Originally posted by Maximum Jack: I haven't been around here very long, but it seems that Radiohead, the Flaming Lips, MMJ and Wilco get bandied around a lot as the end-all-be-all of modern music by the Metacritic community.
Um, watch what you say, Jack. You've just opened the floodgates of criticism. Didn't you know that the sketch that was modern music was only fleshed out with Kid A???
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Duh, and everyone knows that Wilco's first album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is the second-best album of all time behind the aforementioned Kid A. There simply has not been anything better than those two albums in the past forty years--easily.
----- I got a stone where my heart should be.
Posts: 5714 | Location: Texas | Registered: 27 December 2005
Radiohead actually invented music in 2000, before that there was only fridge buzz.
Obviously the meaning of indie music has changed just like pop, duh. I'm swimming in dangerous waters here but I think that bands that fall under the term indie (indie rock, rap, pop whatever) are more likely to take risks (whether or not those risks pay off is the purpose of reviews) and logically are going to invite discussion and therefore more critical analysis than mainstream.
The head of state has called for me, but I don't have time for him
Posts: 254 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 07 September 2006
I've seen a few good points come up here. I just wanted to jump back in for a second.
I think mark's comment about the editors giving the readers what they want is a likely explanation. When it comes down to it, Metacritic is still in the business of getting hits. What type of music are most people who are wondering the internet looking for? Stuff they can't find on the radio or TV. So it only makes sense that they would cater to the audience.
I also agree that the kind of music people discuss heavily is not typically mainstream. I've never heard someone mauling over Fergie's lyrics or song compositions. Not many people listen to Nickleback so they can analyze it. People just don't talk about that kind of music the way we enjoy talking about Dylan, Radiohead or whoever else we love.
Posts: 1376 | Location: Valparaiso, IN | Registered: 01 July 2006
Originally posted by PrairieFire: Radiohead actually invented music in 2000, before that there was only fridge buzz.
Oh man, that's good stuff. You just made my day.
_____________________________ Weep to Water the Trees.
"This is my main concern with Obama; what if he has been groomed since childhood to blend in with the zionists and infidels? What if he has been led along by a radical islamic terrorist organization and positioned to become an influential politician?
What if Obama gets into White House and turns out to be some crazy muslim terrorist? What do we do then? We'll be pretty screwed. It could happen." -- by some fucking nutjob
Posts: 1996 | Location: The Noog, TN | Registered: 08 April 2007
Originally posted by Dork: BC: Facts require proof, rather than simple "common sense" equations (those who listen to less mainstream music "often" find it better... this does not satisfy me). Who exactly was involved in your "general consensus", may I ask?
Dork - I think what you want is an argument from BC supporting his claims. The problem is that a whole lot of the stuff we claim on here is not provable. Even if he were to provide some kind of quasi scientific survey on his behalf, the situation could change in the next week. Now if you think there's a consensus to the contrary, speak up! But otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you are objecting to.
So if you're not satisfied - that's your right. But I have a hunch that you may never be satisfied if you're always looking for valid arguments (Cf logical positivism). For my part -I'm happy enough to make broad generalizations for the most part. If you can't trust common sense, what (or whom) can you trust?
One point that has been hinted at a couple times but never explicitly stated (so far as I can see), is that there is no real border between 'mainstream' and 'indie' anymore. It used to be an 'us vs them' situation, and some try to keep that schism going, but what I want to say is that we're all mixed in this together now (more or less). Cases in point: Modest Mouse hitting #1 on Billboard, the arcade fire, the shins, etc etc etc. We like to call those bands 'indie,' but honestly it's a bad label - it doesn't really stick in light of what 'indie' originally meant. The word has morphed into the label for the new wave (not the music genre, just the new group of bands in the limelight).
I think that a lot of those new stars would be better categorized as mainstream. But I'm not going to let the bad taste of the name mainstream keep me from listening. On ther other hand, I'm not going to let my love for those new 'big' bands blind me from discovering more obscure, great music. The music is the same no matter what you call it!
So in short, I think my answer to each of the questions raised in the first post would be 'yes.'
And the reason behind it is at least twofold (there may be more factors in it - not sure about that.).
a) Like Mark said, the Editors (the capital E makes them sound scary) are catering to the readership. But I don't think (and indeed I hope this is NOT the case) that the Readership is into these particular kinds of music because they are grouped together as 'indie.' That would be goofy as hell, tacky, lemming-ish, (insert disparaging 'herd' mentality remark here). But putting down 'the masses' is always a hypocritical business (for I am always a member of 'the masses' whether I want to admit it or not) and really I think it's just putting the horse before the cart.
b)But there's also this widening of the term 'indie.' You can also argue that (ala less_success and others) the reason so many releases on MC are under the category indie is that the term may now be applied to them regardless of how well it really fits.
I could make up a new genre called 'banana music,' apply it to just about everythign under the sun and then complain about how all these MC peopel are into this 'banana music.' Mark, can we please get some more mango music covered on the forum? All these banana bastards are out to call me names, and then add insult to injury by getting mainly banana music covered so my mango music will be left in oblivion.
