|
They'll Be Singing When They're Winning
06/26/1998 7:37 PM, Yahoo! Music
Dave DiMartino
Despite their apparent "overnight success," Chumbawamba--the eight-piece "anarchist collective" from the Northern England town of Leeds--will tell you they've been doing this music thing for more than a decade now. They've toured extensively to promote worthy causes, and released one politically-charged indie album after another (like Never Mind The Ballots and Pictures Of Starving Children Sell Records), all of which were only heard by a specific niche audience. Then, by some quirk of fate, the group wound up on major label Universal Records and exploded on the international scene in 1997 with their rollicking pub anthem "Tubthumping," a universal homage to everyman. Ever since, the tune's infectious, irresistible shout-along chorus (everybody, all together now: "I get knocked down, but I get up again, you're never going to keep me down...") has been embraced by everyone and everything from bogus political candidates to pro sporting events to the disenfranchised populace.
Chumbawamba's Danbert Nobacon and curiously-named Boff recently entertained a LAUNCH crew in Cleveland with an interview detailing their leftist leanings and the fleeting prospect of one-hit-wonderhood. Clad in a black skirt and tights, Nobacon (not to be confused with aspiring musician Kevin Bacon
) made quite a lasting impression on our fashion-conscious executive editor Dave DiMartino...
LAUNCH:
I've got to start by saying that it's quite amazing to see what one song can do for a band's career. "Tubthumping" brought you some long-awaited acclaim, and it became inescapable--I heard it everywhere I went. Did you have any idea you had such a huge hit on your hands when you wrote this song?
DANBERT:
No, but when we finished the album we thought, "Well, this one sounds really good." And once the album was finished and we played it for people, most people picked it out as an instant choice for a single.
LAUNCH:
And the album, itself, is called Tubthumper . The term is not familiar to me.
DANBERT:
It's an English word that goes back a number of years. It's like somebody standing up on a soapbox, being an orator, telling their views on the world. There's a tradition in English history of people doing this--they still do it today. The song is about a guy in a pub, working all week at his shitty job, and that's his forum. He still has the dignity to rise above his poverty and go on--after having few drinks, of course.
LAUNCH:
What do you think is the appeal of that song?
BOFF:
I think the thing with "Tubthumping" is that it captures a lot of things that are clichés in a way. It's like a drinking song and it's also a song about rising up when things have gone bad. I mean, even the way the chords work: it's a minor chord down going into a big major chord up. It's a very obvious song, but it wasn't done with any cynicism. I think people relate to the way that it's quite obviously about ordinary people. It's everybody's song.
DANBERT:
In a way it's amazing that the song became such an international success. We wanted to write about Northern England, about the people we know. The pub that "Tubthumping" is based on is two minutes from where Boff lives, and we've all been in there many times. The context of the stories we tell on the album are Northern English; they're very English, in fact. But the ideas in there are very universal. That's what people pick up on. It doesn't matter which country you're in. It's the same situation.
LAUNCH:
Is that why you chose to name the album Tubthumper--the universality of the message?
BOFF:
That's what we thought originally. But we've learned that wherever we go in the world, there's always this weird thing about culture and people's reference points. Our reference point is very Northern England. When we first used to do these tours of Germany, we'd get all the lyrics translated into small books and pass them out at concerts so everyone was really clear on what we were saying. But then we realized it was weird. We were going to other people's cultures and being really obvious, instead of saying, "We're English, and this is how it is." A couple of weeks ago we were in Texas, and people were coming up with the most bizarre ideas of what "tubthumping" is. And you can't just think it's rubbish because they're off the mark. Their interpretation is fair enough and that's a starting point to learn about each other, rather than saying: "Excuse me, this is what it actually means," and, "No, it's not about masturbation."
LAUNCH:
So I'm not the only person who was confused...
BOFF:
No! We all assumed it was obvious what it means. Everyone in England knows what it means. But when we left England, we found that nobody knew what it meant. So we've spent a lot of time explaining that a tubthumper is somebody who stands on a soapbox, somebody who doesn't have access to big media, so they say what they think from the factory yard. They get a few people gathered around, and they're shouting to the world--from an ordinary person's point of view--that they want it to change.
LAUNCH:
Changing the world seems to be a theme that runs through your music and your band's politics. You're often described as anarchists.
DANBERT:
We're just putting forward ideas. We're not preaching, saying, "You should do this." Anarchist ideas are popular ideas and a lot of people feel them or express them. Whichever Western democracy you happen to live in, there's a whole underclass of people that don't vote. Less people vote than don't vote. The choice is so narrow and there are so many other ways that people can have influence over their own lives, rather than expecting or waiting for a political party to do it.
