Richard Eoin Nash

articles

The End of Indie

I awoke in the middle of the night last night and checked email and Twitter around 4am (they say when you can’t sleep, it’s best to get up, and tire yourself out, before returning to bed). A Twitter follow announcement came in from Kaya Oakes, with whom I had been trying to scheduling an interview off and on in 2007 and 2008—I felt a pang of guilt as I checked out her tweets and saw that the book, for which the interview was to be conducted, was done. Finished, published. Slanted and Enchanted: The Evolution of Indie Culture is more or less what the subtitle say it is. I’ll spare you the appalling copy from the publisher, which manages to be both glib and patronizing, and give you a little of Publishers Weekly’s description:

“[A] lively and highly literate explication of various American indie scenes and art forms . . . [Oakes’] focus on independent publishing and writing—provides a worthy parallel narrative to Michael Azzerad’s essential indie music history, [Our]Band Could Be Your Life . . . Oakes begins the book with a much appreciated primer on some of the intellectual forebears of her book’s central characters, including the poets Frank O’Hara and Allen Ginsberg and the revolutionary street theater group the Diggers. As an explanation and excavation of the already fading recent past, it is essential reading.”—_Publishers Weekly_

I was momentarily rather bummed that I’d missed out on a chance to discuss the topic with Kaya when it dawned on me that I’d have had nothing very useful to say eighteen months ago. All is changed, changed utterly. Indie doesn’t mean anything anymore. It’s dead. Which is OK, because it won. Open source, Twitter. Indie won. Etsy. The irresistible decline of major labels and network TV and corporate publishing. Indie won. We won, but at the cost to many folks personally of suddenly becoming unnecessary. This was most visible in the last few years in the magazines like Punk Planet, Kitchen Sink, Clamor. But it’ll come for us all.

You see, to the extent that indie meant anything, it was as its root word, independent. It was about seizing the means of production. Independently produced. Aesthetics can be imitated, ethics faked, attitudes mimicked, but large bureaucracies could not possibly replicate the indie production process—how could they seize the means of production? They already had it! And now the means of production has devolved yet farther down, past the indie publishers and indie record labels and pirate radio stations of yore.

This is not to say we’ve entered Nirvana. Just because we’d seized the means of production in the 1990’s didn’t mean that poverty had been eradicated, racism ended, and the intellectual property land grab thwarted. We all have to use the tools we’ve been given, find value in, rather than discard, the tools of the past, hold feet to the fire, undermine monopoly, and so on. All things we tried to do with the means of production we seized in the 90’s, we have to continue do with the means of production that technology has handed to us in the 21st century. Moore’s Law is value-neutral, apolitical, amoral, just like Gutenberg’s press. Its how we use it.

So now the phase of indie is over, now that the monopoly on the production and distribution of knowledge, culture and opinion has been broken, what next, a new phase, a drive to, perhaps, create, maintain, defend a New Authenticity arises?—Ah, am I opening myself up for derision with that…? Never mind, I toss it up there, a wounded duck. Power will try to hide behind the people, let’s use a new authenticity to stop them.

Richard Eoin Nash, Aug 10, 2009

Comments

Discuss this article.

It’s certainly a fascinating time to be alive. When I was a girl dreaming of being a writer, “indie” was the worst thing you could do to your career if you wanted to go mainstream.

Now it seems that it’s just a different business model.

– Joely Black (08/10 10:38 AM)

Joely, I’ll add something even more provocative: you can’t go mainstream any more, either. The process I described above is a process that has as its corollary the end of mainstream! Sigh, complicated, I know. Mainstream basically depends on broadcast—that America sits down and has the same content broadcast to us, and we talk about it it next day around the watercooler. And that is atrophying too. We are paying less attention to what is broadcast to us, and more attention to what we go out and find ourselves, and to what a friend has told us we should go and find. Which is a principle indie relied on.

Another sound bite I could have used to headline this is: “We are all indie now.”

– Richard Eoin Nash (08/10 11:23 AM)

Looking at a computer or television screen late at night appears to make it harder to go to sleep, FYI.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=27995160-bde1-4421-9796-fb7e2c6e5047&k=84897

– Tracer Hand (08/10 12:17 PM)

I’m not sure that “new authenticity” is the answer. Trying to be Authentic at all costs has gotten more than a few rockers (and rappers) killed, and for no apparent good reason.

As more and more corporate entities appropriate the look and feel of “indie”—see Starbucks’ faux-independent coffee shop in Seattle—identifying the authentically independent will require more than an evaluation of an item’s aesthetic properties. (Here in Seattle, McDonalds has adopted a muted palette—see the “Redesign” section on their Wikipedia entry—to try to look more like a “real” restaurant. Indeed, we ARE all indie now.)

