Metallica, Napster and the Transformation of Subcultural Capital

On June 1, 1999, Napster went live, ushering in profound changes in the music industry and consumer behavior. The new software popularized peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing, which enabled those running the software to search and download files from the hard drives of other PCs on the system. Within months, there were millions of songs available for download from computers around the world. In April, on the heels of a law suit by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Metallica became the first artist to sue Napster for copyright infringement, a lawsuit that, combined with the RIAA suit and another by Dr. Dre, shut down Napster. This article examines the idea of being “indie”, meaning that an artist is not signed to a major record label (which often means that they do not have access to a national advertising and distribution network), as a form of cultural capital before and after Napster. Being indie created subcultural capital for artists and fans whose music lay outside of mainstream taste, and connoted artistic authenticity and independence. When Metallica sued Napster, they had already gone from indie thrashers to a mainstream metal band, but still possessed subcultural capital as progenitors of the thrash genre. In public statements, they leaned on ideas and discourses of independence, artistry and authenticity to make a case for maintaining control over the distribution of their music. These arguments fell flat with many fans, and in the wake of Napster, the growth of the internet and free music, the parameters of subcultural capital shifted to include distribution. In the past two decades a number of artists, from indie darlings to pop hit makers have used the internet to make their music freely accessible to their fans, making the artists’ relationship to distribution a critical cite for the creation of subcultural capital.