Author Topic: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant  (Read 7187 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. BonorFLYd

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Music you can eat!
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2009, 01:32:03 PM »
yep. agree on all that. I guess we all buy in0t something to a certain degree. but it's important to know/realize it and keep it in check...and maintain a sense of humor about it. i think it's funny seeing some people window dress their whole lives with all this crap...and then change it all when the next trend comes around. usually when we buy anything there are a lot of factors in that decision, but mostly it's because we identify with the 'product' in some way. or we want to see ourselves associated with it somehow. interesting. i wonder what will be next when it isn't cool to be 'indie'...lol.

joegtheog

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2009, 01:36:48 PM »
The Sex Pistols, supposedly the ultimate punk rebel band, were a marketing creation.

Offline Mr. BonorFLYd

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Music you can eat!
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2009, 01:46:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Sex Pistols, supposedly the ultimate punk rebel band, were a marketing creation.

I believe it. Just like before Independent became 'indie' I can just envision there must have been a couple of marketing guys sitting around saying...how do we make this a culture, how can we popularize it and unite it under an umbrella.

dentalboy

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2009, 02:02:09 PM »
probably more so in the UK than the US

jimyjazz

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2009, 02:35:30 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Sex Pistols, supposedly the ultimate punk rebel band, were a marketing creation.

That's true, but they wrote the music and however much of a joke they are now Johnny Rotten's lyrics are some of the best ever.  They were a no B.S. revolution rock band.  Not indie, either.  Indie labels didn't really exist yet.  The Buzzcocks get credit for starting the first one, for being the first d.i.y. band and the Pistonls were already around, taking record labels' money.  Sid should get no respect though.  Only prayers. Poor boy.

joegtheog

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2009, 02:38:53 PM »
Didn't Creed release most of their albums on an indie label?

jimyjazz

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2009, 03:09:54 PM »
I am not an Animal Collective fan, but they are a genuine band who do something different each album and have nothing to do with any prevailing trends.  Mr Bonorfeid, you do make a little bit of sense but you completely discount all the great bands who have made the records (ie written, produced, recorded the records) them selves and had them put out on small labels. There is a lot of great music being made outside of the world that the major media companies like to construct.  Maybe you are not aware of these bands or have an old fashioned idea of what a successful band does, i don't know.  Take TV on the Radio.  They produce the records themselves and were on a small label (touch and go) before they signed to Interscope in North America.  They're on 4AD in the UK.  New Order were on an indie until after 1989.  Hugely successful. Pavement were on Matador, they did OK.  Sonic Youth were on a bunch of indies and did very well before signing to DGC.  Broken Social Scene and Metric are very successfull and run their own labels, produce the records themselves.  Mission of Burma.  Dead Can Dance. Oasis were indie in the UK.  The vast majority of electronic music, which is really strong right now.  Being on a major is fine, but it's a myth that you'll be more successful, especially now.  Records can be made for a very low price at home, so studios and "producers" are somewhat uneccessary because the software is pretty easy to use. And playing gigs will always be the best way to build a loyal following.   

Record executives are f****** clueless.  Look at how they got caught completely off guard by the whole "alternative revolution" in the early 90s.  They were still pumping millions into hair metal and crap pop and then bam! no one cared because it was garbage and people found music that was real.  A lot of it was on major labels, but the bands had already done the hard work (made records, built a following) on their own and on indies.  So what do they do?  They sign every band with a flannel shirt.  Same thing happened with brit pop, the electronic influence that crept into mainstream music in the mid 90s, the garage rock revival in the early part of  this decade.  They have no idea what's going on, catch onto to as it's peaking, and then completely kill it.  So record executives, gah. They are drug pushers and pimps.  Look what happened to the Replacements.  "Write an anthem!  Use more reverb! Have some blow!"

That being said, indie is not a style of music.  And while it is quite fashion conscious, it's not nearly as guilty of creating a "lifestyle" as the major media companies are.  I

Offline TraKianLite/Zooropa

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 877
  • The land was flat, the highway straight and wide.
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2009, 03:28:20 PM »
The thing is, indie and alternative used to very much mean something in the 1980s and even the 1990s. The problem now, though, is that what the music was independent from or alternative to (mainstream metal or classic rock) has now utterly disappeared, and that is what has rendered the term meaningless, along with the fact that, yes, much of it is pretty mainstream in itself.

Offline achtung child

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 394
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2009, 03:28:50 PM »
 jimyjazz, what you said is right on.  But here's my thing: If an "indie" band wants to stay independent, fine.  But then stay in the garage and don't sign to a major label and preted you're Jesus Hipster Christ saving the youth of America from the corporate conformist evildoers.  That's where I get frustrated.  You (the bands) want to play the big time, fine.  But then have the courage to accept the consequences of your compromises.

Offline Mr. BonorFLYd

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Music you can eat!
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2009, 03:34:55 PM »
I'm not knocking Independent artists...I am one lol. I'm also not taking the side of major labels. Additionally I am not denying that there are some good bands labeled as 'indie' and embraced by 'indie culture'. I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying? We are talking about the relevance of the term 'indie' and some of the crap trends under the umbrella of that term, and how some marketers helped create and cashed in on the culture of 'indie' music. What's kind of sad is that there are a lot of Independent artists who don't fit under the typical 'indie' 'alt' lifestyle 'branding' which is just another trend, and these artists are not getting recognized.

