European Union Cultural Policy: Music as the Key to European Integration
30 April 2010
Eighth European Community Studies Association – Canada Biennial Conference:
“Whither Europe?” Victoria, BC
Reneé Gordon Holley
Graduate Student, Musicology
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
1003 S. Mattis Ave., Apt. 1-2
Champaign, IL 61821
[email protected]
Holley 2
Introduction
In June 2010, the Ruhr region of Germany is hosting a province-wide day of song, where
pre-selected European and international choirs are singing together, encouraging tourists and
residents to join them in song. This “Day of Song” is one of thousands of activities associated
with the European Union’s 2010 Capital of Culture program in Essen. Although the success of
this event can not yet be measured, it stands as a clear example of how European Union (EU)
officials and program designers use music and musical events to accomplish policy goals,
including establishing an ever closer union. Drawing from Europe’s history as the birthplace of
musical masters such as Monteverdi, Handel, Beethoven and Chopin, the EU continues to
develop and create narratives of common cultural heritage and progress relating these masters, as
well as popular and folk music contributions, to its cultural policy. The revised Preamble of the
Treaty on European Union highlights the role of culture in the project of a unified Europe. The
new second recital of the Treaty on European Union Preamble: “DRAWING INSPIRATION
from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the
universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom,
democracy, equality and the rule of law,” provides the framework for understanding music’s
contribution to culture and how this artistic medium is mobilized to further promote EU values
(Treaty of Lisbon 2007, Article 1).
To better understand the relationship of music to the European Union, this paper attempts
to answer two questions. First, how does the EU utilize music to accomplish its goal to become
an ever closer union, and second, is the EU successful in this undertaking? To answer these
questions, this paper examines both official European legislation and recent literature on cultural
policies to determine the way in which music has contributed to EU cultural policy. By
scrutinizing the EU definition of culture as compared to Raymond Williams’ treatment of culture
in modernity and highlighting music’s social and political significance in Europe, this paper
offers four examples of music’s role in policies and programs that negotiate the meanings of
culture and serve to promote the ideology of the EU.
The Culture Problem
Definitions, or delineations, of culture used in EU cultural policy provide an
understanding of what constitutes culture, not to mention a common culture. Such a task,
however, is daunting at best. Many have noted the problematic character of culture. In a study on
EU speeches, Marko Kananen notes that “politicians only state that European identity is based
on a common culture, but only rarely is this culture clarified further” (2008, 171). Raymond
Williams, in his work Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society (1983), states, “Culture is
one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” (87). After tracing the
history of the term, Williams settles for three categories of usage for culture. Culture can refer to
(i) the independent and abstract noun which describes a general process of intellectual,
spiritual and aesthetic development, from the [eighteenth century]; (ii) the independent
noun, whether used generally or specifically, which indicates a particular way of life,
whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general, from Herder and Klemm.
But we have also to recognize (iii) the independent and abstract noun which describes the
works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity. (Ibid., 90)
In the EU context, examples of each of these types of culture would include (i) reference to the
process of becoming cultured, (ii) identification of the habits and heritage of any one European
group as a culture, and (iii) the products and practices of a particular industry, such as music.
Holley 3
Several EU sources problematize the definition of culture, but most conclude that
their parameters for defining culture are ultimately unsatisfactory. In The Economy of
Culture in Europe, a report prepared for the Directorate-General for Education and Culture,
the pragmatic delineation of culture roughly resembles that of Williams’. Culture can be
approached as art, explained as “us[ing] the agrarian metaphor to describe the work
completed with the ‘mind’” and “highly subjective as it includes a quality evaluation of what
art is or is not;” as “a set of attitudes, beliefs, customs, values and practices” shared by a
group; or as a means to qualify what activities are included in the particular cultural sector
(Economy 2006, 44). This description of culture has been dissected to better suit an
organization of economies of culture.
For the first time in 2007, the European Commission statistics generator, Eurostat,
produced a pocketbook on cultural statistics. Because a specific definition of culture is
necessary to produce such a report, the European Leadership Group (LEG) provided a
working definition in a 2000 Eurostat Working Paper. The study states that, to express
culture and cultural relationships in statistics, various cultural activities must be organized in
the NACE system, or Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community
model. As definitions of culture differ by country, a common classification is necessary to
compile and compare statistics from different surveys and statistics sources within the EU.
The definition of culture informing the Eurostat pocketbook followed some proscriptions of
the UNESCO definition, notably excluding the areas of sport, games, nature and the
environment. Areas of cultural activities are organized among eight domains: artistic and
monumental heritage, archives, libraries, book and press, visual arts, architecture, performing
arts, and audio and audiovisual media/multimedia; and six functions: preservation, creation,
production, dissemination, trade/sales, and education (Eurostat Working Paper 2000, 24, 25).
Cross-referencing the domains and functions of performing arts, Table 1 provides the fields
in which music may appear in EU cultural policy.1
When examining this framework, music most often appears in the context of musical
instruments, musician employment, and as an object represented by sound recordings.
Indeed, the limited consideration given to all the diverse functions of cultural domains
excludes details necessary for understanding the impact of music in EU cultural policy.
