In the music business the adage "Localise? Globalise!" can be looked at from two different perspectives: Dieter Meier, the creative mind behind the Swiss pop innovators Yello, re-sponds to the artistic aspect with a loud "Localise"! Meier’s compatriot Töbi Tobler from the "Appenzeller Space Schöttl”, a group which played live and never made recordings, blows a similar alphorn: "I like to make music that can be understood by an African or a Swede or an American.... I live in the region, but I would like to play in such a way that it makes no differ-ence. If I had to look for politics in my music, my politics would be to make music that re-fines communication, people’s togetherness, letting people’s vibrations be felt..."

Of course, nowadays local musicians eavesdrop all around the world, and when ambitious pop music or world music is made, it is easy to hear the skilful mixture of local identity and glob-alised sophistication. And that has very little to do with the "Modern Talking” of the industry, which sees "globalisation” mainly as a way of making its products as conformist as possible so that they can be marketed the same way all over the world.

On the other hand, the question as to a "European pop world” must also be looked at from an economic point of view. What is striking is that the music that plays with local identity in a sophisticated, artistic way and still manages to be "globally” successful generally comes from France or England rather than Germany. Here the question of the conditions of production for artists plays a central role, but it is often shockingly neglected in the discussion of music.

Let us take France as an example. Whatever one may think of our French neighbours’ tax and insurance systems, one must admit that the French government has created a system that gives musicians in training a safety net while pursuing their art. For musicians with a certain number of engagements per year, there is a comprehensive social security system including a kind of "unemployment benefits” for times when the musicians have no engagements.

At the same time, France has a strong network of well-equipped cultural centres and a diverse range of festivals, all state-funded. What is more, the French government does not see "cul-tural sponsoring” as a one-way street of cultural exports; for example, it also finances the travel costs of African musicians touring France (or even all of Europe). This lays the foun-dation for cultural exchange and cross-pollination. In contrast, German visa regulations for non-European musicians and taxes on foreigners impede cultural exchange and promote the very opposite of a cosmopolitan Germany.

Berlin, with the high mortality rate among its clubs, is a particularly striking example of the hypocrisy of the state’s cultural policies: a sum in the tens of millions goes to subsidize one of the richest record companies in the world, the global player "Universal Music”, in its move to the Spree, while the local club scene is so hard up for money that there is a lack of suitable venues.

In my opinion, cultural policy ought to create the preconditions for artists to pursue their cultural activities. Some examples could be:
- Subsidizing contemporary culture (technical equipment in music clubs, the relaxing of construction and noise regulations)
- Improvements in the artists’ social safety net rather than the present cutbacks of subsidies toward artists’ social insurance
- Facilitation and support for cultural exchange (key issues: taxes for foreigners, visa problems

Only when a range of different measures creates a more hospitable climate for "contemporary culture” here can the delicate "local identity” be expected to play a "global” role as well. Until then we can only gaze enviously at our neighbours to the west and note once again, "France has it good.”