As for TV oN The Radio...they are a good studio band. I have always said that on this site and said positive things about David Sitek who is producer and band member. I have their albums. However, outside the studio - THEY SUCK. The singer sounds awful and off pitch, he plays mediocre guitar, then the other main band member who is supposed to play keyboards doesn't play anything! He just hops around and claps like an idiot (he's worse than Fletch from Depeche Mode...and that's an accomplishment.) Then the performance I had seen, they got these sloppy horn players that were not playing in sync, and were flat on their pitches. AWFUL. They should just stick to studio or lock themselves in a practice room for a year.


« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 03:37:45 PM by Mr. Bonorfied »

Offline Mr. BonorFLYd

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Music you can eat!
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2009, 03:56:59 PM »
also since you brought up "TV On Th Radio", I have a good example of all this. Pitchfork.com which is perhaps one of the premier sites in 'branding' this 'indie' culture interviewed "TV on the Radio" because they gave an awful live performance on SNL. Now, from the vantage of Pitchfork, TV on the Radio are a Darling band...they can pretty much do no wrong. So, Pitchfork created this short interview with the band to save face and protect their darling poster-boy indie band. The band blamed the awful performance on the SNL soundsystem and the engineer. Now, that's a pretty good excuse because everyone knows the sound for bands SUCKS on that show. However, I can always tell a good band on that show because they make it work. They deliver a good performance that's exciting with good musicianship...Like Kings of Leon for instance, or U2 especially. They're all using the same sound so it doesn't matter. No excuse.

But Pitchfork will protect certain bands/artists that represent the 'brand' that Pitchfork want their readers to buy into...their so-called vision of 'indie'.

joegtheog

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2009, 04:31:03 PM »
To summarize what I think the answer should be, "indie rock" isn't a relevant term to encompass one single genre, since there are many independent artists in many different genres.  However, "indie image" is a relevant term to describe those bands and their management who want to cultivate an image that is "separate from the mainstream", whatever that means.  I'm sure on some level, to some, it means Fall Out Boy, to others, Wilco.  If it makes people feel better to label their bands and artists "indie", more power to them.

jimyjazz

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2009, 04:43:45 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
jimyjazz, what you said is right on.  But here's my thing: If an "indie" band wants to stay independent, fine.  But then stay in the garage and don't sign to a major label and preted you're Jesus Hipster Christ saving the youth of America from the corporate conformist evildoers.  That's where I get frustrated.  You (the bands) want to play the big time, fine.  But then have the courage to accept the consequences of your compromises.

Yeah, I totally agree.The attitude must be dropped, especially for bands on majors.  It's a a turn off.

Offline Mr. BonorFLYd

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Music you can eat!
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2009, 05:52:46 PM »
it won't be too long before many "indie" labels and bands become the new major. it's just another viscous cycle.

jimyjazz

  • Guest
Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2009, 06:08:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
also since you brought up "TV On Th Radio", I have a good example of all this. Pitchfork.com which is perhaps one of the premier sites in 'branding' this 'indie' culture interviewed "TV on the Radio" because they gave an awful live performance on SNL. Now, from the vantage of Pitchfork, TV on the Radio are a Darling band...they can pretty much do no wrong. So, Pitchfork created this short interview with the band to save face and protect their darling poster-boy indie band. The band blamed the awful performance on the SNL soundsystem and the engineer. Now, that's a pretty good excuse because everyone knows the sound for bands SUCKS on that show. However, I can always tell a good band on that show because they make it work. They deliver a good performance that's exciting with good musicianship...Like Kings of Leon for instance, or U2 especially. They're all using the same sound so it doesn't matter. No excuse.

But Pitchfork will protect certain bands/artists that represent the 'brand' that Pitchfork want their readers to buy into...their so-called vision of 'indie'.

I saw TV a few years ago and it was a pretty good show.  It was different than on record (and some songs sucked) since it's impossible to replicate such a dense sound without piped in music.  It sounded a lot like my bloody valentine, in a good way.  The SNL gig was awful, but it makes sense since they haven't been playing much, and they haven't played with a horn section before.  They are quite good live though.  Most bands are kind of lame live if they haven't played in a while.  I saw U2 open the north american leg a while back and they weren't too good either.

And Pitchfork is pretty ridiculous sometimes.  Look at how they treat Billy Corgan.  They slam him every chance they get, even if he has nothing to do with what they're writing about. They had this review of their fall tour (which was unbelievably good) which just collected some negative comments from people who didn't seem to be fans or attend the shows...the worst bit of journalism I've ever seen. If the Pumpkins wore skinny jeans and couldn't play, P4K would love em.

A lot of bands will move on to majors, and labels will get bought out or experiment with distribution deals, but there will always be labels putting out a diverse set of artists that are free to do what they want.  They keep music fresh. I am looking forward to a time when "indie" doesn't refer to fringe haircuts and dudes in small pants showing their underwear though.