topic d, part 6: science fiction/ double feature

aside from watching the "cooler" strain of radio-friendly pop rock try on and then discard such identities as "alternative", "college rock", and now "indie" (all of which were taken to mean slightly different sounds, granted), i find it even more interesting that "indie" has now become an equally neutured and meaningless term in the movie business.

i mean, not to call out little miss sunshine just because it was successful or anything, but it would seem that the idea of small-scale, independent filmmaking has most certainly been turned into the latest marketing gimmick for big-budget, high-starpower "quirky" character sketches set against often self-aware or indulgently existential plotlines.

and i can't think of any decent band rivalries these days that could be compared to blur/oasis (or even nirvana/pearl jam, much less stones/beatles), mostly because britpop didn't register that strongly for me. also, i'm not listening to the radio much these days, so my reference points are screwed.

for a certain crowd, maybe there's yeah yeah yeahs/liars, but in that case only because both have a loyal fanbase who might've "chosen sides" after the breakup. i dunno - even that seems to be a different sort of animal entirely, now that i think it over. is it because stuff has become ever more fragmented that i can't even think of two BIG bands with similar sounds? it doesn't seem fair to pit fall out boy against the killers.

maybe i need to ask more teenagers who totally sucks and who rules these days...

Topic D, Part 5: Cool Britannia

I’m glad Miss Imperial brought up Britpop’s “indie” angle, because it seems to me that today’s “indie” scene bears many similarities to that pop explosion of a decade ago, in terms of trajectory. I’m grateful, too, for the input of our reader/guest poster, who succinctly and perfectly made the distinction between honest-to-god DIY indie and contemporary “indie rock.” A true independent aesthetic still exists in the practice of thousands of amazing and determined bands, of course, but its heyday as a movement might have died with hardcore and (the original incarnation of) SST Records.

At its height, Britpop was inescapable (in Britain, obviously, but also in certain circles in North America, where even a cursory knowledge of Anglopopculture was an easy way to appear au courant, and required far less personal discipline than certain other options). It began in garages and basements, but evolved to take its place in the boardroom. It was, for a time, the face and sound of young Britain, a movement that told its elders Move aside, we’re making ourselves comfortable, and it soon found itself catered to in print ads, TV commercials, films, etc. And eventually, when its pretensions and aspirations outsized its inherent capacity for self-deprecation, modesty, intimacy and the initial rawness that defined much of its appeal (that is, when the bands decided they were artists), it fizzled.

The ubiquity and fractalization of today’s internet complicates the comparison, of course, but I’m still left to wonder: do we have a Blur vs. Oasis corollary? And what happens next?

Topic D, Part 4: Indie ain't nothing but a circuit.

Quickly now:

I recall the word "indie" being applied, in Britain, to the sound of the music instead of the situation of the band, much like Anonymous' definition below. I'm not sure how long this has been the case in the UK, but certainly during the Brit Pop era, I remember bands such as Blur being referred to as "indie" by the English press, even when their records were released by (and on) major labels.

Also, even though I only spent four years in a band that was on an independent label -- with no financial assistance beyond funding grants, whatever the label could spare, and the money we made from touring and selling t-shirts -- I know how tight things can be and how much further into debt one can slide in order to continue cutting records and playing live, in order to continue making music. When I left, we were at the point where we were selling our songs to anyone who'd have them (though we did decline a deal that involved Pepsi, so I suppose we can high-five ourselves for that, har har); I'm sure a lot of people thought we'd "sold out" much earlier than we had, and in a much bigger/badder way.

Topic D, Part 3: The Guest.

[NOTE: This was originally submitted by an anonymous reader as a comment, but I felt that the writing was quite strong; in fact, I felt it deserved its own post. Enjoy!]

Pardon my intrusion -- stumbled across your blog and felt interested enough to comment. Hope that's kosher?

It's funny to consider people being up in arms about the commercialization of "independent" music at a time when "indie" doesn't refer to freedom from dependence on music corporations so much as it does a sound descendent from bands who, ages before, were disconnected from said corporations. I'm sure you'd all agree that "indie" has no meaning beyond a marketing label at a point when many of the genre's major bands are supported by major companies (Death Cab: Universal, Shins: Sony, etc.). In many ways, that's neither here nor there: these bands are commercial however you slice them, and they're very careful to market themselves as such. DCFC toured with something akin to $15k's worth of lighting equipment alone last fall, two busses, and a touring crew of between ten and fifteen. It's not Led Zeppelin, but it's not really "indie" either. There's no surprise that these bands are turning up in commercials.

