Re: the exclusivity of vinyl. Sadly, yes, most products evoke a sort of exclusivity (especially when we mark ourselves as being somehow élite for owning such products). That’s the problem I’m trying to point to—Are we okay with this exclusivity and creation of a music élite?

I’m not willing to give up my vinyl collection. I’m also finding it difficult to give up my privilege in other areas as well (ahem, I’m working on a Ph.D. after all). The piece is more a critique of myself, as a “hipster” who spends too much time being a music elitist. Those of us with the cultural and financial capital to partake in vinyl obsession should be thinking less about how we are “better” than digital listeners, but should also be paying attention to how this capital affects our experience. Should we feel that much better than others, just because we *know* the sound of vinyl is much better than digital?

Maybe I’m just suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and this is the real reason for my vinyl addiction—just trying to keep myself “honest”.

Most of my collection I got for 2$ or less a piece, or free. I think the most expensive one was probably The Mars Volta back in the day. But I don’t think it’s safe to assume that most vinyl junkies are buying the latest, most expensive records. Not only that, but what is a “hipster”? The new white-belt hipster of the last 20 years would probably take their parents’ money to buy all the latest vinyl on UO, just because it’s soooo cool and retro (and really, these people are not getting the real vinyl-buying experience), but the old-fashioned hipster is probably elbow-deep in crates in the basement of some old cat who just died and left a wealth of records behind. I can only categorise myself as a music elitist, I don’t think I’m hip in the old or the new, but that just means that old music is better than new music, and I can buy a gem with what I find in my couch.

There were a lot of songs I had on vinyl that I couldn’t find on YouTube or iTunes–and if I did, I would have to pay for one song what I spent on 10+. It became better when gadgets were released to help you put your vinyl on digital stuff–those are worth the money, but it’s all out of convenience, as you can’t play records in the car, so that treasure chest of vinyl still is a part of your life.

Lastly, about the idea that vinyl is exclusivist–aren’t most things? I don’t think that people who go to graduate school, for example, are thinking “wow, so many people are not in grad school, this is so cool.”

Longest comment ever? Maybe

Thanks for reading! I totally didn’t think about the difference between franchises and chains as you mentioned in your reply. I was thinking more about the homogenization of cities through franchises and chains and didn’t consider this interesting differentiation. I often see those signs on franchised businesses “proudly owned and operated by…” and have even thought myself about the proposition and ease of opening a franchise as a business venture. (lol I’m trying to retire early, like I told you :p )

Anyhows, you’re definitely on point with the pre-packaged business aspect of it. As someone who has tried to run a small business, I can definitely understand why someone would want to buy into a model. Learning how to operate and market a business from scratch can really be frustrating. However, I believe the rewards reaped from going it on your own really beat buying into a model.

The Keep Austin Weird slogan is definitely an interesting campaign. After living in Austin, I side with the Austin Weird website, and note that the slogan has become a cliché trademark in itself, a t-shirt worn by people who have no intention of keeping Austin weird, rather just wearing a fun tie dye souvenir. It would be cool if the proceeds of these t-shirts went to help fund startups for local Austin businesses. Perhaps a good next project : )

-Meena

While in the most obvious sense these franchises are part of a larger capitalist empire, and undoubtedly neocolonialist, they are also representative of a belief (on some level) that a local business is not capable of drawing in a local cliental with a local (unique?) business. In some ways the franchise prevents local owners from attempting to create their own business, as they are basically just buying into a pre-packaged business. I read that 85% of McDonald’s in the US are franchised in some way. Imagine if all of those McDonald’s were not franchised, and just local businesses. It’s an intriguing thought—makes me think specifically of the “Keep Austin Weird” campaign (http://www.keepaustinweird.com/)

Part of the appeal of the “franchise” is knowing what you are going to get, as Meena pointed out. Owner/operators believe they have some sort of assurance in a standardised business model. Consumers find assurance in knowing what to expect. On some level, it’s not taking a risk, and avoiding leaving our “comfort zone”.

