NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't get it. "indie" is supposed to mean on an independent label, right? Why then are bands like Franz Ferdinand and the Hives described as "indie"? Franz is signed to Epic, and while the Hives once upon a time had "indie" credibility, not any longer: they are signed to Interscope, which to me seems like a pretty big label. Hell, i've even heard Radiohead being called "indie".

The quality of these bands aside, why does the label "indie" stick? Is it supposed to describe their sound, then? How do you have an "independent" sound? What does "indie" sound like? Seems to me that those three bands I listed earlier are pretty different from one another. Why not just call it "alternative rock", which makes a bit more sense? (Assuming that the definition of alternative rock is "not classic rock"). It also seems to me that "indie" is closer to the mainstream than most of its adherents would like to admit. I don't hear anything too new or interesting from most of the modern "indie" bands anymore.

Bah. Just one of those silly terms that annoy me. Any fans care to explain all this to me?

have a look and an ear at JANUS

www.knochenhaus.de

This is my idea of indie

have a look and an ear at JANUS

www.knochenhaus.de

This is my idea of indie

Say, that's pretty decent. I don't see how it relates to other bands that are "indie", though...hence my original confusion...

yeah, we get this a lot. indie still means that it is on an independent label, and it has come to mean that the sound is different to straight alt rock. but (i think) mainly it means that no one has heard of the band. its widely used in the uk. examples of indie bands would be...

the new pornographers
architecture in helsinki
bearsuit
the shins
the mystery jets.

most of which i would guess youve never heard of.

p.s. i am guilty of calling radiohead indie, this is because they are almost a genre on their own.

Most of the indie labels are owned by the major labels as subsidiaries at the moment, so the business with bands being on Sony or somebody isn't as big a distinction as it might be. Indie did used to mean bands who used the independant distribution network, but these days it's just a British synonymn for alt rock.

the new pornographers
architecture in helsinki
bearsuit
the shins
the mystery jets.

most of which i would guess youve never heard of.

Heard of those two.

But then, if you use that as a loose definition...

Are Spiderbait indie? Kyuss? the Afghan Whigs? Sleep?

Hmm...the way I see it, that doesn't really work. Most of us use "underground" or "obscure" when describing music nobody has ever heard of. :p Indie seems to describe a certain sound more than anything else, but the problem is, there doesn't seem to be a specific "indie" sound. If I was describing a cool new band to a friend and said that it was "indie", it wouldn't really give him any more of a clue than what he began with.

p.s. i am guilty of calling radiohead indie, this is because they are almost a genre on their own.

I'd beg to differ. While I like the band, the only album of theirs I found really innovative and 'different' from anything else out there at the time was Amnesiac. Maybe OK Computer.

I'd beg to differ. While I like the band, the only album of theirs I found really innovative and 'different' from anything else out there at the time was Amnesiac. Maybe OK Computer.
I'd have said they were prog, myself.

I'd have said they were prog, myself.

Radiohead is prog rock?

Heard of those two.

well then you are very indie!

But then, if you use that as a loose definition...

Are Spiderbait indie? Kyuss? the Afghan Whigs? Sleep?

Hmm...the way I see it, that doesn't really work. Most of us use "underground" or "obscure" when describing music nobody has ever heard of. :p Indie seems to describe a certain sound more than anything else, but the problem is, there doesn't seem to be a specific "indie" sound. If I was describing a cool new band to a friend and said that it was "indie", it wouldn't really give him any more of a clue than what he began with.

most of the people in the UK would say indie instead of underground, im sure. i dont know anyone who uses the term underground.

you are right, indie is a very broad genre, but i think you could possibly define it as usually being guitar based, but not heavy chugga-chugga riffs, a lo-fi sound, more poppy than alt rock and... ...i cant think of anything else.



I'd beg to differ. While I like the band, the only album of theirs I found really innovative and 'different' from anything else out there at the time was Amnesiac. Maybe OK Computer.

i beg to differ, i think that radiohead are the only band that are in a mainstream position, but producing different and surprsing (not to mention exquisite) music crossing several different genres.

