Finley Breeze Issue #5 - The Culture of Independent Music July 15, 1995 ------------- In this issue: A Response to Finley #4 - Susan Curran Random Notes From The Diary... - Scott Puckett That's When I Reach For My Revolver - Douglas Wolk a personal take on this cultcha thing - Dann Medinn Bind or Bond? - Steve Silverstein ...as it was in the beginning... - Sean Murphy ========== Some introductory remarks... 1. Deadlines are an artificial constraint on the productivity of the human race. They can be set, but never relied upon. 2. I'm feeling a lot better about Finley these days (as opposed to when I issued the call for submissions to #5), and can definitely say that there will be a #6 before summer's end (or winter's end, for our southern hemispheric participants). 3. Not that anyone really asked for it, but there is now a Finley statement of terms/not-so-FAQ-list available on the Web... point your favorite browser at if you'd like to check it out. It's still in its early stages - if I get frisky this summer, I may figure out a way to link the old issues to the home page, whether in HTML or gopher format. 4. Call for submissions #6 will take place in a week or two. I'm in the middle of moving from DC back to my old stomping grounds of central New Jersey, but should be back on-line shortly. Luckily, I'm not changing net addresses (courtesy of my pals in Princeton who found me a spare account to telnet off...) - I'm still going to be . 5. Much more than previous issues, I see this one as a continuing project... it's something that I'd like to come back to periodically and update and reflect on. So, please feel free to pass your comments and responses along to me... I see no problem with mailing out a #5.1 or #5a as a follow-up, and I think it might be interesting to get more perspectives included. As always, thanks for taking the time to read this, whenever you do get to it... I do realize that 700+ lines of mail can sometimes be a problem, particularly when reading at work... Sean Murphy coordinator, Finley Breeze grumpy@access.digex.net ========== Response to Finley #4 & Soul Susan Curran Reading over the last issue of Finley Breeze, I found myself having a lot of the same reservations expressed and considered writing a rebuttal, but decided I couldn't complain about what others had written if I continued to lurk. Oh well. Screw that, right? This is America and everyone's entitled to an opinion and a lawyer to defend it. It was frustrating that everyone seemed to be sticking to a rather narrow definition of soul. Soul isn't necessarily hip-hop or blues or James Brown. Soul became a word for music as an indication that there's something in us that reacts to music on more than an academic level. Music can be funky, tribal, jangly, surreal or any other of a huge array of adjectives - but none of those can really describe what a song may mean to you. Even though I co-edit a music zine, I'm continually frustrated by how hard it is to convey what a song sounds like in mere words. That is to say, what it -really- sounds like. You can name-drop like CMJ (if you like the breeders, you will probably like veruca salt) but that means nothing since v. salt are a soulless ripoff. Ah yes, that word again. I guess soul is most often used as a religious term, and I'm a devout atheist. but I won't try to deny that there is an element to music, and life, that can only be attributed to the soul. Perhaps passion would be a better word? Honesty? Humanity? Integrity? Indie credibility?? Well, that smacks of its own irony. And soul, as I'm defining it, is irony-free. The link between music and religion comes via faith - and transcendence. You cannot stand back detachedly, smirking, and claim to have soul anymore than you can be a televangelist raking in millions of dollars as a way to find God. You have to subsume yourself in a higher power - be that God or a guitar - and find your own way. Or let it find you. Susan ========== Random Notes From the Diary of a Partisan Behind the Lines, or No Future for the Alternative Generation X ... Scott Puckett First things first -- Alternative culture is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist. Much like military intelligence, lawful taxation and other such prattle, the term is nothing more than a hollow media construct carrying certain ideas and notions, allowing the facsimile of insight into contemporary youth "movements" but actually only misleading people into something they feel is an understanding. Bear with me. I'll explain. Blame it all on the Buggles if you must. After all, they are the band which created the first video shown on the bedsore on the ass of society that we call MTV. Lest ye immediately begin screaming "HYPOCRITE! THOU WATCHEST MTV TOO!", I'll cop to it: I do watch MTV. I watch it religiously, ignoring the Pop 40 vids and searching for the elusive video with interesting cinematic qualities, visual jokes or cool music. Naturally, I spend a lot of time searching. But that's beside the point. When that Buggles video debuted, it ushered in a new era in music. No one can argue the significance MTV has on what passes for youth culture. Nearly single-handedly, it assumed the ability to monopolize culture, to transmit fragments of style and factions to people. It began to broadcast images of a global youth, united in flannel and body piercings, one alternative nation under gangsta rap, with videos and veejays for all. From the early days with veejays like Martha Quinn and Mark Goodman to simpering fashion victims like Lewis Largent and Kennedy, MTV has attempted to portray a cooler-than-cool and certainly cooler than the viewers