So far I love everything you have to say... ecept if you ever say post-punk falls under the "indie" umbrella I will hunt you down and give you a good thrashing.

But seriously dude, nice call on Big Black. Great, great band.

I don't really understand the definition of post-punk. My understanding is that it's the period in the late 70's stretching through until, well, now, in which punks learned how to play their instruments and started incorporating a much wider array of influences. I kind go by the "Our Band Could Be Your Life" definition and, as such, i would have to say post-punk and "indie" are kind of interchangeable according to the text. I don't really know, but why wouldn't post-punk qualify as "indie"?

My understanding is that post-punk kind of branched off into "indie" but that post-punk has its roots in punk whereas "indie" seems to have a much more slacker kind of vibe. Sonic Youth's 80's albums, especially "Sister" and "Daydream Nation," seem to kind of fit into both categories, which makes things complicated. I just call Sonic Youth noise-pop or something equally mundane, so i don't really know which labels fit under "indie".

While you could call any post-punk band indie (and once again I'd thrash you for it since that associates them with indie rock), you wouldn't call Pavement or Art Brut post-punk. Post-punk isn't really made after the early 80s (since by definition it was from late 70s-early 80s) and isn't really held down by a certain sound. All different types of music are considered post-punk, from noise and electronic to more straightforward punk, based on their attitude, time period, and influences. Listen to The Normal, The Birthday Party, This Heat, The Residents, and Wire to see the various bands the term post-punk covers (to me it seems like you probably have heard most of these).

I'm very careful when using the term post-punk for a current band. The term has been thrown around for Bloc Party, Liars, and The Rapture not because they are post-punk but because they steal a post-punk (or no wave) band's sound. That's the furthest you can get from post-punk. I would consider The Rapture's Mirror EP post-punk because it would fit in with that time period and doesn't really jack anybody's style. Some other examples would be Old Time Relijun (No Wave) and Clipd Beaks (No Wave/ Post-Punk)... I would like to say HEALTH since I love them (along with Liars) but their sound is to derivative for me to. They still make great music though (HEALTH and Liars live were incredible and John, the bassist from HEALTH, was delightful to interview).

I would have to agree with that definition except i believe that a few bands from the early 90's and late 80's seem to also qualify. Such as Drive Like Jehu, Fugazi, The Jesus Lizard, Brainiac, Shellac, and, even more recently, bands like Clockcleaner, McLusky, some Xiu Xiu and even older Les Savy Fav seem to fit the bill.

Looking at those older bands, though, it became clear to me that members of most of the bands were present in early-80's post-punk as well, what with Jehu member's being in Pitchfork (The band, not website), Jesus Lizard members coming from Scratch Acid and Rapeman, Fugazi coming from Minor Threat and Rites of Spring, and Steve Albini coming from Big Black. So, i kind of just killed whatever point i was trying to make.

What would Dinosaur Jr. or Husker Du or even the Replacements qualify as, though? All three have definite punk elements, but they also temper that with a kind of non-chalance and apathy (the whole slacker thing that indie has come to be branded with). Husker Du is often called hardcore, but other than their first few albums, that label doesn't really seem to fit.

Post-hardcore? That label boggles the mind, but perhaps that is what to call some of it.

quote:

Originally posted by CleverName84:

Post-hardcore? That label boggles the mind, but perhaps that is what to call some of it.

All this genre taxonomy is driving me bonkers. I'm not a psychologist (and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night), but I'm wondering if there is some fundamental human instinct that causes this categorization behavior. So many forum debates on so many different topics end up in arguments over classification and naming. It must be a useful behavior, in general, but when I see discussions like this I can't help but think there are more productive ways to spend time.

And yet...here I sit typing these words.

Yep, I'm with ezatldude. I'm guilty myself of getting too hung up in the genre game,but a band like the Replacements; they are rock and roll; simple, as are most acts with a 4/4 beat. Sex music. Now can we get back to discusssing the plight of the world?

quote:

Originally posted by CleverName84:
What would Dinosaur Jr. or Husker Du or even the Replacements qualify as, though? All three have definite punk elements, but they also temper that with a kind of non-chalance and apathy (the whole slacker thing that indie has come to be branded with). Husker Du is often called hardcore, but other than their first few albums, that label doesn't really seem to fit.

Post-hardcore? That label boggles the mind, but perhaps that is what to call some of it.

Post-hardcore is what people usually use, for a lot of the stuff you've named here: Jehu, Fugazi, Husker Du. It has the same problem as post-punk, though: it doesn't really tell you anything about what the music sounds like.

