Advertisement

American Journal of Cultural Sociology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 499–531 | Cite as

Pure taste in popular music: The social construction of indie-folk as a performance of “poly-purism”

  • Niels van PoeckeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This article examines the social construction of indie-folk as a genre, defined not primarily as an aesthetic category but as a tool and resource of social differentiation. Drawing from 48 in-depth interviews with musicians, gatekeepers, and audience members, the discourse of indie-folk is analyzed, focusing on how Dutch community members draw social and symbolic boundaries. Analysis shows that they are “poly-purists,” a type of cultural omnivores who consume a broad variety of musical genres yet by staying within the confines of the indie music stream rather than adopting a politics of ‘anything goes.’ By transposing the aesthetic disposition to the historically lowbrow phenomenon of folk music, community members distinguish ‘authentic’ folk from mainstream pop and dance, lowbrow country, and highbrow jazz and classical music. Simultaneously, they choose within these and other genres those items that match their ‘quality’ taste. Therefore, this study classifies indie-folk as a rising genre and contributes to existing research on cultural hierarchy and diversity, arguing that the emergence and institutionalization of indie-folk is part of the ongoing historical narrative of a Kantian aesthetics emphasizing the disinterested nature of artistic evaluation.

Keywords

indie genre distinction authenticity cultural omnivores symbolic boundaries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues at Erasmus University Rotterdam for their feedback. Most of all, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Koen van Eijck, Prof. Dr. Jos de Mul, Prof. Dr. Ruud Welten, members of the Philosophy Ph.D. club, and the anonymous reviewers of the American Journal of Cultural Sociology for their insightful comments, which have considerably improved this article. Last but surely not least, I would like to thank all the interviewees who took time to speak about their practices, thoughts, emotions, feelings, and memories related to their much-treasured indie-folk music; without their help and candor this research would not have been possible.

Supplementary material

41290_2017_33_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (97 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 97 kb)
41290_2017_33_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1522 kb)

References

  1. Badisco, J. (2009) Folkies zijn jong, slim en (vooral) mannelijk. Goe Vollek! 5: 12–13.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1993a) The field of cultural production, or: the economic world reversed. In: R. Johnson (ed.) The Field of Cultural Production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 29–74.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1993b) The historical genesis of a pure aesthetics. In: R. Johnson (ed.) The Field of Cultural Production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 254–267.Google Scholar
  5. Encarnacao, J. (2013) Punk Aesthetics and New Folk: Way Down the Old Plank Road. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Ennis, P.H. (1992) The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fishman, R. and Lizardo, O. (2013) How macro-historical change shapes cultural taste legacies of democratization in Spain and Portugal. American Sociological Review 78(2): 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fonarow, W. (2006) Empire of Dirt: The Aesthetics and Rituals of British Indie Music. Middletwon: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fornäs, J. (1995) Cultural Theory and Late Modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. de Graaf, N.D., and Steijn, B. (1997) De ‘service’ klasse in Nederland: een voorstel tot aanpassing van de EGP-klassenindeling. Tijdschrift voor sociologie.Google Scholar
  11. Hesmondhalgh, D. (1999) Indie: The institutional politics and aesthetics of a popular music genre. Cultural Studies 13(1): 34–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005) Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above. Journal of Youth Studies 8(1): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2006) Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hibbett, R. (2005) What is indie-rock? Popular Music and Society 28(1): 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (1997) Active interviewing. In: D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 140–161.Google Scholar
  16. Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (2000) The Self We Live by: Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Holt, D.B. (1997) Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu's theory of tastes from its critics. Poetics 25(2–3): 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt, F. (2007) Genre in Popular Music. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg, A., Hannan, M. and Kovács, B. (2016) What does it mean to span cultural boundaries? Variety and atypicality in cultural consumption. American Sociological Review 81(2): 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jahn, M. (2005) Narratology: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative. Köln: English Department, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, R. (1993) Introduction. In: R. Johnson (ed.) The Field of Cultural Production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Johnston, J. and Baumann, S. (2007) Democracy versus distinction: A study of omnivorousness in gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology 113(1): 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, J and Baumann, S. (2009) Tension in the kitchen, Explicit and implicit politics in the gourmet foodscape. Sociologica 3(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, D. (2003) The fire down below. Wire 234: 32–41.Google Scholar
  26. Lavie, N. and Dhoest, A. (2015) ‘Quality television’ in the making: The cases of Flanders and Israel. Poetics 52: 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamont, M. (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lena, J.C. (2012) Banding together: How communities create genres in popular music. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Livingston, T. (1999) Music revivals: Towards a general theory. Ethnomusicology 43(1): 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lizardo, O. and Skiles, S. (2012) Reconceptualizing and theorizing “omnivorousness” genetic and relational mechanisms. Sociological Theory 30(4): 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lizardo, O. and Skiles, S. (2016) After omnivorousness: Is Bourdieu still relevant? In: M. Hanquinet and M. Savage (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 90–103.Google Scholar
  32. Michael, J. (2015) It’s really not hip to be a hipster: Negotiating trends and authenticity in the cultural field. Journal of Consumer Culture 15(2): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Negus, K. (1998) Cultural production and the corporation: Musical genres and the strategic management of creativity in the US recording industry. Media, Culture & Society 20(3): 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson, R. (1992) Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics 21(4): 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peterson, R. (2005) In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies 42(5): 1083–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson, R. and Simkus, A. (1992) How musical tastes mark occupational status groups. In: M. Lamont and M. Fournier (eds.) Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 152–186.Google Scholar
  37. Peterson, R. and Kern, R. (1996) Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review: 900–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrusisch, A. (2008) It Still Moves: Lost Songs, Lost Highways and the Search for the Next American Music. Chatham: CPI Mackays.Google Scholar
  39. van Poecke, N. (forthcoming) What might have been lost: The formation of narrative identity among the Dutch indie-folk audience. Popular Music & Society.Google Scholar
  40. van Poecke, N. and Michael, J. (2016) Bringing the banjo back to life: The field of Dutch independent folk music as participatory culture. First Monday 21(3).Google Scholar
  41. Reynolds, S. (2011) Retromania: Pop Culture’s Addiction to its Own Past. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Van Rooden, A. (2015) Reconsidering literary autonomy: From an individual towards a relational paradigm. Journal of the History of Ideas 76(2): 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roy, W.G. (2010) Reds, Whites, and Blues: Social Movements, Folk Music, and Race in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strachan, R. (2007) Micro-independent record labels in the UK Discourse, DIY cultural production and the music industry. European Journal of Cultural Studies 10(2): 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Straw, W. (2001) Scenes and sensibilities. Public (22–23).Google Scholar
  47. Turino, T. (2008) Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Eijck, K. (2001) Social differentiation in musical taste patterns. Social Forces 79(3): 1163–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vannini, P.H. and Williams, J.P. (eds.). (2009) Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society. Farmham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  50. van Venrooij, A. and Schmutz, V. (2010) The evaluation of popular music in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands: A comparison of the use of high art and popular aesthetic criteria. Cultural Sociology 4(3): 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vermeulen, T. and van den Akker, R. (2010) Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 2: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Arts and Culture studies, Erasmus School of History, Culture and CommunicationErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations