Indie films would be the intersection of 'low production cost' with 'really, really preachy'.

I think it's ridiculous to say that indie is 'dying' just because a few of them are breaking through to mainstream. Unless you're saying 'I don't feel as cool anymore because I can't feel superior to others knowing these bands exist', but if that's the case, then it's not the music you really care about in the first place.

I would put indie films in the same category as indie rock...An indie film is an indie film because of the way it tells its story and the way characters are emphasized over plot. I think it is possible for Universal or Warner Brothers to spend 50 million dollars on an "indie film," its "indieness" is simply determined by the way the director makes the movie, not by how much money was spent on it.

Someone mentioned The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand as indie bands and said their popularity marked the end of indie rock...as I've said before, I wouldn't even have labeled The Strokes and Franz Ferdinand as indie bands. The Strokes have always been more garage rock and FF more New Wave dance type rock. And I also wouldn't venture to call them "popular" either. They are hardly household names (at least in America) like Nirvana was in the early 90's or Usher/Beyonce are now. We Americans like our mainstream music as processed and stale as possible (God bless the USA!).

Now Listening to: "Summerteeth," Wilco

I heard from somebody who lives in Florida that 'Take Me Out' was overplayed on the radio stations he listens to.

I suppose Strokes isn't 'mainstream' in the 'American Idol Cardboard Cutout' category with Kelly Clarkson and the like, but it's about as mainstream as good music gets. I'd be surprised if their next album didn't debut in the top 20 or so in the billboard list.

indie = independant label = non-mainstream = artistic freedom = no funds for global advertisement = music for an interested limited audience = no ego for big $$ = great music.

Whether it is rock, electronic, rap, etc. indie is music made by artists who are not told what to do/how to represent. They are backed by people who believe in the artist and over-spending/greed is not part of anyone's cred. It's about the music.

Non-indie = $$ = mainstream = popular/give them more of the same = bigger distribution/advertising = huge audience OR viaing for one = $$

It's about the $$, basically. The big bands who may have started indie may not think that way (U2, Radiohead, REM) but the people behind them, at the bigger studios, do. Artistic freedom may be given (to certain extents) but it's about how much they can get out of them.

Then there is mainstream pop:
pop = non-talent = "let's use this person until WE have squeezed every dime out of them, then fuck them" = what's Hot What's not = Looks over talent = $$$$$.

So, basically it's about the backing. People who don't want to put up with bullshit go the indie way with people (or themselves/own label)who beleive in them. No genres, it is just after the term alternative, indie is the easiest way of labeling the type of music because that is what it is. There are so many indie labels out there you can't keep count, as opposed to 20 years ago when there were the big 3-4 studios, and some lesser known labels.
A lot of great labels are hitting the decade mark and going strong (Matador, Ninja Tune, Warp, Kranky) and smaller companies are making noise as well (Mint,4AD,Nonesuch). Indie is the bare-basics genre.

Once again I will repeat my position that indie music has to do with the style, not the amount of money thrown at it. While the amount of money invested in a band is often an indicator of its "indieness," it is not the soul determining factor. I believe this because there seem to be a lot of low-budget bands whom I never would call indie (Deerhoof was the example I used).

I agree "Take Me Out" did get some airplay, but when I mention Franz Ferdinand to friends the reaction is much different than when I mention Maroon 5 or Linkin Park or Evanescence. They will say "Franz Ferdinand, I might have heard one of their songs a couple months ago."

Ahh...but while indie may be a reference to the sound and not the amount of money thrown at it, having a lot of money thrown at it pretty much precludes it from being indie. Mainstream bands aren't *allowed* to do indie. (At least, not till a few years from now when they start successfully marketting the indie sound)

That brings up another interesting point Bobthespirit...just like Nirvana became really popular and broke grunge out of its basement into the mainstream a few years ago, do you think indie rock will ever have a band that does the same? I could see a band like the Shins or Death Cab doing it...or maybe a band we haven't even heard of yet. Anyway, I definitely think it will happen, it is only a matter of when.

quote:

Originally posted by The Furnace Is Fiery:
indie = independant label = non-mainstream = artistic freedom = no funds for global advertisement = music for an interested limited audience = no ego for big $$ = great music.

Then there is mainstream pop:
pop = non-talent = "let's use this person until WE have squeezed every dime out of them, then fuck them" = what's Hot What's not = Looks over talent = $$$$$.

