They sold out on us, but we're sort of buying it.

This Entry wraps things up. I'll try to answer some questions I asked when I first started...

Will selling out change your Indie sound? Indie sound is widely variable. New Order's electro post-punk and Nirvana's grunge are poles apart in style, but both have independent inflections. The context of the sound's dissemination is perhaps more important. For example, Song 2, by Blur and 'Creep' by Radiohead are possibly now mainstream songs, as is the Cure's 'Just Like Heaven', and more recently Feist's '1234'. If songs are reproduced extensively in mainstream spaces and texts (through advertising, movies, and tv shows) they possibly lose some authenticity. But single songs do not represent entire creative outputs.

Does it matter who you sell out to??
Signing to Universal (or other major labels) is something numerous Indie bands (not just Sonic Youth) have done. It has also been shrugged off by people who opposed the Starbucks deal.
Queens of The Stone Age and The Mars Volta are label buddies with Sonic Youth (as are Elton John and Janet Jackson) The Yeah Yeah Yeahs must be signed to Universal, as I walked past their clothing store yesterday only to find a giant Karen O cutout pouting at me through the shop window.
Over at EMI, in the last 25 years seminal avant garde and Indie bands like The Butthole Surfers and (even earlier) Television have shared their label with Interpol.

Ruling out the input of major labels in creative production would rule out many great works by many artists that started out with an 'Indie sound'. The system is too institutionalised, too extensive and too varied to discount its relevance. Homogenised sound is not such an issue. The political clout of Indie in response to corporations is certainly minimal. However, with the advent of the internet and the download revolution, labels are having to work outside traditional structures to gain revenue.

Starbucks music has a digital deal going with itunes where you can buy its music online, so the relevance of new media is noted by newer conglomerates as well. However, Starbucks (and for that matter P & O cruises) represent (as fans pointed out in the forum) cultural and aesthetic values that Indie cannot always reconcile itself to. Gentrification is a no no, as is conventional politics. Consumerism is tolerated, and sometimes even adapted to fit nostalgic ideals of 'vintage' culture. But it has to suit notions of original, authentic (and sometimes high) art.

But getting back to the argument, it does matter who you sign to. Branding is a signifier and if the starbucks green circle nears any Indie icons, there is a clash in ideologies, taste and culture.

So, scanning back even further, why does the Brisbane Indie community (or the one represented on Triple Zed) roll its eyes at powderfinger? They are a local band that have at times been a great source of pride and identification for various strata of Indie culture. They formed and grew from grunge to Indie rock and ballads, to commercial air play, and then to the Arias and a song in a Tom Cruise movie. It may be that Indie does not like tall poppies, but Powderfinger's sound has also gone through a gradual commodification. Bernard Fanning voices some left-wing political concerns in his music - often about tolerance of difference, and eradication of prejudice. But he stops there. Besides, I know some diehard Indie snobs who shudder at tolerating other people's taste in music. Or the bourgeois sensibilities that taste represents.

Last question: what are the practices and ideologies within the Indie scene that distinguish between merely utilising mainstream production, and selling out completely.
I guess selling out to major record labels is an aging issue, so perhaps it will even have some vintage appeal for Indie nostalgia. I think it's possible to see it as a utilisation of the system without surrendering to it. I think, as in Robert Lanham's review, it is often the thought of the unreceptive (or apparently ignorant) audience that shares access to that label's music that riles some Indie ideologues. When economic necessity (or ambition) has overtaken the need to be politically independent, fans tend to turn to aesthetics and taste as signifying belonging and superiority (note artist from Melbourne).

This fits in with the David Bowie argument. He did sell out in terms of commercial hits- however his work (and its vintage appeal and high art connotations) prevailed. In the end he made so much money that he could 'buy' independence.

And Nick Cave? Is it once a punk always a punk? He has been at it longer than Thurston Moore and has generally stayed independent (currently working with mute records) As long as he doesn't start singing at the cricket, his Indie cred is probably assured.

:)

HODGE PODGE

This post is a hodge podge: I talk about cultural authenticity, I'll talk about pre-punk icons of Indie (ParticularlyDavid Bowie), I'll also talk about how these old icons might be able to credibly sell out, but how Thurston Moore is having a harder time of it. (His status as an icon isn't often challenged, but maybe he's just not old enough ????)

Authenticity is important in Indie values, but it isn't just a commodity on the Indie scene.