image through programs like Alternative Nation. And let's be realistic -- the only thing such programs do is encourage conformity to a Procrustean ideal of "alternative" living, pierced lips and all. Yeah. Thanks but no thanks. However, MTV has had a significant, if immeasurable, effect on people who aren't familiar with, say, Teenbeat Records or Shrimper. When a flickering tube projects images identified as cool, images which are then commercialized, adopted by and sold to groups of teens en masse, naturally it will affect the "Culture" as a whole. So what has the result been? Grunge rock. Senser and Rage Against the Machine. The commodification of punk. Copying videos, which were copies of another copy which (alluding to something earlier) alluded to idealized forms which never existed. Maybe reified simulacra is the best way to put it, if that makes any sense; making real a copy of something with no original. This is MTV's rendition of culture, played 24 hours a day, broadcast around the world on corporate-owned satellites. What a culture. What a country. I've been taking notes on them and watching them very carefully, but I have to be careful not to tip my hand. If they find out I'm here, I'm done for. They'll send me to the camps and beam TLC and Rembrandts videos straight into my head, no protection from the skull. They'll shoot them through my optic nerve at four videos per second to try to reprogram my perceptions in a stuttering, flashing pastiche of pop and images of coolness. In the meantime, I remain undetected and these cultural imperialists continue to foist their ideas on an unsuspecting public. But you see, I'm onto them. We all are, or at least should be. MTV has established a cultural hegemony, defining, no, DICTATING what is, was and shall be "cool." They mandate what music composes the soundtrack to contemporary youth and what fashions will clothe them through these 3-minute long commericals for X-Girl, Fuct and Billabong. This single network controls how people dress, what they listen to, and even more importantly, WHAT THEY THINK by bombarding the youth with images. Kids of today shouldn't worry about Boston and other relics of the 70's. At least back then, a discernible youth culture could be found, captured in films like _The Bad News Bears_ and _Dazed and Confused_. Kids of today should defend themselves against MTV. So what does all this gibbering about MTV have to do with culture? Everything. This network panders to every segment of youth, ghettoizing music in specialty programs, making distinctions between rap, alternative, metal, R & B and the like. They put veejays on to market the music, veejays who look like the people in the videos. Witness Kennedy, she who hosts Alternative Nation and seems to be so ... alternative, for lack of a better word, because she resembles most of the people in the videos. It's only a matter of time before she and Beck become an item. I'm convinced of this. But to shift the focus to alternative, which is what I'm most familiar with, it seems strange that "alternative" bands like Soul Asylum (who sold a few million copies of "Grave Dancer's Union") are an alternative to something. An alternative to what? The other 9 records in Billboard's Top 10? What is the Catherine Wheel an alternative to? Ride? Smashing Pumpkins? Pearl Jam? What is Pearl Jam an alternative to? Soundgarden? In controlling culture by marketing it to viewers, by labeling it, giving it "outsider" status (think about it, the very name "alternative" suggests something set apart and away from norms, especially cultural ones, i.e. "Alternative lifestyles"), MTV killed the very thing they were trying to construct and commodify WHILE THEY WERE CREATING IT. What a nifty trick, building a better mousetrap and setting it on fire as you start to put it together. Essentially, there is no alternative anymore. By dint of this, it could be argued that "alternative" culture doesn't exist either. Like the music which has crept into the upper reaches of the Billboard and Gavin charts, alternative culture has been co-opted, absorbed and made part of mass/popular culture again. The rebels have been castrated, the punks aren't spitting on anyone and the stage divers gave up combat boots for designer brand footwear. I am MTV, you have been assimilated. [Resistance is futile. - The MTV Borg. (ed.)] The partisans are out there though. I had a meeting with other members of my cell tonight -- the old rude boy who thinks the current wave of ska, much like Propagandhi claims, "sucks." The Young Turk who thinks those Turks of the New Bomb variety are pretty cool. The GbV Barricade Regulars. The writer who thinks Kathleen Hanna is the Queen of the neighborhood. Guerillas, all of them, ignoring the images, seeing through specially ground glasses, much like those who fought against the perception of reality and actuality in John Carpenter's "They Live." This is our manifesto: Alternative culture is dead, if it ever existed. Stop labeling whatever exists, if anything exists at all. Stop trying to make sense of chaos. Stop trying to impose order on a dynamic, fluctuating, vibrant system. And, to borrow a line from a band which has been overlooked in culture, "Blow up your video." ========== THAT'S WHEN I REACH FOR MY REVOLVER Douglas Wolk Independent music[1] is music independent of culture. More specifically, it's informed by the idea that music can be successful in ways that have nothing to do with the cultural uses of music: something to work to, to work out to, to dance to, to fuck to, to provide a mirror for personal emotion, to provide an exemplar for personal emotion, to provide