I'm wondering are there any bands out there on the radio that you rate at all? What do you think of bands like fall out boy, the fray, nickleback, hinder, snow patrol, nelly furtado, christina aqua .... I don't listen to the radio but I am forced absorb said content at work and other various sources.
Do you consider almost all indie bands exist on a higher plainr than mainstream bands or perhaps you rate a fray album as highly as anything else you listen to. Do you assume that if it gets widespread play on the radio it has to be watered down and filtered of any quality?
assuming you are probably going to be judging the 1 or two songs I hear from these artists, against the albums of the artists I normally listen to. If you never listen to any music of this ilk there is no need to reply, trust me I wish I was in your position.
I want this to be a band or song specific discussion rather than "how do we really define indie and mainstream...". At this point I am assuming that if it receives heavy to regular rotation on mainstream radio stations. Maybe it is different else where but In Australia there are 5 pop stations, 1 rock station and 1 indie station, most kids don't listen to modest mouse or arcade fire.
I noticed that this isn't specifically an indie music forum, it so happens that everyone who comes here and makes their lists doesn't like mainstream, additionally mainstream albums usually get lower scores.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: PrairieFire,
The head of state has called for me, but I don't have time for him
I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but I think I'm relatively open to pop(ular) music today (was not always the case.) I have a tendency to think the odds of it being watered down are better than a smaller release because more invested = less risk = just wants to move units. And what moves units isn't always quality. But I try to accept things on their own terms, so while what I generally value most in music is the singing/songwriting aspect with pop music I look more at the beats and catchy-ness and the like. If you're lucky you can write your own songs and have good songwriting too, that's when I think you're a great pop star. But even if you just keep making songs like "Say It Right" and "Umbrella" there's a place for you in my head.
Also, what was the alternative to popularity and thus an outlet for more expressive music is becoming mainstream so a new alternative/outlet must be found. Or the old one reclaimed. Or something. But I'm sure that's been talked to death.
Originally posted by Nhazghaal: I have a tendency to think the odds of it being watered down are better than a smaller release because more invested = less risk = just wants to move units.
This is, imo, the key. Whenever you try to sell any product to a wide ranging population, you inevitably have to reduce it to the lowest common denominator. And, if your motivation is to sell as many units of your product as possible, you have to make it something people are comfortable with, as opposed to something people are challenged by. The minute you have to engage too many neurons, there went a huge percentage of your buyers.
Is it OK to like it? Sure. You are part of that great mass of people who make up that denominator. But, in the long run, I don't think it's going to satisfy someone with a bit of brains and musical sophistication.
--------------- My basic objection to religion is not that it isn't true; I like plenty of things that aren't true. It's that religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive sensations. -Philip Pullman
I personally have no exposer to what is being played on the radio. I was shocked the other day to hear Feist playing in the kitchen of a restraunt I was at, and also suprised to see Snow Patrol on your list of mainstream bands.
In the past I used to listen to the radio a lot in order to find new music and I found a lot of really good songs that way, which lead to some really bad albums. What happens in most cases is a group that makes it to a major label and heavy exposer can get by on just one or two decent songs per album and make millions off of it. Albums can go platinum off of just one hit song. I have a hard time trusting a good song I heard off the radio enough to buy the album. Typically that's the type of thing I download and feel okay about.
---------------------------- I'm the operator with my pocket calculator.
This is, imo, the key. Whenever you try to sell any product to a wide ranging population, you inevitably have to reduce it to the lowest common denominator. And, if your motivation is to sell as many units of your product as possible, you have to make it something people are comfortable with, as opposed to something people are challenged by.
This is sometimes-but-not-always true, but one can just as easily invert this formula: an artist creating a subtle, difficult, complicated or alienating work is usually just as conscious an act as creating one that fits on the radio or the best-seller shelf at Fred Meyer. So if the artist's goal is to preserve "integrity," "authenticity," or whatever, he may have to create willfully irrelevant and marginal art that can't speak to an audience. Worse or better?