Once upon a time, the word "Indie" was used, Walter Benjamin, a cultural critic, wrote about works of art in "The Age of Mechanical Reproduction." He was worried about films and photography, and how their reproduction and distribution lessened the authenticity and even the 'aura' ( 1970s speak) of the originals. But his concerns are also applicable to the reproduction of music (on records, casettes, CDs, mp3s etc.)

Benjamin laid down the line, saying " The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity."

and

"To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility."

It's a bit laughable now that he was getting all het up about there being more than one copy of a painting or a photo, or a record. But his ideas of originality as authenticity have prevailed and cropped up on the Indie scene. And particularly with the second quote there seems to be a hint that reproducing anything original (song, picture etc), will eventually lead people to produce unoriginal things (eg. 'derivative music' or songs that are three minutes long for commercial air play). Benjamin is also lauded as a foundational scholar for cultural studies, so I'm not game to argue with his assertions.

Holly Kruse writes about originality in Site and Sound: Understanding Independent Music Scenes. She says that within the Indie scene 'the original' is highly valued. There is a reverence of seven-inch vinyls, of vintage clothing, of 'unplugged' performance, of old radio sessions released on disc, (John Peel = authentic) and lo-fi music in general. In short, old stuff is better than new stuff (with the exception of your parents).

But even then, there are certain 'elder statesmen' of music in the Indie scene who would be older than our parents. Current Indie bands of today cite these musicians as critically influencing their sound and principles. Neil Young is important. And Johnny Cash also springs to mind. Tom Waits too. And then Bob Dylan. And Roy Orbison. And musicians on Motown records. These guys are American, but British Indie rock draws heavily on the stylistic influence of Mods of the 1960s and bands like The Who and The Kinks. There is a sense of nostalgia for the 'old' lifestyles that informs consumption of cultural products like records, or clothing (or decor, or even vintage cars - provided they're not luxury vehicles.) This is ironic as Indie is a scene that is peopled by the youth of today.

David Bowie is arguably an elder statesmen who's still kicking on. I want to look at Bowie not as so much a revolutionary musician for Indie, but as a mainstay of traditional Indie style. However, he was there for the revolution; just check out this photo which highlights him in punk history:

L to R: David Bowie, Iggy Pop (The Stooges), Lou Reed (The Velvet Underground.)

Bowie has worked with various Independent and corporate labels since 1964: EMI, Victor Records, MGA, and Virgin. But In 2002 he put out a record under his own label - Iso.
Bowie was responsible for bringing Canadian band, The Arcade Fire to prominence a couple of years ago after seeing them play. Interestingly, The Arcade Fire are Indie darlings - they made it big without signing to a major, and instead thrived on internet dissemination, and perhaps David's fanbase.
David Bowie is interesting as he seems to have earnt himself masses of subcultural capital over the years (as well as an ironic s*itload of money). He seems to hover on the periphery of the Indie scene while still navigating the mainstream. But the money really does help in his case.

Why can't Thurston Moore be an elderstatesmen like Bowie? Couldn't this defend accusations of his selling out. He hasn't had as long a recording career, but perhaps he still did his 'time' as a struggling Indie artist, entitling him to a middle age of economic perks. Fans wouldn't want Sonic Youth to live in absoloute penury. So why would people deride his making money through Starbucks?

Drowned In Sound is a UK fanzine on the web. A forum is provided for music discussion, and on June 12, 2007 the response to news of the Starbucks deal was heated. Please see the link for the full discussion, and these excerpts below for the notable points.

After the news article the first fan posts a comment:

Hayward said:

"..they should of changed their name to Sonic Elderly a while ago anyway and this sort of shit happens to all the 'big' bands eventually. They've done pretty well going for 30 years and not doing it so much."

Serious fans on the forum would have swooped in at this point to say that 'youth' in Sonic Youth's name referenced Reggae acts like 'Big Youth' and not the fact they were young)....This point acknowledges their early origins (in their name), and therefore their authenticity and appreciation of counter-cultural music. I'm not a serious fan, so if I hadn't looked it up on Wiki, I wouldn't have known. If I had I could have used this knowledge in a social context to demonstrate some subcultural capital. It might've come across a little arrogant and pedantic. But that's all part of the fun.

Argle Responds to Hayward:

"Starbucks (or any of the big coffee chains - they almost all buy their coffee via Nestle, Kraft, Procter & Gamble and Sara Lee) is not just any old big corporation to sell out to. There are some serious issues with trade ethics that are specific to mass market coffee:"

http://www.blackgoldmovie.com/

Guntrip joins in :

"THEY ARE SIGNED TO UNIVERSAL!"