Extrapolating from the table, functions one might consider significant for or relating to the
domain of music as performing art include the preservation and display of historical musical
instruments and manuscripts and access to collections of musical scores, recordings and
correspondence and materials of composers in libraries and archives. This organizational
framework also overlooks the complicated relationship between musician/performer/artist
and the recording industry. The music industry strongly links album sales with other
activities listed under the domain of the performing arts. Popular artists, in particular, could
belong to both the performing arts and audiovisual domains of culture. Despite the challenge
of defining culture, placing music within that framework and identifying culture’s common
European components, this early statistical study and report provide information for further
study. As cultural statistical analysis becomes more sophisticated, these data are intended to
help shape and evaluate EU cultural policy.
1
Table data reproduced from the Eurostat Working Paper 2000, 26.
Preservation
Creation
Production
Dissemination
Trade / sales
Education
Event organising and
awareness-raising
Educational
activities
Archives
General and specialised
archives
Event organising and
awareness-raising
Idem
Libraries
Conservation and reading
libraries
Event organising and
awareness-raising
Idem
- M.H.
- Museum
- Archaeological sites
- Others
Books and press
- books
-press
Visual arts
- Visual arts (inc. design)
- Photography
- Multidisciplinary
Architecture
Performing arts
- Music
- Dance
- Musical theatre
- Theatre
-Multidisciplinary
- Other performing arts
Audio and
audiovisual/multimedia
- film
- radio
- television
- video
- sound recordings
- multimedia
Restoration
Creation of literary
works
Drafting of articles for
newspapers and
periodicals
Production of books
Newspaper and periodical
production
Activities of press agencies
Activities of literary agents
Organisation of festivals
and fairs for books /
reading
Event organising and
awareness-raising
Trade/sales in books
Trade/sales in press
publications
Idem
Creation of visual
works
Production of visual work
(publication of printed
reproductions, production of
casts, etc…)
Exhibitions of visual
works
Organisation of festivals
Event organising and
awareness-raising
Trade/sales in visual works
(art galleries)
Trade/sales in
reproductions and casts
Idem
Architectural creation
(activities of firms of
architects)
Idem
Creation of:
musical works
choreographic works
musical theatre works
drama theatre works,
etc.
Production of live
entertainment
Activities of orchestras,
theatre, opera, dance
companies, etc.
Services linked to production
of live entertainment (inc.
artistic agents)
Dissemination of activities
of concert halls, dance
theatres, musical theatres,
drama theatres, etc.
Organisation of festivals
music, dance, theatre, …
Event organising and
awareness-raising
Creation of
cinematographic works
and audio-visual (noncinema) works
Creation of multimedia
works
Film production for cinema
Film production (non-cinema)
Production of radio
programmes
Production of television
programmes
Production of sound and
audio-visual recordings
Production of multimedia
works
Film distribution
Cinema management
Organisation of festivals
Radio broadcasting
Television broadcasting
Idem
Trade/sales in sound and
audio-visual recordings
Trade/sales in multimedia
works
Idem
Table 1: The classification of cultural activities and their correspondence with NACE
Activities for the
protection of monuments
Museums activities
Archaeological activities
Other heritage-related
activities
Cultural Heritage
Why Music Matters
Within the limited framework of culture as statistical indicator, music and its complex
relationships with individuals, cities, regions, nations, and supranations can not be fully
appreciated for its emphatic role in the construction of places, identities, and polities. Music
helps people constitute and imagine their identities, drawing on scenes of group performance
while constituting a sense of belonging and group solidarity. Thomas Turino explains the
significance of music in his work Music as Social Life:
Music, dance, festivals and other public expressive cultural practices are a primary
way that people articulate the collective identities that are fundamental to forming and
sustaining social groups, which are, in turn, basic to survival. The performing arts are
frequently fulcrums of identity, allowing people to intimately feel themselves part of
the community through the realization of shared cultural knowledge and style and
through the very act of participating together in performance. (2008, 2)
Martin Stokes further encapsulates music’s power in relation to ethnicity and identity,
describing the affective components that make music and music events likely means of
political and ideological influence for political bodies, such as the European Union. He
states,
The musical event, from collective dances to the act of putting a cassette or CD into a
machine, evokes and organises collective memories and present experiences of place
with an intensity, power and simplicity unmatched by any other social activity. The
‘places’ constructed through music involve notions of difference and social boundary.
They also organise hierarchies of a moral and political order. (Stokes 1994, 3)
Music has historically been mobilized by nations as a means of communicating values
and identity to citizens. In the work The Music of European Nationalism: Cultural Identity and
Modern History, Philip Bohlman argues that
Music is malleable in the service of the nation not because it is a product of national and
nationalist ideologies, but rather because musics of all forms and genres can articulate the
processes that shape the state. Music can narrate national myths and transform them to
nationalist histories. Music marks national borders, while at the same time mobilizing
those wishing to cross or dismantle borders. (2004, 12)
As a tool to European integration, the EU has and could further mobilize music to reshape the
place of Europe. The LEG report interestingly exempts language as an area of cultural concern,
leaving music, considered by some to have language-like characteristics, to communicate the
values of the EU, whether as human rights or a belief in a shared heritage. As a policy tool,
cultural programs featuring music in cultural and creative industries deserve equal consideration
in identifying top-down efforts promoting feelings of EU identity and citizenship.
EU Cultural Policy: From Maastricht to the Present
Armed with an understanding of the significance of music in EU cultural policy, an
examination of EU legislation on culture reveals how and to what degree of success policy
makers use music. The Treaty on European Union, or Maastricht Treaty of 1992, is the first
treaty to explicitly mention culture.2 In Article 151, the treaty states that “[t]he community shall
2
The Lisbon Treaty (which became effective on 1 December 2009) alters Article 151 only insignificantly. The
language concerning the Council is changed minimally, leaving the majority of the article and its original intentions
the same.
