Tim Lawrence
Life and Death on the New York Dance Floor,
1980-1983
(Duke University Press)
director's cut version, Bookforum, Sept / Oct / Nov 2016 issue
by Simon Reynolds
The title of the new book by disco scholar Tim Lawrence has
taken on an unintended ominous overtone following the massacre at the Orlando
nightclub Pulse. Of course, the grim reaper alluded to in Life and Death on the New York Dance Floor is not a homophobic
terrorist, but a disease: AIDS, which ultimately scythed a deadly swathe across
the cast of characters in this absorbing history of early Eighties Manhattan:
performers, artists and promoters such as Klaus Nomi, Keith Haring and Bruce
Mailman, to name only a few casualties. Less literally, Lawrence identifies club
culture with a vitalist spirit of Eros, celebrating the ways in which desire,
communality and improvisation dissolves boundaries. Conversely, the opposed puritanical
and purist principles - segregation, regulation, etc - are implicitly marked
down as forces of Thanatos.
Life and Death is
the sequel to Lawrence’s 2004 book Love
Saves the Day, which chronicled disco’s emergence in the 1970s. But the
British academic has already taken a first pass across Eighties New York with 2009’s Hold On To Your Dreams, albeit using a single, if widely networked,
artist – Arthur Russell - as a prism. Originally
a minimalist composer in the 1970s “New Music” mold, Russell explored a
dizzying range of absurdist disco directions via numerous artistic aliases. For
Lawrence, this flux and mutability made Russell (another AIDS casualty) an
exemplar of the fully deterritorialized artistic life. This new book looks at the larger subcultural landscape
through which Russell moved and finds many other figures informed by that same
spirit of flux and mutability. Operators like Michael Zilkha, whose ZE label was
the home of “mutant disco”: genre-bending collisions of rock, funk, jazz and
Latin music perpetrated by outfits like Was (Not Was), Material, and Kid Creole
and the Coconuts.
One of the valuable things about Lawrence’s book is the way
it focuses attention on a period that’s usually considered an intermediary
phase, a mere gap between the classic disco era and the house explosion. For
want of a better term, some have come to call it post-disco; at the time,
people just talked about club music. Disco’s official demise in terms of its mainstream
profile occurred circa 1979, the year of the “disco sucks” backlash, radio
stations dropping the format as swiftly as they’d embraced it, and major labels
closing down their disco departments. But dancing as a leisure activity did not
fade away, obviously, and nor did music made purely for dancing. Its consumption and production became more
concentrated in certain cities – New York paramount among them – and it became
the preserve of independent labels like West End, Prelude, and Sleeping Bag
(co-founded by Russell).
The clubbing industry that had emerged during the disco boom
didn’t wither away either: it adapted and in some instances even escalated in
ambition. One of the most interesting barely-told
stories here concerns the lavishly designed gay club The Saint, with its
planetarium-style ceiling. Owner Bruce Mailman engineered a total environmental
experience for dancers, using disorienting lighting and engulfing sound to
create sensations of transcendence and absolute removal from reality.
“Post-disco” also
fits what happened to the music, which mutated and fragmented into substyles:
the slower, blacker grooves of what some DJs nowadays call “boogie”; the
bouncy, diva-dominated Hi-NRG that eventually took over gay clubs like the
Saint; a brash, crashing style known as freestyle that was particularly popular
with Latino kids. In all these subgenres,
electronic textures and programmed elements
– thick synth bass, sequencer pulses, drum machine beats, early sampling
effects – gradually took over, as heard
on classic tracks like Peech Boys’s “Don’t Make Me Wait” and Man Parrish’s “Hip
Hop Be Bop.”
There are other terms
featuring “post-“ as prefix that apply
to the four year period Lawrence examines here. Postpunk, for instance, fits the way that No
Wave groups like the Contortions strove to be more extreme than the CBGBs bands like Ramones, only for their
assaultive approach to be itself eclipsed by more groovy sounds from outfits
like Liquid Liquid. “Postfunk” pinpoints
the way that hip hop isolated the
percussive quintessence (the breakbeats, the half-spoken half-sung chants) of
James Brown style R&B. And then
there’s that old reliable “postmodern”: the early Eighties was when retro first became a term in hip parlance,
with revivalisms galore and camp parody infusing nightspots like the Mudd Club
and Club 57. Staging themed parties based around concepts like blacksploitation movies or dead rock stars,
these clubs were more like arts laboratories than discos – Lawrence terms them
“envirotheques”- although deejays remained key and dancing was always a fixture.
Life and Death
provides the most intensive mapping of this relatively brief era of New York
subculture we’ve yet seen. The book’s strength is its depth of research,
drawing on the real-time journalism of the era and a huge number of new
interviews. The detail is fascinating, Lawrence salvaging from the fog of faded
memory such ephemeral brilliances as the deejay Anita Sarko’s Cold War themed
party at Danceteria, during which she played
Soviet-banned music such as ABBA alongside state-sanctioned music like socialist
men’s choirs, while the club’s co-founder Rudolf Piper, dressed as a commandant,
periodically entered the room and pretended to arrest dancers. But strengths
can become weaknesses, and Life and Death
sometimes gets too list-y: there’s rather too many passages where, say, 21
bands are lined up to indicate a venue’s booking policy without anything much
substantive conveyed. Part of the art of
a book of this nature is knowing what to leave out.
