quote:

Originally posted by pianofaerie: solid brass. ring it!:
Forgive me for being genre-ly callous, but I always assumed "indie" to be a shortened form of "independent", so in my head when someone says, "They're an indie band," then I translate, "They're a band that's not on a major label." Am I wrong? It's sort of like how I always figure "pop" is shortened "popular", therefore anything that's not recorded as "classical" or "world" Music I pigeonhole into the "pop" realm, including genres like black metal--and indie. I guess then the question of "Why is classical not popular?" arises and... damn, this shit's confusing. Ugh.

That's because you're using the "real" definition of indie and pop rather than the definition of what they're supposed to sound like. It's like saying that Emo encompasses all emotional music when in fact it's a derivative of hardcore punk and pop punk.

I don't really care enough to go on at length about what I think indie "sounds" like, and I'm not the world's leading expert on the subject either, but I do hear a common thread between most of the records I listen to that fall under that genre's umbrella. Jangly guitars, pop melodies, squeaky voices, etc. Hopefully someone who knows the nebulous, rubbishly defined "genre" better than I will step in and offer some enlightenment.

quote:

Originally posted by Tweedy's party time lounge:
Sometimes i think that some indie music "fans" prefers to listen indie for the same reasons the masses listen to mainstream pop: to be in a category of people. To be "original" (indie) 'cause you think your different from others, and the masses just listen to what they hear, because they don't really like music or think that it's normal to like what the radio decides which music is great or not for you.

That's a really convenient, easy way to dismiss a lot of people and their unique tastes, but it's also a pretty shitty thing to say. I take it you wouldn't be flattered if I suddenly called you a shoegaze nut who blindly enjoyed anything with swirling guitars, hmmm eggy?

People like what they like for reasons it's not in our compass to judge. Nor should it be our goal to deny any tastes that conflict with our own as simply being part of a "movement" or belonging to "sheep". We don't have depersonalize other people through shallow generalizations to enjoy or analyze the music we love.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dork,

I think that last comment from Tweedy was pretty much rhetorical or just letting his thoughts out. It certainly doesn't read offensive to me, but, My Good Bud Dork, you do take offense at a lot of offhand comments (probably including this one). Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I think that last comment from Tweedy was pretty much rhetorical or just letting his thoughts out. It certainly doesn't read offensive to me, but, My Good Bud Dork, you do take offense at a lot of offhand comments (probably including this one). Sorry.

I know. I'm pretty much an asshole.

My comment comes off as nastier than I really wanted it to, but I do have a problem with crass generalizations, whether he expected a response or not.

I attempted to stare down eggy through the chatroom, but was prevented by the fact that a) you can't actually stare someone down through an internet chatroom and b) it conked out on me before our discussion could go anywhere. Bah.

*flies off to ruin Christmas*

I can see both sides of this. Indie -- as it is understood by it's sound rather than it's proper definition -- is not that hard to identify for someone who has been following it's course, particularly over the last decade or less. So I can definitely relate to someone getting upset by an incorrect generalization of -- what I believe -- is the most vital genre right now. On the other hand, I can understand someone being frustrated by the liberty being taken with the term "indie" if they haven't got the intuitive grasp of it. I can see both sides.. but I bet you can guess which side I'm on.

I demand subgenres be straightened because I, as a music critic, attempt to ford the jagged rapids that is modern music and get to the other side as best I can.

In other words, I fight the nearly impossible, good fight to come up with labels, yes, but descriptive ones. Ones that do the music justice.

You reveal an album, mention their subgenres, and discuss others crammed in there. That might give you almost as much free time as we have, but I wouldn't count on it! Sorry if I screwed the pooch.

What i mean about "to be in a categorie of people", is that, us, "indie" music fans, are motivated to talk about music. We like what we hear and we want to share our musical knowledge with other people. That's why we are all here, that's why we make all kind of tops. We are all part of the MC community, which is a kind of categorie, right? So, i dont think that we listen indie music to achieve the goal of being in a category, but listening to indie music brings you to be in a kind of community. It's sure that everybody listen to music because they like the sound, but we all have different reasons or desires to listen to what we like. Sorry if my first general generalization wasn't really clear, but it's always the same problem about it. Then again, a thrue discussion about why we like music should start with "what is music?"

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
So what would be "interesting or challenging" in your book? Classical? Jazz? Advanced guitar workouts?

quote:

Originally posted by exkc:
"Challenging" to most indie-music lovers might mean some genres of metal, such as death, grindcore, or black. Of course, for some, "challenging" may just be a euphemism for "awful".

I think these comments represent the exact problem with people thinking about what makes music "challenging" or "interesting." I elaborate more on my thread "points of confusion," but I think most people think that to be challenging it has to have this guise of instrumental technicality. Shredding on your guitar at some crazy speed doesn't make the music challenging.

