“I’m sorry, but you’ve just been kicked out of
the club.”
A qualitative content analysis of identification and
bonding of indie music fans through online communities
Graduate thesis master Communication science
University of Amsterdam
27 January, 2014
Jian Wu - 10390537
Supervisor:
_____________________________________________________________________ Abstract
_____________________________________________________________________ As a relatively new platform, online fora are popular among people with similar
interests, including indie music fans. Previous studies have discussed some identities
of indie music fans, however, they do not link the identities to effects that the modern
technology brings. Therefore, the research question on how indie music fan-generated
contexts indicate community and bonding, was put forward. This thesis employed the
method of content analysis, with content from various indie music fora online. Five
features, namely use of humour, ingroup vs outgroup, criticism, aesthetics, and
sharing were figured out, which are related to community and bonding.
Key words: indie music fans, bonding, online community, humour, ingroup/outgroup,
_____________________________________________________________________ Content _____________________________________________________________________ Introduction 1 Theoretical Framework 4 Methodology 13 Results 16 Discussion 25 Reference 30
_____________________________________________________________________ Introduction
_____________________________________________________________________ The title of this thesis was retrieved from a thread on Last.fm, and is a response to a
fan indicating her preference for Ellie Goulding and Fun. as her favorite indie artists,
while both of them had achieved great mainstream success.
Indie music has been regarded as non-commercial by fans, musicians, and
journalists (Cummings, 2008). That is to say, this kind of music tends to be more
autonomous and creative, with a more direct link with music fans. Hesmondhalgh
(1999) found that “indie proclaimed itself to be superior to other genres not only
because it was more relevant or authentic to the youth who produced and consumed it
but also because it was based on a new relationship between creativity and
commerce” (p. 35).
Kruse (1993) quotes from his interview with an indie musician, who claims that
“the only way people know of them [indie/alternative music] is through ‘alternative’
markets. They’re not being played on MTV - they’re not being played after Extreme,
they’re not being played every hour like ‘No More Words’ or ‘More Than Words’ or
whatever that is” (p. 35).
This quote indicates the independent attitude towards mainstream culture. Other
remarks from his interviews include “I don’t think anyone in town sounds like [us]”,
and “[Locally], there’s nobody like us” (Kruse, 1993, p. 35). We see here being
special other than the mainstream as the ideology of indie music and musicians. Now,
scene have been noticed, for example, bands get more connected to fans, and more
pressure due to the rising of social media (Browne, 2012).
Based on the anti-mainstream perspective, indie music has gained its targeted
audiences, and has formed some scenes, such as in the previous study by Hebdige
(1979), hipsters, teddy boys, mods, punks, etc, with sharp personalities. In these indie
music scenes, identities are perceived as being produced within an ideological field
where signs “can be discursively re-articulated to construct new meanings, connect
with different social practices, and position social subjects differently” (Hall, 1988).
Accordingly, the term “subculture” was put forward by Hebdige (1979), and
interpreted as “a form of resistance in which experienced contradictions and
objections to this ruling ideology are obliquely represented in style” (p. 133).
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) have a similar statement on subculture, that “all
values are values of opposition and are defined only by their difference” (p. 106).
That is to say, the indie audiences rebel against the mainstream to demonstrate their
difference. However, in a group of people with common interests, communities are
formed that help share their commonalities, and to create a bond between individuals.
With the development of internet technology, the fan communities tend to perform
better in defining their memberships through affinities rather than localities, as
Jenkins (2006) asserted. The functions of the communities are therefore interesting to
look into.
As a platform for community and bonding, fandom, has been analyzed by
as “transforming personal reaction into social interaction, spectatorial culture into
participatory culture” (p. 41). With the emerging online communities, the
participatory culture becomes easier to access and thus more active, which could
constitute “fully realized versions of the cosmopedia due to them being held together
through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge” (Jenkins, 2006,
p. 137).
Indie music, unlike mainstream rock n’ roll or other music subcultures, is not a
monolithic structure. Fonarow (2006) asserts that indie ‘‘is located ultimately in its
discourse about its boundaries, in discussions of what it is and is not, because what it
is constantly changes’’ (p. 77). That is to say, indie music has had a chance to develop
and last long in ways that other subcultures have not. In addition, Fonarow (2006)
describes indie as a style, a means of distribution, or an aesthetic judgement. It is
interesting to look into indie music in an aesthetic perspective, and see its vitality,
based on the theory of Culler (1976), that “...aesthetic expression aims to
communicate notions, subtleties, complexities...” (p. 116).
The bonding of fan community through online platforms has not been studied
thoroughly and requires further research. Although self-presentation in
communication within communities has been probed into by researchers such as
Goffman (2002), and structures and forms of online community have been studied by
Butler et al. (2007), the combination of the two academic fields seems rare. Another
deficiency that needs to be improved is many articles on identification in a
communities of indie music fans, to figure out the features of fans identification and
bonding in the communities.
Therefore, in the light of the knowledge above, the main research question will
be: How do indie music fan generated contexts indicate community and bonding?
Due to the main concern of community and bonding, subquestions include: Firstly, how do indie music fans see their identity through their music preference?
Secondly, how do attitudes towards the object of indie fandom contribute to bonding
between fans? Thirdly, how do expressed views on aesthetics contribute to bonding
between fans?