Radiohead is prog rock?
How else would you describe their tendency towards muso noodling and loud electronica?

How else would you describe their tendency towards muso noodling and loud electronica?
Annoying.

you are right, indie is a very broad genre, but i think you could possibly define it as usually being guitar based, but not heavy chugga-chugga riffs, a lo-fi sound, more poppy than alt rock and... ...i cant think of anything else.

Okay. That's a fair description.

Out of curiousity, would you describe this as indie?

http://sonicyouth.com/archives/mp3-selector/new_mp3/cinderella_irvine.mp3

It's not the best quality, but I can't find anything else available for free. (without using limewire or something ;))

Better songs to track down would be Diamond Sea and Sugar Kane.

i beg to differ, i think that radiohead are the only band that are in a mainstream position, but producing different and surprsing (not to mention exquisite) music crossing several different genres.

Meh, well, Queens of the Stone Age, Tool...

How else would you describe their tendency towards muso noodling and loud electronica?

Strangely my favourite radiohead album is pablo honey, although I haven't been able to find anyone who agrees with me, and I've had people try and tell me its their worst album. I guess I like their simpler stuff more than their 'electronica' and effects loaded style stuff.

Strangely my favourite radiohead album is pablo honey, although I haven't been able to find anyone who agrees with me, and I've had people try and tell me its their worst album. I guess I like their simpler stuff more than their 'electronica' and effects loaded style stuff.

I haven't heard Pablo Honey (aside from "Creep"), but i'd have to agree, because I like the Bends more than their later stuff.

Okay. That's a fair description.

Out of curiousity, would you describe this as indie?

http://sonicyouth.com/archives/mp3-selector/new_mp3/cinderella_irvine.mp3


i wouldnt, its a bit heavy (mainly the drums), but i sure some people who would call that indie.

i wouldnt, its a bit heavy (mainly the drums), but i sure some people who would call that indie.

Fair enough. They have softer songs as well.

(Heh, heavier ones too)

Strangely my favourite radiohead album is pablo honey, although I haven't been able to find anyone who agrees with me, and I've had people try and tell me its their worst album. I guess I like their simpler stuff more than their 'electronica' and effects loaded style stuff.

I haven't heard Pablo Honey (aside from "Creep"), but i'd have to agree, because I like the Bends more than their later stuff.

i cant stand pablo honey, and the bends sounds all the same to me, although it has a few good songs on it. radiohead became truly great post-the bends.

How else would you describe their tendency towards muso noodling and loud electronica?

Certainly not prog rock. Progressive rock to me is the likes of Rush or Yes or The Wall by Pink Floyd, with album-long songs and concept albums with huge symphony productions and the like. To me, Radiohead doesn't even touch that.

i cant stand pablo honey, and the bends sounds all the same to me, although it has a few good songs on it. radiohead became truly great post-the bends.

Yeah, you're right, it does suffer from that. I generally don't listen to it in one sitting. I just pick the few songs I like, foremost being "Street Spirit (fade out)". I find I generally like their softer songs more than their "rock" songs. That's probably why I like Amnesiac as well...must get around to buying that sometime.

Yeah, you're right, it does suffer from that. I generally don't listen to it in one sitting. I just pick the few songs I like, foremost being "Street Spirit (fade out)". I find I generally like their softer songs more than their "rock" songs. That's probably why I like Amnesiac as well...must get around to buying that sometime.

yeah, fake plastic trees, just, my iron lung and street spirit are the good ones. amnesiac is brilliant, as its got like spinning plates (absolutely fucking brilliant), you and whose army, life in a glass house and pyramid song.

yeah, fake plastic trees, just, my iron lung and street spirit are the good ones. amnesiac is brilliant, as its got like spinning plates (absolutely fucking brilliant), you and whose army, life in a glass house and pyramid song.

