Article

DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society

The rise of independent artists and 2023, Vol. 1(2) 125–137
© The Author(s) 2023

the paradox of democratisation in Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/27538702231174200
the digital age: Challenges faced by journals.sagepub.com/home/diy

music artists in the new music

industry

Richard Frenneaux
International Communications, University of Nottingham, Ningbo Campus, Ningbo, China

Abstract
This article investigates the evolution of DIY into a component of mainstream cultural output, the divisions
of labour in production, and the meaning of DIY to artist and industry. Given the changing nature of the
music industry and the musician’s place within it, it is important to examine the meaning of DIY. The mer-
ging of traditional and new media has resulted for some, in a more democratic and networked paradigm of
distribution and consumption. During this evolution, new skills were developed that benefited artists
within this digital context. There are, however, new gatekeepers within the platform space which carry
forward elements of traditional music industry hegemony. While access to distribution and production
tools is advantageous for musicians working in the ‘new’ music industry, it also introduces new hurdles
for artists seeking to reach their audience due to market competition, an unpredictable algorithmic envir-
onment as well as cultural and financial capital.

Keywords
DIY, music platforms, bedroom pop, platform disruption, DIY ethics, digital platforms

Introduction
The broader adoption of do-it-yourself (DIY) ethics is a key factor in understanding the competencies devel-
oped by artists in the ‘new’ music industry; some have argued that this change from old to the new industry
has been categorised by the democratising impact of production technology in the digital age (Hodgson,
2021), however with this greater access for independent artists, new gatekeepers have emerged. The dem-
ocratisation of cultural creation has been facilitated by the rapid development of creative digital technolo-
gies, consistent with Hesmondhalgh’s view that this is congruent with media decentralisation (1997). DIY

Corresponding author:
Richard Frenneaux, International Communications, University of Nottingham, Ningbo Campus, Ningbo, China.
Email: richfrenn@gmail.com
126 DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2)

and independent musicians are the fastest-growing segment of the music industry, with income growing
from 1.7% of total music revenue in 2015 to 4.1% (US$873 million) in 2019, when US$2.15 billion
income went to independent artists without a recording contract. Nevertheless, major record labels still
accounted for 67.5% and indie labels for 32.5% of income (Houghton, 2020). When viewed through the
lens of an artist, the blurring of the barriers between DIY and mainstream culture creation is a significant
aspect of contemporary artist practises. In many cases, the roads to market for independent and mainstream
artists require the same DIY abilities; accordingly, they must be prepared to adopt a range of roles to accom-
plish their objectives, including being heard by industry A&R.
This article explores how artists working independently or within a label structure in the new music
industry understand and enact the term ‘DIY’ in their careers. The article draws on empirical data from inter-
views conducted with DIY musicians and other professionals in the music industry and situates them within
relevant existing literature. The article analyses how DIY competencies shape and are shaped by the ‘new’
music industry, how artists negotiate the expectations and realities of creative and career autonomy asso-
ciated with DIY ethos, and how new divisions of labour emerge within production processes. It begins
by examining some of the relevant literature on DIY practices in historical and contemporary contexts,
such as research on the disruptive new gatekeepers in the digital age, Hracs et al.’s (2016) study on aesthetic
entrepreneurship, Bennett’s (2018a, 2018b) work on DIY cultures, Hodgson’s (2021) analysis of creative
labour in independent music production and Hesmondhalgh’s (2013) critique of cultural industries. Finally,
the article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the findings for our understanding of the challenges
faced by independent music makers and their creative processes.

Contextualising DIY as a default strategy

The Buzzcocks were pioneers of successful DIY music production. In 1977, they issued their Spiral Scratch
EP on their record label, New Hormones; they promoted it in punk zines and sold it via mail orders and
small London retailers, deftly skirting the record business and encouraging other successful DIY acts to
follow suit (Wohlfeil, 2017). In tracing the genealogy of mainstream contemporary artists who have
achieved significant breakthrough success through a creative approach, it can be observed that artists
such as Tyler, the Creator, Mac Demarco, FKA Twigs, and Billie Eilish have utilised aspects of DIY,
which has facilitated their rise to international prominence. Blending musical genres and styles to create
distinctive sounds is a trend that has evolved within DIY. In the 1970s, Buzzcocks were the first band to
incorporate elements of pop, punk and rock into their songs. Independent musicians today experiment
with various musical influences and genres, such as electronic, folk, hip-hop, and metal. Tyler, the
Creator, for example, uses synthesisers, drum machines and vocal effects to produce his music, combining
diverse musical influences and genres. Over time, the authenticity and diversity of DIY music artists have
impacted indie and pop culture. In the 1970s, bands like Buzzcocks exemplified this trait by conveying their
perspectives and experiences through melodies and lyrics. Today’s DIY musicians emphasise this trait by
examining identity, sexuality and empowerment in their music. Buzzcocks integrated a DIY aesthetic into a
professional studio. Contemporary artists can decouple DIY practices from mainstream studios due to
technological advances.
DIY has become the ‘default’ strategy for music practitioners in the digital age, according to Jones
(2021). This does not imply, however, that the ethics and discourse of DIY music scenes have blended
with mainstream cultural production. Indeed, Jones argues that DIY ‘is placed under a broader pressure
by the cultural and economic logic of platform capitalism, which calls into question the political
meaning of independence and “doing it yourself”’ (2021: 137). Dale sees the emergence of the ‘DIY
Spirit’ of 1977 as the result of a combination of trends, rather than a complete break with the past. He
Frenneaux 127

contextualises this environment within a broader ‘culture of resistance’, which had been present in British
culture since before 1970 and persisted until the 1990s. According to Dale, this culture was particularly
strong in the late 1970s and early 1980s, fuelled in part by the punk band Crass (2009).
The blurring of boundaries between production and consumption in the digital era is highlighted by Prior when
speaking of the observed upsurge in productivity and innovation by the public at large in 2006 in Time magazine:

Time Magazine made “you” the person of the year in 2006, […] placing ordinary people […] at the center of an
upsurge of productivity and innovation […]. Harbingers of a “digital democracy,” ordinary people are making
culture with an energy and in quantities never seen before, time suggested. (2010: 400)

Attali (1986) contends that music’s role as a non-commercial entity will lead to a diminishing distinction
between production and consumption. Attali uses Brueghel’s painting as an example, where the dancers
make their own music for their own pleasure, indicating a post-capitalistic future. Strachan supports this
notion in the digital era, stating that technology has blurred the lines between consumption, production
and performance. This has resulted in a new generation of music practitioners who do not fit traditional
stratified divisions of labour that characterised the creative process of popular music in the 20th century.
In the digital age, platform capitalism’s cultural and economic logic has challenged the ethics and dis-
course of DIY music communities. There is a blurring of the lines between production and consumption.
Technology and the role of music as a non-commercial entity have obscured the lines between the
various aspects and functions of music production, which, as signalled by Attali, may portend a post-
capitalist future.

Gatekeepers in the digital age

The ‘new’ music industry is shaped by digital technologies and platforms that have changed music produc-
tion, distribution, and monetisation. The new model is more diverse and based on developing artists as
brands, changing how artists market themselves and how cultural industries see their audiences.
Audience research, marketing and addressing ‘niche’ audiences are more important (Hesmondhalgh,
2013: 2). The ‘old’ music industry was controlled by a few major record labels and traditional physical
media. Online music-sharing and streaming services challenged the industry in the late 1990s and early
2000s. The industry diversified its revenue streams to include streaming technology, live events, merchan-
dise, licencing, and ‘360 deals’ with artists (McGlynn, 2018). Digital technology has disrupted the music
industry, reducing entry barriers for artists. However, gatekeepers still exist, such as streaming algorithms
and online music PR, affecting music visibility and success. DIY artists must recognise these gatekeepers
and their influence. Prior believes that musicians are now fulfilling the DIY ideologies of punk and hip-hop
due to the displacement of cultural gatekeepers (2010: 403). Distribution and analytics tools have brought
about significant changes in the music industry, enabling independent artists to gain access to these
resources. Nonetheless, challenges persist, including new forms of gatekeeping identified by Morgan
(2019), who views recommendation features as emerging cultural intermediaries. Drawing on Bourdieu’s
theory, Morgan highlights the importance of social and cultural capital in the music industry, where
factors such as professional networks, experience, education and knowledge influence an artist’s access
to resources and opportunities (2019).
Streaming platforms such as Spotify have been seen as a means to level the playing field in the music
industry and empower independent and DIY artists. Hodgson challenges the idea of democratisation in
digital music distribution, stating that the old power dynamics of the music industry persist. Hodgson
notes that artists and record labels often manipulate Spotify’s song recommender system to make their
music algorithmically attractive and ‘Spotify-friendly’ (2021). According to Jones, independent and DIY
128 DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2)

artists offer a significant advantage to platforms due to the large volume and ongoing engagement of their
content. This is not just a temporary benefit but a constant one, as platforms benefit from all levels of DIY
activity (2021: 138). Bonini and Gandini, however, highlight the emergence of a new form of gatekeeping
in the music industry. While independent artists may now have access to similar data and distribution chan-
nels as major labels, streaming platforms have developed a new kind of power through their combination of
human and algorithmic processes. This power allows them to create and curate playlists that give meaning
and value to certain tracks and artists, shaping consumer tastes and lifestyles (2019).
Platforms, hosting services and affordable production technology have made creating, promoting and
distributing easier for consumers and producers, but have led to greater market competition and new gate-
keepers. These new gatekeepers control music distribution and promotion, giving them economic power.
Because musicians may bypass traditional gatekeepers, the music industry is not necessarily more demo-
cratic. These new gatekeepers continue to play a crucial role in determining which artists achieve
success. To challenge digital platforms’ monopoly of attention, Jones suggests artists adopt resourceful
strategies such as building alternative distribution networks, using cooperative ownership structures, and
emphasising the materiality of online resistance by controlling ‘code’ (2021: 144).
The availability of distribution and analytics tools for independent artists is a significant shift in the new music
industry, but it has challenges. Despite the perception that streaming platforms equalise the playing field, they
have given rise to new gatekeepers who control the distribution and propagation of music. Understanding the
role of intermediaries in the new music industry is crucial for musicians pursuing a DIY strategy to make edu-
cated decisions regarding promoting their music and reaching their intended audience.

New divisions of labour within the new music industry

Bennett reflects on the necessity for multiple skills and professionalisation using the example of hardcore
scenes: ‘many have drawn on and refined skills learned as members of hardcore scenes and applied these in
current careers as musicians, producers, writers, promoters and so on’ (2018b: 136). As a result, it is now
more common than ever for artists to adopt roles that would otherwise have been allocated to promoters,
agents and managers. This diversification of roles has had an impact most visibly in the production
space; as expressed by Gunderson, commercial studios have had to adapt to the advances in personal record-
ing methods chosen by bedroom producers, with this production playing an important role when incorpo-
rated into the process of producing an album. Advances in music production technology have made the
traditional recording industry obsolete, as exemplified by mash-up artists like Danger Mouse, who create
professional-grade albums using only a personal computer in their home studio (Gunderson, 2004).
According to Klein, Meier and Powers, even with the shift towards a more independent producer culture,
major record labels still require professional mixing and mastering before release. However, unsigned musi-
cians now have the autonomy to determine what makes a commercially and artistically satisfactory record-
ing (2017). This more conventional music industry component has slowed the transfer to new production
modes. Billie Eilish’s music production style combines DIY techniques with professional mixing, blurring
the lines between DIY and mainstream culture. Her debut album was produced by her brother in their
bedroom and mixed by Robert Kinelski, a well-known American mixing engineer and record producer
who has worked with other high-profile artists. Kinelski emphasises that the individuals involved were
crucial to the album’s success, with location and equipment being secondary factors (Waves, 2019).
From the perspective of the independent artist, financial constraints necessitate a careful approach to the
deployment of funds, sometimes requiring novel means of engagement. As a brand, artists proactively
demarcate and promote themselves through constructs in which their brand exists, utilising cultural capital
(Bourdieu, 1986) and subcultural capital (Thornton, 1995). Hracs notes that under the DIY model, artists
Frenneaux 129

cannot depend on specialised labour, such as engineers, producers, booking agents and managers (2015: 2). Watson
argues that artists must maintain consistent engagement with their audience through high-quality media and new
content, even after the initial release, due to the shorter life cycle of musical products (Morrow, 2018).
With the emergence of tools that assist independent artists in reaching their audiences, there are also tools emer-
ging which enable these artists to take on casual employment within the gig economy; Baym speaks of this kind of
work balance as well suited to the musician: ‘The gig economy prizes many of the qualities that enduring artists
have. They’re flexible, mobile, can take on a wide range of tasks, and they’re used to working in teams assembled
for short-term projects’ (2018: 7). Tarrasi acknowledges the difficulties faced by creators who work in the creative
labour sector, including unstable work conditions and precarious livelihoods. This is consistent with previous
research by Hesmondhalgh and Baker (2010) and McRobbie (2002). Although the new music industry DIY
ethic might not be centred on defying the ‘hegemony of the major labels and mainstream music industry’
(Dale, 2009: 180), there is a common skillset of self-sufficiency, resourcefulness, entrepreneurialism and adaptabil-
ity brought forward from these DIY roots. This is now expected of artists working in the new music industry.
Jones emphasises that DIY culture has always had a complex relationship with mainstream music and creative
expression. While DIY culture has sought to create a more ethical and socially conscious form of popular music,
it has also absorbed many elements of mainstream cultural production. Ultimately, DIY practitioners strive to
bridge the gap between the production of popular music culture and the needs and desires of the people (2021).
Artists increasingly assume multiple roles and utilise DIY techniques to produce high-quality music in
locations untethered to professional studio environments. Digital tools have decreased the demand for trad-
itional recording studios, resulting in fewer employment opportunities for studio engineers. Artists must still
engage with their potential audience through high-quality media and a steady stream of content, which
requires careful planning and economic considerations.

Methodology
Interviews were conducted with six music artists and industry professionals utilising a qualitative approach,
according to the participants’ wishes; no pseudonyms were used, which will provide additional context for
their contributions to the study. This study’s sample comprised:
Three DIY musicians:
Laurel Arnell-Cullen, known by her stage name Laurel, is a London-based British indie musician. Scott
Lee Andrews, frontman of the band Strange Unit and an independent musician who has succeeded in
various bands, is today facing the challenge of restarting his career in Australia following a move from
the United Kingdom. Luke Sital-Singh, is a Los Angeles-based independent musician previously signed
to Parlophone Records in the United Kingdom.
Three industry professionals operating in distinct capacities in the music industry who regularly engage
with DIY musicians and practises:
Ian Dowling, a mix engineer and producer who earned a Grammy for his work on Adele’s 21, has pro-
duced bands such as Alexis Kings and Hot Dreams at Strongroom Studios. Barney Dick is an artist manager
with experience in independent management, supervising campaigns and overseeing deals with major
labels. David Adcock, an artist manager who transitioned from working for Columbia Records in the
United Kingdom to joining the American Idol marketing team before establishing his own management
and consultancy firm, where he worked on projects for Julian Casablancas + The Voidz, James Vincent
McMorrow, and Katelyn Tarver. David has now joined the Nashville office of Red Light Management.
Several steps were taken to guarantee the validity and dependability of the study. First, the selection of
participants was based on their knowledge and familiarity with DIY music practices, either incorporated by
themselves as artists or by artists that they work with. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured
approach consisting of pre-prepared questions about each participant’s experience within the music
130 DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2)

industry. This enabled participants to provide in-depth responses and ensured that all pertinent issues were
covered. These pre-prepared questions were used to guide the interview process. However, there was also
scope for additional semi-structured discussion, allowing for more nuanced insight. The interviews were
conducted through Zoom as this was during the pandemic, in accordance with social distancing measures
and lasted approximately 1 hour. Questions addressed the DIY practises of specific artists, the influence of
digital disruption and the definition of DIY as shared by artists and industry.

Defining DIY in the new music industry

The article distinguishes between DIY ethics and ethos, emphasising the importance of the former for under-
standing the competencies developed by artists in the new music industry. DIY ethics relate to the moral prin-
ciples guiding individual activities, while DIY ethos refers to cultural values. Hesmondhalgh (1997) stresses the
significance of participation and access in creating a democratic media system. The DIY ethic acts as a mobil-
isation mechanism, with its components working together in a coherent system (Roberts and Moore, 2009).
From a career perspective, DIY was a form of self-management emerging from the punk movement in the
1980s (Bennett, 2018a). Anderson (2013: 12) notes that ‘punk bands challenged the status quo within the
music business, circumventing the recording, manufacturing, and marketing services of major record labels’.
As a result, artists derived authenticity through direct-to-fan engagement, bypassing a more traditional label
structure and production methods. From punk’s DIY participatory youth message to the emergence of digital
technology in the mid-1990s (Mckay, 1998), the adoption of DIY within music production and dissemination
is fundamental to understanding how independent artists are utilising co-creation as a vital tool for engagement
and promotion. As a result, DIY has become increasingly ubiquitous and professionalised (Bennett, 2018a). The
category of DIY is versatile and dependent on different factors such as the musician’s goals, inspirations and
difficulties from various backgrounds, fields and areas. If we define DIY as self-governance, it is evident that
artists must have the ability and skill to willingly participate in such activities. Bennett and Guerra explain
that DIY culture has evolved from an anti-establishment attitude in punk music to a more widely recognised
aesthetic that supports various forms of alternative cultural expression (2019).
Bennett and Guerra propose a new framework of DIY culture based on their study of the Portuguese punk
scene, showing how it has transformed from resistance to a symbolic identity. They illustrate how scene parti-
cipants use artefacts and knowledge to gain recognition and esteem. The portrayal is consistent with individuals’
reflexive perception of DIY culture (2019). Bennett and Guerra report that their interviewees identified various
roles, tasks, functions and competencies related to meaning-making mechanisms, which allowed the participants
of different scenes to perceive themselves as belonging to a particular scene in a manner comparable to
Thornton’s (1995) club cultures. They observe that a common theme in Thornton’s and their work is the rela-
tionship between scene competence and artefacts and knowledge (implicit and symbolic) that are respected and
valued in a given culture (Jensen, 2006). As Bennett and Guerra write, ‘they pointed out numerous roles, tasks,
functions and competencies associated with meaning-making mechanisms’ (2018: 10).
The interviews I conducted explored, among other things, the impact of DIY on artists – their workload,
their direct contact with their fans and how modern forms of cultural development are blurring the lines
between DIY and popular culture. The interviewees gave various responses; nevertheless, they all
echoed a core concept of control – as Ian puts it, ‘DIY means control’. Ian claims that DIY can be a dividing
line when it comes to voicing and aligning one’s artistic, creative persona with other like-minded people:

It means […] expressing a personal vision of something and if you do have quite dearly held principles about which
music you think is good, what kind of artists, as a label now, and as a producer, deserve your time and energy and as a
label, financial input. (Personal Communication, 21 October 2020)
Frenneaux 131

Laurel contends that the artist must be competent in all aspects of their creativity and business output to be
heard by the music industry: ‘Yeah, I think you just have to do everything’. However, this DIY sensibility is
undoubtedly only suited to some artists and must preference those with significant proficiency in this area.
Laurel notes, the quality of an artist’s work must still be comparable to that of a professional; labels want to
hear a finished product and see an established aesthetic:

Even though you’re creating a DIY project, it’s still expected to be of such a high level that people want to sign on
[…] people don’t know it’s DIY […] they just give a fuck about whether it sounds good and looks good. (Personal
Communication, 25 November 2020)

Laurel relates the difficulty and pressure that the artist experiences in this capacity: ‘You have to build
everything from the ground up in this […] DIY sort of way and there’s a lot of pressure’. This is reinforced
by the fact that artists may exercise complete control over the discovery of their project, as well as the tra-
jectory of their career, as Laurel explains:

I think there’s just a huge amount of pressure on somebody to fulfil multiple roles […] you can launch yourself, you
could do everything yourself and if you have that determination and self-governing and all of this stuff and you can
do so well with it. (Personal Communication, 25 November 2020)

The development and proliferation of DIY as a practice has evolved, as noted by Bennett, ‘DIY culture
has evolved spanning a range of interconnected activities that include music-making and performance,
fashion and design, as well as record shops, street cafes and the like’ (2018b: 135). Bennett and Guerra
argue that the widespread adoption of DIY principles and practices reflects resistance to the influence of
neoliberalism on a global scale. They suggest that the embrace of DIY ethos by individuals signifies oppos-
ition to the constricting influence of neoliberalism in the current global context (2018).