Writing about an era so roiling with overlapping and
simultaneous action presents formidable structural challenges. Dividing by theme or genre loses the
narrative dimension. Focusing chapters on individual artists, labels, or clubs
means that you keep the sense of storyline, but have to double-back to the era’s
start for each new narrative. Lawrence opts for chronology, dividing his book
up into year-long sections: 1980, 1982, 1982, 1983. That has its own downside,
though: the reader feels like the story
is constantly flitting across to another figure or scene, to catch up with
where they’ve gotten to by this point. The same places and persons crop up repeatedly:
clubs like Better Days, Pyramid, Hurrah, Negril, Funhouse, Paradise Garage.... movers-and-shakers like Anya Philips, Ann
Magnuson, Steve Maas, Jim Fourratt, Diego Cortez, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Ruza
Blue.... There simply isn’t a perfect solution
to this tricky task – writing the collective biography of an epoch – and Lawrence’s
approach does at least retain the sense of forward propulsion through time.
By the end of 1982, the processes that Lawrence valorizes –
cross-fertilisation, eclecticism, hybridity – are peaking. “The melting pot
city was entering its hyper-whisk phase”, he writes. Ideas travel back and
forth between disco, rap, postpunk, avant-garde composition, and more. Nor was the border-crossing limited to music:
this was an era of polymath dilettantes, a time when most people in bands were also
poets, actors, film-makers or visual artists, while a club maven might found a
Lower East Side gallery as readily as organize a themed party.
The book’s last section, covering 1983, is titled “The
Genesis of Division”. That begs the question: if “the drive to integration and
synthesis” was so potent – and by ’82, so febrile and fecund - what went
wrong? Like an ecosystem, the
polymorphous jungle of New York bohemia flourished thanks to biodiversity – the
frictional intermingling of different ethnic groups, different sexualities, different
character typologies, different artistic traditions, different income levels.
But every tendency produces its counter-reaction. In some sense the sheer variedness
of downtown culture encouraged a kind of re-tribalization, the emergence of music-based
identity politics. By the mid-Eighties concepts like punk-funk and mutant disco
had gone out of fashion: rock became un-danceable
noise with the rise of Swans and Sonic Youth; purist strands of club culture
emerged; hip hop increasingly defined itself as its own movement and extended
nationwide.
Club culture has always evolved through a dialectic of
open-ness and exclusivity. Its rhetoric leans towards inclusive populism, but in
practice, when the Bridge and Tunnel types arrive, hip early adopters move on. Achieving a “mixed crowd” is usually what
promoters and DJs exalt as their ideal, but such a balance is hard to maintain.
In Life Against Death, The Saint
provides an example of a dynamic that goes against the boundary-crossing ethos
that Lawrence prizes and praises. Both the owner and the membership decreed
that the club’s peak night, Saturday, should be restricted to 98 percent male
attendance. According to deejay Robbie
Leslie, owner Mailman believed “that gay men danced well together... had this
body chemistry where they moved on the dance floor as a tribe, as one entity”
and that furthermore “women’s body movements were contradictory to
this flow.... He didn’t even want gay women there.” This admission policy fed
into an increasing uniformity of appearance (what one attendee described as
“pectoral fascism”) and a taste conservatism that kept the deejays on a tight leash.
But the whole point of the Saint was that it provided a sanctuary for a segment
within the city’s population, a stronghold for a certain vibe. And vibe, as a vernacular concept, could be
defined as “collective singlemindedness”.
Alongside the centrifugal force of self-segregation, other
factors brought to an end the belle epoque. Far more than AIDs, the killer was
finance capital and real-estate speculation.
In his conclusion, Lawrence ponders whether downtown artists and musicians were not just
on the cutting edge of their particular forms of expression but an unwitting
vanguard serving the purposes of realtors, enabling them to rebrand run-down
areas as cool-rich neighbourhoods. Bohemia
priced itself out of its own habitat. That raises a further question that
Lawrence toys with but leaves unresolved.
Why are these culturally potent ferments so weak in the face of money
and power? The Stonewall riots provide one example where an embattled site of
pleasure, creativity and identity gives birth to forms of activism. But
generally speaking the politics of partying are too diffuse and motile to
translate into anything as permanent and disciplined as a political party.
Writing about club culture in Interview in the early Eighties, New York scenester Glenn O’Brien argued
that dancing is the ideal form of cultural resistance against fascism, because
its rhythmic fluidity worked to dissolve the rigidities of what Wilhelm Reich
called character-armor. A more skeptical
take on dancefloor utopianism can be found in a 1993 Greil Marcus column for Artforum. Discussing
Design After Dark, a history
of UK dancefloor style, Marcus praised the book for capturing the vibrant,
ever-changing creativity of these
“tribes of black and white Britons”, but ultimately found the book “a little depressing. So much flair, so much
energy, so many ideas, so many good smiles, and, finally, no power. Style
changed but not society; no-future didn’t move an inch from where it stood in
1977”. When I first read those words in
’93, as a convert to rave culture, I resented this dismissive verdict. But in
2016, with political darkness roiling turbidly on both sides of the Atlantic, I
wonder about the Eros-aligned liberating energies of music and dance, their
ability to withstand the forces of division and death. The dance club as micro-utopia seems terribly
circumscribed, terrifyingly defenseless.
How do you get the fascists to dance?