But that complaint doesn't mean anything because I haven't explained what I mean by either banana or mango music. Which is exactly how I feel about this whole scenario. Nobody really knows what the term 'indie' should be applied to or even why to apply it in the first place.
And with "indie" getting hotter and it being just as viable to cash in on it as any mainstream trend, I'd like to point something else out (at least a theory): It's kind of happened before. It was alternative last time, circa '91 with Nirvana. Then it became cool to like alternative and it hit the mainstream in big ways. But there are some big differences between alternative and indie I guess, at least on the surface. You think of alternative you probably think dirty, ripped jeans, what not. Indie sounds more...almost like scene, you know, kind of hipstery. I think there'll always be an underground with a different agenda than the mainstream, maybe it'll keep being named different stuff and keep hitting the big time. I don't care as long as people are still making good tunes!
I'm not sure the original assertion is correct. As I already pointed out, Metacritic has such bands listed as the aforementioned Nickelback (apparently the Sanjaya of Metacritic), Fountains of Wayne, Good Charlotte, Justin Timberlake, Norah Jones, etc. Hell, just go to the "All Time Low" section of the rankings, and you will find it littered with mainstream trash (e.g. Ashlee Simpson, Puddle of Mud, Phil Collins!). I'm guessing the reason Metacritic may appear to be "so Indie" to you guys is simply that there are way more indie bands out there. O.k. I'm sure you guys will ignore this post, and someone will make the same argument in the next page. Carry on.
Posts: 873 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
Personally, I fall into the category of people who come to MC because it caters to my indie taste, but also because it includes mainstream releases too, and because of the format. I wouldn't want anyone to intervene on behalf of mainstream music, but apparently nobody is anyway, so it's all good. As far as agreeing on a definition for the term "indie", I'd venture to guess that most indie fans understand it, unofficially, as "independent" as in "independent-minded" as opposed to "on an independent label". The original meaning still applies, just in a different way.
I agree that there is an indie bias in Metacritic, but I think that's just because there is an indie bias in rock journalism in general. It has always been that way. "Indie" is just the new word for what bagan with the Velvet Underground and continued with New Wave, Punk, and Alternative in later years. Fans of The Talking Heads like to write about The Talking Heads, but fans of Chicago have no desire to write about Chicago. (Unless you're talking about the Sufjan Stevens song and not the band.)
Originally posted by criticscritic: I agree that there is an indie bias in Metacritic, but I think that's just because there is an indie bias in rock journalism in general. It has always been that way. "Indie" is just the new word for what bagan with the Velvet Underground and continued with New Wave, Punk, and Alternative in later years. Fans of The Talking Heads like to write about The Talking Heads, but fans of Chicago have no desire to write about Chicago. (Unless you're talking about the Sufjan Stevens song and not the band.)
You've hit the nail on the head criticscritic. Rock journalism for the most part leans toward the underground. Even mainstream magazines like Spin and Blender tend to review "indie" more than anything else. But as you also pointed out, "indie" is just a new term for the old idea of underground music. Same shit, different day.
----- I’ll be Ben Gazzara, you’ll be Gena Rowlands.
Posts: 5176 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Perhaps it comes down to how we all discovered Metacritic. I think the term intertextuality comes into what we listen to a lot.
For example, I gave Modest Mouse a go because I heard Doug Martsch from Built to Spill mention them. I got into Built to Spill because Steve Malkmus played one of their songs while guest DJing a music show and I really, really liked it. I got into Pavement because I saw they were playing with Sonic Youth as well as the fact that they mentioned Smashing Pumpkins in one of their songs. I gave Sonic Youth a go because they were playing with Neil Young. Got into Neil Young because I found my mum's Harvest LP...
I think the internerd allows us to search like never before to uncover bands that we've heard about but don't know. One of the things I often do is search for reviews and that's how I discovered metacritic a few years ago. So, I don't think we're necessarily indie (an overused and abused term) I think, on the whole, we are just curious music listeners.
Posts: 56 | Location: Yeppoon, Australia | Registered: 26 December 2006
Duh, and everyone knows that Wilco's first album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is the second-best album of all time behind the aforementioned Kid A. There simply has not been anything better than those two albums in the past forty years--easily. Cool
Mmmmm...some mistakes into FKA's post.
1. Wilco - A ghost is born followed by 2. Radiohead - Kid A
THAT is the correct answer. Don't worry FKA, I give you a A- for your efforts
So, what is the aggregate answer? Having weighted the contributing posters according to number of posts and the coolness of their forum moniker and averaging the recurring statements, it appears that Metacritic is not in fact indie at all, but simply a continuation of classic rock journalism (which has always favored the underdogs), and we are not to think of ourselves as comprising an indie readership, as we are as we have always been: the curious literate.
Now Metacritic is not that indie with the new reviews (Timbaland, tim mcgraw, etc.). Hey, I think this post had an influence on metacritc's choices. The thing is that i care about good mainstream music, not crappy mainstream music...
Apologies.
