The Aleatory Dynamics of Independence: An Analysis of 2 West Coast Music Lables by risa
Lastly, Epitaph is a particularly interesting artefact to examine through the notion of struggle and the temporal dimension to which it is intimately linked. Epitaph, in dealing primarily with punk bands, is accustomed to the cyclical patterns that dominate the music industry; as Marc Lepage puts it, “punk bands have the life expectancy of a fruit fly.”68 It is for this reason that The Offspring’s departure was not as severe of a blow as many thought it would be; it was simply part of the natural ebb and flow of the business. Epitaph has had to contend with—not only the struggle for existence within the market, but as well with the inner struggle of maintaining a band roster that is always in flux. In charting the dynamics of music industries, we need to see the bigger picture, thus, we need to see the “cyclical patterns of innovation and control.”69 It was these cyclical patterns that allowed Nirvana to catapult to mainstream stardom in the early 90s—and in a sense, this also helped pave the way for The Offspring’s eventual success.
Indeed one of Hesmondhalgh’s most useful contributions is that he is critical of “binaristic models of change, which overemphasize difference at the expense of continuity.”70 Here again, this echoes Bourdieu’s words when he says that it is through the struggle itself that the field of cultural production is “given a temporal dimension.”71 Epitaph owes its 24-year existence to its ability to have struggled this far. The question that I believe Hesmondhalgh would pose is: how long can Epitaph keep it up?
Conclusions
The goal of this comparative analysis was to examine and problematize change and continuity as they pertain to both Subpop and Epitaph and the positions they occupy within the music industries. The hope is that such an analysis might begin—however adumbratively, providing a grounded articulation of some of the logics at play within the new cultural industries. Indeed, articulations invoking a cultural industries approach are very important, because as Hesmondhalgh highlights, the texts that are produced and circulated by these industries have an influence on the ways in which we perceive and understand the world.72 Therefore, when it becomes common for majors to display an interest in striking up associations with independents, it is important to articulate the nature of those relationships. Especially, when such affiliations involve majors financing and gaining distributive control of independent music, because—as Hesmondhalgh has stressed—these are some of the most important spheres within the cultural industries.73
The examination of Epitaph has demonstrated how an independent has managed not only to persist, but to challenge the commonly understood role of an independent record label in the market place. Nevertheless, cases such as these are rare. The upheaval and transformation experienced by a label like Subpop (financial success aside of course) is closer to the reality of most independents. This analysis has revealed how Subpop’s association with Warner has had its drawbacks. One of the questions that we could ask regarding the associations between independents and majors, is what effects might they have on music that is produced? Additionally, there are circles of independent music amateurs who are genuinely interested in knowing where their music comes from. Thus, this also begs the question as to what effects these associations might have on music consumption in general.
Within the cultural industries there are many tiers of change and transformation. Each tier is replete with its own set of issues and concerns. In fact, shortly before the conception of this piece, Warner (officially known as Warner Music Group) was being courted by EMI. On September 22, 2003, the London-based corporation announced that it was in the process of communicating with Warner Music Group over a possible merger.74 This immediately drew vociferous protest from Impala, which is a trade association of independent labels; their argument is that such ventures “threaten diversity in the music industry.”75 Indeed, mergers only serve to reaffirm the marginality of independents in the music industry. Miège surmises:
small and medium-sized companies, with small capital-bases and whose main activity is innovation, are dependent on the large companies that control the distribution of the creative output, and must live in the shadow of a handful of oligopolies that, to an increasing extent, are linked to transnational corporations.76
Surprisingly, on Monday November 24, 2003, while EMI and Warner were engaged in meandering negotiations, the Bronfman consortium, led by Edgar Bronfman, purchased Warner in one fell swoop.77 Therefore, as the higher tiers of transnational ownership coalesce in what is often an unpredictable fashion, the task of canvassing what possible effects the major and independent label associations have on both the music and its circulation becomes all the more necessary; necessary because the realm of the cultural industries—especially in an age of the transnational corporation, is and will continue to be marked by vicissitudes, contingencies and struggle.
Leave a Comment