Thank you for this first trend-setting (in the sense of, ‘setting the intellectual direction and mindset of this blog’) article. I found the topic as well as your take on the matter very appealing, Mr. Valencia. This is primarily for two reasons:

First of all, there is the matter itself. One may identify the “ban on gay men donating blood” as one symptom, one manifestation of a certain phenomenon (although some may cry ‘conspiracy theory’ already). This phenomenon is what Raewyn Connell coined ‘hegemonic masculinity’, i.e., the normative praxis to construct dominant (hegemonic) masculinities, in order to further the upkeep of a status quo dominated by white males. The perpetuation of such a status quo is ‘supported’ via two additional mechanisms, namely (deliberately perpetuated) ignorance of the public (hence, no reconsideration of the ban despite political, scientific, etc. advancements) and what has become known as ‘heteronormativity’, i.e., the normative praxis of establishing heterosexuality as the (biologically, morally, socially, etc.) dominant sexuality, despite research in the fields of sociology, gender-studies, psychology, etc. concluding and pointing out that homo-, hetero-, trans-, …-sexuality are social constructs having only little (if not even nothing) to do with biology.* These matters have been heavily criticized (at least) for decades now, as they are ubiquitous. (To give but one example: In hip hop culture Ewuare X. Osayande discusses misogyny, sexism and racism, which may all be considered sub-mechanisms of those attempting to perpetuate the status quo, in “Misogyny and the Emcee” (2008)). However, no (true) positive change is in sight. This may be for several reasons. One may count amongst those, for instance, (wo-)man’s inherent resistance to any kind of change (cf. Jacque Fresco) or the fact, that many of the destructive mechanisms of our societies are employed secretively (un- or subconsciously, that is), without the grand majority of the public even being aware of them. (How else shall one, for example, account for the great discrepancies in the wages and salaries of men and women nowadays?)

Secondly, I was very pleased with your emphasis on the relevance, significance, and importance of ‘voicing dissent publicly’, as this, to me, appears to be the first step on the way we need to go in order to bring about true, positive social change. I am of the opinion that too many people give in to the reality surrounding them, subordinating themselves to the political, economical, societal, etc. givens as they lack the reflective understanding and capabilities necessary to resist (media, political, economic, …) control. (cf. Noam Chomsky) In order to overcome all the ‘–isms’ of today’s structures and our own inherent insufficiencies, in order to do justice to what the German idealists of the Enlightenment period (including Immanuel Kant) called ‘the perfectibility of man’ (cf. Kant), we need to educate ourselves and become ‘culturally fluent’ (cf. Hill), we need to ‘see the Matrix’, ‘exit the cave’ (cf. Plato), ‘enter the rabbit hole’ (cf. Carroll), and “make that change” ourselves (Michael Jackson, “Man in the Mirror”). Mr. Valencia, you have provided the first entry on a platform that seeks to ignite dialogue, that attempts to allow for words to be uttered and voices to be heard so as to find solutions to the problems we, as human beings and living entities on this planet, mutually share.

Thank you.

In eager anticipation of what is to come,

I remain yours truly…

* There are, of course, other mechanisms that play a huge role as well, such as racism, sexism, misogyny, classism, social stratification, nationalism, etc. However, I shall only concern myself with the two mentioned above.

Exemplary references:

Carroll, Lewis. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. 1865.

Chomsky, Noam. Media Control. The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1991.

Connell, R.W. and J.W. Messerschmidt. Hegemonic Masculinity. Rethinking the Concept. In: Gender Society 2005; 19. (829-859)

Fresco, Jacque. The Best That Money Can’t Buy. Beyond Politics, Poverty, & War. Venus, FL: Global Cyber-Vision, 2002 (20083).

Hill, Marc Lamont. Beats, Rhymes and Classroom Life. Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity. New York & London: Teachers College Press, 2009.

Kant, Immanuel. Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein taugt aber nicht für die Praxis. Julius Ebbinghaus (Hrsg.). Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann, 1968.

Osayande, Ewuare X.. Misogyny and the Emcee. Sex, Race and Hip Hop. Philadelphia: Talking Drum Communications, 2008.

Thoreau, Henry David. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. 1849.