Argle chimes in again : "I would've thought the practises of Nestle/Kraft make thos of UMG pale in comparison. Not least because they're so much bigger. And the entertainment corps mainly stick to exploiting people in the developed world, who in the grand scheme of things are already rich anyway."

Benthemod points out that : all starbs coffeee is fairly traded, fairtrade is actually a company and farmers have to buy the right to be labeled fairtrade. most, obviously, can't afford that so starbucks pay the fairtrade rate to all farmers regardless of labels.

plus, SY were the ones that persuaded Nirvana to go to a major, so they've never been uber idealistic.

Thing that Fly adds: I thought they weren't that bad ethics wise and peoples problem with them is their aggressive growth leading to gentrification, as far as coffee I think they pay producers substantially over market value to the producers, I think oxfam have some beef with them though

Big Man with a gun responds:

"Yes it may happen to all bands and yes, they have been signed to Geffen for years now, but ... this isnt just another band and this is not just another company. You only have to watch The Year That Punk Broke to see the nature of the reversal in attitude. I dont understand the view that "oh everyone does this now so its ok" - its still worthy of discussion and criticism"

(As an aside, I'm including a quote from Thurston Moore in the documentary, 1991: The Year Punk Broke. He was 32 years old.

"When youth culture becomes monopolized by big business, what are the youth to do? I think we should destroy the bogus capitalist process that is destroying youth culture...the first step to do is destroy the record companies." )

Getting back to the forum, the next fan called...errr...

Green Mind Promotions, quotes:

"Hey Kool Thing ..... I just wanna know, what are you gonna do for me? I mean, are you gonna liberate us girls From male white corporate oppression?"

Green Mind Promotions makes a telling point, as these words are from a classic Sonic Youth song. It needs little explaining.

Right...............Okay, so what we have above is the fact that Sonic Youth had anti-establishment roots (Green Mind Promotions and Big Man with Gun), and the argument that they've betrayed them (and fans) by joining the establishment. Ben the Mod (he must be authentic with a name like that) points out that although Starbucks are the establishment, they are ethically conscientious. This is in response to Argle's recriminations that Starbucks symbolise the big E in evil corporations. Ben the mod and Guntrip also point out the fact that Sonic Youth sold out to Universal years ago. Hayward thinks they're too old too count. So what's all the fuss about?

The Fuss is getting a bit fuzzy, some fans are being pragmatic, and some are being purists. Corporations are still the enemy, but they're now seen as the reality. Even their enemy status is questioned. Us vs Them is now Us and Them with some moral high ground on one side.

---

Indie Latte (lite w artificial sweetener).

I hope I didn't get too critical of Indie hipsters in my last post. I wanted to look at how obscurity, and a lack of commercial success characterised and esteemed Indie musicians. Being against the mainstream, highly original, and focused on the production of personalised art rather than over-produced formulaic jingles does seem to be the ideal for Indie cred/ subcultural capital. (Such capital defines musician's reputations with fans, and the fans themselves who identify with each other through appreciation and knowledge of music).

In general, however, I used anecdotal points to illustrate some rigid snobbery based on Indie values. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps it's not so rigid. Perhaps I was right. (?)

But I’ll try to be more objective this time. And emphasise that independent music is not just a matter of taste (or what bands you know and like), but a matter of serious production choices for musicians.My opinions stemmed from a divisive dynamic that exists for musicians (and fans) between going commercial or staying independent.

As Ian pointed out in some earlier lectures, punks in the 1970s went home to their parents and were fed and clothed. A cultural revolution incited by youth needs something to rebel against, but it also needs something material to rely on. Like mummy's casserole, that she made for you while living out her conservative ideals and dreams.

It's useful to remember that Indie (according to David Hesmondhalgh):

"is a contemporary genre which has its roots in punk's institutional and aesthetic challenge to the popular music industry."

If Indie musicians (and their fans) are still rebelling against industries or conventions, it is just as likely they could, in the future, rely on those systems for material and financial support. i.e. They could sell out.

Hesmondalgh probably has a point about Indie as a genre of music - but as a subculture built on music it has more extensive implications for shared identities and practices.

This post will make a case study of a seminal Indie band – Sonic Youth. I’ll use two major texts: What is Indie Rock? from the reader, By Ryan Hibbett; and a chapter on Sonic Youth from Michael Azerrad's book, Our Band Could be your life.

