Within the last two years, nazi skinheads have beaten up at least 50 underground bands, have destroyed punk clubs and forced their way onto radio programs, have punched out zine editors, label owners and indie distributors. They threaten to stifle and ultimately control this community, and little is being done to resist this threat.
Ooops, wait a minute here. Oh, that was a column from 6 years ago. Well, let's do a little substituting and update this sucker.
Within the last two years, major labels have bought up at least 50 underground bands, have undermined punk clubs and bought their way into radio programs, have bought off zine editors, label owners and indie distributors. They threaten to stifle and ultimately control this community, and little is being done to resist this threat.
Now that's more like it. My point, though, is this: the punk/indie/underground scene is under attack, just as it was back then. No difference. except this time the thugs are smarter and richer. Their motivation is just about the same—control, power, dominance. Although the former assault was spurred by extreme right wing political rhetoric, the latter is based on more traditional corporate right wing political objectives.
There can be no middle ground or grey area when you're under attack by forces alien to the fundamental principles of a community or society. That's easy when a band or label is blatant in their changing behavior, but few are out front like that. It is usually much more difficult to discern when people you thought were your friends and were completely committed, start getting chummy with the invaders, whore themselves out, and then rationalize it under a cloak of bullshit. What does it all mean when Green Day is on MTV, or Seaweed signs to Hollywood Records for a million dollars? Or when every corporate "alternative" band has orange hair? Or when Bono and Madonna appear more threatening to the mainstream by saying "fuck" on national TV than so-called corporate punkers like Jawbox and Bad Religion who appear as meek "we're just a band" types? Or K Records being manufactured and distributed by Sub-Pop, and being partially distributed by ADA? Just what the fuck does "alternative" mean then? Or "independent"? Is Matador independent or a part of corporate WEA? Are certain rap labels being touted as "indies" by music biz mags truly independent? Is Epitaph an indie, and if so, just how did they get Rancid on MTV when no other indie band has done that in years. If Epitaph had bought Mike LaVella's Gearhead zine after just one issue and then hired him as editor (it was a possibility), how do we know that major labels aren't doing the same with other zines in their quest for credibility and influence? There certainly has been a proliferation of "indie" zines that have suddenly gone glossy and color, with lots of major label ads. It leaves the mind reeling with questions and doubts.
But in this age of double-speak, I feel that there are three important criteria needed here to distinguish the true indie/punk from the corporate "alternative":
- It doesn't really matter what you say or what you sing, but how you conduct your business and what your motivation for doing it is.
- It is only by being completely separated from governmental and corporate sponsorship, collusion, or connections that one can really claim to be "alternative" or "independent".
- Unless there is an ongoing class consciousness to one's communication and expression, then it is inevitable that you will be assimilated into mainstream values, no matter how culturally "hip" you attempt to be.
In this issue, we have some totally awesome, no bullshit articles that deal with these questions, approaching it from different directions. Bobby S. Fred, who does Ben Is Fred zine and runs the Word Of Mouth label, used to work at a major label and sure as hell knows what he's talking about—mainly what the majors' strategy is in gaining control over and profit from the independent network, concentrating on the phony "indie" labels and distributorships. Steve Albini chips in with an article about the $ and ˘ of a band signing to a major, full of specific details on why such a move is, if nothing else, economic folly. Brian Zero then nails down the corporations in question, an excellent non-dogmatic look at the politics involved. And then Greg Lane of The Baffler shows us up close what the rationalizations are of an indie label that gets in bed with a major. And, of course, there are plenty of columns on the subject as well.
I'm very proud of this issue, and hope that you'll read it well, no matter what your perspective is going into it. And, if you come out of it still feeling it's OK to cooperate with these "nazi skinheads in hip garb", then it's time to hit the showers, Jack.
One afterthought: I understand why some labels feel they must submit to major label-backed distributors, because they don't have anywhere else to turn. Since the demise of independent distributors like Systematic and Rough Trade, and with no other Mordam-type families emerging, they are between a rock and a hard place. But is submitting to such a compromise really worth the price? I guess that's what happens when people try to make their living off this scene. Why do Alternative Tentacles and Lookout, who have mucho dinero and the "economic protection" of Mordam, decide to peddle their wares via Caroline? And wouldn't it be nice if some of the "indie" entities that have huge financial assets began some new indie distributorships? Shit, SubPop must have millions now (given their sales of Nirvana and Mudhoney, plus their 12 million dollar (?) settlement with their former distributor, Caroline, as reported in Billboard). Why are they linking up with ADA (Warners) instead of doing it themselves? And how about Dischord? They must have more money than they know what to do with, and since they hardly put out anything new they must be sitting around bored. Why are they still linked up with Southern? Organizations like these have some choices that most other struggling labels don't. Some new, principled and economically sound distributions would help this scene out in so many ways. It's almost criminal that it's not on the drawing board. I would be glad to commit a portion to MRR's profits to such a joint venture.
By the way, this month's cover was conceived before Kurt Cobain took his own life. Despite the bad taste it would now seem to indicate, it was not meant to personally demean him or his passing. No matter what I think of his band's actions, it is sad to see someone being in that much pain. As it turns out, this graphic idea is closer to the mark in more ways than one. And speaking of sensitivity, I thought it was oh so touching that MTV decided to interrupt playing Green Day videos to overwhelm us with Nirvana videos on the day of Kobain's death.
Finally, as Democrats and Republicans alike join ranks to praise the late ex-President Nixon in a grotesque but illuminating display of ruling class solidarity, I just thought I'd express my feelings and the feelings of many others I've talked to who don't seem to have access to the mass media-by saying, Richard baby, you mass murderer, you lying scumbag, you sleazy piece of shit, you epitomize everything hypocritical about this society, right down to your now putrid, rotting corpse. Oh, and fuck you too for causing my mail to be delayed. Are we going to have to go through this again soon with Reagan and Bush?!?