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?

You'll also see that most of the CDs (at least the recent ones) are classed as "Indie/Rock".

The problem with trying to assert that the majority of people at Metacritic are "indie" is that pretty much anything that has a guitar and isn't vastly popular is considered indie anymore. So yes, most of the albums people discuss here are indie in a sense. But you've gotta consider how widely used the term is now.

Still though...

quote:

Originally posted by less_success:
The problem with trying to assert that the majority of people at Metacritic are "indie" is that pretty much anything that has a guitar and isn't vastly popular is considered indie anymore. So yes, most of the albums people discuss here are indie in a sense. But you've gotta consider how widely used the term is now.

The problem with this argument is that mainstream or even non-indie releases are not added to the site with as much regularity as indie music. Look for mainstream rock or metal and you'll find several gaps, but with indie...

Because indie people love and care about music. For most people who listen to mainstream stuff, it's a social or popularity thing.

People who are intense enough about music to post on a message board are obviously big enough music fans to see the light - I don't think everyday Coldplay and Justin Timberlake and Fergie fans are especially devoted, or even know that new albums are released on Tuesdays in the US.

Most of us that are regularly on here or even some of us that only check in a few times a week really care about music. Many of us will openly admit that we love it and seek it with a passion unlike any other. For many us this is our hobby, others have movies, or cars, or coins, or sports, or jobs, or love to shop; some of us might also love any of the aforemtioned things but music is still there.

On top of that, most of us are here because we like different kind of music that people in the mainstream, or on TV, or even in our everyday lives don't listen to. The reason "why Metacritic is so Indie" goathouse, is that the people on here are people who really love good, genuinely solid music. Sometimes that includes some mainstream stuff but for the most part it doesn't. If we go to our local chain store and ask for the new Eluvium, The Twilight Sad, or Blonde Redhead albums they will look at us like we are crazy. Needless to say, all of those albums are terrific albums.

quote:

If we go to our local chain store and ask for the new Eluvium, The Twilight Sad, or Blonde Redhead albums they will look at us like we are crazy.

Indeed

quote:

The reason "why Metacritic is so Indie" goathouse, is that the people on here are people who really love good, genuinely solid music.

Yeah, and it doesn't change the fact that I like some mainstream commercial songs. I think we can talk freely about what we like, even if some people can think we listen to some shit.

If you were a fan of Nickelback or Evanescence, would you really want to know what critics thought?

If you look at the all-time low scores on MC, they're pretty much all mainstream albums. It makes me wonder why they were even included in the first place. Did we need a Metacritic score to tell us that K-Fed's album was a waste of time?

I think a lot of posts have slightly missed the point.

Fragile, BContrat, you're making fairly insulting generalizations about fans of "mainstream" music -- which is odd, because we all consume mainstream music. Who here didn't help Arcade Fire's last CD top the charts, eh? There's some "indie" music for you... Insulting fans of Coldplay, Hinder, or whatever simply because they like that music is pointless and silly at best, especially for the reason that we don't have many here. Think about it, Metacritic is so strongly Indie it may drive people who listen to alternatives away. Would you join a nu-metal forum, any of you?

And I must add to SDF's comment -- is it really Metacritic's place to judge the validity of adding a release with many reviews? I thought the whole point of a review aggregator was to let the listener make up their own minds. I'd like to see a Metacritic score for more Nickelback if for no reason other than the Editors rule at picking out hilarious quotes. Saying that we all know it sucks is not a good enough answer to me, MC isn't supposed to decide that if they are an unbiased source.

How was I making an insult? You aren't getting the point of my comment. I stated a fact - that fans of mainstream music are usually less intense music fan; if they were, they would likely and seek out and explore music besides what happens to be blasted at them all day long on the radio; and the general consensus of those who find less mainstream music is that it is often better.

That doesn't disregard the possibility of good mainstream singles at all.

I'm pretty sure if there was a bigger demand for more mainstream reviews, they'd be in here, so goathouse or Dork, if you want more mainstream reviews, PM the editors. I know for a fact that the Editors love old school heavy metal. It's just that based on all that has to be done here, and the forums members we have, they seem to be covering what the members want. I've often gone in and asked them to add some albums which they're a bit behind on, but generally they have the forums scoped out and add the albums before it's necessary.