Changing conditions, gatekeepers and the need for flexibility

within the new music industry
Beyond the specific concerns of how much money artists make and how this money is divided between
artists and others, interviewees highlighted changing conditions within the music industry.
Hesmondhalgh et al. (2019) emphasise the study of more profit and commercial success metrics over
other aspects of music production. However, creative freedom is also a significant factor for many
artists. Now, artists have more possibilities to explore their creativity and originality as songwriters and
recording artists. One example is the potential for confluent projects exploring different styles and aesthetics
while remaining anonymous. While some artists have had a portfolio of diverse and confluent musical
outputs in the past, the new music industry gives artists more scope, anonymity and tools to realise a
variety of musical and aesthetic outputs. Scott suggests that the potential for parallel projects, untethered
to a singular artistic identity, is becoming more widespread:

For the prolific and flexible artist, there is the option for parallel projects to overlap […] which would require some
serious juggling […]. [T]his could see results without compromise […]. (Personal Communication, 21 October
2020)

Ian mentions industry bias in determining success in the new music industry. However, like many other
interviewees, he emphasises the increased demand for and success of solo artists in the new music industry.
132 DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2)

Much of this stems from a financial and logistical standpoint, one that is simple to expand from small-scale
touring to commercial success:

It would appear to benefit a solo artist more than a band […]. [T]hat’s tied in with the economics of it and the current
income models […]. [I]f you’ve got to pay for touring […], given that across-the- board individual musicians’
income is down […], the less people you have to share that with is more beneficial to you. (Personal
Communication, 21 October 2020)

Laurel speaks of the new music industry being a more forgiving place for artists, with the opportunity to
develop and reinvent over time as part of a culture of change. She attributes the latitude for experimentation
and the emergence of a lenient culture of transformation to this temporal context. Laurel’s optimism towards
future projects is rooted in platform disruption, the allowance for creative flexibility and an emphasis on
perseverance over immediate commercial success:

I don’t think I would be here if I hadn’t been born in this age […]. [Y]ou get more time. You get more space to
reinvent yourself […]. My first album didn’t hit the charts, but that doesn’t really matter, I’m making another
album. (Personal Communication, 25 November 2020)

Scott speaks of this ‘flattening out’ in terms of ease of access with which new independent artists can
reach their audience via the new conditions and opportunities associated with the new music industry.
The ability to have a presence on platforms alongside more established acts has democratised barriers to
entry. In contrast, the lack of production and distribution costs has significantly offset many fiscal concerns:

Overall, the playing field has evened up somewhat […] Production costs and distribution of physical media had been
a huge differentiating factor […]. Now we have the ability to rub shoulders with name artists. (Personal
Communication, 21 October 2020)

Tom notes that there is a heightened level of market noise in the new music industry resulting from
greater artist access to promotional outlets, yet this has also resulted in a proliferation of modalities and plat-
forms that must be engaged with concurrently in order to gain momentum:

I think in lots of ways in the past, there were gatekeepers who probably had a strong control over your ability to do
that as a band or artist in the past […] perhaps more noise that you need to kind of like contend with […] In the past
[…] you could get an NME cover or get added to the Radio 1 playlist […] that was like a huge lever you could pull
and suddenly you would be like something that everyone who was into indie music knew about […] instead of there
being that one big lever there’s just shit loads of tiny little levers. You need to have an army of people pulling all
those tiny levers at the same time. (Personal Communication, 19 November 2020)

Musicians may sacrifice some artistic autonomy for economic sustainability by sharing income with the
industry. Independent artist, Scott suggests using traditional outlets, but also views all forms of promotion
as legitimate tools. Despite challenges, Scott believes producing industry-standard work from a modest
setting is possible with talent and compelling creativity:

Paying attention to local print press […] has shown there are more options than just relying on the standards to make
my art known and available. […] Technology is absolutely essential […] We now have the ability, if creative enough
to produce industry-standard work from home: reducing expenditure and increasing productivity. (Personal
Communication, 21 October 2020)
Frenneaux 133

DIY practices enable young musicians to demonstrate greater adaptability in typically disrupted areas,
giving them a sense of value that transcends monetary considerations. Through DIY practises, musicians
can control their artistic processes and outputs. Threadgold’s study finds that DIY cultural production
and consumption have empowered young musicians to create music that reflects their artistic vision and
values, placing greater importance on ethical sustenance over material wealth and status (2018).
Scott emphasises the importance of flexibility. His process has been influenced by his experience as an
artist whose career has spanned pre-digital promotional disruption and the emergence of platforms. He stres-
ses the importance of flexibility due to the rapid pace of change in the music industry:

As labels […] have become less relied on to get a break […], now is both a fantastic and daunting time in regard to
getting an audience. The most important aspect of flexibility is having the ability to stay as ahead of the curve as
possible […]. Flexibility in this regard means not relying too much on previous successes. (Personal
Communication, 21 October 2020)

While the study of profit and commercial success metrics are an important component of existing DIY
focussed literature, creative freedom remains a significant factor for many artists. The new music industry
provides more scope, anonymity and tools for artists to explore their creativity and originality as songwriters
and recording artists. The digital age has allowed for more experimentation and a lenient culture of trans-
formation, with ease of access allowing new independent artists to reach their audience alongside more
established acts. However, there is a heightened level of market noise, resulting in a proliferation of modal-
ities and platforms that must be engaged concurrently to gain momentum. Musicians may need help gen-
erating income from their work but have more agency over the content and process of their musical creation
and production. Overall, the new music industry provides more opportunities for artists to realise a variety
of musical and aesthetic outputs but also poses new challenges in achieving sustained success.