a way of being closer to its hero-creators, to reinforce political beliefs, to be furniture, to be wallpaper, to be a social lubricant. It's also made outside of received cultural ideas of how popular music should be made: slickly, with lots of money from a record label (hence the myth of the transformative power of "signing"). We all know this, so I won't elaborate. Cultural paradigms like the ones that surround most popular music are the ones that make smart young people run screaming when we realize that they're part of a machine to make us good consumers and good subjects; to keep us poor, dissatisfied, out of power and in our place. But since being shut out of culture and all alone is a horrifying prospect too, we look for signifiers in other people that say they're like us. Music is an easy one to spot: a K pin or a Mule T-shirt or a Neil Hamburger single says "I fled from the main body of culture for the same reason you did." Inevitably, when people who are exiles from mainstream culture for the same reason get together, they make a culture of their own; it's a basic human need. Since the people involved in the new culture are smart and young, the new culture is mostly pretty attractive. The trouble--for the music--starts when people start liking the culture more than the music, or act from the assumption that the music proceeds outward from the culture. What happens then is that people start liking independent music not for its vision of itself, but for its opposition to the mainstream. If you're buying a new Frumpies record as a cultural accessory, then it's just an old Bryan Adams record writ small; if you're buying it because it doesn't sound anything like Bryan Adams, then make no mistake, it's an accessory to the culture of opposition. (If you're buying it because it speaks to your soul, then God bless. In fact, if you can remember how any of the songs go, God bless.) This is fine as politics, but a disaster as aesthetic philosophy. What you end up with is a culture with a desperate need to cleave to itself. It hangs together and defends its disparate parts regardless of how good or how essential those parts are. It has a fear of all things that are of or connected to the "mainstream," good or (usually, it's true) bad. It has a Konsumterror--a fear that one is being a bad consumer, that one is missing out by not buying something-- that's just as pernicious as that of mainstream culture, if more genuine (there's more of a chance that you actually won't be able to buy the thing that will make you happy if you wait too long[2] ). The culture of opposition, then, ends up becoming obsessed with meta-questions of culture: how large can something be and still be small? At what point does the alternative become the thing that there is an alternative to? If I hear a Scrawl song on a soundtrack, should I be glad that they're reaching people they've never reached before, sad that they've been co-opted by a larger culture, or (going up another level of meta-) annoyed at myself for being petty enough to be concerned about the question at all? And the greater meaning of "culture," in this sense, puts us in a position of receptivity: what we listen to, what we buy, what we tape for friends (the act of selection is nice, but it's mostly an act of consumption). The only culture that really counts is the one that individuals create--by themselves or in groups that are only as large as they have to be (you can't have a discussion, or a live rock band, with only one person). That, actually, is the saving grace of independent music's culture: Since one of the primary principles behind this culture is that "anyone can do it" ("...if they have a little sense and are willing to work very hard"--John Lydon), lots of people _do_. Some people facilitate it directly, by booking shows, doing zines, running labels, whatever; the most important people _make_ "indie" or, if they have a little sense and are willing to work very hard, independent music. Relative to any other culture I know, almost nobody within the scene is just a passive receptor for the music (or its cultural trappings). This means that we put up with a lot of bad bands, bad zines, and awful records. We don't have to, and I wish we didn't. But the fact that so many people are at least trying to make the artifacts of culture is one of the things that keeps me from giving up on the scene altogether, and just sitting alone in my apartment, listening to my X-Ray Spex and Biota records. **************** [1] In the context of this article, what I mean by this is artistic, not financial, independence. I'm not referring to music on independent labels, which is another kettle of fish, and a very simple one. (Does some source other than the label itself write any of the checks? Then it's not an independent label. If not, then it is an independent label. Simple as that. Just look in the dictionary if you're unclear on the meaning of "independent.") Independent music and the main part of "indie-rock" are strongly related, though they're not synonymous. The Boredoms, just as an example, are independent music in the sense I'm using it here; the entirely self-released CD of a Long Island hair-metal band dying to be the next Kix is not. [2] Although if it's not the World Of Pooh album, it's probably not actually the thing that will make you happy. Anybody remember those limited-to-500 Trumans Water albums? Anybody think they were any good? Didn't think so. ========== A personal take on this cultcha-thing dann medin i was a junior in high school when i first heard fugazi. i was in the car with my friend karl & he put in a tape, saying "this