I thought "challenging" was being used to mean something different - not challenging as in technically difficult, but as in "this music is difficult to comprehend and challenges my happy place". For some, shoegaze is challenging (I could imagine some people hating MBV, for example), for others, grindcore is challenging, in that they don't get it. I'm not arguing that death metal is any more difficult to play or write than what Sufjan Stevens does. Quite the contrary. I think most death/grind/black metal is pretty much crap. However, there are some bands that transcend the crappiness and put out classic albums that are technically awesome (let's say Carcass' "Necroticism" - my personal favorite), but obviously only a small minority of the music-listening population would appreciate the difference between these bands - and let's say Cradle of Filth or Nickelback. (Carcass is more "challenging" for most people than Nickelback - yeah, crazy, I know.)

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
DFelon--

Genres are a subjective and sensitive thing to use, and I understand that. So let me just say, while I understand that,

GET YOUR SUBGENRES STRAIGHT, PLEASE, SIR.

Xiu Xiu have been called noise-pop (which is what I call them because I know many people who are super-hardcore into them and they call Xiu Xiu that) or avant-pop (shorted from avant-garde pop-- The Wire made this label up, I think, and it's accurate) or post-punk (which is probably one of the most accurate labels I can think of), but almost never indie rock.

An indie crowd tends to gravitate to them, no doubt, but so do a post-punk and avant-garde listeners. So musically and non-musically, Xiu Xiu are not indie, except for the fact that the band isn't signed to a major label.

I use indie as a blanket term not a subgenre term because that's the essence of the question posed by this thread - Why is Metacritic so Indie? I know all of the absurd subgenres thrown out nowadays. I typically discard any label that uses avant garde or noise just because the people wielding those words are never aware of their full implications. In terms of Xiu Xiu, a term of my own design I found to be apt is "post-wave," which you're only going to use if you're a giant douche. I guess it's a portmanteau of post-punk and new wave, which I'm considering equivalent to pop. The subgenre is appropriate but absurd. In the same way that somebody would use a blanket term of punk or hardcore for a post-hardcore band, I'm using "indie" for Xiu Xiu. Don't worry. I'm acute to the differences. I'm just also somewhat wary of their implications and toolishness. At their core, Xiu Xiu are a band that purposefully bastardizes pop music and as such aesthetically fit in with a lot of indie as well, so the term indie will suffice.

quote:

Wolves in the Throne Room are essentially a DEATH metal band, not a black metal band. They have other more nuanced qualities (My Bloody Valentine-type shoegaze, abrasive electronic washes a la Neurosis or Godflesh) which you correctly identified.

Wolves in the Throne Room are a fun one because if somebody asked me their genre I wouldn't leap so assign it a label because they seem to be one of those more singular acts (which may just reflect my general ignorance to black metal) in the genre. However, black metal was created somewhat in reaction to death metal. Death metal is about relentless technical assault. From a harmonic/music theory standpoint, everything is in harmonic minor. Only melodic death artists like At the Gates will dip into anything other than that, and even then it rarely arises compared to harmonic minor. There is a sound to death metal that black metal actively antagonizes. You can hear it in Wolves in the Throne Room somewhat. Instead of deeper, growling vocals, the vocals are much higher-pitched and reverby, attempting to be more atmospheric and casting a pall over the music, rather than just being a dirty scream in the forefront. Also black metal uses a lot more ambience and faux-symphonic techniques to elevate the gravity of their music whereas death metal turns more towards technicality. Also, just at the level of drumming, where's the nonstop double-bass in WITTR? That is a landmark feature of death metal that i notably absent, at least in Two Hunters. These "nuanced" qualities you seem to be touching on are really just core features that distinguish black metal from other subgenres.

So ya sir, dude, broseph. Get yr genres right. Actually, I don't care but it just seems like talking about genre is always a losing battle. It is always deeper than we think.

quote:

Originally posted by ezkcdude:

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
So what would be "interesting or challenging" in your book? Classical? Jazz? Advanced guitar workouts?

quote:

Originally posted by exkc:
"Challenging" to most indie-music lovers might mean some genres of metal, such as death, grindcore, or black. Of course, for some, "challenging" may just be a euphemism for "awful".

I think these comments represent the exact problem with people thinking about what makes music "challenging" or "interesting." I elaborate more on my thread "points of confusion," but I think most people think that to be challenging it has to have this guise of instrumental technicality. Shredding on your guitar at some crazy speed doesn't make the music challenging.