Bedroom pop and DIY production ethics

Interviewees had complex and multifaceted relationships with ‘DIY ethics’, with rather diverse and contra-
dictory opinions reflecting their interests, responsibilities and experiences. On the one hand, they welcomed
it as a necessary or valuable tool in their professions. However, on the other hand, they found it to be an
intimidating slogan that did not align with their creative identity. Tom thinks the term DIY applies to
Bedroom Pop and Indie genres. Bedroom Pop is a subgenre of indie pop music that emerged in the
2010s. It is known for its ‘authentic’ music produced in home settings rather than in a traditional studio
environment. Tom believes that this genre reflects an aesthetic and approach commonly associated with
the DIY ethos of the past and that the term has evolved to encompass these types of genres:

Bedroom Pop and Bedroom Indie seems to be the closest thing to what I would think of as DIY at the moment […]
there are definitely parallels to be drawn between the Bedroom Pop thing and DIY as I think of it. I think in terms of it
being an Important part of starting out for a new artist. (Personal Communication, 19 November 2020)

Bedroom pop’s aesthetic style embodies a DIY ethos and a metamodern desire to reconcile culture and
values. The ubiquity of more powerful, lower-cost home recording solutions such as laptops precipitated
the introduction of this aesthetic, much like the emergence of low-cost four-track recorders such as the
Tascam Portastudio, which was released in 1979 as the world’s first four-track cassette tape recorder
(Alberts, 2003). Although digital equivalents can produce much cleaner audio fidelity, ‘bedroom pop’
embraces more idiosyncratic recording techniques and lo-fi sensibilities, where the genre rose to promin-
ence. The connection made by unpolished artistic expression is a significant part of the appeal of
134 DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2)

bedroom pop and DIY genres from the past. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘minor literature’, lo-fi and
bedroom pop playlists are marginal, subversive and anti-establishment. The DIY ethos of lo-fi music allows
artistic experimentation and self-expression outside the mainstream music industry.
Laurel shares insight into her methods and career. With most of her past work centred on the bedroom
recording studio setting, she has built a career on her terms by using home recording and promotional strat-
egies as the foundation of her output. Laurel asserts that had current technology not been established; she
believes her career today would not have been possible:

My first record was more underground it did as well as it did, but I’ve had multiple different EPs, records and songs
come out in so many different styles, and none of them ever really hit the charts […] and I’m still here making music
and I’m about to release another record that’s doing better than anything I’ve done before. (Personal
Communication, 25 November 2020)

Laurel speaks of this choice of necessity within her creative process, whereby she chose the comfort of an
un-professionalised environment for recording in order to benefit the aesthetic of music she aimed to create.
This approach, however, is something Laurel feels as an artist you outgrow over time:

the DIY thing has mostly been from necessity rather than a decision […] On my last album I made all my music in
my bedroom and I actually wanted to do that. It made me feel comfortable […] I think there just comes a certain stage
with DIY, you outgrow it? […] it doesn’t feel like essential anymore. (Personal Communication, 25 November
2020)

It is compelling to see how interviewees have complex and diverse opinions about the concept of ‘DIY
ethics’. While some see it as a valuable tool, others find it an intimidating slogan that does not align with
their creative identity. The DIY ethos of lo-fi music allows artistic experimentation and self-expression
outside the mainstream music industry. The reluctance to use the term DIY to describe artists who do
not adhere to relatively stringent definitions may be rooted in a more elitist and exclusive relationship
with DIY as a scene. Digital disruption has facilitated collaboration and challenged the rigidity of our con-
cepts of practises and operations in the new music industry.

The emergence of new divisions of labour

The manifestation of pressure to perform multiple music-related roles is exemplified by Laurel, a UK-based
recording artist, who states, ‘I think there’s just a huge amount of pressure on somebody to fulfil multiple
roles’ (Personal Communication, 25 November 2020). Tom, head of A&R for Communion Music, a sub-
sidiary of Universal, asserts that major record labels, in particular, want to see artists build all facets of their
careers in order to become a viable investment: ‘I think the labels […] like to see artists taking things to a
certain point themselves’ (Personal Communication, 19 November 2020). The record industry has shifted
towards a more DIY approach for artists, partly due to the ability to facilitate and perform more tasks on the
artist’s part without the need for a record label or recording studio, and partly due to their lack of income,
which puts more pressure on artists to take on more significant obligations for their careers, forgoing their
more ‘specialised division of labour’ (Hracs et al., 2016: 5). This is further reflected by Tom Prove when
asked about the term DIY concerning artists working in the new music industry:

I think I’d replace the word DIY, because I think it’s more just so accepted now that you can just release stuff your-
self, doing it yourself is kind of like: ‘yeah, of course, so you push that to one side.’ (Personal Communication, 19
November 2020)
Frenneaux 135