BOFF:
Anarchism for us works on two levels. One is that just as a group of eight people we've lasted together this long because we work as an anarchistic collective. As a working practice we share everything. It's not like a democracy. We don't vote on things, but we talk about things and compromise until everybody's happy. On the other hand, anarchism in a wider sense is about people working in a community collectively without leaders. It's not chaos and destruction, but yeah, there has to be destruction in order to build something new. It's more like this: people can have relationships without one of them telling the other what to do. In a capitalist system, people do these jobs and they do them knowing they're getting completely walked over; they have very little social status. In a system where we're all working collectively, there's no problem picking up the trash. It's like, "Yeah, this is what I do." If we go to someone's house and eat, I think, "Yeah, I've got to wipe up the dishes now."
LAUNCH:
How does that change though, once you start collecting the royalties on your first big hit? Can you be a pop success and maintain a sense of that anarchist collective?
DANBERT:
It's strange you ask this, because we haven't seen any of the money. But we've thought about it and talked about it. We feel like we've always felt: we have to keep it on an equitable basis, you know? We've been advised to draw up a partnership agreement. In English law, we're a partnership anyway. But if you have an agreement, you can amend the rules. Somebody was telling us we should put down the main songwriters so we can avoid problems later. To us, that's the total opposite of what we've always done. If, after 15 years, certain people are suddenly getting the lion's share of the royalties, it would just cause hell. Everybody gets the same share of money, if there is any money. With a lot of bands, there's one or two people who control the royalty decisions, and that's a recipe for disaster if you're thrown in to a worldwide arena for success.
BOFF:
I think the whole concept of Chumbawamba getting money is obviously really weird to think about, and I think it's really good; it tests what we're doing this for. Obviously it would be extremely easy to say, "Let's forget it," or "Let's carry on making 'Tubthumping' for another 10 years because that's how you make money" and buy a lot of ridiculous things we don't need. Already the amount of money we're getting is completely stupid. Stupid money for ridiculous things. We played in Italy, and we've played there numerous times, and we got offered this money from a car company that we would never normally accept. We don't do [commercials], but they offered us so much money that we had to say, "This is stupid! Let's let them pay us the money for the advert and let's just take the money and give it to the pirate radio station in Italy!" The power to be able to do that is great. It's no skin off our nose.
LAUNCH:
So do you feel like you have to share the profits, because to keep it would render you hypocrites?
DANBERT:
I think with regards to the money, [the people in the band] feel like we've worked 15 years, paid rent, and never seen anything from it. I'm sure people think, "I'll buy a house," and there's nothing wrong with that. But we also feel we can put money back into things and causes we feel strongly about. In October, we did a benefit in Liverpool and raised 15,000 pounds; everybody donated time for expenses. We've done whole tours for things and raised money for various causes. It's incredible to have the power and draw the media attention to someone's cause--say they're on strike for two years and the story is buried in the news. I'm sure we'll keep on doing things in that vein. We've put a book out before. We have the website. We had a magazine at one time. It's almost a luxury to do other things because of financial stability.
LAUNCH:
Can financially successful artists still be socially credible activists?
BOFF:
There are a lot of people for us who represent fairness and those who are rich who have been successful and done something interesting in pop music. Take Rage Against The Machine, who I don't like musically at all, but I love the fact that they're doing something off-kilter, which is whatever kind of lifestyle they live, they've sent out a few basic messages that make people think about things. You have to be careful, though. Just because Bono talks about Sarajevo, does that justify U2's existence as a rock band with 22 million quid in the bank? No, I don't think it does. But look at Chuck D in Public Enemy. He made money in a band, but now he's got his own news program and he's writing a book about racism, etc. I don't think, "Oh you're rich, so it's not justified." It's good to use your influence like that.
LAUNCH:
Now, this isn't your first release, but it is your first release on a major label, correct? How did you come about making this deal?
DANBERT:
It was strange, because when we finished recording Tubthumper, we had no deal. We just had a finished tape of an album. So we sent it around, and all of a sudden there was this interest from all these major companies in Europe and America--but not in England, because we have such a bad reputation in England that the major companies didn't want to touch us. We had long discussions amongst ourselves, saying "Yeah, we should go with a major. We've had our own label, we've been independent for a long time. This is a different thing...let's try it." As soon as the record came out, people said, "This is going to be a big hit." They were right, as it turned out.
LAUNCH:
And have you noticed that the label executives treat you really nice, since you're one of their current hitmakers?
DANBERT:
Oh yeah. We're being treated differently than before. Now, the next album, if it doesn't go as well, that's where problems might arise. And they might not, we don't know.
