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.

---