I'm afraid that we've covered this ground a few times. It gets us nowhere. To me, "indie" is an aesthetic. Death Cab didn't suddenly stop becoming indie rock when they left Barsuk. It's a silly argument to have though because everyone's definition is different and no one will budge.
Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway: To me, "indie" is an aesthetic. Death Cab didn't suddenly stop becoming indie rock when they left Barsuk.
If indie's an aesthetic, Death Cab were never indie.
I used to think slightly differently, but now I'm in total agreement with DB: indie means independent label. To me, the smaller and more DIY the label, the more indie the artist. Self-releasing artists are the ultimate in indie.
-------------------------------------------------- Anatomy to me is a homesick stomach and a broken heart
Posts: 4129 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005
It's more being used as a word for this recent swell of popularity for bands like The Shins, Arcade Fire, Decemberists, etc. It's certainly different than the mainstream rock (which is still called alternative for some reason) but there's been no grand name for it besides that which was used to describe them in the first place, i.e. indie.
------ Aren't there any girls out their who like good music? I need to and want to meet them. My favorite bands are Overkill River, The Nife, Songs:Ohio, and Nuetral Milk Hotel. Please let me know if your into indy music and like to go to show's and drink beer's and makeout.
Posts: 2314 | Location: ATL-abouts. | Registered: 24 October 2006
If indie's an aesthetic, Death Cab were never indie.
I used to think slightly differently, but now I'm in total agreement with DB: indie means independent label. To me, the smaller and more DIY the label, the more indie the artist. Self-releasing artists are the ultimate in indie.
Wow, cool it with the holier-than-thou stuff. Death Cab was and is an indie rock band by most people's standards. That's exactly why I hate this argument. We're never going to agree on terms so...let's just give it up. If I want to say that a band is indie beyond the aesthetic I'll just add a few descriptor words. It's not hard.
i agree with you, but there is a specific aesthetic that all "indie" artists share: artistic intentions supersede any image or financial interests.
of course, that definition is far too glib and filled with contradictions and endless exceptions, but can you feel me? an "indie" band won't record the music that the man wants it to.
Originally posted by Fitz: back to the original topic...
i agree with you, but there is a specific aesthetic that all "indie" artists share: artistic intentions supersede any image or financial interests.
This is where the argument gets to be just as bs... an artist can be on an indie label just because they suck. The could be another Red Jumpsuit Apparatus/MCR wannabe band that can only get hired by that one label rep that was at their open mic night and promised them the world when he can't deliver them anything.
If you're talking about indie as a record deal status (the ORIGINAL meaning) rather than aestetics, then quality and aspirations don't enter into the mix.
But, indie has also come to describe a certain sound of music. Indie Rock is not a misnomer in my book, it's just a genre that covers a wide variety of sounds. Idk... this whole discussion is bullshit.
Also, definitions and genres change, as do names, with popularity. If enough people are calling these bands "indie rock", then despite your objections, that's what it'll end up being called in the long run. While "emo" started off being about a bunch of DIY bands likes Rites of Spring and Texas Is The Reason, the definition has changed to mean that "emo" is now crappy pop-punk bands with whiny lyrics, no matter what original emo fans say.
------ Aren't there any girls out their who like good music? I need to and want to meet them. My favorite bands are Overkill River, The Nife, Songs:Ohio, and Nuetral Milk Hotel. Please let me know if your into indy music and like to go to show's and drink beer's and makeout.
Posts: 2314 | Location: ATL-abouts. | Registered: 24 October 2006
I'm with DB. 'Indie' as an aesthetic label is lazy and vague. Journalists should be using our wonderful language more diversely. Get out yr thesaurasuseseses...boys and girls..
Oh, could I feel as I have felt, or be what I have been, Or weep as I could once have wept, o'er many a vanished scene; As springs in deserts found seem sweet, all brackish though they be, So, midst the withered waste of life, those tears would flow to me.
Posts: 2332 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Originally posted by good old P-Bo: How many of these bands and artists stay Indie by choice though and how many have no option? I'm sure if the gravy train was passing by, some Indie artists would be at the ticket counter.
Different thread but I stand by my opinion. I think people want Indie to define a genre based on styles and motivations more for personal reasons, when in fact, it simply defines a label. However, peoples' desires to lump bands into a genre for their own self-satisfaction still can't and won't dictate a separate style of music. There is some really good Indie music out there and this site has turned me on to a bunch of it; some of it I now consider amongst my favorites. Still, some Indie music is just plain bad or too abrasive to appeal to the masses.
This past Saturday night I was at my local coffee shop with my wife. There was a semi-local guy playing in the corner and his stuff was decent: decent voice; decent lyrics; nothing special. He had two CD's for sale and, not only did I buy both, but also tipped him $10. He is probably one of the millions of artists or band members who would possibly "sell their soul for Rock-N-Roll." Maybe, maybe not. His releases were no doubt independent and most likely wouldn't appeal to the masses: Definitely an Indie artist. If a similarity between he and other Indie artists exists, it is strictly in the label dept. His style was folksy and soft. Sound familiar? You can find him in every coffee shop and college campus across the U.S. and Canada.
Posts: 1206 | Location: Hunting in the Korengal | Registered: 04 January 2006
Originally posted by good old P-Bo: How many of these bands and artists stay Indie by choice though and how many have no option? I'm sure if the gravy train was passing by, some Indie artists would be at the ticket counter.
Different thread but I stand by my opinion. I think people want Indie to define a genre based on styles and motivations more for personal reasons, when in fact, it simply defines a label. However, peoples' desires to lump bands into a genre for their own self-satisfaction still can't and won't dictate a separate style of music.
No. Words can have multiple definitions. "In fact" doesn't mean anything for a pop-culture term like indie. There is no god of pop dialect who decides that words only have one meaning. If a lot of people can communicate using the word indie and know what they are talking about, then that word has that meaning. Nobody decides if the meaning is correct or not. The only thing that gives the word a definition is how people use it.
Oh, and "people's desire to lump bands into a genre for their own self-satisfaction" has and will continue to dictate a separate style of music, and it has nothing to do with your opinion.
"the fact" is that there are millions of people out there who agree on a term and a use for that term. There is no arguing with that, as much as you would like to disagree.
Posts: 13 | Location: The Enchanted Forest | Registered: 16 March 2007
SheriffParker, you've gotten to the root of this argument. Thank you. I'm sick of people defining "indie" for themselves and being so protective of their definition, as if it were the true one.
Wikipedia calls indie rock a genre. That seems symbolic of people's ideas generally.
Thousands of words that we use today developed from connotative meanings that weren't really true to the original meaning. The denotations of words are not concrete; they change over time depending on how the general populace uses these words.
Posts: 760 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
Most of the time words develop new meanings because people are illiterate, lazy or unimaginative, no insult to anyone here intended. But this is a historical overview.
Oh, could I feel as I have felt, or be what I have been, Or weep as I could once have wept, o'er many a vanished scene; As springs in deserts found seem sweet, all brackish though they be, So, midst the withered waste of life, those tears would flow to me.
Posts: 2332 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin: Most of the time words develop new meanings because people are illiterate, lazy or unimaginative, no insult to anyone here intended. But this is a historical overview.
That statement is ignorant in itself. Calling the meaning-bending public "ignorant" assumes that you're outside of it all, which you most certainly are not. In fact, I think it takes more imagination to allow words to change than to stick doggedly to the original meaning.