Sonic Youth, according to Michael Azerrad, emerged in the mid 1980s as "the Indie archetype. The yardstick by which independence and hipness (the very equation is in no small part due to them) were measured."

There’s that word ‘hipness’ - Where your reputation (or even your identity) is defined by your being independent (from the mainstream). What is the mainstream exactly? Is it in binary opposition to Indie/alternative?

Perhaps Thurston Moore (and the rest of Sonic youth) asked themselves that question when in an interview with pitchfork media in 2007. They dropped a minor bombshell, announcing they were putting out a best of album with Starbucks this winter. The album is ironically titled 'Hits are for squares.'

Sonic youth are seen as Indie heroes (although they signed to Geffen Records, a Universal affiliate back in little old 1990). They emerged from the radical No wave, New York scene of the 1980s with a D.I.Y punk attitude to performance and distribution and an artistic approach to expression. They have an avant garde sound that's labelled as 'noise' rock. Their music uses alternate guitar tunings and they are known for using experimental methods to alter their sound (like using screwdrivers on strings). They sound like this:

Some people call this discordant noise, and others call it avant garde genius. If you want to maintain your Indie cred, then you might want to go by the latter assertion.

Back to selling out. Does signing to a major label (or it's smaller affiliate) immediately lose you all the artistic authenticity you established in your independent years of production?

Ryan Gibbett believes that:

"Cultural capital can cease to have value as it becomes increasingly accessible".

Azerrad agrees with him . He argues that:

"Sonic Youth (along with 12 other 1980s Indie bands he wrote about in his book) virtually wrote their best material when they were on independent labels."

However, what is ‘best’ for Azerrad is a contentious point, as it may not be best for the rest of us. Questions of aesthetics, authenticity, and how economic politics influence the means and the end of music production are implied in Azerrad’s very, very Indie assertion.

Indie cred and Indie values could possibly be approached using two different discourses: aesthetics and politics. Some will argue that aesthetics (i.e the type and quality of music) are indirectly affected by politics. The music is dictated (these days) by large corporations who have signed artists who make the music. Or artists who have succumbed to the competitive consumerism of our capitalist society have been pragmatic (or soulless) enough to write music with a sound that might later suit a car add. Or a phone add. Or perhaps a Tom Cruise movie. Sonic Youth might want to consider Starbucks regulars who are right wing, over 40 and have never heard their name.

But it's not all elevator music, we know that. The music itself is not entirely controlled by conglomerates. It seems more a matter of branding than regulation. And branding gets back to the power of signifiers for cultural capital(or lack thereof). Sonic Youth's songs are still their songs- they won't sound different on the Best of CD. However, a small group of people might enjoy their special sound.This shared taste is not something they'd want any random conservative to poach. It's their way of life. It's part of their shared identity. As critic, Robert Lanham (who wrote the satirical hipster handbook) says:

"Knowing that my taste in music is still hipper than Starbucks' legion of Alanis Morissette fans has always been comforting to me."

and

"I can't go to Starbucks and hear Thurston Moore and Kim Gordon. Starbucks are for squares, ...and for the love of God let's keep it that way."

This post is blathering on too long. But I've at least broached the issue of selling out for musicians as well as fans. Next post I'll take a look at the perspectives of angry people on a message board when they found out about Sonic Youth and Starbucks. The Big question I'll try and answer is: What are the practices and ideologies within the Indie scene that distinguish between merely utilising mainstream production, and selling out completely.

In conclusion, for some lite trivia, please note the picture on the left at the top. Courtney Love has now sold her deceased husband's name to Converse (a brand owned by Nike). A limited edition Kurt Cobain shoe is due to be released. Are Converse Chuck Taylor's Indie? They used to be. Is Kurt Cobain’s name an Indie symbol? He’s dead, so he doesn’t really get a say. But Courtney has openly admitted she just wants to make ‘a lot of money’ from his name. Now all the cool kids can buy a special shoe and some 'subcultural' capital from a multinational. Sweet.

A lecture, a tute and a night out

After the above three events, some points are reorientating my research:

.CULTURAL CAPITAL (post Ian’s tutes, and the readings for week 7, I am increasingly finding that a consciousness of cultural capital now defines A LOT of EVERYTHING)….
Which leads to my next point on :

.BOURDIEU. Specifically, his conception of Cultural Capital as a social exchange that is either embodied or learned. (either way, it’s intrinsic to our interactions).

