Taking Sides: Charts vs. Indie

There's nothing new about this. There was a whole debate around this in the early 80's when 'Smash Hits' enshrined unashamed commercialism in place of the comfortably diy post-punk 'indie' that came before.

What do I mean by social engagement? Sure. Pandering to the public. But also constantly challenging accepted norms in a thirst for the "next big thing" (SC)

Of course there are always a few pop visionaries who have that thirst, but the *vast majority* of chart producers and songwriters are, and always have been, primarily concerned with imitating whatever they consider to be the most current formula for commercial success. They're not looking for the "next big thing". They're waiting for it to appear, and when it does they start copying it.

In saying this, I'm not suggesting that 'Indie' is better. If, by 'Indie', we mean the mainstream of alternative rock, it operates in exactly the same way. The market and infrastructure may be on a much smaller scale but the same processes are at work - the need to generate sales to keep people (bands and label staff etc.) in work, and therefore the same adherence to an established formula (eg Starsailor - presumably signed because they sound like the Verve).

Any music situated in society must have it's own image of what that society it exists in is. Not only is pop the foremost prevailing reflection of that society, but indeed it acts back on its base, defining the terms of discourse by which society addresses itself.

I'm afraid that by bringing in this stuff about "success" I've opened the door to questions of intentionality of artists. But if we accept the "authenticity first, success second" (if we get rich, that's a bonus) school of artistic "authenticity" as representative of the non-chart scene, well then we can note that these two goals are incompatible with non-chart music -- that authenticity is subjectively a bar to success. But what do these folks then reply? That in their ideal world, such music would be popular -- which then immediately transforms chart-music into inferior in their eyes, and further means that their ultimate goal is a semi-religious one -- turning people away from "false prophets and idols" towards the path of righteousness -- a goal which they will indeed fail in. However, in doing so, innovation is also fostered -- all elements which are deemed inessential to the fundamental "authenticity" of the music become subject to question and reevaluation. This can lead right into the charts, or can lead nowhere if the band isn't up to the task, or is unable to differentiate essential from nonessential elments of their being (i.e. "if it isn't on an 4-track, it's overproduced")

Absent that answer (semi-religious), there is the acceptance of marginalization -- the valorization of unpopularity as a marker of success -- this in turn produces increasingly irrelevant and dull scenes. Do they succeed? Well, they're no longer "authentic" in any sense, but merely self-perpetuating simulcra of authenticity.

Josh, if you're going to throw aphorisms like "there is no center" around, I might need to start explaining how "a letter always reaches its destination." We wouldn't want that, would we?

As for Sundar's comments -- is there any "democratic" way to determine taste? I mean, should we be able to vote on what we like? What would that mean? Media certainly doesn't just give the public "what they want" but also determines what the public wants -- but it does the second only on the basis of giving the public something they'll want. And you imply some sort of conspiritoral theory of culture -- this process is neither conscious on the producing nor consuming end. Rather, it just sort of happens in the relationship of the two. Music's constant self-innovation points to the fact that cultural demand is neither innate nor static.

Oh, and Tim, is Britney less "authentic" than SK? Ask a 13 year old girl.

i'm not sure how to answer this. i say that the music industries and mass media are industries with concentrated power and ideological interests able to influence public consciousness (which goes beyond aesthetics of course - though even aesthetics have ideological implications, cf. susan mcclary). your response is "is there any democratic way to determine taste?" well, there quite possibly are more democratic ways of organizing cultural institutions. and in fact, for all its sad failings, some elements of indie culture, e.g. community radio, are attempts to make steps in this direction.

of course the standard indie-kid/frankfurt-school dismissal of all mass culture as being corporate propaganda/empty pap is problematic as well. there definitely are populist elements at work, there definitely is an "efficiency" of sorts, there definitely is some room for oppositional voices. and most importantly there is always room for the audience to play a role in determine the meaning of cultural products. however, the opposite position is just as simplistic. these are complex relationships that should be considered more critically.

"And you imply some sort of conspiritoral theory of culture -- this process is neither conscious on the producing nor consuming end. Rather, it just sort of happens in the relationship of the two."

i implied nothing of the sort. because of the power relationships and economic and ideological motives that are part of global capitalism in our era, these processes occur. they still reflect power imbalances and have major ideological implications. "it just sort of happens" is disingenuous.

yeah, of course, responses to non-chart music are constructed too. for that matter, most human responses to anything are constructed. but just to leave it at that ignores real power relationships involved in this construction, i.e. it is *how* it is constructed, who is doing the constructing, what the implications are of the construction.

Don't musicians play a role in shaping what is popular? Is it impossible for us to react to something in the music itself? Aren't some musicians trying to communicate something or to achieve something artistically? Aren't some musicians playing at least in part for their own enjoyment?

I think David is right to challenge the idea that responses to indie pop are not constructed. But I think it's inaccurate to say that the only way we react to music is based on some sort of social conditioning.

It could be that a lot of the music that makes it onto the charts is good in a way that indie pop is not, and vice versa. This is what I thought was interesting about Tom's article on Outkast.

I'm unsure how exactly you think it is that this enters into your pop-as-center idea. I think the degree to which pop reflects society is a lot less than you seem to. Without that super-strong reflection, I think it's quite easy to see how a genre of music or a certain listening mindset could not really give a damn, or be affected much, by what pop music is like. Society is complicated, and music is complicated. Complicated enough that pop doesn't have to enter into the picture. (If it really is the center, the periphery must be pretty damn big.)

(Oh, and re letter delivery: bring on the Lacan, I'm on summer vacation, plenty of time!)

= what I think — I think — tho probably not how I'd say it.

You know when they say "All reading from the same hymn sheet": well the charts is the hymn sheet (but of course which way up the sheet is depends on where you're standing, and some people can't see properly and some people can't see at all). "Indie" is everyone standing apart from each other, each with their own personal hymnsheet that they wrote earlier and haven't shown to anyone else yet.

The sung hymn IS more complex than the sheet-music says — but you can only "engage with" the nature of the complexity by running it past and thru those simplicities you grasp well enough to also grasp that they're TOO simplified. (And, yes, if you just say Oh it's all so COMPLEX, Let's do lunch, then actually you're just stepping away to allow the Dominant Simplification continued unchallenged Mastery of its Domain. Tho — contra a v.boring and common NoPoMo counter-simplification [Sterling not guilty, I won't say who is] — noting the fact of greater complexity than the hymnsheet maps isn't IN ITSELF to say, Let's Do Lunch. It may by contrast be: Let's Skip Lunch and Explore this More — Millions Not Yet Born wd Prefer We Got It Sorted Now.)

((ps I *think* Sterling has an idealist Theory of Communication grafted into the middle of his materialist Analysis of Politics/the World: not that he actually behanves as if believes it, except sometimes just to SAY he does. It depends on how much work and what kind of work the word "fundamentally" is going to be required to do, as he drops it [somewhere far above]: I think there's a whole planet's-worth of not-dealt-with complexity swept up into THAT word — all ready to fall back out of Bart's toy-cupboard as soon as Marge leaves the room... ))

A class studying non-Euclidean geometry is not socially non-Euclidean as compared to a class studying counting up to 100.

Sterling Clover, OG Challopper.

Indie is obviously better than charts. Not because lower production costs is a good thing, but because chartpop has been going in the wrong ways for the past 20+ years.

Before 1985, chartpop was always superior to indie though. No exception.

Decline and Fall of ILM, Part 73947359.