Holley 6
contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national
and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore”
(TEU, Art.151, 1). The article has two seemingly contradictory goals: promoting and
emphasizing a unified European culture while equally respecting and fostering the diverse
cultures of each Member State. The European Union is able to support Member State
cooperation as it relates to the “improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture
and history of the European peoples, conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of
European significance, non-commercial cultural exchanges, [and] artistic and literary creation,
including in the audiovisual sector” (Ibid, 2). Since cultural policy is an area of shared
competency between the EU and its member states, the Council of Europe cannot require that
member states harmonize their laws and regulations but may only make recommendations. EU
cultural policy has several agendas and programs, all aimed at fulfilling these requirements.
Keeping the TEU in mind, the Council of Europe’s resolution on the European Agenda
for Culture seeks to address issues regarding intercultural dialogue and better visibility of EU
programs in Europe and internationally. The three areas of concern are “(a) promotion of cultural
diversity and intercultural dialogue; (b) promotion of culture as a catalyst for creativity in the
framework of the Lisbon Strategy for growth, employment, innovation and competitiveness; and
(c) promotion of culture as a vital element in the Union's international relations” (European
Agenda for Culture 2007/C 287/01, 2). These priorities emphasize the contributions of workers
in cultural sectors and the importance of intercultural dialogue as a means to improve feelings of
European identity, citizenship and social cohesion (Ibid., 3A). In response to this resolution, new
programs have been instituted while the original program for culture was reworked to address
these priorities.
Current EU cultural policies extrapolate from the “Culture Programme,” a continuation of
“Culture 2000,” which lasted from 2000-2006. This current segment, lasting from 2007-2013,
has the following objectives: “promote the awareness and the preservation of cultural items of
European significance; promote transnational mobility of those working in the cultural sector;
encourage the transnational circulation of works and cultural and artistic products; stimulate
intercultural dialogue” (Europa, Culture Overview). The program has a total budget of fourhundred million euros and funds all but audiovisual activities. Keeping Article 151 in mind,
successful bids for funding often include collaboration among multiple European organizations
and some third countries. EU policy makers intend that these partnerships simultaneously
highlight local cultural heritage that is also shared with others in the EU and beyond. Just as the
exchange of ideas and cultures is valued in these new programs, the movement of people also
fosters a sense of communal participation and common cultural identity. “In order to make this
common cultural area for the peoples of Europe a reality, it is important to promote the
transnational mobility of cultural players and the transnational circulation of artistic and cultural
works and products, and to encourage dialogue and cultural exchanges” (Decision No
1855/2006/EC, 10). The program also seeks to promote equality among men and women while
excluding racism and xenophobia (Ibid., 5,6). Including the EU’s support for EU language
promotion and multilingualism, the “Culture Programme” is an ambitious and creative policy
that strives to fulfill the Treaty’s ideals for culture.
Specifically, the extended “Culture Programme” addresses the significance of culture
policy for external relations, economics, and political strategies such as EU integration. For
example, presenting a single image of European culture communicates a clearer message on a
global level. The decision states: “An active cultural policy aimed at the preservation of
Holley 7
European cultural diversity and the promotion of its common cultural elements and cultural
heritage can contribute to improving the external visibility of the European Union” (Ibid., 2).
In addition to the outward visibility of successful culture programs and policies, the
program was created to compellingly involve EU members in dialogue surrounding the
commonalities of all EU citizens.
For citizens to give their full support to, and participate fully in, European integration,
greater emphasis should be placed on their common cultural values and roots as a key
element of their identity and their membership of a society founded on freedom, equity,
democracy, respect for human dignity and integrity, tolerance and solidarity […] (Ibid.,
3)
To supplement the common values EU members traditionally hold, such as the rule of law,
human rights, freedom and access to a free market economy, culture policies offer members a
means to participate in generating and unearthing common cultural values.
Within this framework of common cultural values, the economic component of the
culture industry serves as a measure of the successful implementation of EU cultural policy.
It is essential that the cultural sector contribute to, and play a role in, broader European
political developments. The cultural sector is an important employer in its own right and
there is, in addition, a clear link between investment in culture and economic
development, hence the importance of reinforcing cultural policies at regional, national
and European level [sic]. Accordingly, the place of cultural industries in the
developments taking place under the Lisbon Strategy should be strengthened, as these
industries are making an increasingly large contribution to the European economy. (Ibid.,
4)
One desire for supporting a vibrant culture program is to reap the economic benefits. The
political, economic and cultural are all strongly linked in the new “Culture Programme,” and its
expense and attention is worthwhile, especially when comparing the European culture industry to
that of the United States. With the noted exception of successful musicians and artists in the
United Kingdom, the domination of the United States in the popular music industry is felt in
Europe and internationally. The financial and political clout of Hollywood and American record
labels add to the United States’ global influence. Fostering an environment that promotes
musicians and artists to a larger degree would mean placing Europeans on international stages,
contributing to the economic and political success of the continent.
Several scholars have examined EU “Culture” programs. Sociologist Monica Sassatelli
has analyzed the work of the “Culture 2000” program at the local level in northern Italy. She
shows how the movement away from the traditional coupling of culture with the state to cultural
support provided by the EU promotes EU cultural policy ideals, including cultural cooperation
with other European actors (Sassatelli 2007, 34). She concludes with a discussion of the
European Capital of Culture in Bologna. Her depiction of the European Union serving as the
patron of the arts is a fitting analogy for conceptualizing the new supporter of the arts in many
local contexts, that of European cultural funds.