Sorry, but these are both rather silly logical connections.

My local HMV superstore used to have a section for pop/ock and a separate section for "alternative". It drove me crazy -- you'd never know what was in what.

The categories are pretty vague and meaningless. As people have said, there is a "smell test" that defines something as indie or alternative. Even a group like Aztec Camera, which proudly works within existing pop concepts and sounds, could be classed as alternative due to their more fresh approach and smart lyrics.

There's nothing wrong with the category of pop. People tend to use it as a demeaning term, as something shallow, merely geared towards instant pleasure, and designed to please kids and sell product. But the Beatles and Beach Boys are the paradigmatic pop groups, and even more contemporary groups like Crowded House and Pet Shop Boys are purely pop music but that doesn't mean they aren't good.

I still use the term alternative to describe music to friends if I am trying to suggest the music has something vaguely off-kilter about it in its sound, feel, lyrics, attitude, but it really doesn't mean much more than that to me. Certainly there is some rotten alternative music, so it does not signify quality.

When I worked for an independent record chain in the 80s, our "Pop" secton was reserved for the artists for whom we self-righteously reserved our greatest didain (self-righteousness being the default setting for all self-respecting feisty record store clerks).

The tendency to deride heavily produced music written and recorded for a mass-audience has been fashionable since the rise of the singer/songwriter. I was reminded this week of how much that derision has been returned the other direction.

NPR aired a terrific story this past week on the NBC program Your Hit Parade, which was THE tastemaker when it came to popular music for nearly a quarter-century. Back in the day, the song was the thing, moreso than the performer. In interviewing one of the last remaining living stock musicians who performed on the program, I was taken aback at how much disdain he has for the classic three-chord rock 'n' roll standard form even today. The linked feature is worth listening to for that alone, much less the musical history lesson.

Now Playing: NPR's Weekend Edition

Well, now Clear Channel's kickback club and MTV's spineless pandering are the supreme arbitrers of mainstream tastes.

Thanks for the link to the 'Your Hit Parade' segment. I went to see the musical 1940s radio hour, which is filled with old standards, and was reminded of how great a lot of those songs were. THe NPR clip only confirmed it for me. As much as I love the individuality of rock, those old songs just have a special quality that doesn't come out much anymore.

I've tried to stay out of the 'what is indie rock' discussion, because it is frankly one of my least favorite discussions that music snobs can have (a group I am most certainly include myself in). I still like to believe that indie should be used to describe bands on independent labels. There is, of course, going to be some gray area where bands who were once on indie labels make the jump to the majors but still retain their old sound. I think that is probably where all the confusion comes from.

What I have not liked about this thread is the insinuation that 'good' music comes from indie labels and 'bad' music comes from the majors. I was firmly of this belief for several years, thinking that if more than a handful of people liked something it could not possibly be good. Luckily I have slowly been breaking myself of this feeling over the last 3 or 4 years. Watching Bruce Springsteen last night (who never falls lower than 5 in my list of personal favorite artists) on vh1, I was made distinctly aware of the fact that there is room in pop culture for 'good' and 'popular' to overlap at the highest level. Anyway, there's my two cents.

Good music has certainly come out of major labels in the past. Just, far less of it is doing so right now.

And there is certainly a *lot* of bad music coming from smaller, indie labels. Just, nobody cares about them, so you don't have to hear about them. Whereas when a major label releases a bad album, you have to hear about it. So it's not that there's worse stuff coming from big labels, it's just that you have to hear about the bad stuff from big labels, and not the bad stuff from indie labels.

I think the indie sound could be popularized. Heck, Death Cab For Cutie is pretty much on the verge of popularity already.

I actually blame MTV completely for the crapification of mainstream music. They made it the status quo to judge a band based on superficial aspects. They made the boy-band and whore-chick paradigms possible. It wasn't till the 80s that the best music really shifted to the smaller labels.

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

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
In retrospect, CVB may have been one of the first "indie" bands, at least before they went "major" with their last two albums way back before the new one came out last year.
.

Explain to me why you think this is so, mark. I'm puzzled as to why The Replacements, Husker Du, Big Black, Black Flag, Butthole Surfers, and a whole pile of others (whose records were coming out well before CVB) weren't "indie" but CVB were. Unless you're talking about a certain sound or style, in which case I might be inclined to agree...there's something quintessentially "indie" about Camper.