Still, you can't please all the people all the time, but if you want YOUR voice heard, PM the Editors or me, and I'll intercede on your behalf.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I'm pretty sure if there was a bigger demand for more mainstream reviews, they'd be in here, so goathouse or Dork, if you want more mainstream reviews, PM the editors. I know for a fact that the Editors love old school heavy metal. It's just that based on all that has to be done here, and the forums members we have, they seem to be covering what the members want. I've often gone in and asked them to add some albums which they're a bit behind on, but generally they have the forums scoped out and add the albums before it's necessary.

Still, you can't please all the people all the time, but if you want YOUR voice heard, PM the Editors or me, and I'll intercede on your behalf.

OK, thanks, I'll do that.

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?

I've noticed the indie thing too.

I think some of the generalisations about other music can be narrow minded - We've had 'Does rap suck or what?', general slurs about Nickelback fans and an almost total disregard for mainstream music. For those who don't listen to jangly guitar bands with expensive haircuts there is a lot less conversation.

Personally I hate the term indie - my views are well documented on this forum. It simply means 'independent' as in 'independent record label' - it's not a style of music and in the early years it spawned as many brash commercial pop bands as jangly underground artists. It's not as clever or innovative as most people assume.

Indie is the same as any other commercial format these days and it's been turned into a recognizable brand by media moguls and magazines.

There are more posts by indie fans because the genre is heavily associated with music critics - just look at the cover of NME - 'The next big thing!' 'The band that will change your life!' These statements fuel debate.

I wonder if the real issue is that so many music critics are so "indie." After all, Metacritic simply collects a wide variety of critical material, and many of them are from "mainstream" press, eg. New York Times, Rolling Stone, the Guardian. I assume most of the critics writing for those publications are choosing what to write about, either because they like it, or because it's popular.

When John Pareles (of the NYT) writes about Blonde Redhead, Grinderman and Laura Veirs, it isn't because the vast majority of casual music listeners are demanding those reviews.

So, if the critics are indie, then Metacritic begins to look "indie," and who, then, will they attract to the forums...?

Just my thoughts...

In my experience, people that have iPod Nano's and hear all their tunes from MTV or the radio or what have you...they don't give a damn about a review. Kinda been said already, but I think people listen to lower radar stuff because they obviously have a different set of objectives that aren't being met by mainstream music (at least not entirely). Logically, these are the people that are more interested in critical response. And these bands kind of need the critical response anyway since they're not getting the kind of airtime as mainstream bands, so it's kind of an either/or situation. The fact of the matter is, a lot of mainstream music (art in general) is out there to make money, anyone will tell you it's a business at the corporate level. So, I feel they care less about quality than more underground stuff since they just want to make a buck. And to make as many bucks as possible, you have to appeal to a general palette. The reason most people eat McDonald's certainly isn't because they want good food, but it's cheap and easy and appeals to everybody. That said, it's unfair to say anything that appeals to everyone is poor grade - there's very good popular music being made (and fast food too, kinda) And I may be starting to ramble...

What I mean is, the people that care about reviews in general are just more apt to listen to "indie" I think.

Metacritic has Nickelback rated at 41 and 62, for their last two albums, as far as I can tell. Like I said above, would fans of Nickelback really want to come here to see that? Probably not, but if you're a fan of let's say, The New Pornographers or My Morning Jacket (like myself), of course, it feels good to visit a site that "validates" your tastes. And in the end, don't we all just need a little validation?

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. None of those bands are "indie." They may have started independent (actually Jeff Tweedy has been on a Major since Anodyne, but who didn't--the Monkees (BTW, I love the Monkees)?

I think there is something to what EZ said in the post above, people who are passionate about obscure bands do need some sort of validation. We're certainly not getting it from the corporate media-- when was the last time you gave a crap about the Grammys? Not only that, but because we like bands that fly below the radar, we know that there are dozens if not hundreds of other great bands out there, so we use forums such as these to seek out those other gems.


np: Any Trouble, "Second Choice"