Lisa Tsaliki’s article entitled “The Construction of European Identity and Citizenship
through Cultural Policy” addresses how the European Union has used cultural policy to foster a
feeling of European-ness to counter the issue of democratic deficit in the EU. She considers how
cultural products, particularly those that are commercially based, like audiovisual artifacts, can
be produced and disseminated by EU cultural agendas. She also contemplates how cultural
industries relate to creative industries, especially as the latter becomes entwined in the promotion
Holley 8
of economic interests in the EU. Her primary concern is studying how the implication of terms
like citizenship, identity, and culture are included in EU cultural policy.
Taking a look at the new member states of the EU, those added in 2004 and 2007, Lidia
Varbanova considers how EU policies, such as the “Culture” Program, Structural Funds, and
European cultural cooperation initiatives, influence cultural policy on the national level. As the
EU expands, EU cultural policy affects each EU country to different degrees. As Sassatelli has
noted, Italy has received a disproportionate amount of funding from the “Culture” Program as
compared to other nations, and the Eastern and Mediterranean expansion of the EU naturally
changes how these new members construct their policy in light of their former communist past
and the new requirements and attractions of EU policy. Varbanova states, “Throughout the
process of democratic transition, culture has always been a low priority for national and regional
governments, as other social and economic priorities absorbed most of the political attention and
state funding” (2007, 51). These nations have the challenge of cultivating a regional, national
and European cultural heritage simultaneously. Varbanova’s only mention of music concerns the
general goal of increasing the lucrative character of Europe’s “creative sector,” of strengthening
the economics behind cultural products, such as movies and music, which are competitive
globally (Ibid, 59). Overall, the perspective of new member states should be respected within any
discussion of the use of music in EU cultural policy.
Examining one member state, Donna Buchanan comments on how music and cultural
policy was shaped in Bulgaria during its pre-candidacy into the EU during the 1990s. In her
article “Soccer, popular music and national consciousness in post-state-socialist Bulgaria, 199496,” she states that during the success of Bulgaria’s national soccer team in international
championships in 1994 and 1996, “musicians produced new songs that celebrated the home
team’s victories in language and musical styles that referred overtly to the nation’s shifting
position vis à vis the Balkans, the European Union and the western world” (2002, 1). Although
these musical examples are not products of EU cultural policy, they factor into the creative
processes of imagining Bulgaria’s place in Europe. Similar to the crisis of the first ten accession
countries, Bulgaria struggled to prepare itself for admittance into the EU. In an earlier article she
states that Bulgaria’s aspiration to EU membership “impacted the shape and conceptualization of
musical styles performed by folk orchestra members, both within and outside the folk ensemble
network, illustrating the extent to which political ideology is often ‘lived’ through poetic or
symbolic discourse” (Buchanan 1995, 385). Bulgarian cultural policy was structured around
making a place for a unique Bulgarian orchestral practice based on folk elements within the art
music tradition of Europe. The next step in these studies would be to examine how cultural
policies in Bulgaria have shifted to include EU cultural policy since 2007.
Political Music and the European Anthem
Realizing the scant treatment of music, and EU cultural policy in the literature, scholars
can look to several EU activities that address how the EU uses music in reinforcing ideology. As
one of the three main symbols of the European Union, the European Anthem clearly signifies the
implementation and importance of music in forming the identity of Europe. 3 First adopted by
the Council of Europe and later by the European Community in 1986, the finale of Beethoven’s
Ninth Symphony is the European anthem. The anthem comes from the melody that accompanies
the “Ode to Joy” text written by poet Friedrich Schiller in 1785. While the anthem has been
3
The four symbols of the EU are the Anthem of Europe, the blue flag with twelve yellow stars, the EU motto
“United in Diversity” and Europe Day, on May 9 (Symbols of the EU).
Holley 9
performed with the lyrics from Beethoven’s symphony, no official text accompanies the anthem.
The Europa website states that, ‘[w]ithout words, in the universal language of music, this anthem
expresses the ideals of freedom, peace and solidarity for which Europe stands” (The European
Anthem).
Caryl Clark takes up a musicological and political consideration of the Council of
Europe’s anthem choice. She traces the history of the anthem decision, beginning with
information about lay people’s suggestions for an anthem beginning as early as the 1940s. In
1971, the Council of Europe finally established a committee to deliberate about the choice of
anthem. She continues, “The committee—apparently without musicological counsel—‘agreed
unanimously’ that ‘Beethoven’s music was representative of European genius and was capable
of uniting the hearts and minds of all Europeans, including the younger generation’” (1997,
796)4. It appears that if ever there was an appropriate time to consult experts about the choice of
music for such an important use, then this is the moment when musicologists—the experts—
should have been included in the decision process. This brief comment raises the question of
whether the European Union does or should confer with musicologists or ethnomusicologists and
whether the advice of such experts would be beneficial to the EU’s programs and goals.
