Walter Benjamin's Progressive Cultural Production and DIY Punk
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Popular Music Studies, Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 217–237 “If It Ain’t Cheap, It Ain’t Punk”: Walter Benjamin’s Progressive Cultural Production and DIY Punk Record Labels Kevin Dunn Hobart and William Smith Colleges This article examines contemporary independent do-it-yourself (DIY) punk record labels, regarding them as potentially significant sites of political engagement at the intersection of cultural production and the global political economy. Drawing upon extensive interviews with well over a hundred DIY punk labels from around the globe, the article explores the varied ways in which DIY record labels offer possibilities for political resistance. The article first sketches the development of the global DIY punk record industry over the past several decades, noting the translocal networks that have helped create and connect punk scenes across the globe. The article then explores the practices of these record labels, drawing particular attention to distinctions between DIY and major corporate record labels. Central to this section is the argument that, in most cases, DIY record labels serve as both a social activity and an anticapitalist business model. This leads into an examination of the ways in which DIY punk labels embody Walter Benjamin’s call for progressive cultural production. The recent Occupy Wall Street and related movements have thrown into stark relief many people’s frustrations with globalization and existing capitalist structures and practices, as well as the inherent challenges of imagining, articulating, and realizing alternative ways of being. This is particularly true given the seeming ubiquity of global corporate-led capitalism. As Hardt and Negri (2000) argued in Empire, this system has become all-encompassing, flattening out the fragmented sovereign nation- state system that pre-existed it, to create a fully-enclosed system to which there is no exterior. According to Hardt and Negri, one cannot “opt out” of the system because we are all firmly entrenched within that system. The ubiquity of transnational capitalism raises particular challenges for cultural production. How does one create culture that is critical and politically progressive in today’s context? Or, in Gramsci’s terminology (232–43), how can one engage in counter-hegemonic struggles when global C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 218 Kevin Dunn capitalism’s hegemony seems to be so absolute? A “war of movement”— attacking the system from the outside—is impossible because there is no being “outside” of the system. A “war of position”—creating counter- hegemonic beliefs and practices from within the system by using the tools of the system—seems to offer some potential, but hegemonic practices of appropriation and assimilation are constantly at play; increasingly so in the irony-drenched postmodern consumerist culture of Western societies. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in pop culture, and pop music in particular, as The Beatles’ “Revolution” is used to sell Nike shoes and soccer star/multimillionaire David Beckham sports a Gaultier-designed t-shirt with a diamond encrusted CRASS logo. Though recent decades have witnessed the rise of neoliberal economic policies that have heralded new heights for transnational corporate capitalism, debates about how to effect political resistance through cultural practices are not new. It is worth recalling that in 1934 Walter Benjamin argued that a progressive cultural politics is not achieved through content, but via position. That is, it is not what you say, but how you say it. For Benjamin, a progressive cultural product was one that helped transform consumers into producers, or “collaborators” (Benjamin 777). Benjamin called upon his contemporaries to engage in just such a political enterprise. This current article examines the social practices of today’s global do-it- yourself (DIY) punk record community and argues that it represents an attempt to realize Benjamin’s challenge to produce culture progressively and collaboratively. Most of the material for this article is based on personal interviews conducted with over a hundred record labels across the globe.1 In his cultural studies work on punk record labels, Alan O’Connor makes an important distinction between commercial and DIY labels.2 Commercial punk labels are companies that regularly achieve sales of 20,000–100,000 copies, often through distribution in chain records stores and big-box establishments like Wal-Mart (O’Connor 35–36). To achieve this, they usually work through major record distributors. In the United States, there are four major “independent” distribution companies that are actually owned by major record labels: Fontana (owned by Universal Music group), ADA (owned by Warner Music Group), RED (owned by Sony BMG) and Caroline (owned by EMI). Many of the commercial punk labels—Epitaph, Vagrant, Sub Pop, Fat Wreck, Equal Vision, Victory, Trustkill, BYO, Fueled