@U2 Forum

Community Center => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: achtung child on March 11, 2009, 01:01:13 PM

Title: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: achtung child on March 11, 2009, 01:01:13 PM
I'm sure this topic has been brought up before, so please redirect me if it has.  Does anyone else find the term "indie rock" irrelevant?  What does that even mean anymore?  I get really frustrated when I see (some) younger music fans following all of these "indie acts" like lemmings to the sea.  I live in Chicago and I get really annoyed with the pompous attitude from pseudo emo/hipster bands; as if they are part of this superior/innovative movement (where everyone looks the same).   To me, the "indie rock" movement is the biggest sham in the past 20 years based on nothing more than a confusion of fashion for substance.   When it's really nothing more than a really terrible/ lazy rehash of the 70's blended with 80's new wave.  Maybe a more apt label would be industrialized pop.  A flannel and a bad haircut does not make a sophisticated/ sensitive individual.  It started out promising with bands like The Strokes, The White Stripes, (Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs), etc.  I was excited by the fresh and raw attitude.  But then everyone with a bad flip, tight jeans, and sweaters named The (Insert Name) was putting out and selling records.  Granted some of it is great music, but it's nothing we haven't already heard.   I can hear the difference between Neil Young (i.e. Harvest) and a cheap knock off (some of Wilco's work).  For a following that considers itself intellectually/musically superior to the masses, why do they continuously buy into and sell the lie that their music is hip and trendy when it's a bad imitation of everything that has come before. But mainly I'm irritated by the arrogant attitude of scoffing at the "corporate predecesors" (Led Zepplin, The Beatles, The Faces) who made the music they're ripping off: BETTER.  I'm curious to know others thoughts on this. 
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Nielsen on March 11, 2009, 01:03:45 PM
Ironically, "indie" is short for independant......
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz on March 11, 2009, 01:53:42 PM
Indie rock is a relevant term but anyone who uses it to describe a type of music is a moron because it refers to they type of label.  Generally bands on indies make less commercial music, and aren't part of the loudness wars.  "Indie rock", if it used as genre description, should be shorthand for "more adventurous".  And Wilco are not a bad rip off of Neil.  They are fully awesome, and are no more a bad Neil rip off than U2 are a bad Joy Division rip off.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: achtung child on March 11, 2009, 01:55:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 And Wilco are not a bad rip off of Neil.  They are fully awesome, and are no more a bad Neil rip off than U2 are a bad Joy Division rip off.

Fairly spoken.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Spaceman on March 11, 2009, 02:28:20 PM
The biggest sham in the past 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you crazy!!!?? There's been far worse scenes in the past 20 years!! Far from being the worst, the indie rock movement (if that's what you want to call it) to me is the best.

And words evolve man!  ;)

Indie did (and probably still does to some) mean an independent label. But to others it's a genre of music and a scene. I don't have a problem with that. And I don't agree with any of the original post AT ALL. I love indie rock. I loved it long before the White Stripes or the Strokes came along so how could it have started with them??!! The indie rock movement has been going strong in England long before Jack White even picked up a guitar!

If people want to call it indie rock then so what!

And this 'movement' has serious style OK! The indie rock movement look cool!
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: achtung child on March 11, 2009, 02:41:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The biggest sham in the past 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you crazy!!!?? There's been far worse scenes in the past 20 years!! Far from being the worst, the indie rock movement (if that's what you want to call it) to me is the best.

To each their own, and apologies for overreaching generalizations.  However, when I say the biggest sham; I mean in terms of the falsehoods that can sometimes plague the whole scene.  Yes glam rock, plastic boy bands, and disco can be argued as terrible.  But it appeared those scenes were very self aware of the campy image and sound that was being bought and sold (with few exceptions i.e. Michael Bolton, Wilson Phillips).  Whereas, the appearance and sound that can sometimes prevail in the indie scene is an arrogant sense of originality that speaks nothing new or particularily profound.  This is my main frustration with the whole thing.  I really do think some of the music is great.  But I might be able to tolerate the scene a bit more if it had a sense of humor about it's own irony and hypocrisy.  Many music historians point to this as key for Nirvana's success.  And their are some current examples (MGMT).  I'm really curious to gain a deeper perspective on this whole issue. 
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: EdgeLike on March 11, 2009, 03:05:21 PM
Not really. Indie rock was such a stupid name to come up with in the first place. Too bad it has no relevance now.