_____________________________________________________________________ Theoretical Framework
_____________________________________________________________________
Subculture/Counter-culture and Indie Aesthetics
Subculture, according to Hebdige (1979), presents expressive forms and rituals of
these non-mainstream groups, “the teddy boys and mods and rockers, the skinheads
and the punks” (p. 2), who are “alternately dismissed, denounced and canonized;
treated at different times as threats to public order and as harmless buffoons” (p. 2).
We see here that subculture holds an individual attitude out of mainstream culture,
and “counter-culture”, as one of the branch products of subculture, is highlighted with
its nature directly against the mainstream.
The term “counter-culture” reflects the image of “alternative” middle-class youth
Hall et al. (1976) pointed out, the counter-culture can be distinguished from the
subcultures by the explicitly political and ideological forms of its opposition to the
dominant culture (political action, coherent philosophies, manifestoes, etc.), by its
elaboration of “alternative” institutions (underground press, communes, co-operatives,
“un-careers”, etc.), by its “stretching” status of emerging adulthood, and by its
integration of distinctions among social elements, such as work, home, family, school
and leisure. The characteristics of counter-culture is described as resistance which is
“more articulate, more confident”, and “ more directly expressed” (Hebdige, 1979, p.
148).
Indie music scene, according to Newman (2009), as a counter-culture,
differentiates the audiences from the social mainstream, and it culturally functions to
offer the audiences a sense of distinction. It is also a “taste culture” (Newman, 2009, p.
25), therefore, the aesthetic views of audiences are appealing to look upon for the
study. In the article by Hesmondhalgh (1999), on aesthetics of indie music in late
1980s and early 1990s, the features such as “jangly guitar”, “mix of rockist nostalgia
and post-punk experimentalism”, and “dance rhythms with a rock sensibility” (p. 38)
were exposed, which reflected the aesthetic tastes of indie music fans back then.
However, with the change of time, social environment, technology and
communication, the aesthetic tastes have changed, which explains the necessity of this
research.
Researchers have stated that music, with the various subcultures it supports or
emerge related to the musical forms. In the book by Hebdige (1979), hipsters, teddy
boys, mods, and punks, connected to music forms, were probed into, against the
background of a post-war society. However, few studies have been done to describe
the current situation, when the world is increasingly globalized and people form
increasingly different backgrounds can bond over music styles.
Music Fandom and Ingroup Identification
According to a research by Bennett (2012), fandom is expressed and experienced in
Trobe club (a fan community of American rock band R.E.M.), by members in various
ways that distinguish them as a group from non-Trobe fans. This example indicates
the necessity to probe into fandom, to see how the distinctive and temporary nature of
fan activities influence the accumulation and value levels of fan cultural capital, as
noted by Bourdieu (1984).
Fiske (1992) referred to fandom with the application of social and cultural capital,
claiming that “cultural economy” can be discovered in the activities of fans, and that
“knowledge is fundamental to the accumulation of cultural capital” (p. 42).
Researches by Jenkins also illustrated “exchange of knowledge between different
segments of the [fan] community” (Jenkins, 2012, p. 7), concluding that “knowledge
equals prestige, reputation, power” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 59). Wall and Dubber (2009)
conclude that the shared characteristics, or in other words, cultural capital, are
elaborated upon and extended in the cultural space established by online media. In
exercised through the command of specialist forms of knowledge of a named
specialist music, and activities of collecting and sharing which define the boundaries
of a community or scene” (Wall & Dubber, 2010, p. 161).
The ingroup identification, focusing on how member negotiate their shared ideas
and values, has been studied by various researchers. Turner et al. (1987) refer to
ingroup identification in terms of the extent to which individuals consider themselves
as group members. Tajfel (1981) describes ingroup identification as an individual’s
personal significance that derives from being a member of a group, while Luhtanen
and Crocker (1992) highlight the importance of a group membership to an
individual’s sense of self. However, these articles were written in a pre-internet and
pre-social media era. That is to say, the literature can be references, but new findings
related to internet and social media that are different from those in the literature, are
demanded.
Music fans, as a type of group, have the sense of identification as well. A fan
may identify with some object, such as band, artist, organization, through personal
identity. Meanwhile, their social identity also gives an individual a sense of bonding
and belonging with others, who use the same object for identification (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992) The objects, in this case bands or musicians, can further produce “a
form of parasocial relationship, to which the user responds as though in a typical
social relationship” (Giles, 2002, p. 279).
Parasocial relationship refer to the fans’ admiration for their favourite bands and
communication can motivate and be motivated by a two-way communication, that is
social interaction (i.e. the band member could be a friend), according to Giles (2002).
Within an indie music scene, the interaction can be more easily achieved, because the
indie artists are more closely related to fans due to their style of music production and
promotion. In this way, the companionship among fans within the same group can be
strengthened due to the parasocial interactions.
However, the communication within a fan community is not always based on
balanced knowledge, as observed by Cantwell (2004), who showed that the manner in
which “fan knowledge is negotiated shows that it is not indiscriminately embraced”
(para. 23). Certain knowledge is perceived differently by different members in a fan
community, as spoiler or non-spoiler. That is to say, some information is objected to
by some of the members, which leads to an imbalance between groups in a
community, and therefore the conflicts between ingroups and outgroups even within
the fan community appear due to the knowledge imbalance.
