Questions about the EMI Years

How do you reconcile anarchism and being on a giant corporate record label which supposedly manufactures arms? I realise you're reaching a lot more people than you ever could playing punk rawk, but aren't you in a way admitting defeat to capitalism by releasing records on EMI or whatever instead of Agit-Prop? Why not create your own collectively-run major label, like Agit-Prop but bigger, to get your message across to fashion-conscious youth?


If EMI or Universal manufactured arms we wouldn't be on either label. EMI used to be linked to Thorn who manufactured weapons but they severed links a few years ago (which is why they're not called Thorn EMI anymore). We signed to EMI/Universal not because we'd been co-opted into the "If you can't beat capitalism... join it" school of thought, but because experience had taught us that in a capitalist environment almost every record company operates on capitalist principles. Our previous record label One Little Indian didn't have the evil symbolic significance of EMI BUT they were completely motivated by profit. Our position (Chumbawamba) was that whoever we signed with would want us not for our ideas but for the potential profit, so we'd battle for a contract where we still had autonomy. EMI and Universal didn't offer us the most dosh but we did get short-term contracts where we still maintained control of everything from the production to the artwork.
Everybody living in the US and Europe at this point in time is living with capitalism. The trick is to exist within it and at the same time try and find ways to bring the bastard down, which is why you get sabotage in the workplace - and one-off teachers who are paid by the state but encourage kids NOT to respect authority just because it's there. I have to admit that we were surprised that signing to a major label did actually take us into people's homes. We wouldn't be having discussions about politics with people in the US if we hadn't signed to a major.
As for running our own label... I can't think of anything that we'd want to do less than create our own 'collectively run major label'. We wound up Agit-Prop because for years we'd given our labour to it for free and the label still lost money faster than a compulsive gambler with no credit limit. We reached a point where we realised that the only way we could make Agit-Prop 'work' would be to become more ruthless and business minded. We did the sensible thing and packed it in instead. The last thing we'd want to do now is run a business, which is what it would have to be to survive in a market economy. We've got bigger, grander ideas than become alternative capitalists. We want a world without money... I'm not saying that we think Chumbawamba can achieve that BUT we can at least bring up and debate the possibility.
We do recognise that some independent record labels do exist successfully without ripping off their artists etc, (we are proud to be part of the No Masters Co-operative, for example, but we're glad somebody else set it up) and definitely applaud them. For years we saw how people like Dischord in Washington DC and The Ex in Holland could combine business skills and fair economic practices, and for years, with Agit-Prop, we tried to do just that. Basically we failed. And there's no blanket "all indies are the same as majors"...

I had this fantasy in my head where I join an indie label and become a really big punk rocker who's highly respected like, say, Crass. Then I sell out and go to a major label but I hold on to my principles. My band hits it big and I become the Kurt Cobain of anarcho-punk. Then my band sticks it to the Man by teaching people about anarchist principles then I get murdered by a Christian fundamentalist. I never actually believed it could work, but then I found out that Chumbawamba did exactly that! My questions are: 1) Would you recommend other anarchists, who are adamant in thier convictions and cannot be swayed by money, to do what you did? 2) Is that even plausible? 3) Do you like Nirvana? 4) Is it pointless to spread Anarchism that way?

Well I think your fantasy has very little to do with what happened to Chumbawamba. Honestly. It misses out the arguments and airport lounges and weird scenes and shit gigs and brilliant gigs and Alabama 3 and the alcohol and love and fear and mistrust and bizarre people at record companies and the miming and the photo ops and the rock n roll. It's all a bit smooth. 1) As anarchists they can do stuff their own way, of course. 2) It's plausible (and possible) to be a lot stranger and wierder and interesting than we ever were. 3) I bought the box set a few months ago, which I was disappointed in. Made me realise how well-structured and cleverly-produced the albums are. Brilliant pop/rock group. Great sexual politics. Superb band. But have little sympathy for the angst-ridden junkie misery. 4) Spreading anarchism is a matter of first understanding what it means and how it applies to the world, to communities, to individuals. Learn about it, read about it.

What is your current relationship, if any, with Colin Jerwood and others from Conflict? Did you ever attempt to respond to their criticisms, particularly of your supposed link with armaments makers after your signing to EMI, or their publicly-stated feeling of betrayal? Do you ever feel any sense of remorse when seeing their continued troubles with the law and their consequent difficulties in putting together new material - do you feel as if you abandoned them at all?

This question has been updated; since the last time we answered this (sometime in the nineties) things have changed. In case you care, I think there's a big difference between re-writing history (and thus, Stalin-like, erasing past versions of history) and updating it (and acknowledging that times change, attitudes change, and history itself changes &) Comrade Josef, speak!
So. Whatever criticisms Conflict had with us about our signing to EMI (and I'm sure there were many), we effectively rode out that storm and ended up in a dialogue (between us and Conflict) about whether it was a good thing or not. I'm happy that Colin was able to discuss stuff with us instead of dismissing us completely because of our (albeit fairly brief) EMI connection.
We had the same situation in the USA with Ian MacKaye of Fugazi. We were good friends. He hated that we made records for a while with a major label. But he still turned up at shows to see us, we still talked, argued, laughed. We didn't agree on everything, but we still respected what each other was doing.
Conflict were a band I grew up with. I loved them. I hitch-hiked to see them. Through the years they've changed personnel, etc, but essentially they've kept the same ideals and ideas. I love that because in a world (or should I say, in a country) where politicisation of ideas is alien and shunned, anyone who is still standing up and opposing war, let alone opposing the idea of government is a friend of mine.
I can re-iterate here that we fully checked out that EMI had ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION to armaments or weapons manufacturers before we decided to release a record through them. The EMI that released our records had no connection, financially or otherwise, to THORN EMI.
And, erm & no, I don't feel as if we 'abandoned' them. Conflict are big lads, they know what they're doing. They don't need us to tell them what to do. What I'd love is for us to do a gig together that wouldn't be tainted by an audience that was either anti-Conflict or anti-Chumbas. It will probably never happen.
I do harbour thoughts of sampling the chant on 'Custom Rock' for one of our acoustic songs, though. It's a cracker!