Clark states that when the European Community adopted the anthem, the issue of a text,
and in what language that text should be sung, had not yet been resolved. She argues that this
decision was made by politicians who were ignorant of the significance of their choice,
considering the complicated associations of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony with composer
Richard Wagner and Hitler during the Third Reich. Clark also suggests that the Council
politicians succumbed to the myth of Beethoven’s musical genius, an idea which was alive and
well during the 1970s, overlapping with celebrations of the bicentennial of Beethoven’s birth
(Ibid., 802). This musicological attempt to interpret the Anthem of Europe stands as a helpful
example of how additional studies of music, particularly classical, or art, music, and the
utilization of music in EU cultural policy interact. Further questions concerning the choice of
Beethoven’s Ninth emerge when considering the diversified cultural heritage of the EU with the
addition of twelve new member states. Does such a piece represent the whole of Europe well,
especially since the symphonic genre could be understood as elitist and is not universally popular
or recognized as an historical component of each EU nation? The extent to which the anthem
appeals to all EU citizens, not to mention how many actually identify with the work, presents
new areas for further study regarding this EU symbol.
In addition to serving as a signifier of EU values, the European Anthem contributes to the
economic and social interests of the Union. The Council of Europe has produced and supported
the creation of variations of the anthem, and these versions attempt to reach out to a wider
audience of Europeans. One CD includes variations on the theme in musical genres such as hip
hop, trance, jazz violin, and others. The press website contains excerpts of the anthem intended
for official use and includes selections from four Romani versions taken from a different CD.
These CD sales may add to the support of the growing music industry sector in Europe.
Choosing variations that might appeal to the backgrounds and interests of Europeans reinforces
the valuation of cultural diversity in the EU, whether generational or other.
4
Internal citation from the “Explanatory Memorandum by Mr. Radius,” 10 June 1971, Archives of the European
Commission, Brussels, RO/303 Y71, doc. 2978, p. 6.
Holley 10
Specific Cultural Programs: The European Year of Creativity and Innovation
The EU has developed several year-long cultural programs around specific themes. After
the successful “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008),” 2009 was designated as the
“European Year of Creativity and Innovation (EYCI).” The Europa website states that “[t]his
initiative aims to promote, through lifelong learning, creativity and innovation as key skills for
all. The main challenge is to create an environment that is conducive to all forms of creativity
and innovation, whether artistic, cultural, social or technological, and to promote the practical
use of knowledge and ideas” (Europa, Summaries of EU legislation, European Year of Creativity
and Innovation). This EU initiative works to promote the economic side of cultural goods
through the support of creative industries, to which music naturally belongs.
To launch the EYCI, organizers chose a musical group to demonstrate innovation in
cultural industries. On December 5, 2008, at the Théâtre Moliére in Brussels, the celebration of
innovation began with a performance of the Vienna Vegetable Orchestra. Ján Fígel, the
European Commissioner for the Directorate General of Education, Culture, Training and Youth,
opined that this ensemble’s performance would inspire innovation in Europe.
I think that Vienna is much linked to Mozart, to the traditional music and European
culture. And here we can see [the] Vienna Vegetable Orchestra, which is really nontraditional, young people who are very creative and innovative. And I think this is [a]
great example [of] how music, art, and culture can contribute to innovations. (Imagine.
Create. Innovate. – Video Gallery 2008)
Video from the media launch event features the ensemble of Viennese individuals constructing
musical instruments out of vegetables and performing original compositions. The avant-garde
style and diversity of sounds the ensemble produces on vegetable instruments, such as the leak
violin, carrot recorder, and "cucumberphone," is supplemented by electronic music tracks and a
video montage. Music played a central role in the conceptualization of this year of cultural
innovation, but this group’s selection elicits further questions about how the group was chosen.
This event does reveal how a music ensemble was specifically chosen as embodying the
particular goals of this cultural initiative and chosen over other areas considered equally as
innovative: such as other performance arts, social areas, and technology.
Determining the Success of EU Cultural Policy: European Border Breakers Awards
In addition to using music as a signifier of EU values and as the embodiment of cultural
policy agendas, examining specific musical events sponsored by the EU helps to determine the
success in communicating these values and goals. The only award given by the EU for music, the
“European Border Breaker Awards” (EBBA), supports debuting pop music artists and groups.
The award aims to “stimulate the circulation of European music throughout the EU and to
highlight Europe’s magnificent cultural diversity” (European Commission, Culture). The EBBA
awards began in 2004 and annually honors ten European contemporary music groups who
achieve the goals and objectives of the program. Artist selection is comprised of the artist’s
wider European popularity; concerning the first album released outside of their home nation, the
artist or group must be a successful live performer who appeals to festival audiences outside of
the production country, and success is measured using calculations of album earnings outside of
the production country and radio play data from stations throughout Europe. Winners perform in
Groningen, the Netherlands, and the program is recorded and broadcasted for television
audiences. The awards show coincides with the European Music Conference and the
EuroSonic/Noorderslag Music Festival. The European Commission’s main partner is the
Holley 11
European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the union of television broadcasters from European and
neighboring nations.
While clearly serving as an example of music incorporated in cultural policy, EBBA does
not appear in the scholarship on EU cultural policy. One tool for measuring the success of the
EU’s EBBA awards is drawing a comparison between it and the widely popular Eurovision Song
Contest (ESC). Its similarity in broadcasting and programming format, the institution of public
voting for the “Public Choice EBBA” in 2010, and the partnership with the EBU all speak to this
cultural policy’s resemblance to the ESC. Philip Bohlman calls Eurovision the “largest popularmusic competition in the world,” and as the 2002 competition was underway, he states that
“Song has unified Europe, achieving a unity that even the European Union itself has yet to
achieve” (2004, 1-2).
