A judgement of taste on which charm and emotion have no influence (although they may be bound up with the satisfaction in the beautiful), – which therefore has as its determining ground merely the purposiveness of the form, – is a pure judgement of taste.
- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement (1790), par. 13.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Following Vannini and Williams (2009, p. 3) I define authenticity as a socially constructed phenomenon, more specifically as a “marker of status or social control” (…). They argue that authenticity consists of “a set of qualities that people in a particular time and place have come to agree an ideal or exemplar.” Drawing from Peterson (2005, p. 1094), they thus argue that authenticity is a “moving target,” first because the qualities people attribute to authenticity can change across time and place (=intergenerational differences) and, second, because authenticity is in the eye of the beholder, meaning that various social groups define authenticity differently (=intragenerational differences).
Hall defines the concept of articulation as “the form of the connection that can make a unity of two different elements, under certain conditions. It is a linkage that is not necessary, determined, absolute and essential for all time” (Hall, 1996 quoted in Hesmondhalgh, 2005, p. 33).
Hesmondhalgh gives the example of rap, which is, on the one hand, homologous with a ‘black’ urban community (reflected, for example, in lyrics emphasizing ‘street credibility’) but, on the other hand, is a product of intertextuality, as it uses sounds – through sampling and parody – from other aspects of American culture.
Some of the acts mentioned by Encarnacao have signed records deals with some of the bigger ‘independent’ labels (CocoRosie with Seattle’s Sub Pop – parent company: Warner Music Group – and Devendra Banhart with Nonesuch – owned by Wanrer Music Group). Thus, although these acts started their career within the ‘restricted’ free-folk field (and were involved in ‘lo-fi’ production), they have been able to make a crossover to the (semi-) periphery of the commercial music industry. The distinction between ‘restricted’ free-folk and ‘large-scale’ indie-folk is therefore somewhat blurred, which is why in the context of this article both categories are referred to as ‘indie-folk,’ a more neutral term that covers current trends in the global field of folk music the best.
The project is titled Authenticity Revisited: The Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Independent Folk Music in the Netherlands (1993-present) and is funded by the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
For the sampling of musicians (n = 14) I used criterion sampling, meaning that either the musicians themselves, their record label, or the press should have positioned them within the category of ‘indie-folk.’ Gatekeepers (n = 10) were selected on the basis of their long-term involvement in the (inter)national promotion and distribution of (Dutch) indie music, and ranged from the head of business operations of a recently established independent music platform to one of the product managers of Warner Music Benelux. For the sampling of audience members (n = 26), lastly, I used maximum variation sampling, aiming to include a diverse range of respondents within the sample, containing male and female audience members from different age groups. Most of the audience members (n = 20) were approached and selected during concerts of folk acts whose music was categorized as ‘free-folk,’ ‘New Weird America,’ ‘freak-folk,’ ‘indie-folk,’ or ‘folk-pop’ either by themselves, their record label, or the press. Additional respondents (n = 6) were approached using the snowball method.
Audience members were approached and selected during the concerts of Mumford and Sons (Ziggo Dome, Amsterdam, March 30, 2013), Woods (Paradiso, Amsterdam, May 20, 2013), Animal Collective (Melkweg, Amsterdam, May 27, 2013), CocoRosie (Tivoli, Utrecht, May 29, 2013), The Lumineers (Heineken Music Hall, Amsterdam, November 18, 2013), and during the yearly Incubate festival (September 16-22-2013, Tilburg, the Netherlands), and the yearly Le Guess Who festival (November 28-December 1, 2013, Utrecht, the Netherlands).
Interviews were originally in Dutch; excerpts have been translated by the author.
Badisco, J. (2009) Folkies zijn jong, slim en (vooral) mannelijk. Goe Vollek! 5: 12–13.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
Encarnacao, J. (2013) Punk Aesthetics and New Folk: Way Down the Old Plank Road. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Ennis, P.H. (1992) The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
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.
Fonarow, W. (2006) Empire of Dirt: The Aesthetics and Rituals of British Indie Music. Middletwon: Wesleyan University Press.
Fornäs, J. (1995) Cultural Theory and Late Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
de Graaf, N.D., and Steijn, B. (1997) De ‘service’ klasse in Nederland: een voorstel tot aanpassing van de EGP-klassenindeling. Tijdschrift voor sociologie.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (1999) Indie: The institutional politics and aesthetics of a popular music genre. Cultural Studies 13(1): 34–61.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005) Subcultures, scenes or tribes? None of the above. Journal of Youth Studies 8(1): 21–40.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2006) Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 211–231.
Hibbett, R. (2005) What is indie-rock? Popular Music and Society 28(1): 55–77.
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.
Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (2000) The Self We Live by: Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holt, D.B. (1997) Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu's theory of tastes from its critics. Poetics 25(2–3): 93–120.
Holt, F. (2007) Genre in Popular Music. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Jahn, M. (2005) Narratology: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative. Köln: English Department, University of Cologne.
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Johnson, R. (1993) Introduction. In: R. Johnson (ed.) The Field of Cultural Production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
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.
Johnston, J and Baumann, S. (2009) Tension in the kitchen, Explicit and implicit politics in the gourmet foodscape. Sociologica 3(1), 1–29.
Keenan, D. (2003) The fire down below. Wire 234: 32–41.
Lavie, N. and Dhoest, A. (2015) ‘Quality television’ in the making: The cases of Flanders and Israel. Poetics 52: 64–74.
Lamont, M. (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lena, J.C. (2012) Banding together: How communities create genres in popular music. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Livingston, T. (1999) Music revivals: Towards a general theory. Ethnomusicology 43(1): 66–85.
Lizardo, O. and Skiles, S. (2012) Reconceptualizing and theorizing “omnivorousness” genetic and relational mechanisms. Sociological Theory 30(4): 263–282.
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.
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.
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.
Peterson, R. (1992) Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics 21(4): 243–258.
Peterson, R. (2005) In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies 42(5): 1083–1098.
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.
Peterson, R. and Kern, R. (1996) Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review: 900–907.
Petrusisch, A. (2008) It Still Moves: Lost Songs, Lost Highways and the Search for the Next American Music. Chatham: CPI Mackays.
van Poecke, N. (forthcoming) What might have been lost: The formation of narrative identity among the Dutch indie-folk audience. Popular Music & Society.
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).
Reynolds, S. (2011) Retromania: Pop Culture’s Addiction to its Own Past. London: Macmillan.
Van Rooden, A. (2015) Reconsidering literary autonomy: From an individual towards a relational paradigm. Journal of the History of Ideas 76(2): 167–190.
Roy, W.G. (2010) Reds, Whites, and Blues: Social Movements, Folk Music, and Race in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
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.
Straw, W. (2001) Scenes and sensibilities. Public (22–23).
Turino, T. (2008) Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
van Eijck, K. (2001) Social differentiation in musical taste patterns. Social Forces 79(3): 1163–1185.
Vannini, P.H. and Williams, J.P. (eds.). (2009) Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society. Farmham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
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.
Vermeulen, T. and van den Akker, R. (2010) Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 2: 1–14.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
van Poecke, N. Pure taste in popular music: The social construction of indie-folk as a performance of “poly-purism”. Am J Cult Sociol 6, 499–531 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-017-0033-y
- cultural omnivores
- symbolic boundaries