term paper abstract, Winter Semester 2005/2006, Potsdam University by Lars Dittmer
„…and for three years it was the most talked-about, written-about and shocked-about venue in the universe. Everyone wanted to go to Studio 54 (Jones/ Kantonen 1999: 246)”. “A lot of people thought that at the door was a better show than inside…people would try anything to get in (“Shane” in Studio 54)”. When Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager in the late April 1976 started their nightclub Studio 54, a legend came to life. On the floors of this unique party shangri-la, celebrities like Andy Warhol, Liza Minelli, Bianca and Mick Jagger, Brooke Shields and Truman Capote mingled with business people, politicians, soap opera starlets, drag queens and chosen few from the “grey people”, as nightlife guru Rubell called the normal people.
Never before, a discothèque had caused such a public stir. Paparazzi jostled beyond the velvet ropes to illustrate their gossip columns with pictures of the socialites – it was the “first time ever that celebrity photos would appear on the front page of the tabloids for no other reasons than they were there (Jones/ Kantonen 1999: 249)”. But by far not everybody came to know the true promise of the club – door policy at Studio 54 was probably one of the toughest in the history of nightlife. Rubell himself was eager to make sure that of the many different groups that made up the audience of 54, none should dominate the other, a type of “social engineering he called “tossing the salad”” (Shapiro 2005: 201). He himself supported his doorman Marc Benecke selecting the people who could pass the velvet ropes, whilst scores of people shouted Rubell’s name begging him to be admitted into the club. On one hand, there were certain criteria, but on the other hand, there was enough leeway for arbitrariness, indeed, it was a highly undemocratic procedure that precisely reflected its place, its period and social circumstances.
Disco in the ‚uncanny 1970s‘ not only served to escape reality but also epitomised an increasing drive towards individualism that replaced the ideas of participation and community of the sixties. The doors at 54 were instruments to form a new world with new social ladders and in their radicalism marked a peak in this development.
Table of Contents
1. General Introduction 3
1.1 Introduction and problem identification
1.2 Approach of this term paper
2. The Seventies – need to escape? 5
2.1 The faceless decade
2.2 The economic downturn – stagflation and unemployment
2.3 Repercussions of Vietnam
3. Disco – feared and sneered at 9
3.1 Countercultural phenomenon or foofaraw?
3.2 Home of the Disenfranchised
4. Studio 54 – Queen of Manhattan 12
4.1 Steve Rubell, Ian Schrager and their dream
4.2 Drug supply at 54
5. Escaping the “grey people”: door policy at Studio 54 14
5.1 The “right mix”
5.2 Tossing the salad
5.3 The inner-sanctum
6. Conclusion 18
7. Bibliography 20
1. General Introduction
1.1 Introduction and problem identification
„…and for three years it was the most talked-about, written-about and shocked-about venue in the universe. Everyone wanted to go to Studio 54 (Jones/ Kantonen 1999: 246)”.
“A lot of people thought that at the door was a better show than inside…people would try anything to get in (“Shane” in Studio 54)”.
When Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager in the late April 1976 started their nightclub Studio 54, a legend came to life. On the floors of this unique party shangri-la, celebrities like Andy Warhol, Liza Minelli, Bianca and Mick Jagger, Brooke Shields and Truman Capote mingled with business people, politicians, soap opera starlets, drag queens and chosen few from the “grey people”, as nightlife guru Rubell called the normal people. Never before, a discothèque caused such a public stir. Paparazzi jostled beyond the velvet ropes to illustrate their gossip columns with pictures of the socialites – it was the “first time ever that celebrity photos would appear on the front page of the tabloids for no other reasons than they were there (Jones/ Kantonen 1999: 249)”.
The place for this unprecedented spectacle was 254 West 54th street in Manhattan, New York. As to grandeur and pomp, Studio 54 easily dwarfed all other night clubs, the interior was lavish in every respect, the decor sometimes changed from weak to weak. Besides alcohol, drug abuse was rampant – be it cocaine or MDA, Rubell and his team left nothing to be desired for Studio 54’s fastidious clientele. Disc Jockey Richard Kaczor, “who by 1979 was earning $50,000 a year and thus was the world’s highest-paid DJ (Shapiro 2005: 204), was a luminary in his field. But the frenzy was not about technical details or size of the club, not even about the latest in music – it was about seeing and being seen on the highest level conceivable.
By far not everybody came to know the true promise of the club – door policy at Studio 54 was probably one of the toughest in the history of nightlife. Rubell himself was eager to make sure that of the many different groups that made up the audience of 54, none should dominate the other, a type of “social engineering he called “tossing the salad”” (Shapiro 2005: 201). He himself supported his doorman Marc Benecke selecting the people who could pass the velvet ropes, whilst scores of people shouted Rubell’s name begging him to be admitted into the club. On one hand, there were certain criteria, but on the other hand, there was enough leeway for arbitrariness, indeed, it was a highly undemocratic procedure that precisely reflected its place, its period and social circumstances.
Scholars often describe the Seventies in the United States as a dreary, unsteady and uncanny period – a decade that has started with the trials and tribulations of Vietnam War, continued with the Watergate scandal and experienced the first post World War II economic downturn with skyrocketing unemployment rates, stagflation and a melting welfare state. Repercussions of these events were especially felt in New York City of these days, which Peter Shapiro reports, was felt by many to be a “cesspool of moral and spiritual degradation, a playground for drug dealers, pimps and corrupt cops (2005: x)”. Disco in this time not only served to escape reality but also epitomised an increasing drive towards individualism that replaced the ideas of participation and community of the sixties. The doors at 54 were instruments to form a new world with new social ladders and in their radicalism marked a peak in this development.
1.2 Approach of this term paper
This term paper wants to examine the new hierarchies that were established at Studio 54, especially at its front doors in the late Seventies and examines the cultural and historical context that determines this phenomenon. The paper evolves around two poles: Disco, which is treated herein as a trend towards escapism, hedonism and individualism with Studio 54 as its most extreme excrescence, and the United States, which in the Seventies delivered a setting with most attributes of a deteriorating industrialised country and New York as a city in which these attributes culminated. Disco herein is a term that labels a style of dance music as well as the movement with all its fashions and conventions. The distinction made between the two concepts will be clear from the respective context it is used in.
In order to manifest the above-mentioned society internal drive towards individualism the second point of this paper deals with the Seventies as the decade that enabled the success-story of disco. The pictures this paper delivers about the decade are not pleasant but it has to be considered that history is a concept that in its broadness is impossible to capture. Personal remembrances of the decade might vary from person to person. This paper therefore delivers texts of scholarly assessments and commonly-acknowledged views of the Seventies as a decade, trying to explain what triggered the public desire to escape reality and the sense of hedonism and decadence that characterised disco.
Continue reading on Hausarbeiten.de or contact me