Although not a part of EU cultural policy, popular music and politics play out within the
long tradition of the ESC, and therefore directly relate to the European Union. One could argue
that the EBBA is the EU’s answer to the ESC, and ESC should be considered within the larger
context of the EU. Ivan Raykoff recognizes the value of a parallel EU/ESC study: “Placing
Eurovision alongside the history of the European Union clarifies some of the aesthetic
contradictions of its reception – that is, why certain countries regard the contest with indifference
or disdain while others take the enterprise more seriously” (2007, 6). He traces the popularity of
Eurovision in different European countries and reflects on how these attitudes relate to
membership in the European Union.
Despite a lack of explicit connections between EU cultural policy, funding and the ESC,
the EU was an official partner with ESC in 2007, using the competition to promote the
“European Year of Equal Opportunities for All” to an international audience tuning in to the
competition. Vladimir Špidla, from the Commission, gave a speech on May 11, taking the
opportunity to speak of the inequalities and discrimination that still occur in the EU and to share
with EU citizens how they can get involved in their own communities. The EU has thus
mobilized the musical events of Europe to advertise their social and cultural agenda, even
partnering with the high-profile ESC, which, incidentally, is one year older than the founding of
the European Economic Community.
When comparing the ESC with EBBA, EBBA must make significant strides to reach the
same profile as the ESC. The dissemination of each program is markedly weighted on the ESC
side. While it must be acknowledged that EBBA is six years old and ESC fifty-five years old,
since 2004, ESC has well over 38,000 videos on YouTube, and EBBA has less than 5,000.
Despite sharing the same EBU sponsorship, the EBBA website lists only ten television stations
that broadcasted the awards program. Helena Paparizou, a Greek singer and songwriter, is the
only artist to win both ESC (2005) and an EBBA (2007). Her success and increased popularity
during and following Eurovision arguably boosted her popularity within Europe, leading to her
selection as a Border Breakers artist with large numbers of her debut album being sold outside of
Greece. Both performance outlets value musical and aesthetic talents, required for portraying a
convincing stage presence and mobilizing popular responses, but even the evaluation of such
merits is hidden within the EBBA selection process.
EBBA has not achieved its own goals regarding the acknowledgement of cultural
products from all its member states. As eastern and southern EU nations continue to catch up
economically to those of EU founding members, discrepancies between EBBA winners and
equal representation throughout the EU will be compromised. Since the establishment of EBBA
in 2004, only seven artists and groups from new EU member states have won the award,
Holley 12
comprising ten percent of the total number of awards given. In contrast, recent EU members
have participated in ESC even before joining the EU, some joining as early as 1961. Since
EBBA’s inception, no top EBBA winners, from Western European countries including Germany,
the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Denmark, and Ireland, have won the ESC; instead, new
member states or non-EU members have primarily won, with the noted exception of Paparizou,
the only Greek pop artist to win an EBBA. For the EU’s cultural agenda to succeed, more
attention should be given to highlighting European cultural diversity.
European Capitals of Culture and the “Day of Song”
Relegated under the “Culture Programme,” the European Capitals (or cities) of Culture
(ECOC) is perhaps the most successful program of the European Commission. The first ECOC,
in Athens, was chosen for 1985, and the program has continued with traditionally one to three
European cities featured each year. The Europa website describes the annual event as giving
“European cities the opportunity to present a cultural programme lasting around a year,
highlighting the richness, diversity and shared characteristics of Europe’s cultures” (Europa,
Summaries of EU legislation, European Capital of Culture). The updated decision in 2006 set the
policies for the city selection process through 2019 (Decision No 1622/2006/EC). The EU
provides only minimal funding of the ECOC program; local, national, and private contributions
help to make these diverse events possible. EU financial support “funds exhibitions and events
highlighting the cultural heritage of the city and its region, plus a wide range of performances,
concerts and other shows, which bring together players and artists from across the EU” (Europa,
Culture Overview). Music plays a significant role in ECOC events, and Germany’s 2010 ECOC
is no exception.
Scholars addressing music, however briefly, have considered the EU’s Capitals (or
Cities) of Culture (ECOC), devoting articles to the program in general and to specific event
hosting cities. Monica Sassatelli’s article “European Cultural Space in the European Cities of
Culture” describes the difficulties associated with the EU’s motto “united in diversity” and
analyzes how the rhetoric of European cultural heritage played out in 2000 when nine cities were
chosen as Capitals of Culture. Through studying these events, she concludes that “[w]hat we can
see through the implementation of the ECOC programme is not only a map of the European
cultural space taking shape, but also how that implies a reconceptualization of the cities involved
and their culture as European” (Sassatelli 2008, 237). Although her study serves only as an
overview of the year 2000 cities, only one (of two) cited examples concerns musical
programming. From a colleague in Bologna, one of the nine ECOC cities, she learns that the
organization of a choir of young people from each of the nine cities succeeded in accomplishing
a sense of European and international unity. Other than this anecdote, however, no further
analysis of the choir or its music enters her investigation.
In an earlier article on the European Capitals of Culture, Sassatelli focuses on how these
cities utilize the symbols of the EU to construct a feeling of European-ness or European identity.
She interprets this construction along the lines of Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities,”
those which are bound by a reality that exists in the mind but not necessarily as a community in
close geographic proximity. Referring to Maastricht, Sassatelli notes that the “emphasis on the
role of culture in the construction of community makes more obvious the contradiction that
affects all cultural policies: promoting the spontaneous flowering of culture, using culture as a
legitimizing tool while claiming that culture deserves to be safeguarded as the highest product of
human activity, thus as an end in itself” (2002, 440). Again she mentions the youth choir “Voices
Holley 13
of Europe,” and argues that this event was the most successful of all 2000 events, according to
staff associated with the Capitals of Culture from that year. In examining programs and websites
for 2000 events, she notes that “music” appears more frequently than “Europe,” a term which
would seem central to the themes and requirements of 2000 ECOCs (Ibid, 444). Other than
mentioning the Anthem of Europe as a symbol of the EU, the article contains no further
inclusion of musical discussions.