Previous studies on fan identification have exposed that fans employ various
media, such as magazines, television, radio, websites, to engage not only with the
object of their fandom but also with other fans (Jenkins, 2006; Beaven & Laws, 2007;
Perkins, 2012). Fan-generated content within these media, shows these features while
it also maintains and enhances fan identification (Perkins, 2012), which is useful for a
content analysis study. Taking these theories and findings into consideration, this
study aims to investigate indie music fan communities and see how fans bond with
Online Community and Technological Possibilities
Online communities are established and developed based on information and
computer technology, and are composed of individuals with the same goals or similar
needs. This new type of interpersonal networks has an impact on activities like
“retrieving and using of community resources, taking collective actions, seeking
emotional comfort, and developing working strategies” (Tseng & Kuo, 2011, p. 676).
In addition, Wang et al. (2012) identify three influential factors of online community
participation, that are “internet self-efficacy, perceived community environment, and
intrinsic motivation” (p. 796). These findings, that illustrate the perceived ease of use
brought by internet technology, are also validated in the research by Yousafzai et al.
(2007).
Web space is ideal for people’s self-presentation, as Taddei and Contena (2013)
pointed out, “online environments seem to be like a stage where people can
manipulate information in communication, choosing what to disclose and what to
hide” (p. 822). Through internet, people can choose to show their characteristics more
suited to a targeted context. This behaviour makes people feel intimate with other
members in an online community, as mentioned in the former section. Instead of
thinking deeply of their self-disclosure, users could be satisfied with intimate
relationships brought by the topic of the online community, which makes the use more
engaging, with the sense of bonding (Park et al., 2011). Moreover, online bonding can
also contribute to offline interactions. Through empirical study, Ellison et al. (2007)
but may indeed be used to support relationships and keep people in contact” (p. 1165).
The emerging online fan communities, based on the development of internet
technology, are considered to be taking the place of traditional music scenes
(Sandvoss et al., 2007) with these spaces, along with fora of music artists and bands.
“Tools and technical infrastructure make online group communication possible and
support the group’s interactions with the outside world” (Butler et al., 2007, p. 4), so
users can communicate their interests and social connections regardless of
geographical location.
Self-disclosure and Online Identity
Self-disclosure is defined by West and Turner (2007) as “revealing pieces of
information about oneself to another, and the purposeful process of revealing
information about yourself to others” (p. 189). Jourard (2008) describes the term
self-disclosure with two characteristics, namely breadth and depth; the definition of
breadth refers to the “amount of information revealed”, and depth to the “degree of
intimacy in the act of disclosing information” (Taddei & Contena, 2013, p. 821).
Goffman (1967) describes self-disclosure as “face-work”, that is to say, by
constructing self-image as a particular kind of “face”, people interact with each other.
The “face-work” process of communication is dynamic, and the dynamic is one where
“face” is also diffused. Goffman (1967) also defines face as the “positive social value
a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a
self-disclosure, a person tends to be honest, as well as presents a more positive image
(Ellison et al. ,2006; Attrill & Jalil, 2011; Park et al. , 2011).
Associated with the development of internet, especially online social networks,
self-disclosure becomes noticeable as a highly demanded means of communication. It
is “an interaction between at least two individuals where one intends to deliberately
divulge something personal to another” (Greene et al., 2006, p. 411). With people
disclosing online, it is possible to connect people to online groups sharing common
interests and learn about other group members’ hobbies, activities, romantic
relationships, or even sexual orientations (Park et al., 2011).
According to perspective of public good, an individual’s willingness to share
knowledge with others is considered to be the collective benefits of the social
community instead of their own profits (Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Through sharing
knowledge and solving other people’s problems, one feels pleasant and recognizes the
value of himself or herself. Besides, the sharing through communities build up a sense
of bonding, which in turn enhances the willingness to share (Ebare, 2005). Tseng and
Kuo (2011) argue that “in terms of knowledge contribution of online communities, the
sharing and communication of both information resources and knowledge skills not
only help with the execution of tasks, but the contents and process of the sharing may
also include interactive pleasure and emotional support” (p. 677).
In addition, the internet and new media make it easier and more comfortable to
express and disclose oneself. With online space, the communication tends to be less
enhanced (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). Besides, based on Walther’s (1996)
hyperpersonal communication theory, Schouten et al. (2007) believe that online
communication facilitates hyperpersonal communication, that is to say, it is more
intimate compared with face-to-face communication. This is because in the web space,
communication is more anonymous, users feel more safe to share, and therefore
disclose more than they do in real life (Schouten et al., 2007).
Humour in Communication
In the process of self-disclosure, it is inevitable to encounter embarrassment, and
therefore, the use of humour can be a good tool to relieve the tension of
embarrassment (Goffman, 1967). Sometimes humour can be displayed in a relatively
rude way, but with positive intention. The work of Billig (1997) shows that based on
psychoanalytic theory, in humour “the socially repressed is not only expressed but is
enjoyed” (p. 150), and displays of rudeness, which may be normally treated as
unethical, are greeted with pleasure in the context of humour. This is also related to
the notion of ingroup/outgroup, as in the article by Bosman (2006), the ingroup
humour creates resonance among “those able to recognize the artificiality of societal
conventions”, at the same time excludes “those who remain merely shocked at the
lack of propriety” (p. 103).
An important aspect of humour is self-mockery. Critchley (2002) asserts that
humour that makes others laugh based on self-mockery is positively valued.
Ungar (1984) that by making fun of their own foibles, members “not only disarm
others but also affirm standards or rules in a fashion that is likely to augment positive
sentiments among the participants” (p. 125).
