DIY is really MIY or SIY

This is the cover of Wired's April issue. A woman holds up a power tool next to the headline which reads "How to Make Stuff." The subheadings include "The DIY Revolution Starts Now" and "If You Can Think It, You Can Build It." In the tech world, DIY is about taking the initiative to build and fix your own appliances, furniture, and various other doodads. It's about having a hands-on relationship with the world around you and an inner understanding of how it all works.

By this logic, you'd assume that a DIY hero in the music world would be someone like Todd Rundgren, who, on top of writing his own songs and playing multiple instruments, is also a wizard at the mixing board. And, of course, you'd be wrong. Among musicians, having the DIY spirit means not relying on others to promote or distribute one's music. It has nothing to do with how the music itself is created. If anything's being built, it's a band's reputation and career.

So the term DIY is rather vague, as it's used to recognise two completely different skill sets and mentalities. I propose that it be retired, and replaced with the terms MIY and SIY, standing for "make it yourself" and "sell it yourself," respectively.

Update, September 23, 2011: I wrote this post rather hastily, so I'll clarify a few points.

I'm really only addressing the music community here. There's a subset of musicians out there who produce their own music, program their own synthesizer patches, and tinker with Arduino boards. Like the participants of the DIY revolution championed by Wired magazine, they're driven by a desire to have a hands-on relationship with, and an inner understanding of, their chosen craft. But there's no term unifying them as a movement with a common sense of purpose, because the term "DIY" is already reserved by musicians to revere those driven to promote and distribute their own music.

And this is weird, because in the real world, it's quite the opposite, isn't it? The musicians who salivate over Arduinos would be the ones considered DIY, while there really isn't a term to describe the self-promoting type, who are neither admired nor despised for doing things like putting up their own show flyers and building an online fanbase. Let's face it, we've all sent out resumes ourselves, we've all rehearsed an elevator spiel at some point in our lives. People do what they have to do to get ahead, and as long as their actions aren't intrinsically altruistic or evil, then such actions by themselves don't merit any sort of value judgment. We all understand this.

So it's easy to recognise just how misplaced the music scene's priorities are, for anyone who takes the time to consider them. This hurts music in the long run, but it doesn't have to be that way. Let's just call the former group MIYers and the latter group SIYers. By distinguishing the two different tendencies and giving each the most accurate description possible, we can bring the values of the music scene closer in line with those of the real world, while ensuring that neither group gets thrown under the bus.

Thoughts for a new movement in popular music

I've been reading about the Stuckists, and how they define themselves in relation to today's postmodernists. I can't say I'm on board with all their principles, but I admire the underlying conviction. This got me thinking about my own creative intentions, and what values I'd like to pass on if I could spearhead a new movement of my own in popular music. My thoughts aren't fully formed on the matter just yet, but the foundational ideal would be the betterment of each individual, be they creator or listener.

Let me be clear that I'm not talking about betterment through esoteric understanding, such as being able to identify a lyric written in homage to this or that obscure post-punk band. I mean betterment through the development of knowledge, skills, and character traits that'll continue to be useful in any scene, amongst any group, for the entirety of one's life. I'm optimistic that the time is ripe for a movement based on this principle. Here are some reasons:

No future without craft. Conceptual innovation unaccompanied by craft is a cul-de-sac, existing solely for the benefit of its immediate residents. By itself, a concept is only interesting the first time; it requires craft to pave a path for future artists to build upon and expand. Now, a movement towards bettering each individual necessarily entails some mastery of craft. In other words, self-betterment isn't just the logical successor to postmodernism gone rudderless; it's, in fact, the unspoken ideal behind every artistic push towards the future. Defining a movement around this ideal simply brings it to the fore.

The welcome mat of competition. A system of ranking will always exist, regardless of anyone's intentions. So if a movement doesn't believe in elevating some works above others based on objective scrutiny, it'll still be determined by other factors: image, identity, personal connections. But once this happens, it can never be corrected because everyone will insist it doesn't happen, meaning insiders will keep increasing in privilege, and the movement will grow further insular and stagnant over time. So if a movement hopes to stay vibrant and attract the new blood of outsiders, it needs to retain a few meritocratic elements. And one that's attentive to the self-betterment of both oneself and others can offer the best of both worlds, where camaraderie and competition coexist.

Skepticism of DIY culture. By itself, the DIY ethic is to be admired and encouraged. Today's music culture that celebrates and rewards this ethic, however, suffers from two fatal flaws. First, it actively favours visibility, meaning that those who do things themselves just to get it done will always be at a disadvantage to those who do it to get full credit. And second, it necessarily focuses on matters like self-promotion which have least to do with the actual music, since the whole DIY angle would be superfluous otherwise. But these priorities aren't shared by anyone on the outside, meaning that a DIY-focused music culture is explicitly designed to leave you with nothing once it's all over. Which relates to…

Meta-awareness of youth movements. The history of rock music's past steadily accumulates, while resources for learning about this history grow further accessible to everyone. So tomorrow's youth movements can't help but begin in full awareness of the clockwork nature of these things, along with how they invariably peter out. Why go through all that trouble just to feel cheated at the very end? On the other hand, joining a movement that's explicitly designed to improve you as a person ensures you'll be left with something once it's all over. In fact, such a mindset may very well be the culminating stage in the evolution of youthful cynicism.

I believe every project I've undertaken thus far has followed this principle. I started the comic book project to develop my graphic storytelling skills, for example, and I wrote Bobtail Method to help others write better melodies. But of course there are countless possibilities I'm not seeing and haven't considered, and that's for all of us to continue exploring. The thing that escapes me most right now, though, is what to call this movement. I just have no idea. If you have a suggestion, let me know!