While the action of DIY in the sense of labour might be one that Luke, an independent LA-based record-
ing artist, performs daily, he feels a heavy burden attached to the label as an artist. In addition, he does not
feel that he can identify as a DIY artist due to his previous major record label experience, as well as grants he
has received and an ingrained idea of his own artistic identity:

Just even just the phrase […] It wouldn’t jump out as something that I’d be like: yeah, I’m a DIY artist. I guess
because I’ve had to straddle both things. (Personal Communication, 14 September 2020)

This understanding of DIY as a position held by a dogma of absolute control over any practised aspect of
production is disputed by some artists in the new music industry; it may also be viewed as a competency for
assembling and leading a team on a budget that is either non-existent or practical for an independent artist.
However, as UK-based artist Laurel goes on to say, more charismatic artists who surround themselves with
their teams of friends and creatives will find themselves better placed in terms of content development:

The person that can do the photo shoot, […] write the songs, produce the music, be in the visuals, either have great
friends that are making visuals for them or be able to make that themselves and get a lot of people to work for free, so
then you’ve got the charismatic side. (Personal Communication, 25 November 2020)

Ian, a record producer and record label owner, sees a proliferation of producers in the new music indus-
try. This has become inevitable due to the diminishing budgets of major record labels and the impact of
powerful production tools at artists’ disposal. Although higher-budget productions have their place, they
have almost exclusively been available to established artists. Ian addresses the sharp decrease in demand
for more innovative, hands-on record producers, as well as the consequent improvement in the quality of
demos he receives:

Let’s say the archetypal, ultimate producer, the George Martin […] the person who oversees it from: they receive
demos and then, at the end, they hand back a mastered thing to be duplicated […] The person who’s having an
input on song arrangement, on song choice and then instrument arrangement within that, and then the recording
process […] I think that kind of producer is in marked decline, because a lot of artists either want to or can only
afford to do a lot of stuff like that themselves. When you receive demos now, they sound pretty fucking finished.
(Personal Communication, 21 October 2020)

Ian sees producers falling into three separate camps within the new music industry. First, there are ‘song-
writers and beat producers’. This new set of producers offers a more modular approach for record companies
when looking to develop artists. They are often involved in the writing of songs and consequently demand a
royalty split to compensate for lower upfront fees. Second is the engineer producer, ‘basically filling in a
technical gap for a band or an artist’. Third, there is the more creative, all-round producer; these producers
are essential for more established artists who need a creative foil, as described by Ian:

Where you’re a massive band […] that’s where your Eno comes in. Basically, you got no ideas left […] so you need
someone to come in and give you some sort of mental parameters. You can have all the equipment you like, you can
record wherever you like […] How do we make an album? Because all the options are there. That’s the problem […]
Somebody who gives you parameters […] It is very holistic and psychological. (Personal Communication, 21
October 2020)

One crucial distinction Luke made is that to identify with DIY fully, the artist must be willing to adopt
any role to achieve their goal. His approach has been one following his passion, working on those areas he
136 DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2)

feels reflect his own artistic identity. Luke expresses apprehension at the prospect of undertaking more prag-
matic responsibilities, such as booking performances:

I feel like DIY […] scares me […] you don’t have a manager, you don’t have a booking agent. […] you’re basically
doing that all yourself. You’re emailing venues, that terrifies me […] I’m too lazy and I’m too used to having people
do that at this point. It’s the things that I enjoy that I do the DIY. (Personal Communication, 14 September 2020)

The music industry’s focus on commercial viability has brought about a marked shift in the expected skill
sets and responsibilities of musicians. The DIY approach, while allowing for greater independence and effi-
ciency, places a heavier burden on artists to assume a wider range of career-related duties. Consequently, it
is critical that artists not only cultivate their creative skills but also develop a broader skill set, including
digital marketing and social media proficiency. Failure to adapt to these new expectations may hinder
their ability to thrive in an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing industry.

Conclusion
The music industry experienced a significant transformation in the digital age, and the DIY concept has become
more relevant than ever. The rise of platform capitalism and the blurring of production and consumption lines
have posed a challenge to the ethics and discourse of DIY music communities. Technology has facilitated the dis-
tribution of music and music’s role as a non-commercial entity, blurring the distinctions between the various aspects
and functions of music production. Despite the perception that streaming platforms level the playing field, they have
produced new gatekeepers who control the distribution and propagation of music. Understanding the role of inter-
mediaries in the new music industry is essential for musicians pursuing a DIY strategy in order to make informed
decisions about promoting their music and reaching their intended audience. The availability of distribution and ana-
lytics tools for independent artists represents a significant shift in the new music industry, but it is not without its
difficulties. Individual and collective resistance to the expanding influence of neoliberalism has resulted in a prolif-
eration of DIY-related activities that are interconnected. The widespread adoption of DIY principles and practises in
late modernity reflects individuals’ opposition to the tightening grasp of global neoliberalism. As a result, the DIY
philosophy of lo-fi music for example, allows artistic experimentation and self-expression outside of the mainstream
music industry. The development and proliferation of DIY as a practise have challenged the rigidity of our concepts
of music industry practises and operations. Artists assume multiple positions and use DIY techniques to create high-
quality music outside of professional studio environments. However, a DIY approach places artists under greater
pressure to assume greater career-related responsibilities. Artists are under pressure to fulfil multiple music-related
responsibilities. The shift towards a more DIY strategy may increase artistic autonomy, but it also increases the pres-
sure on artists to assume greater career-related responsibilities. In conclusion, the new music industry provides artists
with more opportunities to realise a variety of musical and aesthetic outcomes, but it also poses new obstacles to
attaining sustained success. DIY may increase artistic autonomy, but it also increases the pressure on artists to
assume greater career-related responsibilities. As a result, the development of skills beyond musical aptitude and
creativity is essential, such as knowing how to use social media platforms, streaming services, and other digital
tools to promote music and communicate with audiences. DIY remains a valuable instrument for artists pursuing
creative freedom and self-expression outside the mainstream music industry, despite its challenges.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Frenneaux 137