by Ramen, Secretly Canadian, Bridge Nine, Mute—distribute through these “indie” distribution companies. DIY record labels, on the other hand, tend “If It Ain’t Cheap, It Ain’t Punk” 219 to have much smaller record sales and distribute either directly or through actual independently owned and distribution companies (though that line becomes harder to discern given recent shifts in the music industry, which will be discussed later). One cannot adequately discuss DIY punk record labels without reference to the “commercial punk labels” and “independent” distribution companies. That said, most of my discussion concerns DIY punk labels: record companies usually run by one individual or a small group of individuals who achieve record sales far below that of the commercial punk labels. Moreover, my focus is not limited to the United States, but reflects the global DIY punk record label community.3 A Brief History of DIY Record Labels Independent, DIY records labels predate the origins of punk, and there is a long and respected tradition of small record labels in the music industry. Sam Phillips’s Memphis-based Sun Records, after all, is generally credited with helping invent rock’n’roll. But the arrival of punk signaled a marked increase in the number of small, DIY record labels. In part, this was due to changes in major record companies themselves. Before the emergence of punk, British record companies began investing heavily in new recording technologies, which meant that older studio equipment and studios suddenly became available for independent music producers and companies to either buy or rent at affordable costs (Laing 29–30). But punk’s DIY attitude also encouraged many bands and enterprising entrepreneurs to venture into the record industry. The Buzzcocks’ 1977 Spiral Scratch EP was released on January 29, 1977, becoming the first homemade British record. Released on the band’s own New Hormones label, it quickly sold all 1,000 copies of its first pressing. The EP went on to sell 16,000 copies, largely through mail order (Reynolds 92). For many punk musicians, the Spiral Scratch EP was the most important of the original punk releases. Although the Sex Pistols, with their “Anarchy in the UK” single (released the previous November on EMI) showed that anyone could be in a band, the Buzzcocks showed that anyone could release a record, with the details of the recording process (e.g., number of takes and over-dubs) and pressing costs printed right on the record sleeve. The influence of the EP was profound, not just on bands and listeners, but on the recording industry itself. Bob Last claims that he founded his Fast Product record label after picking up Spiral Scratch:“Ihad absolutely no idea there had been a history of independent labels before that. Spiral Scratch turned my head around” (quoted in Reynolds 94). Soon after, 220 Kevin Dunn London’s punk band Desperate Bicycles formed Refill Records to release their own single in May 1977. The sleeve contained a breakdown of the recording costs (£153) as an inspiration to others to follow suit. As the band chanted on the single: “It was easy, it was cheap—go and do it!” (Spencer 288–289). Many of the new punk labels began distributing their releases through an organization of interdependent independent retailers known as the “Cartel.” The Cartel was centered around the Rough Trade record store in London, which connected with other stores across the United Kingdom to form an independent record distribution service (Laing 30). Thus, punk helped create a system of recording and distribution that was autonomous within the music industry. The increased popularity of punk as a genre, and thus as a musical commodity, meant that the established record companies began to take notice. For the major labels, punk offered a new market of youth consumption from which they could turn a profit. Within a few months, major UK record labels began signing a multitude of punk bands, or bands that they thought might be profitable in the new “punk market” (Laing 32). This major record label signing frenzy had a substantial impact on the UK punk scene. In some ways, it helped commodify the punk scene, bringing, what was for some, unwanted external attention to what had initially been a small scene built upon personal connections. Now punk was a commercial product that could be (and in many cases was) packaged and sold by major record labels. Many bands could not resist the allure of a hefty paycheck or the promise of reaching a larger audience. But the signing spree also played havoc on the small record labels that had helped create and nurture nascent punk scenes across the United Kingdom. The small independent labels simply could not compete with the power, strength, and resources of the major record companies. The result was the pilfering of some of their best, most profitable talent by the major labels. For example, the Good Vibrations record label, which was so instrumental to the development of the punk scene in Belfast, lost four of its first six bands to the majors.