is ian mackaye's new band." that summer in israel, another friend of mine from philidelphia told me how huge fugazi was getting, and about how good their new album ("repeater") was. my musical inclinations around this time were centered mostly around hardcore - the metal transition was pretty much completed when i cut my hair that july. since, there seem to have been two defining hardcore scenes that were very influential, politically & hormonally (as in "inclined to spontaneous adrenaline rushes"), teenagers of this time period (late 80s, early 90s) not particularly dissimilar to the boston and dc blowups of a decade before. in california, an independent label named ebullition was putting out very heavy testosterone bands like downcast & struggle. in new haven, ct, revelation records hosted a slew of the new york city hardcore bands like bold, supertouch, & youth of today. being from ct myself, i was unaware of the other coast's activities & fell into the latter category. fr the most part throughout my high school years, i religiously followed the revelation roster, and the gorilla biscuits (and minor threat, although fr some reason i never tailended dischord's releases until jawbox) were my favorite band. if i felt like being an asshole, i would ask why labels like revelation, ebullition, and more recently, victory are left out of the categorization of "indie rock." the argument would hence follow along the lines of "why wouldn't these bands constitute such a definition if such a definition constitutes being on an independent label?" but this is not the focus of this essay. just some- thing to think about. i'm trying to outline my personal experience through which i arrived in the present state of working w/in the territory of whatever this "indie rock" thing is. anyways, one year i was listening to murphy's law & quicksand religiously, and the next i owned everything by fugazi & hungrily tuned into the college station in danbury (wxci) as often as it would come in. not that i stopped listening to the above bands, it was more along the lines that my tastes were finally open to everyday listening genres beyond hip hop & hardcore (the two first tapes i ever bought were the beastie boys & run dmc in 6th grade. it never ended. so i'll take this time to prop the new dream warriors album, 4 or 5 years in the waiting. just about as good as the last one, even though i feared a severe let-down. damn good jazzy tribe-vibe recline & relax phat jams. dood.). the next big turning point was coming to school @ uconn & finally getting to see fugazi 2 years ago. not that coming to school @ uconn was what made me dump my shelter shirt in the garbage (an incredibly lame show & irritating pulpit preach did), and to this day i still listen to some hardcore that is creative or just continue to like, like quicksand. although fr obvious reasons i believe that they are assholes in the vein of being entirely profitminded, which bothers me - i was always pissed off by bands that charged too much @ the door. suddenly being exposed to the greater catalogues of labels like dischord & kill rock stars (although they didn't have that much stuff out when i started listening & digging out stuff from the library) and shows that didn't cost more than $6 meant a lot to me. it was like having shades lifted off of my watertown connecticut eyes and seeing how large and beautiful the music scene could be. i applied fr a jazz show & spent countless hours recording in the studio & listening in the library to old records and new cds. i asked the operations director, dan cohen, fr recommendations. he wrote down pavement, stereolab, and even a band that i had accidentaly seen (and enjoyed very much) a few years earlier, the coctails. and that was about it. i payed attention to everything that was going through the push file, kept on working on my musical education. and i began going to shows up in boston as often as possible. somehow, everything seems to have fallen into place. i found a world where i can participate and help out the bands that i love, put on shows and not charge more than $5-$6, orgainize events, and - when i did have money - not get ripped off buying cds by the bands i like. and of course, along the lines, there have been so many other things that have filled in the spaces. what you have here, this story, is only a tiny fraction of some 5-6 years of my life. but its the last two years during which i've been able to do everything that i wanted to do in jr. high, when listening to metallica was not only an alternative to the cheese radio the rest of the school listened to, but something that was made fun of (which nirvana was in high school before the whole mtv thing went down). and its this same "indie rock" scene that i believe (i think) that constitutes a lot of the music and work that i do, the culture that i live when i crash out w/bands in other cities on road trips & put them up when they're in connecticut. some kind of like-minded consciousness that there comes a point in time when a line gets drawn separating music fr music's sake and music fr profit & popularity's sake. and of course, there isn't much money in it. the only reason that i was able to pay my rent last month was lucky timing on a reimbursement check fr doing a retail job in dc. and that's not glamorous, easy, or particularly comforting fr whatever "punk rock credibility" people may assign. because i love what i'm doing, and i'm surrounded by beautiful music and people who (i hope) feel the same way. and damn, it makes me feel good. much better than any kind of definition. ========== Bind or Bond? Steve Silverstein When I first