The thorough examination of ECOC musical events, including Essen’s Capital of Culture
event, “!Sing – Day of Song,” serves as an ideal example for investigating how musical events
contribute to the EU’s cultural agenda while highlighting the common values of its member
states. According to the event’s website, on June 5, 2010, at 12:10 p.m., everyone in the Ruhr
Region is encouraged to break into song, singing the same piece, with the goal of filling the
entire metropolis with song. Choirs from Europe and beyond are joining the programming for the
week, performing at venues before the concluding concert on the evening of June 5. Along with
the possibility of a singing metropolis, the final concert of the Day of Song constitutes a musical
experience capable of forging identity and feelings of group solidarity, akin to the characteristics
of communal music making included in Turino’s work.
This final concert is also reminiscent of the common values of the EU. Drawing from
Enlightenment ideology, Bohlman describes how music, and specifically song, “served as the
emblem of unity” among those participating in early nineteenth century revolutions (2004, 28).
He continues, “The music of the stateless Europe would be given voice from below, […] The
song of a utopian Europe was the song of the people, a transformation of the Herderian ideal
from myth to history. A chorus constituted from the voices of all nations would take to the stage
of European history, making Europe’s wholeness palpable and real” (Ibid.). The “Day of Song”
participants are taking part in an event with the social and political potential to unite the group
while creating a European community.
Engaging internationally renowned musicians, the “Day of Song” final concert takes
place at the Veltins Arena in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, a massive stadium traditionally devoted
to soccer matches. Bobby McFerrin, an American singer best known for the song “Don’t Worry,
Be Happy,” Vesselina Kasarova, a Bulgarian mezzo-soprano opera singer, and the Wise Guys, a
German a cappella group, help guide the concert program while contributing their own works to
the concert. Other significant participants at this concert include all the twin town choirs, coming
from Poland, France, the United Kingdom, Norway, the United States, Nicaragua, Turkey, and
eight other countries. These formal participants are joined by every concert ticket-holder,
effectively creating an entire chorus out of everyone in the stadium. The variety of participants,
the organization of such an event intended for inclusive choral membership, and the musical
works on the program all touch on the cultural agenda of the EU, particularly as it relates to the
involvement of people from many nations and contributes to the promotion of mass media and
those engaged in the popular and classical spheres of musical culture.
Ticket-holders are sent the concert program in advance. Each person, upon arrival at
Veltins, will receive a songbook with the night’s musical numbers included in a simplified
version for ease of singing along. For more serious attendees, the programmers created special
books including four-part voicing of the concert pieces, intended for advance purchase and
study. The concert itself includes folk, popular, and art music selections. Twin town choirs from
Pécs, Hungary, and Istanbul, Turkey, are each singing folksongs from their countries, which
serves as a fitting connection to the EU’s two other 2010 Capitals of Culture in these cities.
Pieces intended for stadium-wide participation include “Let it Be,” popular German songs, the
Holley 14
“Gypsy Chorus” from Verdi’s Il Trovatore, Gounod’s “Ave Maria”, and Handel’s “Hallelujah
Chorus.” The musical program relies heavily on art music, and most group selections indicate
that the primary language of lyrics will be German, two indicators of the significance of a
German place for this concert. The extensive focus, however, on German music and art music, a
genre not accessible to all German or EU citizens, possibly limits the amount of participation of
all attendees. Some intercultural exchange does occur with the inclusion of several folksongs,
opera works from Italian and French operas, and the contributions of musicians from multiple
countries.
Specifically listed under the “Festival Music” section, the fourth movement of
Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony appears on the program. Although this programming decision
could be interpreted as the inclusion of the European Anthem to the concert, it is not listed as
such, and the clear historical and cultural connections between Beethoven and Germany make
such an assumption questionable at best. The addition of this piece, which recalls the
Enlightenment ideals on which the EU was founded, however, shows how such decisions about
music can affect one’s perception of EU cultural programs and the goals of European integration.
One can not speculate as to the degree of participation which will actually occur at such an event,
and each person’s experience has the potential to elicit feelings of belonging and community.
Conclusion
As a creative policy maker, the EU involves many citizens in musical activities and
events, such as those associated with Essen as European Capital of Culture, thanks to the funding
dedicated to cultural programs. Music’s true significance in EU cultural policy, however,
deserves more consideration than what scholarship currently offers. Music appears in the
symbols of the EU, as demonstrative of the values of EU policy, and as a vehicle for
accomplishing economic goals, such as the further distribution of European cultural industries,
and political goals, serving as a means to experience expressive culture and belong to the process
of unifying Europe. With the knowledge of why music matters and EU definitions of and
legislation on culture and cultural policy, scholars can examine these spheres of meaning that are
commissioned with the goals and values of the European Union.
Holley 15
References
Primary Sources:
Council of the European Union. 2007. Resolution of the Council of 16 November 2007 on a
European Agenda for Culture. The Council of the European Union, 2007/C 287/01.