It’s hard to forget the early-nineties, when “Alternative” music became the next big thing, and mainstream record labels were snapping up truly odd bands right and left because they didn’t know what to do. But within a couple of years they’d taken the aesthetic essence and applied it to pre-fab bands. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss but with a different sound, and better production.

To really assess the authentic independence of a band, or a magazine, we’ll need to go through the same process as identifying truly organic food from small farms: squinting at complex charts of corporate ownership, reading the fine print… the new Starbucks here appears to be a real independent coffee shop, including the corporate name, but isn’t. Now, playing detective and paying attention to the details are effective and worthy methods, but should they be the acid test of—well, anything? Anything at all?

Now, we’ll need something to bundle up the flailing limbs of “indie” culture and unite us with a new purpose. But can we please pick something other than New Authenticity? Maybe something that requires a little less hitting the books to evaluate and compare?

(Why not New Purpose? Then everyone who agrees with our assessment of society and our aesthetic program is a fellow traveler… corporate quisling or no… But I’m no sloganeer, and I’m sure someone can come up with something else better.)

– J. Lasser (08/10 12:36 PM)

Yes, exactly. As a lifelong dreadfully uncool normie it was only clear to me recently that “indie” is the product of a bifurcated cultural landscape, when there is a “mainstream” to define one’s work against. But there is no mainstream anymore. There are a million little self-contained universes. You’re right, Richard. The DIY instinct to set oneself, one’s creations has triumphed.

Hooray! Now let us make beautiful things.

– Kevin Smokler (08/10 01:29 PM)

I’ve been making beautiful things all my life. I want someone else to see them and buy them.

And that’s the nub of the problem.

– MF (08/10 04:55 PM)

MF,

The tools exist for an audience to find you and they are cheap to use. Don’t be shy. GO forth and use them.

– Kevin (08/10 06:31 PM)

I agree with Kevin’s call for possibilities—and am just as delighted by what may be built—but this isn’t just a question of New Authenticity, as it is a concern for how we go about establishing a reasonable form of Ricardo’s comparative advantage: less selfish, less driven by taking more than one’s share, and less driven by the free market. I’m referring to the manner in which independent entities can work with each other to ensure that they can shape and evolve their respective foundations. Yes, it can be argued that we all occupy our little independent fiefdoms. But are we permitting ourselves to creep outside of our comfort zones to embrace those unusual or oddball perspectives that are totally at odds with our assumptive notions? Are we permitting a culture of innovators to thrive by expanding our conceptual possibilities?

It would appear not.

A commenter named Abigail Nussbaum gets banned at the supposedly geek-friendly io9 for questioning an advertising/editorial conflict of interest. Blogs and newspapers selectively link or attribute, deliberately omitting certain perspectives because these are either competitive or uncomfortable. (Or if they are included, it’s subject to ridicule. Witness the rise of Gawker.) Writing that is considered too “emotional” or “passionate”—those very qualities that once appeared in the pre-New Times Village Voice (and readily observable, thanks to the Voice’s recent inclusion in Google News Archive)—is now considered unacceptably immoderate in this dour economic period. Publicists target the independent places in precisely the same manner as they do the big places. Books become less about what’s contained in them and more about the image that an author projects at a book party. Young authors are defensive in public while slagging off their peers with careerist whispers behind the arras. People go out of their way to defend their turfs, and the stakes are ridiculously small.

But it was voice that independence was built on. And it is voice that has remained the most important form of “capital.” If we’re constantly moderating, self-censoring, and eliding—or even, in extraordinary cases, using the Internet in a sociopathic manner to restrict voice, then we’re just as culpable as the corporations that sanitize us of these often vital human perspectives. The deadly octopus of manufactured media has stretched its tentacles into nearly every facet of contemporary life—to the point where independence means nothing if you’re willfully shutting out perspectives from the system. Small wonder then that social networks and memes, when they work, actually promote new authentic values. I speak of the JK Wedding Entrance Dance, which has now been viewed on YouTube by 18 million people. On the other hand, what of those perspectives that are equally authentic but discomforting? Is there room for them? What are we doing to help out tomorrow’s Guy Maddins or David Lynchs? Don’t we have a responsibility to ensure that they thrive too?

I realize that this line of reasoning is more than a bit Marxist, if information is the new capital, or (if you prefer) possibly a bit like Andrew Carnegie, if it’s all about giving our resources away after dominating a position. (Certainly, someone like Perez Hilton sees himself as a Carnegie with his new record label. Never mind that he has clawed his way up almost entirely while stepping on the heads of others—or drawing those doodles. The old Carnegie virtue may be gone in an authentic way, but the Los Angeles Times informs me that Perez has his mother on staff as a “professional mom,” who “gets a salary and benefits for making his bed, filling the gas tank of his Toyota Camry and walking Teddy, who bounds into the living room during an interview with a teensy pink purse toy clutched in his jaws.” How authentic!) But I presume, Richard, that by “We are all indie now,” you are echoing the Kubrickian irony at the end of BARRY LYNDON. If that’s the case, then the time has come to avoid the labels and do our best to address these troubling disparities.

