For me, this is an interesting thread to bump, thisisthelasttime. Thanks.
Most interesting to me is the struggle to pin down the sound of the genre:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4m
Define "indie", because it doesn't really describe any type of music for me. It only defines their status as far as labels go.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchell_stretch
Bands not on major labels. So you know the standard definition of indie.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
So the music genre is irrelevant then—could be polka or jazz or Andean pan flute music or what have you, just as long as it's not a major label?
|
As Janszoon neatly implies, "bands not on major labels" is an insufficient definition for a musical genre because it doesn't refer to the sound or style of the music. You might as well have, as a musical genre, "Bands who have Japanese cars".
To me, latecomer to the genre, "indie" is a type of rock, slightly out of the mainstream, because its unpolished , homemade sound isn't as popular as classic pop/rock. Key elements of "indie rock" are grungey guitars, singers who haven't been auto-tuned and lyrics that are quirky/cryptic as opposed to lyrics written to appeal to as many people as possible, as was the unquestioned goal of lyric writing back in the days of Tin Pan Alley. "Indie" also has a date limit, because the term was invented when? In the 90s? Before that, your band couldn't be indie; you were "bubbling under" or "struggling" or "underground" or you had "a cult following."
If my description is accurate in any way, then the first indie band I listened to was Tindersticks. IMO they warrent more attention than they get on MB, so here's a taster:-
EDIT: Some YouTuber has put the label, "chamber pop" on Tindersticks, and they do perhaps sound insufficiently grungy to be true indie rock. But then again, this song has the F word in it, which means it can't be pop, right? It's subversive, man!