thought about indie culture to answer Sean's question, I had a big range of emotional responses. When I tried to bring together a rational response, I was in the middle of many personal transitions (geographical, phase of life), and I think this chaos inspired the most negative ones to come to the front. My piece was going to be called "I hate you, indie culture, with a passion, yeah." Then, I regained my senses and remembered all of the positive things which, essentially, indie culture has brought to my life, and said "I can't write that". Ultimately, I'm concluding that my feelings about indie culture depend on just how narrowly or broadly I choose to define the word indie. Since I was going to write it first, I'll start with the more negative view of indie culture. To one side of me, indie culture is very stifling. People tend to watch bands like Pavement, Sonic Youth, or Shellac fairly religiously. Sadly, Pavement and Sonic Youth have not only lost their interesting aspects, but have become the very fashion figures and rock stars which they once set out to tear down. Such "star" bands can dictate what people listen to and have significant control over dialogue. This mentality breeds bands like the Archers of Loaf, who merely ape the fashionable band of the week, and, whether or not they do it well, fail to bring any new ideas to the plate. People tend to be discouraged from seeking out lost ideas in history or even hidden geniuses in the present, and instead follow the very herd mentality which Pavement and Sonic Youth once fought to destroy. So much of the best music I've ever heard, from Fred Frith and Rene Lussier to Vladimir Ussachevsky, I've learned about by completely bypassing indie rock people, and learning from "outside sources". The problems in the indie community, however, extend far beyond the musical fascism which punk rock sought to destroy. There is a scary homogeneity in much of the indie community. Folks tend to come from similar fashionable urban backgrounds to have ended up in the indie world. People who dress like indie bands and have similar smiley-faced personae tend to fit right in. Others can feel like outsiders, either intimidating indie folks or being intimidated by them. One of the funniest stories I've heard recently was of a band who were genuinely terrified of playing with Six Finger Satellite, apparently because they aren't smiling little indie kids. It's far too easy to feel at home with people from well-bred backgrounds who shop at the same thrift stores, but it's also a problem. While indie culture may be less intimidating to some people than the violence of punk rock, it's still easy for folks from different backgrounds to look at hip indie bands, and even the people who surround them, as they'd looked at their previous favorite "rock stars". To make anyone who wants to feel welcome, indie culture needs to shed any feeling of fashion or "sameness" and make it the welcoming and inclusive force which it can be. The great thing about indie rock, to me, is cherishing people for who they are and what they create, rather than judging them by more objective standards of conformity. This ideal leads me to why, in the end, I couldn't leave it at "I Hate You", even if it is a great song. Indie culture has brought me a lot of positives. The thing I really wanted to talk about, actually, is how indie culture can help unite people who were outsiders in the past, even if they were outside in different directions and never encountered before. The story, though, also points out part of the issue, which is the boundaries of indie culture. The story centers around the Dischord rock band Lungfish, who, in many ways are very un-indie, even as they have records on Dischord and Simple Machines. To describe Lungfish's sound as remotely "indie" is to stretch the term pretty far, yet Lungfish are in a lot of ways an indie band. Like me, Lungfish are originally from Baltimore. When I last saw them in Providence, I talked to them afterwards about sharing a hometown. Discussions led to the fact that their then-roadie, Paul Hutzler, grew up several blocks away from me only several years earlier. Paul and I each grew up in our own little isolated worlds, and despite geographical proximity, never met. Now, 300 miles from our suburban neighborhood, we encountered each other in a compatible setting. I found, and still find, it wonderful how indie rock has brought many people together in many similar situations. I think what brings people together about indie rock is the willingness to accept and think broadly. Lungfish are pretty eccentric and pretty far from what I think of as indie rock. But, in the end, it is the very willingness to accept a band like Lungfish that brings indie culture it's durability and strength, and makes it the positive force in the life of so many folks. If we limit ourselves to looking at what is cool and trying to force people in our boundaries, we might as well give up. If instead we look to accept Lungfish (even though their records, while amazing, could use a bit more variation) and other bands that don't quite fit into our narrow visions of fashion, music, and identity, we will continue to have the strength and the power to remain an affirming force in our lives and in the lives of others. ========== ... as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end... Sean Murphy As I've been thinking my way through some of this stuff, I've realized that I want to take the topic in two directions. They're pretty closely related, but not identical... so we'll see what happens. Any glaring discontinuities or inconsistencies are probably the result