Today, the words ‘indie’ and ‘independence’ are commonly taken only to be connotative of a musical style, yet during an earlier punk/post-punk period they were used to denote a specific economic separateness from the major labels. This article examines the development of the indie sector in this earlier period, challenging a tendency to reify certain proponents of punk’s DIY principle (Buzzcocks’ Spiral Scratch EP, Desperate Bicycles) by noting some significant antecedents and continuations of the indie ‘Do It Yourself’ impetus. Contrasting the Rough Trade label against anarcho-punks Crass, the article also highlights the ‘cutie’ or ‘C86’ period in which indie is sometimes said to have become more about music and less about politics. The significance of MySpace and other recent technological developments are also considered. In conclusion, the article interrogates the political efficacy of the ‘anyone can do it’ principle associated with punk/indie’s DIY ethic.
Although working-class boys' disengagement with education continues to be a major public concern, the focus of educational research has been on anti-school, hyper-masculine so-called laddish masculinities and their salience within learner identities. What tend to be forgotten are the areas in which low-achieving boys actively engage and succeed in their learning and what these successes mean for their identity construction. This article shows how learning practices manifest themselves in extracurricular peer subcultures by presenting the findings of two related musical activities, DJ-ing and MC-ing. In this music-making, secondary school boys in the Northeast of England showed themselves to be capable of high levels of engagement, enthusiasm and success despite generally being considered low achieving and highly disaffected. This small case study based on semistructured interviews aimed to explore how boys aged 14-16 years enact their passion through creative agency and expressive cultural processes.
Numerous claims have been made by a wide range of commentators that punk is somehow “a folk music” of some kind. Doubtless there are several continuities. Indeed, both tend to encourage amateur music-making, both often have affiliations with the Left, and both emerge at least partly from a collective/anti-competitive approach to music-making. However, there are also significant tensions between punk and folk as ideas/ideals and as applied in practice. Most obviously, punk makes claims to a “year zero” creativity (despite inevitably offering re-presentation of at least some existing elements in every instance), whereas folk music is supposed to carry forward a tradition (which, thankfully, is more recognized in recent decades as a subject-to-change “living tradition” than was the case in folk’s more purist periods). Politically, meanwhile, postwar folk has tended more toward a socialist and/or Marxist orientation, both in the US and UK, whereas punk has at least rhetorically claimed to be in favor of “anarchy” (in the UK, in particular). Collective creativity and competitive tendencies also differ between the two (perceived) genre areas. Although the folk scene’s “floor singer” tradition offers a dispersal of expressive opportunity comparable in some ways to the “anyone can do it” idea that gets associated with punk, the creative expectation of the individual within the group differs between the two. Punk has some similarities to folk, then, but there are tensions, too, and these are well worth examining if one is serious about testing out the common claim, in both folk and punk, that “anyone can do it.”
Popular music, today, has supposedly collapsed into a ‘retromania’ which, according to leading critic Simon Reynolds, has brought a ‘slow and steady fading of the artistic imperative to be original.’ Meanwhile, in the estimation of philosopher Alain Badiou, a significant political event will always require ‘the dictatorial power of a creation ex nihilo’. Everywhere, it seems, at least amongst commentators of a certain age and type, pessimism prevails with regards to the predominant aesthetic preferences of the twenty first century: popular music, supposedly, is in a rut. Yet when, if ever, did the political engagement kindled by popular music amount to more than it does today? The sixties? The punk explosion of the late 1970s? Despite an on-going fixation upon these periods in much rock journalism and academic writing, this book demonstrates that the utilisation of popular music to promote political causes, on the one hand, and the expression of dissent through the medium of ‘popular song’, on the other hand, remain widely in practice today. This is not to argue, however, for complacency with regards to the need for expressions of political dissent through popular culture. Rather, the book looks carefully at actual usages of popular music in political processes, as well as expressions of political feeling through song, and argues that there is much to encourage us to think that the demand for radical change remains in circulation. The question is, though, how necessary is it for politically-motivated popular music to offer aesthetic novelty?
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.