What's puzzling, though, is the sense of faint betrayal one hears about these things from some quarters. Not from you folk, who seem to be more thoughtful than histrionic, but from a lot of other channels you'd expect would be more reasonable about it. There's a good deal of sense to Bill Hicks's old routine about "if you do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll call forever," but even if you adhere to that, isn't it odd to claim ownership over a commercial property that has no connection to a community of its own? Much "indie" music plays upon this idea of grassroots connection without having much connection to any community or "neighbourhood" (as the Arcade Fire would have it) at all, and that ersatz intimacy is part of the selling point. It doesn't require listeners participate in helping book shows, arrange tours, put bands up or cook for them, etc., which is what "the music community" often implies in more DIY circles. In those circles a sense of betrayal over commercial "selling out" makes a bit more sense (though how much?). How many of those people who feel stung by hearing their favourite indie band in a commercial are willing to counter the sting by trying to bolster stronger independent arts communities and encourage non-commercial enjoyment of music and art?

"Indie" music is becoming almost universally a commodity alone, so it's no surprising that it's being used to sell other stuff, especially when it seems to do that well.

Great blog, keep it up.

[I'd like to thank Anonymous for joining the discussion. (It was no intrusion at all!) As a group, we're happy to attract readers (and at this point, stumbling across Strictly Culture, perhaps using Blogger's "Next Blog" tool, is really the only way we can expect readers to find us). This post was insightful, not to mention above and beyond a simple comment (and flattering, too!). Thanks again, and we hope to hear from you in the future.]

Topic D, Part 2: Not-so-strictly un-commercial.

I can't offer much of a debate here, /a, as I quite agree with you. It's strange at first, to hear the songs that you think are "your secret" playing in the background of a commercial (or a video game, or a movie, or a TV show), but ultimately I feel it's better that these ad agencies and corporations funnel money into the coffers of smaller, lesser known, bands. I mean, don't The Shins need the cash and exposure more than Jessica Simpson (or didn't they, back in 1989 or whatever)?

That being said, it's certainly important that bands have a say in what products their music is used to promote. When Le Tigre was asked if "Hot Topic" could be used in a Coca-Cola commercial, they declined. Yet the sale of "Deceptacon" to Telus did not go against the band's principles. Furthermore, as Kathleen Hanna explained in an interview with Exclaim!:

Signing to a major didn’t make us rich by any means.[...]Having bills to pay is a fact of our lives
and sometimes we have to do weird shit to keep the band financially afloat.

Once again, your timing in bringing up the current topic is, er, timely. PF is still a little floored each time he hears The Fall's "Blindness" in an SUV ad (so I suppose it's good that their "Touch Sensitive" Corsa ad doesn't air where we live), and thus we are constantly talking about how surprised we are to hear so-and-so's song in a commercial, even though we shouldn't be. The subject came up again last night, as we discussed song placement in soap ads with a friend. When we came home, there was your post, waiting for us like the last word or the minutes of the meeting. As you pointed out, and as it's become clear over recent years, it's our contemporaries who act as music supervisors these days. Some might argue that Death Cab for Cutie wouldn't be as famous if it weren't for people our age (or thereabouts) programming soundtracks for The O.C.. Some, like the friend with whom we met yesterday evening (who, incidentally, loves DCFC), don't really want their favourite bands to be so famous, or at least don't want to hear their favourite songs everywhere they go, if only because they don't want to be desensitized to the power that made these songs their favourites in the first place.

I have to admit, I don't mind anymore. Like you, I am less and less opposed to hearing "my songs" in commercial spaces -- if I was ever really opposed at all -- and I now want more people to be aware of the bands I love and support, as it doesn't do them much good to selfishly hoard them. When I turn my television on, would I rather hear Spoon than "These bites are made for poppin'"? Absolutely.

(Returning to Ben Gibbard for a moment: I'm also amused by the inclusion of The Postal Service's "Such Great Heights" in a UPS ad. Take that, Other Postal Service!)

I'm no longer concerned about (allegedly) protecting "my bands" by keeping them underground, and I'm no longer concerned about being "in the pocket". At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, I'm now concerned about what goes into these bands' pockets. (Yeah, I know, it's a terrible line.)