Also, not all popular art seeks to mollify. The Simpsons has been both socially challenging and profitable for the better part of two decades; and Jay-Z, for all his expensive beats and look-at-me charisma, has remained lyrically subtle and complicated his entire career. Give me The Blueprint over any of APC's logorrheic shite or Immortal Technique's "politically conscious hip-hop." I have a pretty good attention span, but an artist has to meet me halfway.
I don't think there's a formula that condemns pop culture to simplicity or one that entitles independent artists to difficulty or authenticity. It's case-by-case.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bryan_K,
The minute you have to engage too many neurons, there went a huge percentage of your buyers.
Is it OK to like it? Sure. You are part of that great mass of people who make up that denominator. But, in the long run, I don't think it's going to satisfy someone with a bit of brains and musical sophistication.
If this were a forum where people purely loved music, you wouldn't even have to ask.
I'm really sick of the "mainstream sucks LOL indie is better/more adventurous/more creative" opinion, because frankly it isn't true at all. "Indie" music is not automatically better, or more creative, or even different in any way from mainstream music, other than selling a few million less copies and having a lower budget. Underneath it's just as likely to be poppy and empty. Conversely, not all mainstream is watered down or uncreative. I think people who dismiss music because it's on a major label/sells more copies/etc are, bluntly, full of shit in this Dork's opinion.
To a point, you may be correct Dork. In general, however, I find that the mainstream has much less to offer than 'indie' or any other underground genre. I look at it with this perspective:
The mainstream is created by current music fads trends and marketability.
Indie and similar genres created with a 'best of the rest' mentality, but in this case the rest is, in fact, better than the best. (If that makes sense) Since the artist isn't as concerned with marketing, there is more creativity and originality in the music that the artist would otherwise be afraid to release.
Don't get me wrong, there is always going to be something good to be found in the mainstream, I just find myself liking what is not as well known much more often.
The mainstream is created by current music fads trends and marketability.
Indie and similar genres created with a 'best of the rest' mentality, but in this case the rest is, in fact, better than the best. (If that makes sense) Since the artist isn't as concerned with marketing, there is more creativity and originality in the music that the artist would otherwise be afraid to release.
I don't know, just because an artist is on an independent label doesn't mean that they(or the people who manage them) don't have marketing and 'selling' themselves as a number one priority. From my experience the indie scene can be just as much about trends, image, and hype as the mainstream scene, if only to a smaller audience.
I don't really see this as a negative or bad thing, it's just human nature. Yeah bands can take more risks or appeal to a smaller (less profitable) niche on an independent label. Plus, many of the bands in the end deserve the cult like recognition and blind praise they receive. But the 'indie' scene isn't immune to conformity, even if it's "anti-conformity" conformity.
Now someone go ahead link to the fifty billion other threads that "plague the board" about "indie, what's in a word?".
==== What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.
I think that you have to make a difference between mainstream music and mainstream music fads, which is really difficult to do. Some things that get mainstream airplay, are genuinely good, and those are the artists and songs that radio stations will play year after year. I'm talking about Nirvana, Pearl Jam, U2, Nine Inch Nails, Tool. But then there are bands that exist for one to ten years and then disappear (Nickelback, Saliva, Limp Biscuit, Creed). In these instances, once the group disbands, the airplay ceases.
Since the artist isn't as concerned with marketing, there is more creativity and originality in the music that the artist would otherwise be afraid to release.
But precisely because that same artist isn't (as) concerned with marketing, his music can also be saddled with more meandering and self-indulgence than "commercially compromised" artists would ever countenance.
Wait a minute here. Are you implying that the albums with the highest Metacritic ratings are indulgent??? I now name you Emperor of North America for Wisdom unbecoming (aka "Far Beyond") a Mere Metacritic Poster!
I realize you have other baggage, but that comment is worth about two tons, free of charge!
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Mainstream stuff is good fun, but if I want shivers down my spine I'm probably going to have to seek that music out. Gone are the days that a song like "Disarm" would make the radiowaves.
Though, I have heard "Missed the Boat" off of "We Were Dead..." on the radio, and the harmonies there are pretty stunning.
------ 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.