Yeah...I haven't heard that album in a couple of years. I guess i'll wander over tomorrow and buy it after doing my booze run for new years. :p

I don't get it. "indie" is supposed to mean on an independent label, right? Why then are bands like Franz Ferdinand and the Hives described as "indie"? Franz is signed to Epic, and while the Hives once upon a time had "indie" credibility, not any longer: they are signed to Interscope, which to me seems like a pretty big label. Hell, i've even heard Radiohead being called "indie".

The quality of these bands aside, why does the label "indie" stick? Is it supposed to describe their sound, then? How do you have an "independent" sound? What does "indie" sound like? Seems to me that those three bands I listed earlier are pretty different from one another. Why not just call it "alternative rock", which makes a bit more sense? (Assuming that the definition of alternative rock is "not classic rock"). It also seems to me that "indie" is closer to the mainstream than most of its adherents would like to admit. I don't hear anything too new or interesting from most of the modern "indie" bands anymore.

Bah. Just one of those silly terms that annoy me. Any fans care to explain all this to me?

Indie is more of an uber-simplified version of the hardcore/post-hardcore punk scenes of the 80's in the U.S. Musically speaking, it's most united quality tends to be low guitar quality (although, these days the corpora-erm... Pardon. indie-corporate [figure that one out] fucks would love to claim such acts as Green Day as theirs) and even lower recording quality.

On the one hand, part of that has to do from descending from the punk scenes of the 80's (basically, most modern music historians draw the line between hardcore and post-hardcore and indie in music by saying one ends where Nirvana starts, and the other starts where it ends), as the broad sounds that characterized the different scenes of Britain and the U.S.would be carried on as an even broader sound-set that makes up indie.

Of course it's basically also lost all of the ideals that had perpetuated in punk, and become a sad mockery of the ideological side of Punk, but that was more the fault of the successes that grunge had than anything else (guess entire scenes can sell-out in one fell swoop). Another part of that may well be that (protestations to the contrary aside) Indie has basically sold-out to the big labels, same as had everyone else before them, so a lot of even it's message (and hey, there's nothing wrong with resisting signing with the big RIAA groups and making a big deal about it. They need to be taken down a peg or 15.) has been dilluted by corporate oversimplification.

But meh. I'm biased in my look at the picture. Michael Azzerad in his book "Our Band Could Be Your Life" (most certainly worth reading, if it interests you) refers to everything Post-Sex Pistols as indie, including Hardcore bands like Minor Threat and Black flag. So take all that with a grain of salt...

after doing my booze run for new years.

That reminds me..

I take issue with a number of points in the above post but dont have time to refutre them properly, if anyone else can please do.

RE:

Guitar Quality
Use of Guitar at all
Selling out across the board

more ive honestly got to go.

I take issue with a number of points in the above post but dont have time to refutre them properly, if anyone else can please do.

RE:

Guitar Quality
Use of Guitar at all
Selling out across the board

more ive honestly got to go.


Of course they were all gross oversimplifications, you can't not do that when talking about a genre (especially one that would style itself "underground"), there are always exceptions. Besides which, you'll notice I added after that, that there are broad stylistic differences that can't really be encompassed without addressing each band on it's own.

The issues with guitar quality:

A) Aren't completely prevalent.
B) Have a lot to do with not being able to work with the highest level of recording equiptment and musical gear and the adaptations that were made to deal with that.

As to selling out... Welll lets just say I'm biased because of my focus on Punk. I see indie as mostly superficial and having little to do with the musical rebellion it keeps attempting as pretending to be.

As to selling out... Welll lets just say I'm biased because of my focus on Punk. I see indie as mostly superficial and having little to do with the musical rebellion it keeps attempting as pretending to be.

im not sure that indie is a musical 'rebellion', thats certainly not how i take it. more like doing whatever you like musically, not being bound by mainstream trends in order to sell records.

im not sure that indie is a musical 'rebellion', thats certainly not how i take it. more like doing whatever you like musically, not being bound by mainstream trends in order to sell records.

Oh? Perhaps I just don't focus on the broader sub-set but I have always been struck by the fact that many prominent indie bands fight to keep their image of "underground". Seems to me that it is about the imagery of not being a part of the music industry, which screams of selling rebellion (which, of course, isn't all that different from what every other type of music tries to do).