of that split. Culture is dynamic and everlasting. It has been, is now, and will be. I think this is valid for any culture, including ones generally considered to be dead. Maya, Olmec, and Aztec culture is alive today, both in the lives of Mexicans and Guatemalans who are descended from those groups and in the world at large which knows of the accomplishments, abilities, and skills of those peoples. Obviously, the past, present, and future are different, but they are all bound together and influence each other - our understanding of the past is influenced by our knowledge in the present, and such understanding along with present experience shapes the future before we actually reach it. For the culture of independent music, however, there are a few more definitions to tackle. Not the classic "what's an indie band" or "what's an indie label" - those are for you to determine individually. But there are a few questions that I'm interested in checking out which lie behind the common flame-fodder. First off, I'm going to assume that we all recognize something that can be loosely called "independent." Does that independent status require there to be a "dependent" status? (Or, switching to logic for a minute, if there is an X, must there be a not X ?) While I think there is a whole hell of a lot of dependent music and culture out there, I'd like to believe that independent culture can be defined through its own merits, without recourse to negative definitions. The definition will never be complete, because the subject is always shifting. Some common elements, however, do emerge after looking at various elements of independent expressions in music and other artistic forms which create the independent culture. (warning - yes, I just shifted from "the culture of independent music" to "independent culture." I'll shift back shortly - promise. But I need to jump out here long enough to make a couple points.) What are these elements which positively define independent culture? Perhaps a dedication to doing something for the pure experience... creating something which has strong personal value and reflects personal experience... supporting the individuals working in the same pattern or style that you have chosen... Vague, but applicable across a wide range of pursuits and endeavors. Perhaps this is too vague, however - would Bill Gates be a part of independent culture because he created Microsoft from the pursuit of these factors? It's not beyond the realm of imagination, and it may describe the origins of Microsoft, though I think Microsoft crossed the line into mainstream corporate America some time ago, chasing nothing but the almighty dollar rather than the personal visions of its programmers, who see the potential to create better, faster, more effective programs. (As an example, I hold out Microsoft Word 6.0 for the Macintosh... clunky, slow, a total memory hog from hell, and not particularly effective... I personally refuse to upgrade from 5.1 and may switch over to some other system sometime soon, except that MS Word is so damn convenient and nearly universal in the mac-world...) Fuck stock options on the company... I'd rather have some sense of security in the opportunity to pursue a personal vision or aesthetic after crunching through a certain level of work that I've been asked to perform. (Side note - I devoured Douglas Coupland's new novel _Microserfs_ in less than a day... it hit home more than I'd normally like to admit... while I'm currently working for a start-up company in a non-computer field rather than a recognized industry leader, the same experiences do take place. Highly recommended for those in the corporate world... it won't make much sense if you're still in school, though it will be somewhat entertaining...) Back to the culture of independent music, however... I think that no matter how hard we look for a positivist definition, we wind up resorting to negative definitions. To set something apart, there must be something on the other side of "apart." And while "dependent rock" has a certain clear connotation, it's rather ugly to say. So I propose a new title for the M*ch**l B*lt*ns and Wingers of the world - lemming rock. People content to do what they're told because it's commercially viable. Who needs art and individual vision when there's money? This does not invalidate my love of true pop music written by someone removed from the performer - Pet Clark brought something of herself to her better songs, a personal approach not dictated by the composer, arranger, or producer. And at the same time, a song like "This Girl/Guy's In Love With You" shows the pure, independent artistic ability of its writers, Hal David and Burt Bachrach, no matter who's performing the song - Pet Clark, Herb Alpert, Dionne Warwick, Grenadine, et al. And that sort of pop music, whether it's the better elements of the Brill Building empire, Phil Spector, Gerry Goffin and Carole King, Holland/Dozier/Holland, Tony Hatch, or Bachrach/David, that music shows that independent music exists throughout the "establishment." It's not just the DIY, recorded on a 4-track in my living room person that gets to participate in independent music. But back to the point... we all recognize lemming-rock. It's what commonly gets played on the radio stations that wrap themselves in the "alternative" mantle that Scott Puckett described earlier in this issue. It's what typically gets played on the "classic-rock" stations, to a large extent... it's the new hipster "seventies" stations... it's anything that suggests that originality and personal vision and integrity are subordinate to the pursuit of hard, cold