Oh and I despise the kids who listen to indie rock and say that it's better than everything else. Indie annoys me. I find the music to be bad as well.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz on March 11, 2009, 03:26:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not really. Indie rock was such a stupid name to come up with in the first place. Too bad it has no relevance now.

Oh and I despise the kids who listen to indie rock and say that it's better than everything else. Indie annoys me. I find the music to be bad as well.

Sad that you're limiting your musical horizons so much.  The majority of good music out there is not put out by major labels.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz on March 11, 2009, 03:29:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not really. Indie rock was such a stupid name to come up with in the first place. Too bad it has no relevance now.

Oh and I despise the kids who listen to indie rock and say that it's better than everything else. Indie annoys me. I find the music to be bad as well.

I highly recommend Metric, Apostle of Hustle, Menomena and the Phantom band.  You won't be disappointed.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Whoah10115 on March 11, 2009, 08:00:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Indie rock is a relevant term but anyone who uses it to describe a type of music is a moron because it refers to they type of label.


Thank you. The idea of it is nauseating because they're usually pretentious hipsters.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: sceptic prophet on March 12, 2009, 09:16:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm sure this topic has been brought up before, so please redirect me if it has.  Does anyone else find the term "indie rock" irrelevant?  What does that even mean anymore?  I get really frustrated when I see (some) younger music fans following all of these "indie acts" like lemmings to the sea.  I live in Chicago and I get really annoyed with the pompous attitude from pseudo emo/hipster bands; as if they are part of this superior/innovative movement (where everyone looks the same).   To me, the "indie rock" movement is the biggest sham in the past 20 years based on nothing more than a confusion of fashion for substance.   When it's really nothing more than a really terrible/ lazy rehash of the 70's blended with 80's new wave.  Maybe a more apt label would be industrialized pop.  A flannel and a bad haircut does not make a sophisticated/ sensitive individual.  It started out promising with bands like The Strokes, The White Stripes, (Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs), etc.  I was excited by the fresh and raw attitude.  But then everyone with a bad flip, tight jeans, and sweaters named The (Insert Name) was putting out and selling records.  Granted some of it is great music, but it's nothing we haven't already heard.   I can hear the difference between Neil Young (i.e. Harvest) and a cheap knock off (some of Wilco's work).  For a following that considers itself intellectually/musically superior to the masses, why do they continuously buy into and sell the lie that their music is hip and trendy when it's a bad imitation of everything that has come before. But mainly I'm irritated by the arrogant attitude of scoffing at the "corporate predecesors" (Led Zepplin, The Beatles, The Faces) who made the music they're ripping off: BETTER.  I'm curious to know others thoughts on this. 