Another use of humour can be referred to as the term “mock impoliteness”,
originally coined by Leech (1983), which indicates a ‘disguised’ or ‘covert’ form of
politeness. The notion of mock impoliteness was further introduced by Culpeper
(1996). It was described by him as “impoliteness that remains on the surface, since it
is understood that it is not intended to cause offence” (Culpeper, 1996, p. 352), which
“reflects and fosters social intimacy” (p. 352).
Nimrod (2011) argues that humour online is an important way for a group of
people to identify each other, exchange personal information and experiences, and
create their “group humour” (p. 234). Stebbins (2011) illustrates the way how internet
users employ humour by mentioning that they often play, joke and have casual
discussions in the same thread. In this way, netizens pursue “casual leisure”, which is
defined in his previous article as “an immediately, intrinsically rewarding, relatively
short-lived pleasurable core activity, requiring little or no special training to enjoy it”
(Stebbins, 1997, p. 18). This provides a theoretical basis to this study, which aims to
investigate the use of humour in online communities of indie music fans, and see how
humour is employed by them.
_____________________________________________________________________ Methodology
_____________________________________________________________________ A qualitative content analysis will be employed in this study. In this section,
methodology background and rationale of qualitative content analysis will be
discussed first, followed by steps to be taken in the research process.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory, which was put forward by Glaser and Strauss (1967), is chosen as
the framework of this study. It refers to a theory “that was derived from data,
systematically gathered and analyzed through the research process” (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Bryman (2012) suggests that grounded theory is “honoured more in the breach
than in the observance”, and is “more or less synonymous with an inductive
approach” (p. 568).
The reason why Grounded Theory is chosen as the framework is because this
research focuses on how online interaction contributes to the construction of identity.
The empirical data on this area is limited because the targeted group, which is indie
music fans using online fora to communicate, is relatively new. It is necessary to
collect first hand data for this research. More importantly, the purpose of this study is
to unobtrusively observe how fans interact. Collecting forum threads from various
websites instead of survey or interview method allows the possibility of getting
divergent and unmanipulated interactions, and decreases the bias caused by the design
of the researcher. In addition, the lack of previous research on this specific topic
suggests qualitative rather than quantitative research.
Grounded Theory suits the purpose of this study well, that is to seek the way fan
content, the meaning behind will be figured out, with structure and variation (Bryman,
2012).
The title and introduction of this thesis indicate that the purpose of this study is
to see the fans’ bonding within groups and identification against outgroups. The
distinction between ingroups and outgroups due to knowledge imbalance has been
discussed by Cantwell (2004) and Bosman (2006). Based on the theoretical support,
sensitizing concepts of this research are ingroup and outgroup.
Data Collection
To research on the communities and bonding of indie music fans, their online posts
were analyzed as indicators of relevant themes, using purposive sampling. This type
of sampling is “essentially to do with the selection of units..., with direct reference to
the research questions being asked” (Bryman, 2012, p. 416). The initial plan was to
employ the online contexts employed from forum posts within the past one year, for
the sake of contemporary practicality. However, due to the fast development of picture
based social media, many netizens have turned to use more pictures, thus valid textual
content was found inadequate within one year’s range. As a result, the time limit was
extended to two years. 578 posts from 16 threads were collected, from online indie
music fora such as “Drowned In Sound”, “Music Banter”, “Indie Rock Talk”, etc.
Using purposive sampling method, the selected threads were all in English, and the
themes included various aspects such as album artwork, definition of indie, guilty
Analysis
All the contexts were coded for further study in two phases: initial and selective
coding. Initial coding was conducted on all relevant words, followed by selective
coding, which will collect the most common and revealing codes (Bryman, 2012).
The coding work was conducted based on the methodology of objective
hermeneutics, which holds the belief that “authors characteristically understand the
‘world as text’”(Flick, 2009, p. 350). The coding was processed by using qualitative
processing software Atlas.ti, and focused on patterns related to identity construction
and community bonding. 1512 Codes were encoded from the whole context of thread
posts. Later, 5 dimensions with 14 roots were generated according to analysis.
_____________________________________________________________________ Results
_____________________________________________________________________ In this chapter, the results will be presented and analyzed. The results comprise five
sensitizing concepts as discussed in the theoretical framework: use of humour,
ingroup/outgroup, criticism, aesthetics, and sharing. All the concepts in the results are
related to the online community and bonding among indie music fans.
Use of Humour
As discovered, the use of humour takes a large proportion of the threads. One of the
functions is to show some words of wisdom in order to mock others. It can be seen in
Yeah. I think the bombardment of self-awareness gives the post a kind of lunatic quality that makes him seem amusingly guilty and conspiratorial. I imagine it’ll get him some funny looks in the Spin office. (Or is Spin based in someone’s attic these days?)
This phenomenon can be referred to as the term “mock impoliteness” by Leech
(1983). Instead of being aggressive, it is a non-serious way to make fun of others, and
to show the bonding of people. Here is one mockery of a netizen using a comparison
between indie music and football fans, to show their common interests:
“Finding how much they paid for Animal Collective the year I went to Pitchfork Festival when I was writing for them, and thinking about how much they pay their writers was a low-key what the fuck moment” How are those two things remotely related?... I met some guy who did admin for Arsenal the other day, and was shocked how poor his pay was in comparison to £42m star player Mesut Ozil.
The second function of using humour is self-depreciation. In the community, it is
common for members to mock themselves in order to relieve the tension, and show
the affirmation the standards or rules, to achieve consensus (Ungar, 1984). The
following quotes show how fans use self-depreciation to humorously continue the
conversation:
[I’m impressed that you got Hamilton Leithauser’s name spelled perfectly, yet managed to mangle Isaac Brock so badly] That’s because, like 8 years later, I knew I’d still get Leithauser wrong & googled it.
