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.