Empire of Dirt. Wendy Fonarow

means of information” (Hesmondhalgh 1997: 265).²⁰ Distribution was seen as tantamount to control over access, and therefore control over expression. Since distribution seemed to be the major stumbling block for aspiring recording companies, it would in turn become the defining characteristic of “independence” in the British recording industry.²¹

      Already in existence at the time of punk were two independent distributors, Pinnacle and Spartan, which distributed smaller specialty releases. However, it was Rough Trade’s Geoff Travis, who opted to form a new distribution company independent of the majors, who would have the most significant impact for the independent community. Rough Trade formed its own label and distribution network, called the Cartel. The Cartel was a conglomerate of regional telesales teams that sold to retail outlets in each regional market. Each market had an independent specialty record store, including Revolver (Bristol), Red Rhino (York), Probe (Liverpool), 9 Mile (Leamington Spa), Fast Forward (Edinburgh), Backs (Norwich), and Rough Trade (London). (See map.) Each team would call orders into a main warehouse in London, where records would be packed for distribution to each region. The Cartel would sell the recordings of the Rough Trade label and other budding independent companies, as well as one-off projects by bands.²² In the early days of Rough Trade distribution, records would be delivered on the backs of motorbikes and from the trunks of cars. However, Rough Trade soon became a viable option for those who wanted to put out their own recordings—provided that Rough Trade approved them. Though it was not the largest independent distributor, Rough Trade was felt to embody the values of independence and therefore was actively sought by new independent labels to distribute their releases.

      Rough Trade was initially organized as a cooperative that stood in stark contrast to the structure of major corporations. Initially, all Rough Trade employees, from directors to those working in the warehouse, were paid the same. All company decisions were made at general assemblies, and all employees were allowed to have a voice in company decisions. If Rough Trade was distributing a record that someone did not like for political reasons, the employee could bring up the issue at a company-wide meeting and inform other workers of his or her concerns. Employees felt that they were involved in a historical undertaking designed to actively combat the organization of multinational media conglomerates and the values they represented. Rough Trade actively sought to circumvent the indulgences of those involved in the record industry. They would not send out promotional copies of records to radio stations or journalists, nor would they have guest lists at their artists’ shows. Several independent labels would flourish in the early 1980s, including Mute, Factory, and the label considered by many to typify the indie sound, Creation Records.

      Map of the United Kingdom with Rough Trade’s Cartel.

      The independent distribution networks initially served the small independent labels. As Cavanagh put it, “The independent label dream … was that romantic notion of going it alone, pure and untainted by hype and multinational marketeers” (Cavanagh 2000: viii). Independent labels were seen to value unmediated artistic vision, facilitating rather than intervening in an artist’s release to the public. Many of the themes of independent culture were associated with the independent label: a lack of concern for popularity, an interest in autonomy and local character, the rejection of the large corporations based in London, and an emphasis on direct artistic expression above all else. Many of the early labels represented the talent and flavor of their local principalities—Factory Records for Manchester, Zoo for Liverpool, and Postcard for Scotland. London, on the other hand, was the seat of centralized power. Going to London for a record deal was often viewed as selling out, a journey with hat in hand to beg for patronage from the power elite, who had no concern for local interests. For independent labels to persist, they needed a means to connect their art with an audience.

      The independent distributors also favored independent retail outlets. Major chain retail establishments cut deals with distributors for exclusive releases or price discounts because of their large bulk purchases, enabling major chains to acquire records at lower prices. These deals put the independent retail outlet (or “mom and pops,” as they are affectionately known) at a significant disadvantage in competing for customers. It was under the auspices of Rough Trade and the Cartel that the significant Chain With No Name was established.²³ The Chain With No Name, later affiliated with Rough Trade Distribution’s progeny RTM-Disc, was an aggregate of independently owned record stores that was then large enough to secure deals, special formats, and exclusives on releases.²⁴ Rough Trade’s development of the independent chain was an attempt to undercut the retail hierarchy and remove the advantage that the major corporations had over small specialty stores. As other distribution companies developed, each organized its own chain of independent stores to secure the advantages available to a large corporate chain: the Network for Pinnacle, Subterranean for SRD, Vital Stores for Vital, and Knowledge for 3MV.²⁵ However, an independent retail outlet can participate in more than one chain. Thus, a single specialty retailer, such as London’s Sister Ray, Manchester’s Piccadilly, or Nottingham’s Selectadisc, can be a member of five or six chains, each affiliated with a different independent distributor.

      By the late 1980s and early 1990s the situation became more complex for the independents. Heretofore, independent ownership and distribution had largely coincided in practice, but in this period the line between independents and major companies blurred. It was not uncommon for indie bands to have crossover success and to perform well on the mainstream charts. Megastores such as Virgin Records on London’s Oxford Street, which had consistently stocked independent releases, now added special indie display sections highlighting the newest indie releases. Indie had developed a high profile from its coverage in the weekly press. As the independent chart became well established, it provided another way for a new band to chart, resulting in print coverage and airplay. Independent record labels became known for effectively breaking unknown bands. Professionals and fans alike turned to the independent charts to identify new talent.

      Several independents were making a good return on a relatively small investment. Independent record companies traditionally gave smaller advances to the artists in exchange for a greater share of points (percentage of profits) on sales of recordings, resulting in a smaller initial outlay of funds. The ability of independents to return a profit, as well as their ability to sign and nurture new talent, made these companies acquisition targets for major media corporations. Consequently, many independent companies were bought by, incorporated into, or funded by major music corporations. Majors would sign acts after the initial legwork had been done by these smaller companies. Purchasing controlling shares of independents was a natural extension of the process. The pilfering of talent from independents extended to industry personnel, who often moved to the major music conglomerates for higher salaries.

      The result of independents’ transfer to major corporations was that bands, labels, and personnel that were considered independent were now part of a major’s roster. For a significant period of post-punk and early indie, a band signing with a major label was seen as an immoral act. Cavanagh puts it this way:

      The decision to take the independent route represented an emotional rejection, based on ethics and political beliefs, of everything the major labels stood for … major labels were greedy corporations staffed by uncool straights who maltreated and undermined their artists, and thought nothing of diluting the art itself to make it commercially viable … here was the righteous indie band making interesting music without compromise; and over there was the banally ambitious, morally capitulating group that had sold its soul to a major label for money. (Cavanagh 2000: 38–39)

      Major labels would offer more money and greater exposure than independent labels, and the money they offered was seen as a pernicious temptation and corruptor that would undermine music as art for art’s sake.²⁶

      For the broader community, independence was thought to refer only to the practices of small record labels. However, since a record’s distribution network determines whether a record or an artist appears on the independent chart, corporate record companies exploited the loophole. Any major corporation could have an independent band by distributing the record through one of the independent distribution