Yes, I own the shiny technical devices with the fruit on them, I own a smartphone, and I mostly know [and] listen to bands where if people ask me about them I am forced to answer: “oh, it’s something new I found, you wouldn’t know it.” because it is the honest truth.
Another discovery of the function of humour is improving communication, as
awkward situation in the discussion about the best album in the 90s.
No one thought “Loveless” was the best album of the 90s until Pitchfork told them it was. Trust me it’s “OK Computer”. I know I’m right on this one.
Humour, as asserted by Critchley (2002), is often based on inside knowledge of a
culture, and its use also reinforces the sense of group identity. Having a common
sense of humour can be experienced as sharing a “secret code”. We see this by
looking at the two consequent quotes and see how people show their shared
knowledge, e.g. in this case, the musical film “Spinal Tap”, and use humour to make
the communication interesting:
Mom won’t let the band use her minivan for the tour. The band is also just one person and a Macbook.
The van breaks down so the band have to walk the two and a half miles to the next gig at The Queen’s Head in mild weather.
Conversations in this thread about “Spinal Tap”, and also in other indie music threads,
are found being in this humour following tone, or to say, sharing the “secret code”.
This associates to the next dimension of the research result, on group identification,
the contrast between ingroup and outgroup, indie music fans view on mainstream, and
the character of wanting to be different.
Ingroup/Outgroup
Among the comments in the threads, many have shown the consciousness of the indie
The first feature is Group identification. Indie music fans have their
understandings of what indie music should be, and the shared knowledge bonds them
as a particular group. When there are some disagreements, exchange of knowledge
between different segments of the fan community, as mentioned by Jenkins (2012)
plays a role here, to dynamically keep the community as a group. Here is one quote
that discusses why Modest Mouse, an indie band that many participants like, belongs
to the indie rock genre, and why Franz Ferdinand does not.
I hesitate to call Franz Ferdinand indie rock. They are influenced by it but they are part of the New Wave Revival that’s the one of the big trends of the last few years. Actually Modest Mouse has been around for a while. They started up in the early 90’s. They are directly descended from some of the bands I listed.
This quote not only shows the exchanging knowledge among fans increases bonding,
but also suggests that to be “indie” you have to have been long enough to earn your
credits. In this case, Franz Ferdinand is relatively new and not derived from the
existing indie music scene, so being new may be perceived as a threat to the
community identity. Posts with similar opinions can also be found in the following
sections.
According to the theory about subculture (Hebdige, 1979), which is influential in
the indie music scene, a feature against the mainstream is prominent. Yet indie music
fans are discovered having some mainstream interests, which are often “new” as
mentioned in the previous section, that sometimes considered as “guilty pleasures”
according to themselves. The threads about power pop as a common guilty pleasure
Some guilty pleasures are figured out as indie music fans’ good memories, thus they
can be not guilty to some extent. The topic mainstream/guilty pleasures is
represented in quotes including the following:
I feel like Freak Kitchen falls in this category, although everyone wants to call them heavy metal or hard rock. Love Mattias Eklundh and Freak Kitchen grew right on me. It was a guilty pleasure for a while, but I don’t feel guilty anymore.
In spite of the mainstream guilty pleasures, the characteristics of wanting to be
different is still an important feature of indie music fans. Resistance with confidence
by Hebdige (1979) is described as the status of being against the dominant culture.
The majority of the thread comments reflects the spirit of being different, as shown in
the following quote:
I remember being at my best friend’s birthday party when I was like 12, maybe 13, and his brother was recording us for some reason. He asked everyone what their favorite band was, almost everyone answered Linkin Park and I think I answered with Good Charlotte.
The spirit of being different is found not only in an individual level, but also in a
general view on the indie music genre, as described by one user:
Indie is what you make of it. The more you listen to other people the less independent you are.
Some characteristics of indie music fans, in accordance with their tastes, have been
noticed in the threads, which will be discussed in the later section of their aesthetic
views.
Previous studies have revealed the aesthetic views of indie music fans. As described
in the article by Seiler (2001), during the 1990s, indie “manifested itself across a
broad range of practices, from musical performance to fashion, asserting its antipathy
toward the cultural mainstream by embracing the generally awkward, outmoded, and
superannuated” (p. 191). In reference to the previous findings, this study aims at
exploring the aesthetic view of indie music fans in recent times, on aspects including
music styles and lyrics.
In the threads, a majority of fans mentioned the feature “catchy” and
“light-hearted” as styles of music that they prefer. Compared with the noisy and loud
punk and heavy metal songs, the light melodies of some indie songs are appealing to
them, as long as they regard them as indie. Also, though the fans have some similar
taste to share, they still tend to be different and have their own favourites, which
echoes the feature mentioned in the previous section of results. Here are a few
comments in the indie threads that represent the aesthetic view on music styles.
Try some old Of Montreal. Their new stuff is catchy and easy to get into. I don’t really know what is “indie” now, but try some Built to Spill or Iron & Wine.
I’m not sure if it qualifies as indie, but I really liked Rubblebucket’s Omega La La album. Really lighthearted and catchy.
Although generally labeled as britpop, Supergrass should also fit the bill. Like this song from their debut. Short, guitary, punchy and catchy.