– Edward Champion (08/11 05:04 AM)

I’ve been indie in the music biz for over thirty years. At first it was joyful liberation then just too damn hard. When I realised the mainstream didn’t want me anyway it got even harder. Now there’s a new dawn and some cause for joy again. Yes, we did win finally. Now we got to make it work!

– Clark Sorley (08/11 12:25 PM)

Ed raises a fine point and is more complex thinker than I. And I operate on a few very basic assumptions.

1. Wondrous creations always speak to someone

2. They may not speak to a lot of someones.

3. If the creator wants them to speak to more someones, he/she may have do somethinsg that makes them uncomfortable and would have been considered unecessary in the past namely, speaking eloquently in public on behalf of their work, creating alliances with those more successful than them and not being a jackass to those interested in their work because they think as an artist they are entitled to.

4. None of this guarentees that said creator gets to make a living at it. We as a creative society haven’t figured that part out yet but I’m guessing it will involve said artist doing somethings that make them uncomfortable, to my mind a small price to pay.

5.There will always be slimier people like Perez Hilton to achieve success through being slimeballs. Let them be. We don’t have to play in the same sandbox. We can build our own.

What I’ve outlined here is the very basic, American Studies 101 definition of the Entreprenurial Spirit. The crude meritocracy at work there was what “Indie Culture” was back when such distinctions meant something. Now its the rules we all play by. Lucky for us.

– Kevin Smokler (08/11 03:37 PM)

Richard, thanks again for this thoughtful post that’s sparked such interesting discussion. I’ve done a followup post at my own blog, which I won’t attempt to compress here as it’s a bit longer than appropriate for a comment box. I’ll just do the 21st century thing and link instead of sending you a copy of my zine (kidding! that hasn’t existed since 1992: http://www.oakestown.org/?p=322.

Suffice to say thanks, and thanks to above for adding to the discussion.

– Kaya Oakes (08/11 09:45 PM)

Indie is definitely winning. Artists like Diplo, Santogold, the whole Indie culture movement never would’ve taken off to such a degree without Internet communication. The same goes for the recent obsession with Bollywood, a la Slumdog Millionaire.

But Indie also produced a lot of crap amateur content. Not all indie stuff is good. The era of Myspace is coming to a close thanks goodness.

Overall, Indies are more creative and less restrictive with their music and just want to get it in the hands of whom it matters most, the listeners.

The underground is winning no doubt.

http://www.bombtune.com

– Bombtune (08/12 09:41 AM)

Indie authors and publishers should take our cues from indie musicians, who have, through trial and error, forged an approach to their art that involves dedication, commitment and a thorough understanding of what it takes to attract and build a core audience, while always keeping in mind sound, responsible business practices. Indie musicians also understand the merits of taking the personal approach when dealing with fans and listeners, the importance of creating a sense of community. Richard, this sounds suspiciously like what you’re up to with “Lemonade” and “charmQuark”.

One of my complaints against corporate publishers is that they’ve lost contact with the Dedicated Reader—in their pathetic attempts to find the next Dan Brown or, God preserve us, Stephanie Meyer, they run the risk of developing a readership that is vacuous, fickle, semi-literate. This does not bode well for the future of books…or the presence of an informed, intelligent citizenship.

I was “indie” when it was still called “self-publishing”. I have always insisted on a great deal of autonomy in my career and have fought hard to preserve my artistic integrity and the originality of my vision. New technologies present writers and readers with exciting alternatives, a myriad of venues to discover a host of different voices. Computers/the internet erase national boundaries and grant me access to fans of fine fiction around the world. The corporate monopoly has been broken. The gate-keepers have been banished. I am limited only by the range of my talent and the scope of my ambition.

These are great times to be writer…

– Cliff Burns (08/12 12:08 PM)

Both Cliff and Bombtune raise two additional issues worth keeping in mind. “Indie” does not equal “quality.” Indie describes perhaps a means of production, an attitude, a style, belonging to a community, but it is not a measure of worth. Casablanca was a studio film. Faces of Death was an “Indie.”

Cliff also eludes to the lessons small publishers can take from small record labels. In there I’m sure is something Richard and I have discussed which is the imperative for Small Publishers to fight to the death for their books (I believe Richard called this “The Miramax Effect.” A quality product you use every promotion trick in the book to get noticed). Subpop, Lookout, Def Jam in its pre-Columbia days were merciless in making sure their talent got noticed. Soft Skull was too. I hope more small publishers, and their writers, see strong and creative promotional efforts as vital to getting noticed in this crowded and noisy age.