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Alberts R (2003) TASCAM: 30 Years of Recording Evolution. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corporation.
Anderson C (2013) Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. London: Cornerstone.
Attali J (1986) Noise: The political economy of music. Telos 1986(70): 201–204.
Baym NK (2018) Playing to the Crowd: Musicians, Audiences, and the Intimate Work of Connection. New York: New York University
Press.
Bennett A (2018a) Conceptualising the relationship between youth, music and DIY careers: A critical overview. Cultural Sociology
12(2): 140–155.
Bennett A (2018b) Youth, music and DIY careers. Cultural Sociology 12(2): 133–139.
Bennett A and Guerra P (2019) DIY Cultures and Underground Music Scenes. London: Routledge.
Bonini T and Gandini A (2019) ‘First week is editorial, second week is algorithmic’: Platform gatekeepers and the platformization of
music curation. Social Media + Society 5(4): 205630511988000.
Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (eds) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.
New York: Greenwood Press, 241–258.
Dale P (2009) It was easy, it was cheap, so what?: Reconsidering the DIY principle of punk and indie music. Popular Music History
3(2): 171–193.
Gunderson P (2004) Danger mouse’s grey album, mash-ups, and the age of composition. Postmodern Culture 15(1): 50–58.
Hesmondhalgh D (1997) Post-Punk’s attempt to democratise the music industry: The success and failure of rough trade. Popular Music
16(3): 255–274. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/853045.
Hesmondhalgh D (2013) The Cultural Industries. London: Sage.
Hesmondhalgh D and Baker S (2010) Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries. London; New York: Routledge.
Hesmondhalgh D, Jones E and Rauh A (2019) Sound cloud and bandcamp as alternative music platforms. Social Media + Society 5(4):
1–13.
Hodgson T (2021) Spotify and the democratisation of music. Popular Music 40(1): 1–17.
Houghton B (2020) DIY musicians earned $873 Million from recorded music last year, as industry grew 11.4%. Hypebot. Available at:
https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2020/03/diy-musicians-earned-873m-from-recorded- music-last-year-as-industry-grew-11-4.html
(accessed 6 September 2021).
Hracs B (2015) Cultural intermediaries in the digital age: The case of independent musicians and managers in Toronto. Regional
Studies 49(3): 461–475.
Hracs B, Seman M and Virani T (2016) The Production and Consumption of Music in the Digital Age. London: Routledge.
Jensen SQ (2006) Rethinking subcultural capital. Young 14(3): 257–276.
Jones E (2021) DIY Music and the Politics of Social Media. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
McGlynn D (2018) What does Spotify’s new upload service mean for producers and labels? Available at: https://djmag.com/content/
what-does-spotifys-newupload-service-mean-producers-and-labels (accessed 6 September 2021).
McKay G (1998) DIY Culture. London: Verso.
McRobbie A (2002) Fashion culture: Creative work, female individualization. Feminist Review 71(1): 52–62.
Morgan BA (2019) Revenue, access, and engagement via the in-house curated Spotify Playlist in Australia. Popular Communication
18(1): 32–47.
Morrow G (2018) Distributed agility: Artist co-management in the music attention economy. International Journal of Arts
Management 20(3): 38–48.
Prior N (2010) The rise of the new amateurs: Popular music, digital technology and the fate of cultural production. In: Hall JR,
Grindstaff L and Lo M (eds) Handbook of Cultural Sociology. London: Routledge, 398–407.
Roberts M and Moore R (2009) Peace punks and punks against racism: Resource mobilization and frame construction in the punk
movement. Music & Arts in Action 2(1): 21–36.
Thornton S (1995) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Threadgold S (2018) Creativity, precarity and illusion: DIY cultures and ‘choosing poverty’. Cultural Sociology 12(2): 156–173.
Waves (2019) Breaking the mix rules with Billie Eilish: Rob Kinelski. Available at: https://www.waves.com/breaking-the-mix-rules-
with-billie-eilish-rob-kinelski (accessed 6 September 2021).
Wohlfeil M (2017) From ‘Spiral Scratch’ to PledgeMusic: The birth and rebirth of punk culture’s entrepreneurial spirit. In: Proceedings of the
Academy of Marketing 2017 Conference. Academy of Marketing (UK) Annual Conference 2017, Hull, 03.07.2017-06.07.2017.
Helensburgh, Scotland: Academy of Marketing. Available at: https://www.academyofmarketing.org/conference/conference-2017/.