It is interesting to see that indie fans bond through shared aesthetics, while they also
do through the rejection of the mainstream. Through comparison, it is found that
features of music that fans appreciate. However, even within sharing aesthetics, fans
tend to raise some unique opinions due to their characteristics of being different.
When looking at the tastes of lyrics, features such as “story-driven”, “humour”,
“thoughts-provoking” and so on, are discovered as fans’ favourite aspects of lyrics in
quotes as follows:
I like Will Sheff from Okkervil River. The majority of his songs are very story driven, great stuff. My other pick is Stephen Malkmus, of Pavement. mixing humor with some really thought provoking stuff.
Nick Cave, from Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds + various other projects - has a real gift for the macabre and a wicked sense of humor when he wants to express one.
Very much agreed. He [Gregory Alan Isakov] paints amazing, subtle lyrical pictures.
One important finding is that, although there is an emphasis on catchy tunes, and
lyrics are obviously very important, within that, there is great acceptance of diverse
tastes in the community. As long as the music is somehow different from the
mainstream, it could be appreciated by the indie fans.
In this section, the sharing aesthetic views are analyzed. Meanwhile, along with
these sharing perspectives, there are a lot of disagreements in the communication
among indie music fans, which lead to the analysis of criticism between fans, as
discussed in the next section.
Criticism
Within a community, argument is a common form of discourse, due to the
accordance with an internally coherent set of agreed-upon rules or procedures”
(McKerrow, 1982, p. 106), meets the requirements, and is therefore common to be
discovered in the threads.
A minority of the criticism is found to be very direct. In the online space with a
relatively anonymous environment, it is more acceptable for individuals to speak
directly. The quote here shows how the direct criticism goes:
Yes, HOW DARE BANDS ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY FOR THE MUSIC THEY MAKE ARGHHHHHH! This is exactly what is wrong with the whole “indie holier than thou” label. As long as the band doesn’t alienate their fanbase and continue to create good music, who fucking cares if they sign to a major label. It’s selfish for you to not want the band you love to actually make a living off their music.
This quote also indicates the sensitivities around the mainstream big-business music
industry. The rejection of the mainstream, therefore, is presented again.
Instead of the direct arguments, milder ones appeared more in the threads, which
also demonstrate that there seems to be a lot of acceptance of differences with the
community, rather than direct animosity:
I think it’s going a little too far to say “...bands that aren’t out looking for attention, or money, or getting on MTV” are the only ones who are indie. I’m sure quite a few indie bands would love to get their music video on tv or make some money. I think sticking to what Ace_Aso said about independent labels vs majors is what indie is, and screw this whole ‘indie as genre’ crap.
Another kind of criticism is more indirect, with part of agreement and part of
argument from another path, which makes the communication more polite:
You are right, there are far too many photographers in most gigs, this unfortunately is because every other music fans claims to have a blog and if you are a music PR you will want to push your guest list to the capacity to get the maximum exposure for your
new-newish-fading band and get your commission accordingly.
In spite of the criticism, fans tend to be positive towards the group and therefore gain
a sense of belonging, which is indicated in the way they share personal perspectives.
This will be discussed in the next section.
Sharing
Exchange of knowledge, as Jenkins (2012) illustrated, plays a bonding role between
different segments of the fan community. With similar background of knowledge on
similar music, the music tastes and relevant experiences are found to be crucial in
fans’ communication.
The first type of sharing is to directly share fans’ understanding on the music,
including knowledge about music genres, relevant stories, definitions, and any general
opinions on music. The following quote expresses the knowledge sharing, with
rational thinking within:
Reading through this thread, I thought I’d be able to recommend some indie songs to the threadstarter. But it turned out to be a discussion on what “Indie” really means. Now I am a bit confused too. I have understood “Indie” as what it meant in the UK.
The second type of sharing is to share some certain types of music taste. It is also a
self-disclosing process, which indicates fans’ confidence, and their willingness to
meet people with similar tastes. Also, the online space makes it possible to link music
audios or videos in order to share.
Tame Impala is simply incredible. I named “Lonerism” my #3 record of 2012, only behind Andrew Bird’s “Break It Yourself” at #2 and Kendrick Lamar’s “Good Kid, Maad
City” at #1 (a damn fine rap album). The thing about Tame is that they are straight-laced, by the books psychedelia. They don’t try to reinvent the wheel, they just do what they do extremely well. That transition in the middle of “Apocalypse Dreams” sends chills down my spine every single time.
Another type is to share experiences. By sharing very personal experiences, fans
show great passion to disclose themselves and desire to be admired. Here is one quote
in which a fan describes the experience meeting Michael Stipe:
I saw Michael Stipe once. I just said “do you mind if i say hello?” and he said “no” and then we discussed our plans for the evening and how long we staying in town. This is never gonna go amazingly well / be the start of a beautiful friendship, but it made my night for sure. Just keep it brief and polite.
In this section, different types of sharing have been discussed. It is found that
although indie music fans are relatively of low profile, they are quite active in the
forum discussions. The fact that there is so much sharing, also suggests that the
community is a safe place to share, and members do not expect to be judge harshly. It
also shows the openness and acceptance within the community. This is in line with the
finding of Schouten et al. (2007) that online communication is more intimate
compared with face-to-face communication.
