Athlete
 

What's everyone think of them? I just started listening to them yesterday and they're definitely one of my favorites right now. Especially Wires and Tokyo

Athlete are indie? No, no, sorry.

Who said they were indie?

Well they're sure as hell not alternative! If so, then alternative to what, exactly? They're a blinkin' post-Britpop band like Keane or Coldplay. There are about 17,000 of them. Check out another useless one, who are on a major label but even THEN can't get a top 10 hit: Thirteen Senses.

They're just as indie as most bands on here, theyre on Parlophone and even though it's affiliated with EMI most labels in here are affiliated with other major labels.

You're right. Please remind me to refrain from listening to Britpop from now on.

Oh well... each to their own I guess.

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.

Plus, they're really boring...

Eh, I actually think they're worse than less successful Coldplay rip-offs like the Thirteen Senses.

They're the alternative to deep meaningful & edgy music.

Except for that.

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.

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.