.INDIE – this is the subculture I'm going to focus on. I guess I'd identify as Indie, so it makes some academic theories a little more easy to understand in a practical context. I guess it also engenders some subjectivity, some bias. But subjectivity when it comes to ‘sellouts’ is arguably what generates debate in the first place. The fact that musicians want to be able to make money is, in itself, not that scandalous. It's quite practical. But questions of how much money? and from whom? And will it change your sound? And will I identify with the people that like that sound? are things that speak more of Indie attitudes and values. These are questions of politics and taste. People get passionate about those things.

YOUTH - Indie as a genre is one way of looking at a type of music, and a culture of music. But it has more extensive implications for shared (and targeted) identities and practices. This is demonstrated by one of its major forerunners: College Radio in the 1980s. College Radio emerged as an independent Radio network for various colleges in the US. According to Holly Kruse in her book, Site and sound : understanding independent music scenes,

"Music put out by independent record labels (and disseminated over the air waves of college radio stations emerged onto a national (and international scene)."


In this way you can conclude that the kids at college, back then, were doing it for themselves. (D.I.Y). They were both consuming and mediating cultural artefacts. The fact that this music couldn't be heard on mainstream radio stations assured an 'us' vs 'them' mentality that denoted the music as morally superior, and more organic. More on the aspect of authenticity later. Main point is, Indie was for the kids - and generally still is.

Back to Bourdieu, and taste in music (and art in general) as a marker of cultural capital.
The quote below is veh veh amazing: it encapsulates what I couldn't hope to observe about taste/identity/aesthetics and subjectivity:

"Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier. Social subjects, classified by their classifications, distinguish themselves by the distinctions they make, between the beautiful and the ugly, the distinguished and the vulgar, in which their position in the objective classifications is expressed or betrayed." (from Distinction)

(So I think what he meant was: Once you say you like X, (be it a band, a movie, a vintage shop etc.) you are an X sort of person, not a Y person like the person over there in the corner. And the more you judge them for being Y, the more of an X you are. )



Field Work: (sort of)

The other night I was watching an album launch in the valley. I was chatting with someone from a supporting act. I said to him, I like band X, and he rolled his eyes and said…’they’re so derivative.’ The conversation ended. I felt tasteless and generic for liking ‘derivative’ bands, and he went strutting off in his Cuban heels, his tight pants and his Dave Graney crevatte. Wanker.

Clearly he had more cultural capital to play with than me. The band I liked was more popular than all the obscure ones he’d rattled off to me when he mentioned his taste. (and they all must have been entirely avant garde and none of them derivative.) His appearance and his playing in a band from Melbourne might have generated some capital too.

There was a wealthy middle-aged mum there that night who suggested to a grungey, druggy band I know that they could make lots of money from playing on a P & O cruise. Oopsy. Poor thing had never heard them play before and as she left the room they sniggered behind their hands.

Clearly she had no problem with sellouts, but I think she wouldn't have even seen a band on P & O as a sellout. They would just be making money, or being successful. With all her wealth she had zero subcultural capital amongst these people. And if she could have bought it she might have known that selling out (particularly to a chain of holiday liners) is BIG FAT NO NO.

They're crap because they sold out on us!

Howdy. The above title signals the gist of my research. I'm curious to investigate bands that made the crossover from subculture to popular culture, and (according to fan bases) lost some of their credibility/authenticity/artistic integrity/coolness (whatever you wanna call it).

At the same time I'm interested that some bands have become commercially successful but still attain the allure of being 'underground' (for fans anyway). Ian mentioned the fact there will always be some ongoing tension between artistic production and commerce, and I guess I will need to consider this dynamic in my research.

Being a brissie girl, I can't help but raise the question of....ahem...Powderfinger.

I heard someone on Triple Zed dissing their music the other day, and, quite frankly, I agree that 'new' powderfinger is not high on rotation at my house. However 'new' Nick Cave is, and Triple Zed play his songs. They also play Kate Miller-Heidke (just signed to Sony).
They're Australian artists with commercial clout and great popularity....So what's the difference?? ?

On a personal level, I'd be quite happy to go see Regurgitator, or Ed Kuepper, or Dave Graney (or any other Australian acts that have 'sort of' made it. ) But I wonder why I (and many of my friends) draw the line at bands like Powderfinger, and poor old Silverchair. (Feel a bit iffy about Eskimo Joe too).

Clearly, these are my subjective opinions. I'm no arbiter on what's 'authentic' music and what isn't, and I reckon all these bands have produced some great music at times. But what is it that turns me off them now???

These are all random thoughts for now. I'll try to be more cohesive next post.

TA TA.