The sad thing is that, like post-punk, a lot of the original post-hardcore kicks serious ass. But the name of the genre has been abused by tons of bands that have nothing to do with that original aesthetic. If you're a bunch of suburban kids wearing white belts and you play octave chords, you're post-hardcore. Sigh.

I agree that worrying about what genre a band belongs to is dumb, but genres in general are pretty useful. Like someone else said in the sacrilege thread, it's more for communication than anything else. I couldn't care less about strictly defining a band, but on the other hand if I'm in the mood for some hardcore punk or something, the fact that I can name the genre that specifically does me some good. It helps discover new music that's similar to what you already like. Nobody here ever listens to last.fm radio?

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
but on the other hand if I'm in the mood for some hardcore punk or something, the fact that I can name the genre that specifically does me some good. It helps discover new music that's similar to what you already like.

My brother and I had a conversation a few weeks ago, which basically centered around whether we like bands because they sound a particular way, or they write good songs. Surprisingly, I found that I tended towards the first group - sometimes I just feel like listening to a band that sounds like Burzum or a band that sounds like My Bloody Valentine, without much regard to whether the band actually writes good songs. OTOH, my wise younger brother said he doesn't give a shit about whether some band sounds like some other band...he just likes good songs. You know what? I think that's a brilliant philosophy. I think of that now, whenever these wankfest genre discussions arise.

quote:

Originally posted by ezatldude:
My brother and I had a conversation a few weeks ago, which basically centered around whether we like bands because they sound a particular way, or they write good songs. Surprisingly, I found that I tended towards the first group - sometimes I just feel like listening to a band that sounds like Burzum or a band that sounds like My Bloody Valentine, without much regard to whether the band actually writes good songs. OTOH, my wise younger brother said he doesn't give a shit about whether some band sounds like some other band...he just likes good songs. You know what? I think that's a brilliant philosophy. I think of that now, whenever these wankfest genre discussions arise.

Isn't it possible for one to fit into both categories? I'm not saying I'd like a band just because it's hardcore punk...I'm saying that sometimes I'm in the mood for good hardcore punk, and the fact that I can identify the style of music helps me find more of it.

To put it another way, being good is certainly a necessary condition for listening to a band at a particular point in time, but not always a sufficient one.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:

quote:

Originally posted by ezatldude:
My brother and I had a conversation a few weeks ago, which basically centered around whether we like bands because they sound a particular way, or they write good songs. Surprisingly, I found that I tended towards the first group - sometimes I just feel like listening to a band that sounds like Burzum or a band that sounds like My Bloody Valentine, without much regard to whether the band actually writes good songs. OTOH, my wise younger brother said he doesn't give a shit about whether some band sounds like some other band...he just likes good songs. You know what? I think that's a brilliant philosophy. I think of that now, whenever these wankfest genre discussions arise.

Isn't it possible for one to fit into both categories? I'm not saying I'd like a band just because it's hardcore punk...I'm saying that sometimes I'm in the mood for good hardcore punk, and the fact that I can identify the style of music helps me find more of it.

To put it another way, being good is certainly a necessary condition for listening to a band at a particular point in time, but not always a sufficient one.

Definitely. That's essentially the same argument I gave to my bro. It works the other way, too, though. One should not dismiss a genre simply because they don't generally like the sound. There are good songs in every genre.

Oo ooo are we talking about genres? Oh, dammit I'm 10 days late. I'm always late for these things. Anyways, in a previous discussion about the usefulness of music genres, I facetiously asked whether each contributing members opinion on the matter applied to movies. I thought I was onto something with that. I don't think classifying a film in a particular genre would bring about nearly as much ranting and raving, but perhaps that's because we don't depend so much on defining a movie's genre.

IMO, as already mentioned, labeling a band in certain genres can be useful in deciding whether to "check" it/them out. Of course that all depends on ones personal definition and familiarity with a given genre and the artists/films widely considered to embody said genre. I mean saying that a movie is a drama, action, or comedy is about as meaningful as defining a band as "sounding" indie or alternative, in that such broad generalizations don't do much in the way of discernment for someone who almost exclusively listens to indie or watches "action" movies.

Hence, I think, as much as people hate it, that sub-genres need to be given more credence. Of course that can lead to the opposite pitfall of being too specific and sounding ludicrous even if said obscure genre can be argued to have merit (i.e. "blaxploitation" or "nu-folk"). But, for me, I think reaching for specifics is much more fruitful. Of course, that's probably the biologist in me. Would you rather have someone describe a new movie as fitting of "grindhouse" than "action" or a new/unfamiliar band as "hardcore" than "punk", even if they were a little "off"?