Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Indie & Alternative
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-25-2010, 01:21 PM   #21 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: England
Posts: 25
Default

I think it has become a genre. Like pop - pop is supposed to be popular but it has its own distinctive sound.

Indie doesn't just mean independent anymore - I think its become its own genre.
__________________
Mangaeyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2011, 01:28 AM   #22 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 526
Default

I think indie has its different effects when combined with different genres as kind of a prefix. Like indie rock by now has been pretty easy to identify as a certain sound (atleast for me) whereas as you guys said other "indie" genres aren't so easy like indie folk.
Odyshape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2011, 08:01 AM   #23 (permalink)
Take it easy, but take it
 
Hank The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 213
Default

I'm bad about plugging indie in front of a genre all the time. I'm not sure why I do it. I guess I do that to help separate the bands. For instance, I use 'folk' to explain Woody Guthrie but then I also use 'folk' to explain Tallest Man on Earth and those two are so different I feel that they can't possible be in the same genre so when I am suggesting TMoE to someone I just say 'indie folk' and usually they understand. Its probably more a bad habit than it is so much thinking its an entire genre itself lol.
__________________
“If a song can't be written in 20 minutes, it ain't worth writing.” - Hank Williams
Hank The Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2011, 10:33 AM   #24 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
I'm confused. I thought bands were labeled "indie" if they shied away from major/commercial record labels. It seems to have become commonplace to append the labels "indie", "indie rock", "indie folk", etcetcetc, in describing the genre of artists or albums.

Does indie now refer to a specific sound? Is it legitimate to claim indie is a genre?
Indie has never shied away from Major Label Commercial Success. Thats just some angry piss-ants revisionist history of the sound. Its certainly a genre. I can't name one genre that has a universally mutual sound.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 07:15 AM   #25 (permalink)
Model Worker
 
Gavin B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,238
Default

The term "indie" doesn't describe any sort of musical genre. My own understanding of indie is that the term describes any kind of music produced by an independent music label as opposed to one of the four major labels that dominate the music industry.

Independent labels are responsible for producing most of the recorded music for the less commercially viable genres, like folk music, jazz, reggae and afrobeat. From my perspective nearly any music (regardless of genre) that is produced by an independent label is "indie" music. The confusion about exactly what indie music is began with the misuse of the "alternative" by the major label to market rock music in the early Nineties.

The term "indie" came into usage when the four major labels began marketing rock music using the catch phrase "alternative." Musically savvy folks began using the term indie to make a distinction between independent label music & major label music that was hyped as alternative music. In the 90's many major labels set up wholly owned boutique labels to fool the public into believing that they were purchasing music produced by an independent label. A lot of music buyers, myself included, shop by label and prefer indie label music because the music content is far more interesting than most music produced by the four major labels.

There have been indie labels around since the Fifties. If I'm not mistaken, Blue Note was the first indie label. Blue Note was established to record and market some of the less commercial bebop jazz artists that the major labels weren't interested in signing or recording. Miles Davis & Thelonious Monk recorded a great deal of music on Blue Note before the major label, Columbia Records decided sign them on and market contemporary jazz to a larger mainstream audience.

Here's of the most prominent independent labels

ROCK
Sub Pop
Dischord
Factory
Touch and Go
Matador
SST
4AD

FOLK MUSIC
Rounder
Red House

REISSUES & RARE MUSIC
Rykodisc
Rhino

REGGAE & WORLDBEAT
Greensleeves
Ras Records

JAZZ
Blue Note
Verve
__________________
There are two types of music: the first type is the blues and the second type is all the other stuff.
Townes Van Zandt
Gavin B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:02 AM   #26 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Anyone who's come to the forum is likely aware of that, and if they weren't they are. I'm sure everyone rolls there eyes when I do this, but who was recording music for non-commercial gains? Why record at all if this is the case? Unless you're showing your unborn grandchild how well you could play, there isn't really a reason.

And in any sort of free market society, its hard to imagine who wouldn't be truly independent. In todays modern technocracy, we don't even need labels and the idea that in an "independent" artist would even bother with labels is obsolete.

I think theres the idea in angry young folks that for some reason we should do the opposite of bands we hate, as if to destroy them. But anyone who's been out of high school for 3 years should understand there isn't a social political identity in the real world (primarily because you have real problems to deal with) and associating yourself with artist A or B means very little.