I mean, someone is going to get paid for the music in the commercial, whether it's another band or a sound-alike, so if your band isn't opposed to the product, take the money and run with it! (Oh, and if you have the time, why not adapt your lyrics to fit the bill?) If you turn it down, the ad makers could easily use a reasonable facsimile of your music, everyone will think you sold out anyway, and if you're not Tom Waits, you won't win the lawsuits.

[NOTE: Photo courtesy of TheWho.org, from an article on Australian rarities.]

topic c, part 3: the fake headlines

that "reportage" on emo is pretty funny, indeed. it reminded me a little bit of the news clips featured in the filth and the fury (a few scant seconds of which can be seen in the only available trailer to be found on youtube).

what i find interesting, though, is that emo kids seem to have subverted their punk roots by becoming a threat to no one but themselves. i mean, no one's calling them the "antithesis of humankind" or suggesting they'd be "vastly improved by sudden death" (although i'm sure at least a handful of people actually feel that way).

and yeah, imperial, that frontline episode was great. i particularly liked how the show's reporter came across at times like a total artifact of journalism itself - wearing a rumpled corduroy sport jacket, asking questions like "isn't it true, sir, that you support programs that aren't news? isn't it true, in fact, that you like gossip and can relate to the kids with their ringtones and their secret instant text language?"

way to go, generational divide - way to turn the media against itself.

(sidenote to /a - i suspect hip-hop sucks in '07 for the same reason it did 11 years ago:

"... it's the money!"

but honestly, there's still good stuff to be found out there, so i'm feeling more optimistic about things than maybe i should.)

Topic C, Part 2: Hope I die before I get old. Oh, wait -- too late.

Great timing! Firstly, because I just saw a Frontline piece on TV last night that addressed the changing face of journalism (or, The Rise of THE BLOG), and secondly, because today is indeed my birthday.

I am turning 31, no longer on the Twenties-Thirties cusp, but I've felt "old" for quite a while. More than once over the past couple of years, I have found myself muttering, "What is up with the kids these days?" I'm not sure when and in what era I got stuck, but it happened just the same.

However, despite feeling somewhat distanced from an age group I was once in (and not so long ago, thank you very much), I don't think I'm quite as out of touch as whomever is responsible for these "lock up your children" news stories. I mean, seriously? Who's scared of emo? Was it ever actually threatening? Teenagers still connect with it, to be sure -- and maybe that's what's frightening parents, as always -- that there's a form of music to which their children deeply relate, which they themselves cannot understand, and thus even greater separation from their offspring is created -- but, Moms! Dads! Emo isn't even goth! Emo is kinda like the hair metal of my youth, except with a lot more crying.

It's funny that Frontline noted that even though most people still get their news from television broadcasts, younger audiences consistently turn to the Internet for their information (with nightly viewings of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, of course); for an "old people" news outlet, Frontline is certainly not oblivious to the shifting tastes of target demographics. In terms of these generations, I don't know onto which side of the divide I land. I suppose I've fallen somewhere in the divide itself, into some chasm in which I know that most of today's music isn't exactly made for me, but I still (somewhat secretly) enjoy "Dance, Dance" (I know, /a: for shame). It's a hole in which I'm so old that I listen to Big Tracks by choice, in a non-ironic way (with frequent, sincere, detours into Top Tracks), and willingly load such songs onto my MP3 player; but it's a hole in which I'm young enough to actually know how to operate an MP3 player, and it's a hole in which I'll never be too old for cake.

Topic B, Part 5: I Am What I Am Not

The internet combines two worlds in a way that no medium has ever done before – it provides the mob mentality of the congregated masses as well as the safety and anonymity of solitude. The result is the freedom to (re)construct identity and to perfect the art of (self-) promotion. It is both a communal and a personal forum; it operates much like a real marketplace or town square, given equally to exhibition and commerce. But imagine a marketplace that allows its participants as much or as little secrecy and obscurity as they wish. Accordingly, what we’re selling in this marketplace, as often as not, is a heavily modified version of ourselves.