cash. Both fans and performers can be and frequently are lemmings. Independent performers in every age and every genre break beyond those wanna-be, gimmie-gimmie-gimmie tendencies. So... more on point, but less universal and helpful -> a contemplation of independent music culture. Many people who fall into the independent camp belonged there all along, but were too scared to acknowldege it. It's hard to buck the trend, to do what's different, to stand alone. A truly independent person can and will do that. But the majority of people who identify with independent music have some sublimated desire to be "one of the crowd." There's a certain validation sought by members of the independent world, a recognition by others that striking out on a personal vision is the right thing. And unfortunately, to achieve this validation, there is a bastard child of independent culture known as "indie-culture." The members of "indie-culture" seek an environment of validation because they weren't part of the "in-crowd" at some formative juncture in life. High school seems to be a common time for American members of the culture, but I make no universal claims as to when other people identify with or recognize indie-culture. From a distinctly middle-class, college-educated, American perspective, I offer this analysis - people who fall into "indie-culture" weren't the jocks, the artistes, the social elites, or any other clearly defined groups in school. Indies may have felt certain kinships with elements of the existing order, but were never a complete part of that order. (Personal high school version of this: I wrestled and played football, but wasn't a jock; I worked on stage crew and lighting and even appeared in a couple plays, but wasn't a theater-guy; I debated and worked on Model United Nations, but wasn't part of the debate-crew.) Indies are always on the periphery of other groups, sometimes accepted but never belonging. And this helps explain the odd lengths to which some will go for validation which ultimately destroys the object of devotion in the first place. Advocates of "indie-culture" are genuinely happy to perform or see their favorite bands on Letterman/Leno/Conan O'Brien/Saturday Night Live/120 Minutes, but get disappointed by the lackluster or non-commited performances. Indie-kids are happy when their friends in the "in crowd" pick up on certain elements of the indie scene, but get pissed when bands "sell out" or become commercially viable. If all the frat-boys are listening to band-X, then that band can't be cool or indie anymore. This attitude says nothing about the independent nature of the music - it relates only to the external validation. Some validation is OK, too much become co-option and seizure. Nirvana was taken over by the frat boys - I can't count the number of times I heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit" get blared out a dorm window while walking through campus, only to hear the first measure of "In Bloom" and then a quick silence followed by Jimmy Buffett or the Steve Miller Band. The Violent Femmes' first LP has been taken over in the same way. Ditto for elements of the "flashback cafe" or other nostalgia programs on radio... thereีs a lot of music which is still vital and independent and significant, but devalued by the reactions of "les autres." (and of course, we as participants in any independent culture know that "l'enfer, c'est les autres.") Of course, there's another form of validation, one that is created by the independents whcih completely disregards and devalues the others. In its most extreme form, this validation can become Henry Rollins' recent public persona or _Maximum Rock and Roll_ - institutions which have made significant contributions but became completely irrelevant self-parodies without realizing it. These institutions establish pure codes of right and wrong action, and live through strict adherence to the code. And living by that code, they present a dangerous form of inbreeding which spawns nasty things like the late 80's New York/Revelation Records straight edge scene. True and complete individualism can abide by no code other than the self, though it can frequently conform to the pressures of "les autres" to get by for some period of time. Either form of validation leads eventually to cannibalism. Unsubstantiated cries of "sell-out" and hasty arguments of "well, their first single is cool, 500 copies were pressed, and I have the only copy on magenta vinyl with a purple ink cover" go hand in hand with cannibalism. The "I was there first" contention and the disparagement of that which becomes popular is really another bid for validation. To quote a Morrissey song title, "We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful." This isn't always unjustified - far too many bands have suffered from over-exposure and the major label experience. Some have perservered, some died in the process, and many get forgotten because they're too adventurous and independent for the lemmings, but they've sought the lemming audience and therefore can't be valid for an indie-listener. On the whole, though, indies are generally too quick to turn their backs on the kids who suddenly get accepted by the "in-crowd." This happens despite the fact that either the collective force of the indie-kids or the sudden elevation of one of those indies is what may have convinced someone not of the indie-world to check it out, whether it be Shudder To Think, Small Factory, the Thomas Jefferson Slave Apartments, Big Dipper, or the Dave Matthews Band. I do draw a line between indie and independent. I'm not sure if it can be clearly defined - it's a