Music Banter
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Indie & Alternative (https://www.musicbanter.com/indie-alternative/)
-   -   Athlete (https://www.musicbanter.com/indie-alternative/26935-athlete.html)

Rainard Jalen 01-03-2008 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 427609)
They're the alternative to deep meaningful & edgy music.
Except for that.

sleepy jack 01-03-2008 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen (Post 427529)
Parlophone's by all standards a major label. I don't think it's true at all that most bands mentioned in this forum are directly affiliated with major labels. If it is true (in which case on THAT point I'd stand corrected), then they would have at least started out as established indie label acts and probably firmly entrenched in that scene before moving on to a major label (like TV On The Radio for example, and even the White Stripes).

The fact remains that Athlete, by contrast, have never been an indie band or affiliated with the indie scene. All their records have been issued under major labels. There's no reason to associate them with indie rock at all. There nothing alternative about them either.
Lots of popular "indie" labels are affiliated with the big 4 in some way, Sub Pop, Saddle Creek, etc

Rainard Jalen 01-03-2008 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 427682)
Lots of popular "indie" labels are affiliated with the big 4 in some way, Sub Pop, Saddle Creek, etc
Sure, and in the case of say Sub Pop, being like half-owned or whatever by Warner I'd dispute that it qualifies as an indie label at all. Still, they're regarded as "indie" labels by many people affiliated with the scene and hence it's understandable why bands under them might be classified as such - even if technically it doesn't really make sense.

Parlophone however is not an indie label by anybody's definition at all, and never has been in modern popular music history. And as such there doesn't appear to be any reason why anyone would conceive of grouping Athlete under indie.

sleepy jack 01-03-2008 06:13 PM
Vanity labels and labels bought out by major labels that are just as "indie" as most "indie" labels discussed in here. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Rainard Jalen 01-03-2008 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill (Post 427763)
Vanity labels and labels bought out by major labels that are just as "indie" as most "indie" labels discussed in here. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Because that's not the way that anybody (rightly or wrongly) determines a band to be "indie". A label would have to have been popularly thought of as an indie label at some point or other in order for affiliated bands to be possibly conceived as "indie". That's the way things work. These categorizations, like the meaning of any word in a language, arise as a result of popular conventional usage.

Parlophone are not and have not ever been considered "indie" by anyone, a distinct difference from a label like Sub-Pop. Posting Athlete here makes about as much sense as posting any other Parlophone act, including the likes of Kylie Minogue, All Saints and Queen.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.