The real coup represented by someone like Jeffree Star is the willingness to step into the actual world while maintaining that myspace-crafted persona. We have come to expect a degree of falsification and misrepresentation online, but still hold higher standards for authenticity in the flesh & blood, bricks & mortar world. The fabricated world of online creation should be negated by the actual world of lived experience – you are not your facebook profile; you do not look like your carefully chosen and posted photos - but when a Jeffree Star comes along and denies this rift, it raises alarm. And I think that, as PF suggested, is the point of the whole exercise. New modes of self-invention; newly available methods of self-definition.

Star is but one example of the new breed who, by cunningly utilizing the tools granted them by history’s greatest shared source of information, have become “famous for being famous,” or more accurately, famous simply because they claim to be famous.

***UPDATE*** Emily Nussbaum suggests that maybe it's a generational gap, that nobody over 30 can possibly understand what it means to be young and alive and online today. Most chilling passage? That would have to be this one:

Younger people, one could point out, are the only ones for whom it seems to have sunk in that the idea of a truly private life is already an illusion. Every street in New York has a surveillance camera. Each time you swipe your debit card at Duane Reade or use your MetroCard, that transaction is tracked. Your employer owns your e-mails. The NSA owns your phone calls. Your life is being lived in public whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Topic B, Part 4: Amplify the lie.

This whole fake it 'til you make it attitude must occur on such a grand scale in the entertainment industry (or at least the industry of entertainment wannabes). It's like padding your resume -- times a thousand! The practice must be much more common and accepted in showbiz than it is in the workaday world, though it's probably done just as surreptitiously.

One could argue that Jeffree Star has every right to manufacture his persona, and that he even has the right to create a biography out of whole cloth, since the business he's in is fuelled by illusion. Why should the development of an alter ego stop at stage names?

An artist's authenticity always amazes (ah! alliteration), but sometimes we need a little fantasy, no? As PF pointed out, the reality might actually disappoint.

Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Laura Albert.

topic b, part 3: the prettiest (proto)star

wow - i just came across this article and thought it fit in perfectly with our recent thoughts.

i'm curious about how real any of it is, though. clearly, mr. star is connected enough to make myspace demos with peaches' drummer (although, i can't honestly say how connected that really makes a person), and he's great at doing the self-promotion qualified by noncommittal disclaimers thing (ie, a makeup line that's "secretly in the works, but you can publish that" and a reality tv show that "is getting finalized today").

i'm impressed by the fake it 'til you make it chutzpah on display here. so impressed, in fact, that i can't tell if i'd really just rather it all remain a cloud of hyperbole awaiting media "condensation" (like a molecular cloud coalescing in the interstellar medium! if i may belabor the metaphor just a tad more - pardon that, but it has the word "medium" built right into it!).

that's the real art happening here, and i'm sure any "realization" of the alleged works in progress henceforth would be a bit of a letdown.

Topic B, Part 2: Infected

Ah yes, viral marketing, wherein the advertisers, having cottoned on to the fact that by and large we don't like to be sold to, try to fool us into thinking we're not being sold to, but that lwnmwrboy1980 from Des Moines just really loves Zowie Cola, and wants you to know about it. It's gotten so that I distrust just about any viral video I see - there are just too many fakes. A strange about-face, when you think about it: now that we all own the technology on our desktops to make near-Hollywood quality video, the marketing people are trying to make their product look as lo-fi and accidental as possible. It confounds the notion of authenticity. Makes the head spin.

Topic B, Part 1: You got served.

Betagal and PF bring up an interesting point: the idea of manipulation. This isn't just restricted to wigged-out brides on YouTube (please excuse the hair-related pun); remember lonelygirl15? JT LeRoy? Most exposed pranks are justified as performance art or even social experiments, but those who were fooled tend to get really, really angry about the grift. They write books about it! They make widely ignored movies about those books!

So should staged clips be labelled as such? I'd like to think that I'm savvy enough to distinguish real footage from the scripted variety, or at least take it all with a grain of salt (if that expression applies), but what if the clip involved a crime? (Imagine, /a, if we had posted a clip of one of the fake kidnappings we pulled off in high school? Would the act be dismissed as low-brow entertainment, or would we have police knocking on our doors?)

If I saw footage of a crime on YouTube, my first instinct would be to assume that it was a prank. Who'd post that sort of thing on YouTube, of all places, right? Yet the site has been used to nab murder suspects and is being used to find missing persons. Will the proliferance of Internet hoaxes (and punking in general) diminish the effectiveness of measures like these, because the fakes create a "crying wolf" atmosphere in which the real victims are lost?