– Kevin Smokler (08/12 01:06 PM)

indie is so mainstream

– james (08/12 02:04 PM)

It’s too early to tell. Do you remember the AT&T losing their monopoly? Do we now have thousands of phone companies catering to individuals’ needs for communication service?
Did YouTube herald a new era for video/film production and distribution? No, YouTube’s business model will be gone within a year or two. Not even Google will be willing to lose $200-400 million/year on it.

Sure there is a trend, enabled by better technology, toward increasingly fragmented markets for entertainment. But the economics of selling content to very small audiences are still ugly. I think the interesting angle for Cursor is the attempt to harness the desire of readers to talk back to writers and participate more actively. But engaging readers doesn’t really have to be an “independent” attitude. If they had any sense, mainstream publishers would be knocking themselves out encouraging fan fiction, but that’s not their model.

– Thomas Farley (08/12 05:57 PM)

Yup, trad publishers should be using a similar model to appeal to the widest possible diversity of readers…but will they? These people are dinosaurs and they have a vested interest in preserving the old way of doing business. The daily newspapers never saw the technology juggernaut coming and were swept away in the tide. Much the same thing can happen to trad publishing and…oh, here, I wrote about this awhile back:

http://cliffjburns.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/culling-the-herd-improving-the-breed

– Cliff Burns (08/13 12:46 PM)

There is some obfuscation here between Production and Communication. The means to Communicate more efficiently has NOTHING to do with Indy, as it is simply flow of information, not tangible creation. DIY production itself is severely hampered by the lack of editors and producers, rendering the glut of products little more than unmarketable novice ego strokes. Authenticity just isn’t enough.

– Mr. Salk (08/14 03:33 PM)

Agreed, quality control is important…but have you visited a book store lately, seen the sub-literate crap that the trads are churning out like rancid lots of butter? Often in a store with thousands of titles I can find very little literate, ground-breaking, original fiction. Shelves of dim-witted fantasy series, idiotic vampire books and clones of the LAST hottest title. Pathetic.

That said, indie writing shouldn’t be a haven for amateurish juvenilia and we MUST discriminate between gifted, motivated, talented writers and the wannabes and hobbyists who write little (and write poorly) but insist on being taken seriously as artists. A critical community is essential, charged with identifying excellence amidst all that dross. There are numerous excellent writers working almost exclusively in cyberspace and we need to let discerning readers know they’re out there, creating some of the most mind-blowing prose available today…

– Cliff Burns (08/14 04:12 PM)

Cliff,

I don’t disagree that great prose is out there in places we don’t often look but the door swings both ways. What are the writers you speak of doing to engage readers? To be part of a larger cultural conversation? If “Indie 1.0” taught anything its that artistic creation is dialogue not sermon.

– Kevin Smokler (08/14 04:27 PM)

I’m sure the Art is out there. Somewhere…
I occasionally stumble across a short piece I like on some pseudo-lit site, but the form is far too short for me to consider paying for, and only the technical/social savvy writer can even manage to get it in front of me. There is a very broad skill-set required for success in Modern Indy, maybe more so than traditional production where a Producer/Editor/Manager can be leaned on to navigate the distribution.

– Mr. Salk (08/14 05:34 PM)

Absolutely, absolutely. And that’s why I talk about community building and using existing social networks and entities (Facebook, YouTube, fan forums, LibraryThing) to reach out and connect with readers and fellow scribes…or create new ones (like Monsieur Nash) to bring like-minded lovers of the printed word together.

I became a writer first and foremost to share my vision with the widest possible array of people. Money and fame are quite far down my list of priorities. I have a unique and original take on fiction and I want to present it to intelligent, well-read readers without editorial interference or commercial tweaking. The new technologies let me do that and put me in touch with folks around the world. I’ve heard from readers in Viet Nam, Australia, Germany and it’s a thrill to have my odd narratives being devoured by people half a world away. THAT’S what keeps me going when the bills come due and the dogs of doom howl and moan.

– Cliff Burns (08/14 06:08 PM)

Unfettered artists are often blind to their faults.

– Mr. Salk (08/14 09:22 PM)

Conversation? Maybe. But there’s a lot to be said for working in obscurity too.

That to to me is real indie.

lleelowe.com

– Lee (08/17 04:27 AM)

indie punx still sucks

– Michael Stutz (08/18 03:38 PM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

I ran Soft Skull Press from 2001 to 2007 when we sold it to Counterpoint for whom I continued to run it until early 2009. I founded Cursor and am publisher of Red Lemonade. I now run content and community for the new cultural discoverer Small Demons. After the jump is my bio, since I know some folks come to this site looking for it, and I thwart them by not having a proper one. read more »