gut feeling much of the time. Indie is just another trend, though a trend that exists at a sub-obvious and not-yet-exploited level. Independent exists oblivious to trends and fashions. Independents can be part of indie, they are occasionally picked up on the "popular" radar screen, and most of the time they toil in complete obscurity. This is all secondary to being independent, and that's what I've been driving at in various articles from time to time. For example, thanks to comments passed my way by Glenn Susser, I've listened to the Beach Boys' _Pet Sounds_ and found that it is really a wonderful, amazing, independent expression. Much of the Beach Boys' output may be dull and/or trite, but that record stands apart. Independence is a spark, and while some are lucky enough to ride that spark for an extended period, some catch it only for the duration of one recording session, one album, or one single. And that spark comes from the culture of the past, exists in the culture of the present, and inspires the culture of the future. Where this all leaves me as an individual... urgh. I'd like to think that I can recognize some of the individual and alternative, but I make no claims as to the absoluteness or validity of those views. I probably venture into the "indie" camp from time to time, but certainly strive toward the independent. And I'm trying to make some sense of it all, and I'd like to think that some limited self-awareness and meta-analysis is good. I'd love to say that "i am a rock, i am an island" but I know that's patently false, so self-analysis is as close as I can come to being objective and uninfluenced. At the same time, I'm glad I am influenced by things... Individuals in the independent camp show enough of a confidence in themselves that I cannot claim full membership in independent culture, though I'd like to have visiting status... perhaps a student visa or green card... ========== Coursing Through The Wires... Douglas Wolk : o Don Covay, _Mercy Mercy: The Definitive Don Covay_ o Boredoms, _Chocolate Synthesizer_ o God Is My Co-Pilot, _Puss 02_ advance tape o Biota, _Object Holder_ o Ornette Coleman, _The Empty Foxhole_ o Yoko Ono, _Plastic Ono Band_ o Royal House, _Come Over Here, Baby_ o Sentridoh, _The Original Losing Losers_ o pHoaming Edison, _Sold To The Second Highest Grady_ advance tape o Neutral Milk Hotel, "Up And Over We Go" ====== Dann Medinn : o virginia woolf's "a room of one's own" o ray gonzales (ed.) "mirrors beneath the earth: an anthology of chicano short stories" o the secret stars song "dating is stupid" (on shrimper cassette) o hospitality and kindness on road trips o karate, syrup usa, tizzy, vitapup, & the lune live o robert johnson box set, esp. disc 2 o the middle east cafe o kitty! josh's timony & omar's oso (respected owners and kitty names. not a fanzine by any means.) o no duh. this is a fanzine by all means. o people that i work w/(music director crap) in the music non-business that have a genuine passion fr the music itself (as opposed to $). i know that this sounds entirely cliche, but try spending a day on the phone w/trackers, promoters, and labels. getting downed about the state of art vs. money/corporate interests happens way too often. o the "cruise yourself" record by girls against boys o charles migus "epitaph" cdx2 o willimantic library (you can check out lots of great jazz, folk, & classical cds. they also don't charge fr overdue fines) o mom still rules ===== Steve Silverstein : o Many thanks to whoever sold the used Crime CD and 1st Speaking Canaries LP to dumb record stores in Chicago, which, in turn, priced them real cheap. Both are really wonderful and have made my life a bit happier. o Live highlight of late was Tony Conrad, Jim O'Rourke, and Dave Grubbs, as Gastr del Sol, opening the Table of the Elements weekend with an amazing piece of T. Conrad's from the early 70's. The 45 minute drone may have confused the kiddies in attendance (at least some of them), but was truly fascinating to survive. ===== Sean Murphy : o Brian Eno, _Here Come The Warm Jets_ (Island, 1973) o Death of Samantha, _Strungout On Jargon_ (Homestead, 1986) o Franklin Bruno, _A Bedroom Community_ (Simple Machines, 1995) o On-U Sound System, _Creation Rebel - Historic Moments Vol. 2_ (On-U/Restless 1995) o Terminals, _Disconnect_ EP, side two (Flying Nun, 1988) o Sam Adams Cherry Wheat Ale (definite fruit taste without being sweet... quite enjoyable) o The Dentists, "I Can See Your House From Up Here" (from the _Dressed_ compilation, Homestead, 1992) o New Order, _Power Corruption and Lies_, side one (Factory, 1983) o _dog so large i cannot see past it_ (WPRB compilation CD, to be released in early september?) ================= In Closing... ================= OFFICIAL INFORMATION SECTION: DISCLAIMER: All material contained within is the responsibility of the original author, as identified by name and electronic address. If there is no clear attribution, then I probably wrote it, and you can bitch at me. This may be reproduced freely, but I'd ask that those doing the re-distribution give credit where it's due. QUESTIONS, complaints, comments, etc. about the publication as a whole are welcome. Submissions are even better. Subscriptions are cool, too. All should be directed to: grumpy@access.digex.net As I get a lot of random mail each day, please make it clear at the outset that you're writing about FB, not just for your health or to see if you can send mail from your net-site to mine. Finally, as the inheritor of the Telegraphic mission specifications, I'm also holding onto the Telegraph archives. All three are available from me if you want 'em.