Back in the 80's the term "indie" was already used, at first to identify bands released by so-called "independent" labels (meaning "not major"). You had "indie" charts, for instance, where the likes of New Order would rule. Labels like 4AD or Factory or Mute were highly regarded, and although there was definitely some sense of "fashion" and "hipness" about them, the music had substance and that's what finally put them on rock's history books. Like so many other things, the term has eventually lost much of its sense with time...
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Spaceman on March 12, 2009, 09:38:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm sure this topic has been brought up before, so please redirect me if it has.  Does anyone else find the term "indie rock" irrelevant?  What does that even mean anymore?  I get really frustrated when I see (some) younger music fans following all of these "indie acts" like lemmings to the sea.  I live in Chicago and I get really annoyed with the pompous attitude from pseudo emo/hipster bands; as if they are part of this superior/innovative movement (where everyone looks the same).   To me, the "indie rock" movement is the biggest sham in the past 20 years based on nothing more than a confusion of fashion for substance.   When it's really nothing more than a really terrible/ lazy rehash of the 70's blended with 80's new wave.  Maybe a more apt label would be industrialized pop.  A flannel and a bad haircut does not make a sophisticated/ sensitive individual.  It started out promising with bands like The Strokes, The White Stripes, (Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs), etc.  I was excited by the fresh and raw attitude.  But then everyone with a bad flip, tight jeans, and sweaters named The (Insert Name) was putting out and selling records.  Granted some of it is great music, but it's nothing we haven't already heard.   I can hear the difference between Neil Young (i.e. Harvest) and a cheap knock off (some of Wilco's work).  For a following that considers itself intellectually/musically superior to the masses, why do they continuously buy into and sell the lie that their music is hip and trendy when it's a bad imitation of everything that has come before. But mainly I'm irritated by the arrogant attitude of scoffing at the "corporate predecesors" (Led Zepplin, The Beatles, The Faces) who made the music they're ripping off: BETTER.  I'm curious to know others thoughts on this. 


Back in the 80's the term "indie" was already used, at first to identify bands released by so-called "independent" labels (meaning "not major"). You had "indie" charts, for instance, where the likes of New Order would rule. Labels like 4AD or Factory or Mute were highly regarded, and although there was definitely some sense of "fashion" and "hipness" about them, the music had substance and that's what finally put them on rock's history books. Like so many other things, the term has eventually lost much of its sense with time...

Well put.

I think what's happened over time is people have started to associate bands with a similar sound to these early 'indie' bands as being 'indie rock' regardless of what label they are on. And I really don't see the problem. I love indie, rock, dance, emo, punk, pop. It matters not to me how irrelevant the term is. It's what you associate with that term that matters to you. I associate loads of bands with the term indie rock even though they are probably not technically an indie band. SO WHAT! Who cares??

I don't think it makes the term irrelevant. I think if anything the term indie rock is probably used more today then it ever has been. I think that makes it very relevant.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: emalvick on March 13, 2009, 09:25:01 AM
Indie Rock is a stupid way to classify music but it is hardly a genre.  Look at the broadness of what has been indie in the past or the fact that the more mainstream bands emerge from it to bigger labels.

Heck, R.E.M. was indie for quite a while and they were/are a fantastic band before and after those indie years, yet they didn't really change besides the growth that typically accompanies a band over the years.  I think of Document vs. Green since one album was "indie" and the other wasn't. 

The only thing I can really see defining the term "indie" vs. the mainstream levels is the refinement in the albums and their production that often follows leaving the indie labels, but these days that isn't obvious anymore since many of the smaller labels are seeing more success thanks to this so-called indie movement.

I'll admit that most of my favorite music these days is coming from indie labels although I don't like to classify it that way because the music varies so much.  Can you really group the White Stripes, Andrew Bird, Calexico, Modest Mouse, and Sufjan Stevens into one group other than they are or were all on independent labels?  Could you call Radiohead indie since In-Rainbows was essentially released without a label or perhaps Nine Inch Nails? 

The term really is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd on March 13, 2009, 11:27:17 AM
it's become just another stupid term to throw around. It should just mean 'Independent' but it's become another joke phony 'alt' culture. Pitchfork.com and other magazines/sites are trying to capitalize on it. And of course some of the bands are selling this as a lifestyle. Lol, SPIN just rides any wave out there and they are trying to be 'indie' 'alt' whatever.

