Are thrash, grind and black metal albums released on independent labels indie? I think we can both agree that none of those genres are associated with indie music. The origins of indie came from artists on independent labels, but it's come to define a (very broad and vague) sound that encompasses a large group of artists, many of whom happen to be on independent labels. The sound is what's difficult to define. The best way I can explain it is that indie is to pop/rock music what underground hip-hop is to mainstream rap, if that makes any sense.
My other gripe with the independent label definition is what happens when a band starts on an indie label and then moves on to a major. Are they no longer indie? Were they never indie? Are albums on the old label indie, while albums on the new label are not, even if their sound hasn't changed?
well if ur going by pure definition of indie music then yes the metal and that other crap would be included but if ur going by the sound of music that indie music has come to engender is one of melodical arrangements that come in an immense variety of styles and has become so varying that the subgenres have come to define the style that the music is in the first place
the first real indie band was the velvet underground. they went against the style of their time with their hard then soft heroine ballads and are basically the influence of every artsy indie band to this date so indie comes to mean independent in the sense of not shackled by the styles of the time regardless they continue making the music that they want and that we love
Small comment...I'm not 100% sure that Velvet Underground qualifies as 'indie' until they dropped Nico. Andy Warhol pretty much forced her on the band against their will to increase the artsiness quotient in a deliberate attempt to make VU the 'next big thing'.
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
Check out their definition of what "Indie" is. Not to imply their word is law, but I think they basically nailed it in that it is a genre of music that is really quite general, and more of a basis for other genres of rock to jut out from. Just as it came from alternative --now define alternative and you will get into the same mess as this debate.
Now paradoxically it claims: "the general assumption is that it's virtually impossible to make indie rock's varying musical approaches compatible with mainstream tastes in the first place". Bands like The Strokes, Interpol, etc. etc. can be considered pretty mainstream by popularity standards; but yet the site classifies them as "indie rock" bands. So is this where the confusion stems from?
Me personally if i don't hear it on the top 40 stations in my city, and it just sounds "indie" I call it "indie rock".
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mr. Fuffcans,
Posts: 48 | Location: Canada | Registered: 02 January 2006
On a side note I think this debate is shockingly huge. I seem to run into this on every music forum I go to. What does this say about us fans if we cannot agree on the very type of music we listen to?
He is watching you...
Posts: 48 | Location: Canada | Registered: 02 January 2006
As far as I recall, there was no music referred to as punk in the 60s or early 70s. It's only called that now.
Here's a quote from Iggy Pop. It's from the liner notes to the remixed version of the Stooges' Raw Power:
quote:
When the Rolling Stone review for the first Stooges album came out, I think it was written by Lenny Kaye, I think it also contained the first reference to the word 'punk.' I think it happened in that review. To paraphrase, 'This is the music of punks cruising for burgers.' And I was so furious because I was a macrobiotic!(laughter) But he had a point - I was a macrobiotic with a burger mentality.
He could very well be omelet-headed, but I think that that review would have been from 69 or 70.
As for the "indie" debate at hand, I think it's silly to hang so much on a word. What we're talking about here is really just a name and not a viable term in its own right. It seems there used to be a fairly well agreed upon definition of indie (although perhaps even this is up for debate?), but that is OBVIOUSLY (as much as I dislike calling anything OBVIOUS) not so anymore. So really I think it would be best to stop using it altogether and make new names for particular groups of bands based on clear definitions instead of this ambiguous, past-cannibalizing, faux-labeling.
Words are tools, but this debate seems an awful lot like grinding gears and stripping screws.
I think that's a somewhat accurate description. But where would a band like the Velvet Underground fit in with all that? Garage? I mean I know band's like Cheap Trick and MC5 took cues from band's like VU and The Stooges, but I still think there's more to it than at. I mean I think that throughout "indie" history there have been bands that have built on what VU established. Sonic Youth, David Bowie, Pixies, Jesus and Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, or Galaxie 500 for example. I mean when I think about the term Indie Rock, those are the bands that I invariable turn to. Because both in attitude and musical style, they built on the alternation between violence and beauty that so exemplified the Velvet Underground.
I think that's a somewhat accurate description. But where would a band like the Velvet Underground fit in with all that? Garage? I mean I know band's like Cheap Trick and MC5 took cues from band's like VU and The Stooges, but I still think there's more to it than at. I mean I think that throughout "indie" history there have been bands that have built on what VU established. Sonic Youth, David Bowie, Pixies, Jesus and Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, or Galaxie 500 for example. I mean when I think about the term Indie Rock, those are the bands that I invariable turn to. Because both in attitude and musical style, they built on the alternation between violence and beauty that so exemplified the Velvet Underground.
First off, MC5 was around before the Stooges. They were both from Michigan, and the MC5 served as the template more than the other way around. However, the Stooges still deserve tons of credit because their music was really dangerous, whereas the MC5 got bogged down in politics and left the music on the backburner.
