A CD like "NOW That's What I Call Indie" would never work because indie "taste" varies greatly from person to person.

People who like Pop and Top 40 generally like all Pop and Top 40, which is why the NOW series is so successful.

But when it comes to Indie, a person can absolutely love one band and think they are genius while another thinks it's utter crap.

I just wanted some opinions on why some of you think this is.

I'd think it's pretty simple. Most pop music is made to appeal to a great variety of people, whereas a lot of "indie" artists take more risks with their music. For example, Deerhoof: would most pop music fans love a spastic Japanese woman yowling over rock music? No! But it does appeal to some.

quote:

Originally posted by Chamberk:
I'd think it's pretty simple. Most pop music is made to appeal to a great variety of people, whereas a lot of "indie" artists take more risks with their music. For example, Deerhoof: would most pop music fans love a spastic Japanese woman yowling over rock music? No! But it does appeal to some.

yes, but it isnt more difficult to appeal to a great variety of people?

quote:

yes, but it isnt more difficult to appeal to a great variety of people?

That's very, very true.

The vast majority of artists want to communicate with the audience on a large scale. If it was so easy to write successfully commercial music or get massive critical acclaim, we wouldn't have millions of struggling unsigned artists.

Try writing a hit single some time and see how far you get - it's extremely difficult to sound convincing.

On the subject of indie as pop music...

Since the powers that be turned indie into a marketable formula, indie is as much part of mainstream pop music as anything else, which is why these artists turn up on NOW albums.

If you want seriously purist music, check out composers/artists like John Cage, Naked City and Steve Reich. These people didn't have any intention of breaking the industry or 'being discovered' by fashionable music magazines - they saw their music as an art form and defy categorization - they didn't cling to a music scene or style their hair in a certain way. I suspect most hardline indie fans will last about 20 seconds with a John Cage album before deciding it's 'not jangly enough'.

Modern indie is preoccupied with a 'certain look' and a 'certain sound' and is made for a 'certain audience'. It pretends to be a purist art form but it's roots lie in tried and trusted pop formulas - if these bands were genuinely creating new music, why are they proudly flying the 'indie' banner? What's new about that?

Indie from the 80s to the mid 90s was about fighting the mainstream and creating a seperate industry. The bands came from all genres - pop, metal, dance etc...

Indie in the modern era is about wearing tight trousers, having unkempt longish hair, playing jangly guitars and being on the front cover of NME - I see nothing new in it.

I feel sorry for the real 'indie' bands. Ian McKaye must find the whole thing very perplexing.

Once again, I don't see why so many people are concerned with the "image" of indie. So they get on magazine covers and don't comb their hair. Who fucking cares?

I don't hang out with ONE person, at least with whom I listen to music, who cares about "looking indie". We're all old slobs and happy about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
Try writing a hit single some time and see how far you get - it's extremely difficult to sound convincing.

I'd rather try writing a good song.

quote:

Since the powers that be turned indie into a marketable formula, indie is as much part of mainstream pop music as anything else, which is why these artists turn up on NOW albums.

Exactly what is it besides the label 'indie' that you hear in this stuff that makes you want to call them the same? Really good shit doesn't come out of sheer formulas (if there really is such a thing in music), so what is your worry? There are always going to be really bad bands balancing out the ones that make it worthwhile. It just takes a while for enough people to 'catch on' to make the style lucrative. I suppose it is a bit sad that lazy imitational bands start cropping up in the aftermath of a popularity surge, but it's nothing new.

quote:

If you want seriously purist music, check out composers/artists like John Cage, Naked City and Steve Reich. These people didn't have any intention of breaking the industry or 'being discovered' by fashionable music magazines - they saw their music as an art form and defy categorization - they didn't cling to a music scene or style their hair in a certain way. I suspect most hardline indie fans will last about 20 seconds with a John Cage album before deciding it's 'not jangly enough'.

I wouldn't consider myself an indie hardliner, and I enjoy both Reich and Cage (As for John Zorn I haven't quite gotten to him yet). Actually not all of Cage's or Reich's music is abrasive or off-putting. Cage did an album with Meredith Monk that is superb. Among the various prepared piano pieces and such there are also pleasant little (dare I call them piano ditties?) songs like the Tale, the memory song, etc. Maybe a little on the weird side for some people, but definitely worth a little ear stretching.

We discussed Music for 18 Musicians earlier in the Avant Garde board, right? It's not confrontational at all. Everyone I've shown this piece for so far has liked it. He may not be out and out trying to please people, but at the same time it would be a total drag for no one to enjoy it.

quote:

Modern indie is preoccupied with a 'certain look' and a 'certain sound' and is made for a 'certain audience'. It pretends to be a purist art form but it's roots lie in tried and trusted pop formulas - if these bands were genuinely creating new music, why are they proudly flying the 'indie' banner? What's new about that?