I thought "challenging" was being used to mean something different - not challenging as in technically difficult, but as in "this music is difficult to comprehend and challenges my happy place". For some, shoegaze is challenging (I could imagine some people hating MBV, for example), for others, grindcore is challenging, in that they don't get it. I'm not arguing that death metal is any more difficult to play or write than what Sufjan Stevens does. Quite the contrary. I think most death/grind/black metal is pretty much crap. However, there are some bands that transcend the crappiness and put out classic albums that are technically awesome (let's say Carcass' "Necroticism" - my personal favorite), but obviously only a small minority of the music-listening population would appreciate the difference between these bands - and let's say Cradle of Filth or Nickelback. (Carcass is more "challenging" for most people than Nickelback - yeah, crazy, I know.)

When we say challenging, it's not that it can displace any one person from his or her happy place. It's more than it is paving new ground or considering new compositional devices on a more holistic level. Who cares if it's hard for the average person to listen to MBV? It's more important if it produces some kind of deviation or originality or ingenuity at a more universal and arbitrary level, which while harder to pinpoint and judge accurately, is infinitely more value to determine the worth of being a "compelling" or "challenging" or "interesting" artist.

Drums and vocals from Wolves in the Throne Room make them more death than black.

I've only heard them live, and I'll go back and listen now that we've had this discussion, but I'm almost sure I heard them as more death than black metal.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Drums and vocals from Wolves in the Throne Room make them more death than black.

I've only heard them live, and I'll go back and listen now that we've had this discussion, but I'm almost sure I heard them as more death than black metal.

I mean if you don't actually listen to those genres you're not really going to know how to ID the certain parts. I'd say the vox and the drumming are the most "black" or at maybe the least "death" part of them. I've only heard Two Hunters and I don't listen to either genre regularly, but I've listened to enough in my time to know the differences between the two. Maybe I'm going out on too far of a limb, but you don't strike me as a "heavy" music person. Compared to others' musical tastes and choices on metacritic, the music I listen to is so heavy you'd all gain weight listening to it.

[rant]
How 'bout we just throw it in "Metal" and go on with our lives? Here's some things I've noticed regarding genres:

1. Naming Band A in a specific genre around those who aren't familiar with the genre isn't useful. This is to say, that although it is nice to create subcategories to organize your categories, most people aren't going to understand, making the classification useless.
2. If you are speaking with someone with music knowledge comparable to yours, genre classification only redirects the conversation into each of you naming bands and then comparing genre classification. This often creates elitism and long winded debates that take time away from both individuals reveling in thier love for music.

I'm generally more comfortable placing things in supergenres and leaving them be, but often find myself being more technical with electronic music when speaking to those knowledgable for the sake of practicality, even if we start comparing notes.

I don't give much credence to genres because they are simply the listeners way of classifying music which they love. Most artists aren't particularly fond of genres because they're influences are not simply in the subgenre that they have placed themselves in or become placed in.
[/rant]

Indie = popular on internet and used often in commercials and tv. mostly unknown by the mass public.

Pop = Popular on the radio and MTV/Fuse. Appeareances in People magazine.

There everyone can go by that

So you mean anything ever in a Mac add is indie? Now I know.

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:
Indie = popular on internet and used often in commercials and tv. mostly unknown by the mass public.

Pop = Popular on the radio and MTV/Fuse. Appeareances in People magazine.

There everyone can go by that

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:
When you scroll through the forums, the Music section is far and away the most popular, and the Indie section is the most popular within that. Also, most of the posters in the Music General Discussion section seem to have a fair-to-strong working knowledge of Indie music and culture. Does this indicate that Metacritic is in fact Indie, or simply that it has an Indie readership, or both, or none of the above?

I find that metacritic almost always gives electronica albums high marks.

Particularly this year, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:
Compared to others' musical tastes and choices on metacritic, the music I listen to is so heavy you'd all gain weight listening to it.

I doubt you mean to come off as a huge douche, but you do a great job of it. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking for, but you might wanna lurk a bit longer and explore the cavernous depths of this forum before pigeonholing.

EDIT: And Yay! what post-punk qualities do Xiu Xiu have? I seem to be missing them..

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:

quote:

Originally posted by DFelon204409:
Compared to others' musical tastes and choices on metacritic, the music I listen to is so heavy you'd all gain weight listening to it.

I doubt you mean to come off as a huge douche, but you do a great job of it. I'm not sure how long you've been lurking for, but you might wanna lurk a bit longer and explore the cavernous depths of this forum before pigeonholing.

I'm more musing at the way the site acts as whole rather than individual users. Also, by the way Yay! talks about metal I imagine s/he hasn't listened to much of it. And it's even funnier that we'd be arguing about that specific genre because I would never otherwise align myself with metal if it weren't for the decidedly indie stances of users on this site. And ya, I've been lurking for a while. Maybe not long enough or dedicatedly enough to have picked up that one time some user really liked listening to Cryptopsy, but ya I think I have a decent idea of the site.