Second, I understand why you might want to call VU indie, but I think it's misleading. In using the word like you are, you're stretching it beyond its original use. You're changing it. And when enough people put their personal little spin on the word, it gets lost in an alphabet soup of ambiguity.
Originally posted by vitunkrapula: First off, MC5 was around before the Stooges. They were both from Michigan, and the MC5 served as the template more than the other way around. However, the Stooges still deserve tons of credit because their music was really dangerous, whereas the MC5 got bogged down in politics and left the music on the backburner.
Second, I understand why you might want to call VU indie, but I think it's misleading. In using the word like you are, you're stretching it beyond its original use. You're changing it. And when enough people put their personal little spin on the word, it gets lost in an alphabet soup of ambiguity.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out. And yeah I guess I need to get my history straight. But still I think that even if The Velvet Underground weren't "indie" seeing how that term didn't come into prominence until the 90's, they set the template and precedent which most great indie bands followed. First of all, though they weren't signed to an independent label, Andy Warhol produced their first album and gave them complete artistic freedom, which is something which most indie bands have looked for since. Second of all, you find that many elements that are found in Indie Rock, from the jangling and ringing chug, to the combination of noise with melody, to the themes of drug-induced bliss or degredation, along with a love of the subversive and underground, and a real flare for the sonically experimental. I mean I just don't see anything that isn't "indie" about them, except perhaps that they were around before the term existed and without them the term certainly wouldn't exist.
Originally posted by Mr. Fuffcans: On a side note I think this debate is shockingly huge. I seem to run into this on every music forum I go to. What does this say about us fans if we cannot agree on the very type of music we listen to?
I don't think it says anything. We know the type of music we listen to - just can't decide on the nomenclature which is really just a communication issue, when it comes to expressing your tastes to others - it really shouldn't change your personal music experience.
My only contribution is to say that words CAN very well change meaning. Indie's etymology would being with independent. But words evolve with usage. I have a Word-of-the-Day calendar and they have all kinds of examples of words we use now that originally had completely different meanings.
Maybe the easy way out is like that famous porn quote: "I know it when I see it".
As far as Indie, "I Know it when I hear it."
Posts: 747 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
This was a debate in the "Best Indie Rock Bands" thread. I really don't understand why certain people are intent on pigeonholing artists. If people ask me what I listen to I can say "Andrew Bird, The Notwist, Radiohead" until they get the idea. Saying "indie rock" will never give anyone a real impression. I don't know why it's necessary to find common ground here.
Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway: This was a debate in the "Best Indie Rock Bands" thread. I really don't understand why certain people are intent on pigeonholing artists. If people ask me what I listen to I can say "Andrew Bird, The Notwist, Radiohead" until they get the idea. Saying "indie rock" will never give anyone a real impression. I don't know why it's necessary to find common ground here.
Ditto. I think the critics get a kick out of labeling all the new artists stuff like "indie-garage-folktronica". It gives them something to do considering most of them are two-bit music hacks (here's lookin' at you, Dorkfork), who weeze and wax lyrical all day about subjective sonic tastes.
Like, dudes, I totally chose (c), but I'm not sure. Wasn't 1993 kinda punk? I was only 2 years old, so I don't remember it toooo well.
********************** Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
I'm looking for Russian Militant Black Metal. Semi-good production is a plus, as are clean vocals (if kept to a minimum). Also looking for vocals in Russian. Basically like a Russian version of Absurd...
Posts: 932 | Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious? | Registered: 22 August 2006
No. I was there. 1993 was not punk in any way. 1977 was punk. I remember. (c) was the right answer. As far as the greater issue, I think that the term indie has drifted. We are all in agreement that the original meaning had to do with independent music labels (nb. "what does that mean anymore?") but that with bands like the Shins (whom I like, but failed to change my life) and Death Cab (on the OC) has increasingly become associated in the public consciousness with a certain style of music previously described. The next step is indie fashion, an article in Vanity Fair, and indie bands shilling for car companies on TV. That will mean that "indie" (as opposed to truly independently produced and conceived music) will be over. And then we can go back to arguing about whether Blink 182 and Green Day are really "punk."
--------------- I wonder if you're mythologizing me, like I do you
Posts: 1429 | Location: State of Disarray | Registered: 10 January 2007
This isn't entirely on topic but I think almost every genre is completely inadequate in describing artists under its moniker. Take "World" music for example. World music: the music of the world. As opposed to music from the deepest recesses of space? World music can include indigenous music, folk music, and all traditional non-western music (flamenco guitar for example). "Indie" as an aesthetic keyword holds about as much water as my aforementioned definition of world music. I'm a staunch opponent of all these musical classifications that get thrown around willy nilly. Most of the terms are used historically (tracing the history of punk etc...), and the more experimental the sound, the less descriptive and useful the label. How many genre-bending artists get labeled "experimental" or "psychedelic"? Far too many, and it tells me nothing.