Examples please? Exactly who is flying this indie banner? How can you tell? And...how much does it cost?

In answer to Mr Vitunkrapula...

I never said I was against writing good songs - just that writing hit singles is hard. You imply that all hit singles are bad, which is an oversight.

As for the indie argument - it will go on and on. I think modern indie is most certainly generic and aimed at a target-market audience who like to think themselves more intellectual than your average record-buyer. Despite this, Indie as a definition has nothing to do with a certain sound (which would make the whole scene a contradiction). I've posted about this so many times - I'm done discussing the matter. Find some old posts.

You say you wouldn't consider yourself an indie hardliner. Obviously my comment doesn't refer to you then. I never said Cage or Reich were confrontational at all. I'm glad you enjoy your John Cage albums.

Examples of Indie bands proudly advertising their 'indie-ness'? Simply hunt down one of the many best of indie compilations that are currently doing the rounds (including the proposed NOW that's what I call indie) - I think that was the original premise of this thread. The artists have to give their permission to be included - if they didn't, they are probably on a major record label. Either way it's a contradiction.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Duncan Black,

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
As for the indie argument - it will go on and on. I think modern indie is most certainly generic and aimed at a target-market audience who like to think themselves more intellectual than your average record-buyer.

I guess it depends what you mean by indie. I don't really think the artists themselves would say that they were indie rock. All these names get applied by the people who write the magazines and so on. I don't really think its a cynical thing of trying to direct it at certain people because how do you try to sell the Jesus Lizard or the Blues Explosion to somebody who likes Will Oldham. You can't really do it but a lot of people who buy this music we tend to call indie have open minds so that theyll try different things.

Labels like Matador or Domino releasing the records of bands that have nothing in common musically pretty much proves that its not a cynical attempt to just sell product in my opinion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Moon Pix,

I thought this was a pretty funny site. I guess I'm not "indie"

Are you indie?

Haha, neither am I.

I'm apparently an "indie follower", which means I don't listen to anything that my friends don't listen to.

I got the "mix-taper", which is funny because I've made two mix tapes for a friend in my whole life. I think they may have a flaw in their system.

Nobody here or anywhere listens to "just" indie rock music or folk or anything else. Whether they understand what they are saying or not, you could approach just about anyone in the world and ask them what they listen to and they would respond "everything" or "everything but country", ect.

I think when we all get in a room and assume that other people only listen to one genre or that if they like Will Oldham that they won't like Jesus Lizard or Steve Reich or Saul Williams we are fooling ourselves. Why can't they like them? I think it is kind of pretentious. It kind of subconsciously implies this thinking:

"Well, I like them all but I have good taste in music and yours might not be so good so you probably won't like it so don't even try (plus your lame and if you like it I will shoot myself)."

I kind of got away from myself with the paranthesis as it is sometimes my own thinking. Either way, if it is good music it will most likely be enjoyed by more than one of our musical stereotypes.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
In answer to Mr Vitunkrapula...

I never said I was against writing good songs - just that writing hit singles is hard. You imply that all hit singles are bad, which is an oversight.

Nah - I didn't mean to imply that. But I didn't explain myself, so its understandable that you would read it that way. I don't think hit singles are necessarily bad. I consider many hit singles to be good songs as well. I have an ever-growing collection of guilty pleasure songs (I'm not really guilty about liking them, but I have fun calling them that).

This is how I see the problem - when you go about writing a song and say to yourself "I want to write a hit song," considerations about what other people will like enter the picture. THAT is bad. Because honestly - I don't know what the majority of people are like. I have no clue what the 'biggest number' of people will like. So instead the temptation is to look at other 'hit singles' and try to imitate - take elements from a bunch of examples and make some kind of Frankenstein song that has no identity of its own. I think this is what you're aiming at with your talk about formulae.

But that's not how good music is written. In my experience, it's always easier to succeed at writing music when you write for yourself - that which pleases you, the writer. Because if you aren't getting anything out of it, chances are nobody else will either. But you can't make 'other people' the focus of your songwriting.

quote:

As for the indie argument - it will go on and on. I think modern indie is most certainly generic and aimed at a target-market audience who like to think themselves more intellectual than your average record-buyer. Despite this, Indie as a definition has nothing to do with a certain sound (which would make the whole scene a contradiction). I've posted about this so many times - I'm done discussing the matter. Find some old posts.

I've read several of your past posts, but I'm still confused. You treat the word 'indie' as if it were on the facade of some corporate office building - like INDIE CENTRAL Inc. But there is no such center.