LAUNCH:
The music business is very fickle. Do you ever fear that "Tubthumping" will be your first and only hit?
BOFF:
I think the idea of being a one-hit-wonder is fine, I've got no problem with that. There's a lot of stigma attached to that, but where we come from, we associate it with fabulous bands and songs that may have been No. 1 for three weeks and then disappeared. Culturally, I have no problem with that. When I'm 95, I'd like to be able to say, "That was me." Having one song that everybody knows doesn't bother us and it doesn't affect the way we work.
DANBERT:
A lot of people are talking about the "one-hit-wonder" thing--in England especially. The single sold a million units, but the album only sold 50,000. That's the record company putting the wrong emphasis on things. In England, people know that there's more to us than that song. We are more than just one hit.
BOFF:
Yeah, and the record company is obsessed by the "one-hit-wonder" thing. They're scared stiff and they're desperate to make sure the next single is successful. They actually tell us this. And we just think, "We don't care if you never put out any singles again. We don't mind."
LAUNCH:
Speaking of record companies and your relationship to the major labels, do you worry about being perceived by longtime fans as "sellouts" now that you've got a big hit under your belts?
BOFF:
Signing to a major record label is a complete compromise. We accept the hypocrisy of it; I mean it's completely contradictory and ironic, but we know what we're doing. Things change. Life changes. We don't go around quoting Karl Marx anymore--you say things in different way.
LAUNCH:
But do you find it difficult to answer to someone now? You never had to do that before.
DANBERT:
We set out to make a pop album--that was our decision--and we finished a pop album before we took it to anyone. When we were negotiating contracts, we were sure to have a clause in our contract that says we have control over the production and the artwork, which we've always had and would always require. Whenever you deliver, there's always room for negotiation regarding the choice of a single and stuff like that. And we always work with the record company. There's a diplomacy, I think, in working with record companies.
LAUNCH:
And by virtue of your major-label status, you can reach a lot more people now. But you've been making records for years, and I bet a lot of people just think you're some overnight success.
BOFF:
It's strange being treated as if we've just suddenly come from nowhere. One of the strangest things about it is that people think that being this "new and big thing" sort of justifies what we've been doing the past 10 years. To us, it's not like that at all. We're the new "toothpaste" this week, but I've got just as much love for what we did 10 years ago. That's just as much a success as Rolling Stone saying, "We want o put you on the cover" or whatever. Whether it's new or old toothpaste is relevant to the industry, just not to us.
LAUNCH:
You mentioned Rolling Stone. It must be weird for you to see critics and other people "coming around" to your music now that you've got a hit on your hands. Have you noticed a change in the way the press is treating you on this release?
BOFF:
There's been a complete about-face! And we're not the kind of people going around saying, "I told you so! Where were you last year?" It's really amusing to see, especially among the British press, who are really ruthless about turning things over every week. Now, they're coming back to us saying, "We'd really like to do an interview," and we're just smiling, thinking, "Yeah...you wankers."
LAUNCH:
What about the dynamics in the band, itself? A lot has changed for you guys with this recent success and I can only wonder what the last six months have been like for you.
BOFF:
The dynamics within the band, in terms of what's happened in the last six months, is exactly the same, boringly enough. I just feel like we relate in exactly the same way as we did eight months ago. We've worked out this way of working together, which is not unique, but it's rare. We're happy to be working in this situation with these eight people. Success is fine, and being presented with a gold album is fine, but it doesn't affect the way we work together. If we'd sold absolutely nil of this record, we'd still be happy to be working together.
LAUNCH:
No, how important is the Internet to you? I've looked at your website and it's interesting--not your typical record label fare.
BOFF:
The website, for us, has become this thing that is very Chumbawamba. Two years ago, when we decided to do a website, we wanted it to be under our control and have it do what we wanted to do. We know better than anyone what we want it to look like. We learned to write the code, we looked at other bands' pages, and we decided that ours would be like this mainly because we didn't want loads of things zooming around. We decided to make it text-based, very quiet and plain, but with references to other things. We still try to have a sense of humor while we pass on a bit of information. Since it's gotten a lot bigger in size and the amount of people looking at it, it's become a lot more important.
DANBERT:
We actually started doing a magazine, which we sold at gigs in 1996 or '95. It was a lot of work to do it, and selling it was a lot of work. It was a really good way to express things, and we got a very favorable response to it. Then we started getting web-friendly, and set up a basic page. That suddenly took over and became a rolling magazine format. Even now when we're away, we can still update things. I think it's really good compared to most band web pages, which are set up by record companies, where people go to them and never go back. We just think it's a fantastic way of communicating with people all around the world, and we want to link to other people we think are inspiring.
|