_____________________________________________________________________ Discussion
_____________________________________________________________________ In this section, the research question will be answered, and the results will be
discussed with social implications. Finally, the limitations of the research and
Research Question
The research question of this study was: How do indie music fan-generated
contexts indicate community and bonding? An apparent finding, also the most direct
one, is that fans share their knowledge, experiences and tastes, in order to bond to
each other. The comments show a lot of shared knowledge of songs, bands, musical
films, stories about bands, based on which the fans communicate with each other with
great passion. The sharing behaviour is often accompanied by sparring, to show off
their knowledge. This is also discovered in the sharing of experiences, which makes
fans proud of themselves. Moreover, the eager of sharing tastes also indicates fans’
passion and willingness of being admired, meanwhile reflects their aesthetic
preferences, and more importantly, demonstrates that fans they safe in sharing online.
A sense of ingroup and outgroup is spotted in the group identification of indie
music fans. This is how they see their identity through their music preference. The
feeling of superiority towards outgroup is discovered in the communication. The
outgroup, compared with indie music ingroup, is basically mainstream and new. Indie
fans distinct themselves against outgroup by sharing knowledge on indie music
history, development, and what indie music should be like. Mainstream music is
sometimes appreciated by indie fans, but described by them as “guilty pleasures”. The
reason why they feel guilty for the mainstream favourites is that they tend to be
different. This is in line with the studies on subculture and counter-culture by Hebdige
(1979) and Newman (2009).
many indie fans claim, “indie” is not a specific music genre but a spirit against
mainstream, therefore, a great variety of musicians and musical groups were
discussed in the threads. Holding similar but not exactly the same view on indie music,
the bonding appears within the indie music fandom, with agreements and
disagreements. This links in with Cantwell’s (2004) study on fan knowledge
imbalance. The use of humour is prominent in communication within fandom, to
either show agreement, or criticize others rationally. The fact is that only minority of
criticism is found to be direct, while more is found to be milder or indirect, often
accompanied by the use of humour, which can also improve the atmosphere of
communication. This confirms the “mock impoliteness” within a group of people who
can understand each other, which is actually not real impoliteness (Culpeper, 1996).
The aesthetic views that bond indie music fans together are found to be linked to
music styles and lyrics, which support the argument by Newman (2009), that indie
music scene is a “taste culture” (p. 25). Instead of being flashy and pretentious, indie
music fans prefer light-hearted, sincere and simple styles. The favourite features of
music styles are basically catchy, chilling, easy to get into, while the favourite lyrics
are story-driven, humorous, thoughts-provoking, etc. Within this, however, there is
much variation in personal preferences.
Implications for Theory and Practice
The implications for theory and practice from the results will be discussed in this
First, the bonding in communities can be achieved in different ways. As
discovered in the study, indie music fans discuss their music taste, knowledge and
relevant experiences, in order to construct a common identity within the group.
However, it is not necessary to be the same with other group members. As a part of
subculture/counter-culture, the preference of being unique can also contribute to the
sense of bonding. Moreover, during the coding work, a lot of posts that cannot be
systematically coded, can also explain the way of constructing bonding. These posts
with simply recommending authors’ favourite musicians, sometimes just passionately
shouting out their names, also contribute to an atmosphere of bonding when
resonance appears.
Second, the feature of being against mainstream and outgroups is highlighted in
the research. In the discussions on mainstream guilty pleasure, pitchfork articles,
pretentious bands and so on, the feature of how indie music fans reach a consensus by
being against certain objects is figured out. Fans are open to receive new ideas within
the group that they belong to, as long as the spirit of being against mainstream is
shared. Recommendations of one’s favorite indie musicians are frequently found in
communication, and turns out to be of good results. It is also noticeable that different
opinions on indie music are raised with confidence, and lead to resonance among fans.
These findings allow bonding to happen in the same group with the characteristics of
being different.
Limitations of this research and suggestions for further study will be addressed below.
First, the coding work was conducted only by the researcher, so the intercoder
reliability cannot be guaranteed. Kolbe and Burnett (1991) state that “interjudge
reliability is often perceived as the standard measure of research quality. High levels
of disagreement among judges suggest weaknesses in research methods, including the
possibility of poor operational definitions, categories, and judge training” (p. 248).
For example in this study, the codes “humour” and “appreciation” were mostly
generated, but the posts could be differently interpreted by if any, other coders.
Therefore, it would be better to have more coders to join the content analysis in the
future.
Second, due to the limited time span, other supporting methods are not possible
to be employed. The content analysis of online posts can be relatively subjective, with
the researcher’s bias and preconception. For instance, from sparring in
communication, the sense of superiority towards mainstream outgroup was identified,
but it was not exactly sure whether it was a real sense, or rather a playful boast. It
would be better to employ an interview, to allow the participants to express their
feelings and emotions directly by themselves.
Third, the purposive sampling was conducted based on the sensitizing concepts,
namely “ingroup” and “outgroup”. The thread posts were retrieved from indie music
fora, that is to say, the content was all included in the ingroup. It would be interesting
to also look into the outgroup, and make a comparison between the ingroup and the
_____________________________________________________________________ Reference
_____________________________________________________________________ Attrill, A., & Jalil, R. (2011). Revealing only the superficial me: Exploring categorical
self-disclosure online. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1634-1642.
Beaven, Z., & Laws, C. (2007). ‘Never Let Me Down Again’1: Loyal customer
attitudes towards ticket distribution channels for live music events: a
netnographic exploration of the US leg of the Depeche Mode 2005–2006 World
Tour. Managing Leisure, 12(2-3), 120-142.