People are in this for widely varying reasons, and a hell of a lot of them are tangled up in this 'indie' ghoulash. You're focusing on the commercial aspect. I know there are people who use the term as the focus of a marketing scheme - but NOT everybody. Simply put, I think your 'definition' of Indie is too narrow.

quote:

You say you wouldn't consider yourself an indie hardliner. Obviously my comment doesn't refer to you then. I never said Cage or Reich were confrontational at all. I'm glad you enjoy your John Cage albums.

quote:

These people didn't have any intention of breaking the industry or 'being discovered' by fashionable music magazines - they saw their music as an art form and defy categorization - they didn't cling to a music scene or style their hair in a certain way. I suspect most hardline indie fans will last about 20 seconds with a John Cage album before deciding it's 'not jangly enough'.

I dunno - to me it still sounds like you're saying 'if an indie kid and Cage butted heads, Cage would win.'

You don't think there is any music called 'indie' that is in pursuit of art and defies categorization? I mean, writers loooooove to categorize things - put labels on them and so forth but at the same time I think a lot of labels that are applied don't really stick.

Additionally, the academic realm of music isn't really any better. It's just as fashionable, catty and faddish.

Overall, it seems like you're only concentrating on the cases where the word is used as advertising and nothing else. The best definitions apply to all uses of a term.

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

quote:

I think when we all get in a room and assume that other people only listen to one genre or that if they like Will Oldham that they won't like Jesus Lizard or Steve Reich or Saul Williams we are fooling ourselves.

Personally I like both Will Oldham and the Jesus Lizard. What I was talking about earlier was that when journalists use the term "indie" they use it in a very vague general way and usually theyll name very different artists as being indie, like they have some common ground. The Jesus Lizard are a noise rock band and Will Oldham plays country music. Two very different artists and using the umbrella term of indie doesnt really tell us much about either of them. Thats why indie is useless as a marketing term, its just too vague and thats why I don't see how indie is made for a "certain audience" as Duncan Black said.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
I thought this was a pretty funny site. I guess I'm not "indie"

Are you indie?

Sweet, I'm an "indie snob"!! Screw you guys.

quote:

From Vitunkrapula

I've read several of your past posts, but I'm still confused. You treat the word 'indie' as if it were on the facade of some corporate office building - like INDIE CENTRAL Inc. But there is no such center...

People are in this for widely varying reasons, and a hell of a lot of them are tangled up in this 'indie' ghoulash. You're focusing on the commercial aspect. I know there are people who use the term as the focus of a marketing scheme - but NOT everybody. Simply put, I think your 'definition' of Indie is too narrow...

You don't think there is any music called 'indie' that is in pursuit of art and defies categorization? I mean, writers loooooove to categorize things - put labels on them and so forth but at the same time I think a lot of labels that are applied don't really stick.

Overall, it seems like you're only concentrating on the cases where the word is used as advertising and nothing else. The best definitions apply to all uses of a term.

This is why I like Metacritic. Sometimes there's a debate you can really get your teeth into.

I agree with many of your points. I only quoted the bits where I should clarify my views.

The term 'indie' is indeed a commercial reference (although you wrote 'advertising'). As I stated aeons ago, it's an abbreviation of 'independent record label' (cue 'everyone knows that' groaning). It's named after a commercial category.

However, when I look up the indie sub-category on metacritic, I don't find people discussing the music business.

There's no talk of how independent industry mavericks like Factory records or Creation built small followings and moved onto huge success. Also - We don't debate independent record stores being pushed out of business by major retailers. Furthermore, some independent labels have achieved incredible things. Labels like Discord are very forward thinking and choose to market their music at very affordable prices, which both puts the major labels to shame and shows an appreciation for art above financial greed.

There is no debate on mainstream artists who are/were signed to independent labels (and there are absolutely thousands of them). Metallica were an independent band, as were Motorhead, KLF and Stock, Aitken and Waterman. There's nothing written about how they challenged the mainstream industry and won. Arctic Monkeys are a notable exception to this (because they play jangly guitars).

My definition of 'Indie' is not narrow - it is literal - it's a statement of of record label status.

You ask me if I think there is any music called 'indie' that is in pursuit of art and defies categorization? Avoiding the obvious contradiction in this statement, of course I do, but my definition of indie comes from the late 80s/ early 90s, when indie meant something very different.

As I have already said - 'Indie' is not a style of music.

Now That's What I Call Indie-Rock Music Vol. 1

While it's heavy on new bands, it does have some of those artists who are right out of your "definition of indie" which "comes from the late 80s/ early 90s, when indie meant something very different."

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
I thought this was a pretty funny site. I guess I'm not "indie"

Are you indie?

You are open-minded!

You're pretty knowledgeable about music in general. You like indie music, sure, but that's only part of it. You'll listen to any old shit as long as it sounds good to you. You're not snobby about music at all, you just like what you like. How boring. Curiously, this makes you popular with the opposite sex.

PRG is popular with the ladies...