There's a good book by Michael Azerrad on the early 80's "indie" explosion called Our Band Could Be Your Life which covers many of the bands I mentioned and is a great, entertaining read and a good reference to the topic of indie vs. alternative.

You know, I'm curious. What would you folks say is the relationship between 'indie rock' and 'lo-fi'?

Lower production cost, focus on melody and emotion..those basically describe lo-fi.

(I would think of Husker Du as indie actually. Just, some people seem to have the attitude that 'indie' started in the 90s...)

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:

I agree "Take Me Out" did get some airplay, but when I mention Franz Ferdinand to friends the reaction is much different than when I mention Maroon 5 or Linkin Park or Evanescence. They will say "Franz Ferdinand, I might have heard one of their songs a couple months ago."

This kind of reaction (to a band that has become popular) is why I think "indie" is a hipster state of mind. FF certainly had "indie" qualities when the debut came out on Domino in the UK. They were definately playing music that was not "popular" in any real sense of popularity. All the Pitchfork-types loved them.

They became "alternative" when they got a big US release, with commensurate media blitzkreig and Clear Channel radio airplay. They were no longer indie, and many people jumped off the bandwagon because now suburban moms and dads were enjoying the record.

I think alot of people want the music they like to be "independent" because it provides them with a sense of autonomy...they liked the music NOT because some big label sold it to them on a marketing blitz, but instead because they sought it out and found it and it's "theirs" in some real sense. This is why bands "selling out" becomes so visceral.

I think that even indie bands are marketed...they just get sold in a different way. Instead of buying it because you saw the video a million times or heard it on the radio a million times, you buy it because of good reviews in the indie press, or because you heard the tracks on an indie radio show.

I think the attitude that it's "us versus them", in terms of indies and major labels, is just silly. To steal a line from mark, good music is good music. If the label it is on matters that much to you, I don't think you're being objective. I'll listen to something regardless of labels, and if I like it, I like it. All the Death Cab fans lamenting the move to a major label before they've even heard the new stuff are now predisposed to hate a band they once liked. That just seems silly to me.

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

I understand what you're saying philosophereric, but I would never have called Franz Ferdinand indie to begin with...as I said, I think they could always be better classified as more New Wave Dance rock.

I do view musical tastes in a sort of "Us vs Them" context...there are those people who will listen to whatever is spoon-fed to them, and then there are those who care about their music and will seek out the good stuff. When a fringe band breaks into the mainstream (like the Shins, the White Stripes, or Franz Ferdinand), I'm not upset...I view it as a victory for the Good Side. However, while the Shins, White Stripes, and FF have received significant attention, they are nowhere near as popular as Maroon 5, Linkin Park, or Evanescence and probably never will be. It will be interesting over the next few years to see if there is an indie band that can step up and gain that type of notoriety though...

The problem with that mentality, Pax, is that some of the stuff spoon-fed to us actually *is* good. And sometimes the 'us vs them' mentality predisposes us not to like the popular ones that actually *are* good.

Sheryl Crow's self titled album, for instance, is a very good album. (Still waiting for a good followup..) Yet, when that album came out, the record company did their thing, and even went as far as to wave the spoon around in front of our faces and declare 'Here comes the airplane'.

If you narrow the categories as much as you do (new wave dance rock, f'rinstance) then the indie label really becomes just a tiny genre differentiator. Which might be fine. I just don't see "indie" as a STYLE of music (divorced from labels) as being a cohesive style.


As far as the stuff that is "spoon fed"...well, I know a lot of people who listen to "indie" music who are just as "spoon fed" as anyone who listens to pop radio. The difference is just who is doing the feeding.

I fail to see why someone can't like something that is VERY popular (like Maroon 5) and yet still be an autonomous music listener and purchaser. And I fail to see why someone who likes some hip indie band can't be a sheep, following the flock of indie-cool.

Personally, I don't give a whit one way or the other. I've got friends who refuse to buy anything on a major label. I've got others who shy away from indie label releases. Both of them are just being silly and ignorant, if I'm being honest. I just think the stereotype of the indie record store snob applied clearly here, and it's so condescending.

Well, I also hate being associated with snobbery just because I tend to like indie stuff more than more popular stuff.

But I would argue that the process of determining which records get spoon-fed to us is more meritocratic for the indie spoon-feeders than for the big labels.

The big labels choose what to spoonfeed to us solely based on maximization of profit, whereas the hipsters and snobs at least won't spoonfeed us something they don't legitimately draw enjoyment from.