Let's Talk Indie
- Thread starter Kushin
- Start date
Indie is dead, and Pete Doherty killed it. The Libertines exemplify everything wrong with indie - whiny, balless, unimaginative rock sung by a guy who's voice only just started breaking, along to a vaguely dull track about boy meets girl, blah blah blah.
Generally, no. My view on most indie music is that it's indie because it can't be mainstream - because it isn't quality enough to be picked up by the big labels.
That, and people who listen to indie and only indie strike me as arrogant I-hate-things-just-because-they're-popular douchebags. But that may just be me.
That, and people who listen to indie and only indie strike me as arrogant I-hate-things-just-because-they're-popular douchebags. But that may just be me.
This is a more detailed breakdown of how I feel about the vast majority of the "indie" I see people bandying about. Personally I just refer to it all as "sad-sack indie crap", which, while less descriptive, still gets the general point across fairly well, heh.Rolling Thunder said:
I have nothing against bands that are "indie" because hey, they're not signed to any labels, as those might be good or bad just like anything else. But the use of "indie" as a genre rather than just a catch all label for independent music? It's pretty much always sad-sack indie crap, which is apparently why those people like it.
I understandably don't have much esteem for the opinions of indie rock fans.
Speaking as a jaded music industry worker, "Indie music" as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist, on any level.Kushin said:
"Indie" (short for "independent") doesn't exist and in fact has never existed on a pure business level, because "independent" record labels are never truly independent. For a label to be "independent" in the real sense, it would have to cover everything itself, from distribution, promotion, and manufacture, to sourcing raw materials, logistics, aesthetics, the works - complete self-sufficiency. This has never been achieved by any label in the history of recorded music. Why? Because it's a lot easier not to do things that way. True independence does not exist, nor should it.
"Indie music" in the sense of "music that is independent" doesn't actually exist either, because it's reliant on this structure. These days "indie" music commonly refers to big bands on big labels with million-dollar budgets anyway - nothing "indie" about it. Let's look at your examples. Interpol are signed to Capitol who are a subsidiary of EMI Group. How big are they? Well, earlier this year EMI Group announced a £1.75 billion pound loss. Any company that has that amount of money to lose in a year isn't an "indie" even in the most naive, overarching sense of the word. Sigur Ros are on FatCat but also have distribution deals so are tied up with EMI Group, XL, FMR and the Interscope/Geffen/A&M group for distribution (and probably others too) depending on which country you are shopping in. The Flaming Lips are on Restless Records which was bought out by Warner Music Group (there's that familiar Warner Brothers logo at the top of that YouTube video you posted) which is part of Time/Warner and I think we all know how big Time/Warner are. Suffice to say, they are not very "indie". The only indie music that exists is the stuff you write yourself and post to YouTube... oh wait, YouTube is owned by Google corp... or what about MySpace... oh wait, that's owned by Fox... but what about iTun... oh yeah, well Apple of course. Seems like being truly "independent" and saying no to corporations is easy as long as you don't ever plan to get your music heard anyplace...
If you want to ignore the business models completely and boil down "indie" to something on a purely sonic level, up crops another can of worms, because these bands don't even sound alike. Even in terms of very broad categorization, Sigur Ros's post-rock sound sure as hell sounds nothing like The Flaming Lips experimental, pseudo-psychedelic rock noodlings, which in turn sounds nothing like Interpol's more straight-ahead, slightly post-punk influenced pop/rock sound.
So what is "indie music", then? It isn't anything but a marketing term. It doesn't actually exist in the real world, and never has. Record labels aren't silly though, they will market something as "indie" so all the too-cool-for-major-labels kids go out and buy something that they think is somehow hip, happening or even "subversive" (pfft). Never mind that the band in question that's being described as "indie" might sound like a ripoff of The Beatles (the most un-independent band ever in existence), is making millions of dollars and is distributed on a major label...
People over think this thing way too much. Indie music is good 'cause people that make it actually have creative input into what they are doing since they aren't making the big bucks - or at least not enough to constrict them into a specific style so that they can keep making the aforementioned big bucks. Simple, really. It may not be as polished in many cases, but damnit if it isn't fresher.
Those bashing it simply as some attempt at marketing are being idi...ahem: misled.
Abur.
Those bashing it simply as some attempt at marketing are being idi...ahem: misled.
Abur.
I agree, Indie fans are the worst because once the band becomes popular they stop liking them and say "I liked them before they were popular" Neat...Lullabye said:
Indie isn't a genre.
EDIT- Also, I was expecting a thread on Indiana Jones, so thanks for disappointing me!
*Hands Friend Badge*ClifJayShafer said:
We are now friends.
I appreciate the time you took to write that huge essay about Indie, it's great to hear from someone in the know, but this thread was meant to be a discussion of bands already defined as indie, not us trying to define what bands are indie for ourselves.BonsaiK said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yes there are some douchebag indie fans who act like people in this thread have described, but there are exceptions to every rule, not everyone is like that. I personally like a lot more than just indie, but I like listening to it mostly.
Also:-
I'm going to have to oppose that comment fully, indie music is not 'popular' in the sense that it isn't in the top 40 artists globally. It's quality cannot just be directly compared to stuff like Lady Gaga and Ke$ha etc, seeing as quality itself is subjective to your own opinionStarofAzura said:
Let me qualify then. In my opinion, it does not have the same quality as music picked up by popular labels. And popular labels don't just take stuff like Lady Gaga and Ke$ha - I'm talking about all genres, not just "pop". This is all my opinion, however, and I think I said that like, twice in my original post.Kushin said:
