorry, mate, I actually don’t.’”

While Noel is no stranger to controversy or stating, in no uncertain terms, his disdain for other artists, I then went on to read an article about fellow British musicians, Suede, which sort of touched on the same ideas.
Bass player, Mat Osman, said: “What scares me is the idea that being in a band is becoming a rich kids’ plaything. It’s genuinely happening. It’s becoming that way because you can’t afford to live on the dole anymore. Because the price of getting heard has risen and the music industry has been hurt, it’s becoming a hobby of public schoolboys.
“It’s tragic: music was once one of the few places on earth where privilege got you nothing. Genuinely, if you were from a Liverpool council estate you probably stood a better chance of having a hit record.”

While I understand the point each of them are making, particularly with regard to so many people becoming ‘careerists,’ I also can’t help but wonder why, exactly, that’s automatically a bad thing?
A business savvy musician is a successful musician and artists becoming more aware of things like finances, contracts, and how the key players on their team work together to support and sustain their careers will only create more opportunities for those artists.

For whatever reason, there has always been a notion, be it unspoken or otherwise, that music created by middle or upper class persons is somehow less authentic.
In their early days, Radiohead received a lot of flack for being uppper-middle class, public school boys from Oxford. (*Note for the Americans~in the UK, public schools are what we ‘Mericans refer to as private schools.) They were thought to be somehow disingenuous, simply because they were from a nice town and pursued higher education.
While Radiohead were slagged off for being too proper for rock and roll, Oasis and Blur received instant acclaim for singing about dole queues and what it was like to be a struggling twenty-something.
Having gone on to become one of the most influential bands of the past twenty years, clearly Radiohead have gotten the last laugh, but every now and again, other musicians mention their proper upbringing and education in odd attempts to discredit the band, somehow.

Similarly, singer Lana Del Rey received widespread panning in the press for her father’s wealth. Whether you love her or hate her is entirely irrelevant; before her album had even been released she was being criticized for her father’s success rather than her own musical ability (or lack thereof),and that seems slightly strange.
I find it curious that so many people accused her of only attaining success because her father gave her money to pursue music and make contacts. So what if that’s the case? In an industry climate where you have to have your first record recorded, mixed, mastered, pressed, and in the throes of promotional overload to even get the attention of a record company, what’s wrong with getting money from relatives or friends to pursue your ambitions? Is it really any different that deciding you want to open a coffee shop and seeking out investment from friends and relatives?
Is it really that different than a crowd funding campaign?
According to this logic, artists should really only be credible if they fund their projects entirely with their own money. While we’re at it, it seems like producers, engineers, and managers should be reserved for the uber-posh artists as well. Having someone handle your booking, finances, and use professional knowledge to perfect the sound of an album isn’t very DIY, now is it?

While I don’t pretend that this has ever been the case, nor do I believe it is likely to change any time soon, there seems to be a convoluted mentality surrounding identifiable music and so called working class mentality.
I don’t for a moment begrudge U2 their success and the amazing things they’ve done for countless charities, but it does seem a bit odd to listen to multi-multi-multi millionaires singing about poverty. They may have come from humble beginnings, but they’re obscenely wealthy now. If credibility is based on finances, at what point do successful artists have to be ashamed of the success which they’ve worked hard to achieve?
Why can Bono and Bruce Springsteen sing about working classes with no irony, but if Thom Yorke does it, he’s throwing his pretentious University education in everyone’s faces?
Again I ask; what’s the difference?

It may be naïveté on my part, but I happen to believe that artists should be judged on their musical ability and the content of their message rather than their hometown, level of education, and parent’s credit score.
Sadly, artists themselves are often the worst offenders of perpetuating this habit and I can’t help but think, in those instances, we’d all be better off if they just shut their gobs and played a song.