Europa. 2008. Imagine. Create. Innovate. – Europe’s ambition to unlock its innovative capacity.
http://create2009.europa.eu/press/news_archive/news_singleview/news/europesambition-to-unlock-its-innovative-capacity-media-launch-of-the-european-year-ofcreativit.html (accessed April 15, 2010).
---. 2008. Imagine. Create. Innovate. – Video Gallery.
http://create2009.europa.eu/press/video_gallery/vegetable_orchestra_media_launch_euro
pean_year_2009.html (accessed April 15, 2010).
---. Culture: Overview. http://europa.eu/pol/cult/index_en.htm (accessed December 14, 2009).
---. Summaries of EU legislation: European Capital of Culture.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/culture/l29014_en.htm (accessed December 14,
2009).
---. Summaries of EU legislation: European Year of Creativity and Innovation (2009).
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/culture/l29020_en.htm (accessed December 14,
2009).
---. Symbols of the EU. http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/index_en.htm (accessed December 14,
2009).
---. The European Anthem. http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/anthem/index_en.htm (accessed
December 14, 2009).
European Border Breakers Awards. http://www.europeanborderbreakersawards.eu/en/home.html
(accessed April 15, 2010).
European Broadcasting Union. 2010. http://www.ebu.ch/ (accessed April 15, 2010).
European Commission: Culture, European Union Award for Contemporary Music/The European
Border Breakers Awards 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-andactions/doc1098_en.htm (accessed December 14, 2009).
European Commission. 1992. Treaty on European Union Signed at Maastricht on 7 February.
Article 151. Luxembourg: OOPEC.
---. 2000. Eurostat Working Papers: Cultural Statistics in the EU. Luxembourg: LEG.
3/ 2000/E/N° 1.
Holley 16
---. 2006. Decision establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event
for the years 2007-2019. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union,
Decision No 1622/2006/EC.
---. 2006. Decision establishing the Culture Programme (2007-2013). European Parliament and
the Council of the European Union, Decision No 1855/2006/EC.
---. 2006. The Economy of Culture in Europe. Directorate-General for Education and Culture.
KEA European Affairs, Media Group, MKW Wirtschaftsforschung.
http://www.keanet.eu/ecoculture/studynew.pdf (accessed December 15, 2009).
---. 2007. Eurostat Pocketbooks: Cultural statistics. Luxembourg: European Communities.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-77-07-296/EN/KS-77-07-296EN.PDF (accessed December 14, 2009).
---. 2007. Partnership between the European Year 2007 of Equal Opportunities for all and the
Eurovision Song Contest. Vladimir Špidla. SPEECH/07/303.
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/spidla/speeches/2007/vs_070511_en.pdf
(accessed December 14, 2009).
---. 2007. Treaty of Lisbon: Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty
Establishing the European Community. Article 1. Notice No. 2007/C 306/01.
Eurosonic. Eurosonic/Noorderslag Festival. http://www.eurosonic.nl/en/festival/ (accessed April
15, 2010).
Eurovision. 2010. Eurovision Song Contest. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/home (accessed
April 15, 2010).
Ruhr2010. “!Sing – Day of Song.” http://www.essen-fuer-dasruhrgebiet.ruhr2010.de/en/programme/living-music/sing-day-of-song.html (accessed
April 12, 2010).
---. 2010. “!Sing – Day of Song – Abschlusskonzert.” March 31.
Secondary Sources:
Bohlman, Philip V. 2004. The Music of European Nationalism: Cultural Identity and Modern
History. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Buchanan, Donna. 1995. Metaphors of Power, Metaphors of Truth: The Politics of Music
Professionalism in Bulgarian Folk Orchestras. Ethnomusicology 39, no. 3 (Fall): 381-416.
---. 2002. Soccer, popular music and national consciousness in post-state-socialist Bulgaria,
1994-96. British Journal of Ethnomusicology 11, no. 2: 1-27.
Holley 17
Clark, Caryl. 1997. Forging Identity: Beethoven’s “Ode” as European Anthem. Critical Theory
23, no. 4 (Summer): 789-807.
Kananen, Marko. 2008. The Unbearable Lightness of Being European: A Discourse Analytical
Study about the Construction of the European Union and its Citizens. Saarbrücken: VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller.
Raykoff, Ivan. 2007. Camping on the borders of Europe. In A Song for Europe: Popular Music
and Politics in the Eurovision Song Contest, ed. Ivan Raykoff and Robert Deam Tobin,
1-12. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
Sassatelli, Monica. 2002. Imagined Europe: The Shaping of a European Cultural Identity
Through EU Cultural Policy. European Journal of Social Theory 5, no. 4: 435-451.
---. 2007. The Arts, the State, and the EU: Cultural Policy in the Making of Europe. Social
Analysis 51, no. 1 (Spring): 28-41.
---. 2008. European Cultural Space in the European Cities of Culture: Europeanization and
cultural policy. European Studies 10, no. 2: 225-245.
Stokes, Martin. 1994. Introduction: Ethnicity, Identity and Music. In Ethnicity, Identity and
Music: The Musical Construction of Place, ed. Martin Stokes, 1-27. Oxford: Berg.
Tsaliki, Liza. 2007. The Construction of European Identity and Citizenship through Cultural
Policy. European Studies 24, no. 1: 157-182.
Turino, Thomas. 2008. Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Varbanova, Lidia. 2007. The European Union Enlargement Process: Culture in between National
Policies and European Priorities. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 37,
no. 1 (Spring): 48-64.
Williams, Raymond. 1983. Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. Rev. ed. New York:
Oxford University Press.