Bennett, L. (2012). Music fandom online: REM fans in pursuit of the ultimate first
listen. New Media & Society, 14(5), 748-763.
Billig, M. (1997). The dialogic unconscious: Psychoanalysis, discursive psychology
and the nature of repression. British Journal of Social Psychology,36(2),
139-159.
Bosman, P. (2006). Selling cynicism: The pragmatics of diogenes’ comic
performances. Classical Quarterly, 93-104.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Browne, D. (2012, November 8). Survival of the Fittest in the New Music Industry.
Rolling Stone. Retrieved from: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/survial- of-the-fittest-in-the-new-music-industry-20121108
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Cantwell, M. (2004). Collapsing the extra/textual: Passions and intensities of
knowledge in Buffy the Vampire Slayer online fan communities. Refractory: A
Journal of Entertainment Media, 5(2004), 1-12.
Critchley, S., & Pinet, N. (2002). On humour. London: Routledge.
Culler, J. (1986). Ferdinand de Saussure. Cornell University Press.
Cummings, J. (2008). Trade mark registered: Sponsorship within the Australian Indie
music festival scene. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22(5),
675-685.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of
pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367.
Ebare, S. (2005). Digital music and subculture: Sharing files, sharing styles
(originally published in February 2004). First Monday.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self‐ presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of
Computer‐ Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook
“friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.
Journal of Computer‐ Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration in
online communities. Organization Science, 22(5), 1224-1239.
Fiske, J. (1992). The cultural economy of fandom. The adoring audience: Fan culture
value and its role in the independent music scene. Popular Music and Society,
35(4), 519-539.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
Fonarow, W. (2006). Empire of dirt: The aesthetics and rituals of British indie music.
Wesleyan University Press.
Gardikiotis, A., & Baltzis, A. (2012). ‘Rock music for myself and justice to the
world!’: Musical identity, values, and music preferences. Psychology of Music,
40(2), 143-163.
Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for
future research. Media psychology, 4(3), 279-305.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago, Il: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. Interaction ritual, 5-45.
Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY.
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal
relationships. The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships, 409-427.
Hagel, J. (1999). Net gain: expanding markets through virtual communities.Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 55-65.
Hall, S. (1988). The hard road to renewal: Thatcherism and the crisis of the left.
Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: the meaning of style. New accents.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (1999). Indie: The institutional politics and aesthetics of a popular
Houston, T. M. (2012). The homosocial construction of alternative masculinities: Men
in Indie rock bands. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 20(2), 158-175.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture.
NYU Press.
Jenkins, H. (2012). Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture.
Routledge.
Jourard, S. M. (2008). The transparent self.
Kolbe, R. H. & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-analysis research: An examination of
applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 243-250.
Kruse, H. (1993). Subcultural identity in alternative music culture. Popular music,
12(1), 33-41.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical
democratic politics.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of
one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18(3), 302-318.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
McKerrow, R. E. (1982). Rationality and reasonableness in a theory of
University Press, Carbondale, 105-122.
Newman, M. Z. (2009). Indie culture: In pursuit of the authentic autonomous
alternative. Cinema Journal, 48(3), 16-34.
Nimrod, G. (2011). The fun culture in seniors’ online communities. The Gerontologist,
51(2), 226-237.
Park, N., Jin, B., & Annie Jin, S. A. (2011). Effects of self-disclosure on relational
intimacy in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1974-1983.
Perkins, A. (2012). How devoted are you? An examination of online music fan
behaviour. Annals of Leisure Research, 15(4), 354-365.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Individual differences in perceptions of Internet
communication. European Journal of Communication, 21, 213–226.
Sandvoss, C., Harrington, C. L., & Gray, J. (Eds.). (2007). Fandom: Identities and
communities in a mediated world. NYU Press.
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and underlying
processes of adolescents’ online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an
“Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 10(2), 292-315.
Seiler, C. (2001). “Have You Ever Been to the Pleasure Inn?” The Transformation of
Indie Rock in Louisville, Kentucky. Journal of Popular Music Studies, 13(2),
189-205.
Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Casual leisure: A conceptual statement. Leisure studies, 16(1),
17-25.
Taddei, S., & Contena, B. (2013). Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with
online self-disclosure?. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 821-826.
Tafjel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology.
CUP Archive.
Tseng, F. C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2011, June). A social cognitive framework of knowledge
contribution in the online community. In Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2011 IEEE
International Conference on (pp. 676-682). IEEE.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Ungar, S. (1984). Self-Mockery: An Alternative Form of Self-Presentation. Symbolic
Interaction, 7(1), 121-133.
Waldron, J. (2013). YouTube, fanvids, forums, vlogs and blogs: Informal music
learning in a convergent on-and offline music community. International Journal
of Music Education, 31(1), 91-105.
Waldron, J. (2013). User-generated content, YouTube and participatory culture on the
Web: music learning and teaching in two contrasting online communities.
Wall, T., & Dubber, A. (2009). Specialist music, public service and the BBC in the
Internet age. Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media,
7(1), 27-47.
Wall, T., & Dubber, A. (2010). Experimenting with fandom, live music, and the
Journal of New Music Research, 39(2), 159-169.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal
and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1–43.
Wang, H., Chung, J. E., Park, N., McLaughlin, M. L., & Fulk, J. (2012).
Understanding Online Community Participation A Technology Acceptance
Perspective. Communication Research, 39(6), 781-801.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: why people participate and
help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(2), 155-173.
West, R., & Turner, L. (2007). Communication theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a
meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3),