And to comment on a different side of the same coin, I'd argue that people who do this don't truly appreciate music. If you can't find 1 good thing (honest thing) to say about the band you hate the most then you're missing the point. To drudge up a cliche here, anger isn't the opposite of love, indifference is. The band you care least about isn't on your radar. For an act to draw so much emotion from you, they've at least done 1 thing right. Until you see that, you don't get music.

The idea of independence from commercialism is some ridiculous notion that what sells is bad. To get to the radical root of the math, its because you think the masses are stupid. To one end, thats because they aren't as invested as you are, to the other - so what? Understand that the music other people like wasn't dwelled upon for hours. Had it been, they may have come to the same conclusion as you, or at least a more tolerable one.

There is nothing of value from independence beyond the individual. As a listener you're never without an option, so why the rage? In the West, the "dollar" rules, so rage with your money. Thats the only thing that makes anyone give a **** anymore. Well, that or an unexpected tit shot on a childrens show but you can't buy that. I know. I've tried.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 07:16 PM   #27 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 434
Default

Indie, isn't that the music of the native americans?
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 08:49 PM   #28 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3 View Post
Anyone who's come to the forum is likely aware of that, and if they weren't they are. I'm sure everyone rolls there eyes when I do this, but who was recording music for non-commercial gains? Why record at all if this is the case? Unless you're showing your unborn grandchild how well you could play, there isn't really a reason.

And in any sort of free market society, its hard to imagine who wouldn't be truly independent. In todays modern technocracy, we don't even need labels and the idea that in an "independent" artist would even bother with labels is obsolete.

I think theres the idea in angry young folks that for some reason we should do the opposite of bands we hate, as if to destroy them. But anyone who's been out of high school for 3 years should understand there isn't a social political identity in the real world (primarily because you have real problems to deal with) and associating yourself with artist A or B means very little.

And to comment on a different side of the same coin, I'd argue that people who do this don't truly appreciate music. If you can't find 1 good thing (honest thing) to say about the band you hate the most then you're missing the point. To drudge up a cliche here, anger isn't the opposite of love, indifference is. The band you care least about isn't on your radar. For an act to draw so much emotion from you, they've at least done 1 thing right. Until you see that, you don't get music.

The idea of independence from commercialism is some ridiculous notion that what sells is bad. To get to the radical root of the math, its because you think the masses are stupid. To one end, thats because they aren't as invested as you are, to the other - so what? Understand that the music other people like wasn't dwelled upon for hours. Had it been, they may have come to the same conclusion as you, or at least a more tolerable one.

There is nothing of value from independence beyond the individual. As a listener you're never without an option, so why the rage? In the West, the "dollar" rules, so rage with your money. Thats the only thing that makes anyone give a **** anymore. Well, that or an unexpected tit shot on a childrens show but you can't buy that. I know. I've tried.
I can get down with this.

Regardless of whether or not indie can be 'officially' be labelled as a genre (whatever the hell that means), there's certainly no denying that there's a particular sound or aesthetic synonomous with the term.
Placeholder_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:38 PM   #29 (permalink)
love will tear you apart
 
TheCunningStunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Manchester, UK.
Posts: 5,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
No.
__________________
I don't feel and I feel great.

Last FM
TheCunningStunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 12:29 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master Of Muzak
 
Anteater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere swarthy
Posts: 4,360
Default

What's interesting about an argument like this is that if we're going by the traditional definition of Indie, then a lot of modern jazz, black metal and 99.99% of modern progressive rock are about as "Indie" as it gets, as beyond most of the extremely well known albums from those respective genres in their heyday, almost every band who tries to strike out in those fields is on an independent label or are self-produced.

Otherwise, Gavin nailed it right on the head. The whole "Indie" sound that a lot of pop, rock, folk and electronic stuff gets tagged with these days are generally artsy people doing artsy, occasionally accessible music who like to think they're alternative to what gets tagged as "alternative" in big name publications and your local Target.
__________________
My Top 30 Albums of 2018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
You can't blame the Jews for everything...just most things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Trump might be the best thing since free jazz.
Anteater is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.