I like some 'indie' bands but most of it is just copying off each other with 'freak folk' and so many bands trying to be a combination of Bruce Springsteen and Talking Heads with some hippy shtick thrown in. Or just copying Beach Boys melodies and throwing on tons of reverb. Or, you've got the rip off of African Pop music w/ groups like "Vampire Weekend" which is just dumb. Actually Coldplay did a much better job (cant believe i'm complementing them) with the song "strawberry Swing' incorporating it into their own style.  Funny thing is, most of the people who try to be 'indie' and worship Springsteen didn't even know who 'The Boss' was until The Killers and Arcade Fire started copying his stuff. And the market/media try so hard to make people buy into this lifestyle, lol,  they even try to make you look 'indie' or 'alt'  ...every 'indie' site has to have an 'american apparel' advertisement.

what's most amusing is that generally people who want to think they're 'indie' or whatever usually (not all) act like they're so cool and blase and denounce 'mainstream' music or anything that they think is mass-marketed or that a lot of other people like. And yet, they are also following a 'brand-lifestyle'. it's so contrived. ugh  :P

and if you're really interested in how these 'brand-lifestyles' catch on particularly 'indie culture' this guy does some crazy analysis on this (i think he has a point but he's CRAZY  :P ) He did an entire scientific analysis on how the band 'Animal Collective' were solely invented for internet and 'brand lifestyle' marketing. HERE'S THE LINK: http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/01/animal-collective-is-a-band-created-byforon-the-internet.html
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: achtung child on March 13, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He did an entire scientific analysis on how the band 'Animal Collective' were solely invented for internet and 'brand lifestyle' marketing. HERE'S THE LINK: http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2009/01/animal-collective-is-a-band-created-byforon-the-internet.html

And this is my point precisely of referring to "indie" music as industrialized.  Many of these bands are so precise and predictable that they seem fresh off the factory lines of production: like robots.  One can argue rightly, "well that's what happens when the media gets its hands on the underground; but it's the fact the music is not made on a corporate label that counts".  Fair enough.  But how much of that is truth and just plain romance to sensationalize an empty movement?  If that's true, then okay; I've started my own label.  I record, burn all my music produced by my friends on an eight track recorder.  I'm officially "indie".  But who's going to hear it?  The twenty people on my myspace page? The thirty people who might show up at my gig in a bar?  I need help, and I need to get on the radio.  More importantly I need somebody's money to do that.  Enter the producer and recording executive.  I have a few congas and tenor guitars in my songs, and I am fittingly innovative.  Now I have a manager handling the direction of my career.  Career? Wait a minute, I thought I was "indie". My look is carbon copied on models and ads in every shill store in the outer reaches of the suburbs.  Movies, i.e. Juno, fittingly place beautiful people in my old pair of jeans and flannel because they're the trampled,outsider types.   Now everybody is wearing the jeans I've had for a year. And it's totally different and superior to those over-commercialized rockers (like U2..ick). Record producer and executive or happy they have a new product they can copy and sell to those ignorant and hopeful enough to believe they've discovered something special.  Anybody have any differing perspectives to offer?
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: joegtheog on March 13, 2009, 01:36:48 PM
The Sex Pistols, supposedly the ultimate punk rebel band, were a marketing creation.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: dentalboy on March 13, 2009, 02:02:09 PM
probably more so in the UK than the US
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: joegtheog on March 13, 2009, 02:38:53 PM
Didn't Creed release most of their albums on an indie label?
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz 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
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: achtung child 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd 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.


Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd 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'.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: joegtheog 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Mr. BonorFLYd 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: jimyjazz 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.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: Pop Rules on March 13, 2009, 06:38:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
it won't be too long before many "indie" labels and bands become the new major. it's just another viscous cycle.

It's already happened.  See:  this thread on a U2 forum.

I don't classify the music I listen to.  I don't dress or form a lifestyle around the music I listen to.  I listen to U2, I listen to Shellac.  Who cares.
Title: Re: Is the term "Indie Rock" still relevant
Post by: suitoflights on March 14, 2009, 04:44:11 AM
the original Independents were labels like Stiff and Rough Trade that formed in London in the 1970s. The followed on from the DIY punk ethic as an alternative to the mainstream record labels that had such a stranglehold on pop music. In the 80s it was known as alternative rather than Indie and there was quite a sharp distinction between these alternative bands and the mainstream though some managed to have some degree of commercial success eg the Smiths.

Nowadays, Indie is more mainstream with bands like Kaiser Chiefs and Kings of Leon topping the charts. So as a term it is fairly irrelevant.