How to envision the future of programming?

In the spring of 2010, the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjöll erupted, causing the longest closure of European airspace in peacetime. At that time, I worked as a programmer for a festival in Poland, and the musicians I was hosting were stranded for a few days. After sending them on sightseeing excursions, we started to feel somewhat idle, so I began to reach out to my network to try to find them one or two gigs. The only one who responded was a friend who worked for a local prison. The idea was born, and the invitation for artists programmed in the festival to play with and for inmates has become a regular appointment thanks to the Jazzart Festival in Katowice. This episode has led me to shape another approach to programming, incorporating the notion of risks not only from an artistic or financial point of view. Since then, of course, we have experienced the disruptions of the health crisis.

Which programmer had anticipated having to imagine their festival online, a concert for houseplants, or for motorists confined in their cars? Faced with unpreparedness for risks and unfavorable trade-offs, we had to adapt and make choices, and not always good ones. The levels of reflection on the future vary, and in assessing risks, we are forced to carefully weigh our objectives.

Prospective and Experimentation 

Similar to the 4 prospective scenarios presented by Ademe, outlining four “typical” paths (Frugal Generation, Territorial Cooperation, Green Technologies, and Repair Bet) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, it is possible to consider programming by adopting a framework that allows for various choices, trade-offs, and experiments, each implying different societal choices.

For example, Maison des Arts de Malakoff, as part of its decreasing approach “cutting fluids – pragmatopical alternatives” experimented with cutting off all energy fluids in the venue between February and July 2023 while continuing its activities. By working under this constraint with all stakeholders, the acceptability of the measures taken is open for discussion.

Such experimentation, which could be adapted to a music venue, demonstrates how a cultural space positions itself as an agent of change and initiates an active approach to the future. Like collaborative programming practices, it can lead to discussions about the acceptability of certain choices.

This approach must be undertaken collectively, as there is a risk that different actors will shift responsibility and “power” for change onto one another. The constant and rapid developments within the sector do not always facilitate understanding of everyone’s roles and responsibilities.

Responsibility

During the last edition of MaMA, participants in the roundtable titled “Can you program without values?” emphasized the responsibility of programmers associated with the power they hold. They must remain attentive to changes, whether social, political, or cultural, and adjust their programming choices to the values and concerns at play.

Through their programming choices, they decide who gets the spotlight, and by extension, influence representations and narratives. Camille Mathon, artistic director of La Petite and programmer for the Toulouse festival Girls Don’t Cry, speaks of her duty of exemplarity and describes her programming as a political action in a sector where only 17% of projects staged in venues and 14% in festivals have a female lead (20% for Jazz, blues, soul, groove, and improvised music aesthetics), and where 20% of SMACs (contemporary music venues) are directed by women.

By exclusively featuring marginalized individuals on stage, she aligns with the project of society that the supporting association wants to defend, but also exposes herself to sharp criticism.

While festivals are increasingly committing to egalitarian programming through initiatives like the Keychange program, and egalitarian conditions are emerging, the sector must take responsibility for this systemic issue. It should strive to ensure it attracts a younger and more diverse audience and that this diversity is represented among those who make programming decisions.

Degrowth and Renunciation 

In a vision for a fair, equitable, and environmentally committed music sector, the future of the “big” players in the industry will depend on their ability to acknowledge that certain parts of this system are not working and to open up to radical maneuvers. Processes of addressing environmental issues and decarbonization will necessarily involve choices and trade-offs: what to prioritize, transform, restrict, or what we will have to renounce.

A handful of festivals have recently declared themselves to be in “degrowth.” In attempting to fill venues to achieve profitability, the adherence to the dizzying rise in headliner fees carries a significant risk of a race to the bottom, with consequences at several levels for the music industry. By sacrificing immediate profitability to recover their investment, the industry turns away from the crucial need to question the trend towards gigantism.

The financial pressure exerted by this practice, combined with the size of venues, significantly reduces the margin of risk in artistic programming, while reinforcing concentration effects and limiting the diversity of proposals. This dynamic exacerbates the crisis, creating a squeeze on opportunities for many creators who see their outlets narrowing.

Furthermore, this financial strategy has direct repercussions on “middle-class” artists, discouraging them from taking risks and engaging in authentic initiatives free from constraints, as illustrated in Julien Winkel’s article in Larsen. Instead of fostering creativity, the industry seems to push artists towards preconceived formatting or even renunciation. It can be anticipated that this trend will have a direct impact on the long-term quality of artistic offerings.

Once again, the role of programmers as trailblazers remains crucial, encouraging less conventional choices to expand the realm of possibilities, to anticipate and help us perceive today’s impossibilities as tomorrow’s possibilities.

Tools

Imagining a different future from the present requires creativity, the ability to extend one’s imagination beyond what is immediately visible, and the courage to think differently. But it also requires a more technical approach. The tools available to programmers are evolving, especially those using Artificial Intelligence, algorithms, and predictive analysis tools to track trends and anticipate audience preferences. It is not about denying the use of solutions offered by digital technology and data collection, if only to improve knowledge of the sector and better inform public policies.

Appropriate practices can meet a need and complement direct relationships with artists and agents. However, lessons can already be drawn from certain past experiences: digital technology has often been too quickly presented as a solution for the music industry, turning out to be a false promise, as evidenced by the metaverse or NFTs.

Ethical questions are added to the ecological risks that question programming strategies based on technology, as shown by Bela Loto Hiffler: “The time is no longer for technological orgies, 90 semi-trailers, gigantism. Let’s remember, the well is not bottomless. The metallic resources we need to make our machines are not limitless; they are even critical for many of them. The future, if we want to be alive to participate in it, will more likely resemble a low-tech landscape.”

 In addition to artistic, budgetary, representativity, and technical feasibility criteria, it is also possible to integrate the carbon criterion into the programming process, with what is called a carbon budget. Based on the carbon footprint of a project, an action plan is established, including emission mitigation objectives. In the same way that one works within the limits of their financial budget, one can work their programming with an annual carbon budget. This then encourages certain practices that are known to be virtuous for addressing environmental issues, and often have economic or societal benefits. This is, for example, what Le Périscope in Lyon is experimenting with (see interview).

Once again, these choices are not without risks: they often lead to budget overruns (modal shift from plane to train, on average 2.6 times more expensive in France, additional accommodation nights, etc.) and it influences the workload of programmers who sometimes find themselves looking for other dates in their networks for the programmed groups.

Again, experiments are trying to address these issues and help stakeholders program cooperatively, a lever identified as essential for the success of transitions, and to move away from competitive logics or exclusivity clauses. Funding exists to facilitate these shared tours, such as the Europe Jazz Network’s Green Pilot tour. In an attempt to formalize existing cooperation processes, often informal, Onda has launched the Cooprog platform to encourage programmers to work towards more coherent diffusion timelines, conditioning financial support now to cooperation between at least three structures.
Emerging trends, ranging from degrowth to the integration of new tools, prospective and experimental strategies, reveal possible paths for systemic change. The complexity of the challenges of our time can allow for the rethinking of more supportive and equitable programming models. This is suggested by François Bouda, who writes: “While the trend is towards slowing down in the Northern countries, cultural actors in the South are calling for an increase in the movement of artists and cultural professionals towards the North, but also for strengthening South-South mobility.”

These developments call for specific support and training measures for programming managers, especially in understanding and comprehending all societal, digital, and environmental challenges. They also underline the need to identify and better support experiments and models of programming that are carried out in different territories, both to allow for their transferability and scaling. These proposals also offer another way to assess programming, a more qualitative than quantitative approach, by choosing one that, in the long term, may prove to be the most thoughtful choice for everyone.