infobong.com: praising the fruit

cowpies and roadkill are excluded from this offer

praising the fruit

John Darnielle has a really interesting post on Fiona Apple's new record Extraordinary Machine, which her label decided not to release, but found an audience and acclaim after it leaked to the Internet. He compares the record to Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, which found an audience in the same way, after the label decided the record was too uncommericial for release.

Darnielle doesn't speculate on whether Sony will eventually release the record, but he does scold fans who villify record companies for privileging sales over artistry, saying " To be angry about the way the major labels do business while simultenously patronizing (for example) McDonald's, or Verizon, or Mobil Oil... is hypocrisy of a rather high order." I suppose there are indie rockers out there that have ambivalent attitudes toward corporate power. I like to think that I avoid giving my money to the really evil überconglomerates - choosing to eat at the co-op over fast food or running in American-made New Balances instead of Nikes - yet I still put gas in my truck and I'm enamored with my new iBook. Still - and I suppose I'm speaking as a Media Studies guy - in many ways I think corporate dominance of culture is one of the most pernicious ways corporations can exert their power, since it narrows the discourse to what media outlets will allow. Moreover, while there is certainly a broad degree of elite connoisseurship* among many indie rock fans, my knowledge of punk/indie history reminds me that music emerged as a site of contestation of corporate power because it is relatively inexpensive to independently produce records (as opposed to gasoline or even movies) and find a receptive audience.

In one passage, Darnielle also attempts to demythologize the role of record labels in earlier eras of rock:

Some people believe in a romanticized past when labels took the long view and invested money in artists in the hopes that the eventual result would be the finding of that artist's true audience, presumably one broad enough to pay dividends. I can only think of two labels in the rock age whose track record ever fit this bill — Reprise and A&M; if you insist, maybe Asylum under David Geffen's tutelage — and am highly suspicious of any music-business history that proposes an historical period during which labels cared more about Great Art than about the Bottom Line.

Its somewhat interesting to contrast this myth with the parallel myth of the label exec as fly-by-night huckster. One label I thought was notably absent was Elektra, which introduced proto-punk bands like Love, The Stooges, the MC5, and, sigh, The Doors to a national audience. I suppose it would be easy to mythologize it as a visionary label, but I suppose the narrative of a folk label switching gears and signing Love could be as much about sacrificing ideals to turn a quick buck as updating values for a changing culture. I suppose I could do my own research, but does anyone know of work that's been done on the history of Elektra?

*dang, I had nearly forgotten about indie-rock snobbery until being confronted by it at some South By Southwest shows this week.

Posted by McChris at March 20, 2005 11:20 AM
| TrackBack

Comments

first, how could you forget indie-rock snobbery until SXSW? half the point of indie rock was its inherent snobbery, its nose-down look at classic rock and contemporary radio even in spite of the numerous musical influences that derived from those sources. as you somewhat mentioned, the whole point of indie rock (i'm going on the late 80s/early-90s def here) was to separate like oil from watery radio crap and establish an alternate system of production, distribution, and performance, except of course when it was fiscally and promotionally beneficial to ally with major labels and distribution arms. certain bands and artists managed to be on majors and still retain their cred, but it wasn't commonplace. what sickens me is not only that people hold onto this myth of indie/street cred, but that they think that physical image will demonstrate that. or maybe i'm just an old fart (at 28, jesus christ.)

also, i didn't read darnielle past the excerpt, but from that he seems to be conveniently omitting the independent labels that more recently than reprise or asylum have acquiesced to either major ownership and/or distribution and yet have still released a number of important records along with the attending indie crap. i'm thinking matador as an example. i'm certain there are others. perhaps this was not his point...

but also, the point about selective, high-minded consumerism seems salient. people make stupid consumer choices all the time, thinking they can buy some album, or some shoes (no offense, but check the inside of those new balance - not all of them are made in the states), or some appliance, or some car, or some food produced in a certain way, and that then absolves them of other consumer sins which negate the high-minded practices. the whole idea of selective consumerism, whether considering music (but those major label "classic" CDs are so competitively priced!) or other goods is a problem; in order to really evade corporate power in this day and age, you'd have to grow your own food, sew your own clothes, harvest your own electricity, refine your own gas, and make your own fucking news. even the media independents are if not owned by, then influenced by the same corporate power that the high-minded attempt to circumvent. getting back to music, unless artists are trying to record, promote, and distribute their goods in a manner totally independent of pure-profit-seeking arms such as some of the new online distribution channels, even they are complicit. the question becomes not who has what cred, but where do we draw the cred line?

there's no longer a cred line as regards independent vs. corporate power as i see it - there are only gradations of innocence and culpability. cynical drunken rant off, delete at will.

Posted by: jojo at March 24, 2005 04:37 AM

Tell me where I can buy gas that doesn't come from an
uberconglomerate and I'll check it out.

Also, blood for oil aside, there are objections to big
corporate dominance of culture which go beyond those
applying to ordinary commodities. If (hypothetically)
McDonald's or Verizon or Mobil became the good corporate
citizens they claim to be, selling healthy and
ecologically sound products and following fair business
practices, then there'd be little reason left to object to
them. But corporate-produced mass culture is inherently
destructive of diversity and artistic expression. Another
way to say this is that culture shouldn't become just
another commodity.

(Hmm, maybe I'd take McDonald's off that list -- food is
culture, too.)

Posted by: Prentiss Riddle at March 25, 2005 12:27 PM