-snip-

Ahhhh....so....in your eyes (correct me if i'm wrong) Indie simply commercialised the parts of early grunge that hadn't been destroyed by its success (low recording quality, etc.)?

Over here in continental Europe, alt rock and indie are often put together. I'd say indie has some kind of retro element, like late 60's/70's lo-fi guitar sound or 80's new wave, like Franz Ferdinand.

But the more I think about a definition the more confused I become. Luckily, not even record stores are able to label the bands correctly, so...

Ahhhh....so....in your eyes (correct me if i'm wrong) Indie simply commercialised the parts of early grunge that hadn't been destroyed by its success (low recording quality, etc.)?

Erm... Sorta?

Grunge was just fine at commercializing itself, so in some ways, indie did commercialize it, but it also has a lot to do with pre-grunge music, both stylistically (although obviously that's a broad generalization), and culturally. The lack of recording quality also stems from the fact that it's quite hard to get a good record sound for the small amounts of money that most indie bands have to spend on recording (which also happened to early grunge bands, for much the same reason, so that could also be it).

Over here in continental Europe, alt rock and indie are often put together. I'd say indie has some kind of retro element, like late 60's/70's lo-fi guitar sound or 80's new wave, like Franz Ferdinand.

That does make a good amount of sense.

Erm... Sorta?

Grunge was just fine at commercializing itself, so in some ways, indie did commercialize it, but it also has a lot to do with pre-grunge music, both stylistically (although obviously that's a broad generalization), and culturally. The lack of recording quality also stems from the fact that it's quite hard to get a good record sound for the small amounts of money that most indie bands have to spend on recording (which also happened to early grunge bands, for much the same reason, so that could also be it).

Hm, but their were grunge bands that stayed obscure and never broke through through lack of commercialisation. (Mudhoney, etc.). Seems to me that Indie originally found popularity out of this very aspect, which is what bands like Mudhoney couldn't do.

Okay, so it's starting to make sense. Indie is retro-influenced rock that often has pretensions of being obscure in nature. The "retro" is what distinguishes it from post-punk and alternative rock. :p

Can we then label the White Stripes (particularly their first album) as Indie?

Can we then label the White Stripes (particularly their first album) as Indie?
Of course we can! What would it be otherwise?

Hm, but their were grunge bands that stayed obscure and never broke through through lack of commercialisation. (Mudhoney, etc.). Seems to me that Indie originally found popularity out of this very aspect, which is what bands like Mudhoney couldn't do.


Ooh. This is an angle I can adress from.

Mudhoney's lack of musical success has much to do with why indie is musically successful. You see, when independant labels started springing up (having little to do with producing music that we would label indie today) musicians struggled to find economic success because there wasn't the network of producer's, suppliers, places to play shows, musicians, and zines that would allow indie bands to actually make money. We can see some of the early examples of this in bands on the SST, Alternative Tentacles, and Dischord records, who each had to forge their own touring circuts (which grew gradually larger and larger) especially when they were driven out of cities by police brutality (Black Flag being the primary example of this).

Indie struggled to try to reach the level of commercial success that the Sex Pistols had had on major labels without being eaten alive by the existing musical creation (which created New Wave to try and market and sell punk). Ironically, in many ways, when indie finally did become so broadly popular, it had been eaten alive by it's own style.

To me, "indie" definitely describes a genre, not a band's label or their fame/obscurity (although, as for the latter, the problem starts right there - where to group really famous bands, like e.g. Coldplay? They're not rock, they're not pop, and if you don't count elevator music as a legitimate category, methinks you'd have to go with indie. Hmm.)

My usual "definition" of indie comprises the less mainstream stuff between US college rock on one end and Brit pop on the other.

This sounds reasonable:
you are right, indie is a very broad genre, but i think you could possibly define it as usually being guitar based, but not heavy chugga-chugga riffs, a lo-fi sound, more poppy than alt rock and... ...i cant think of anything else.


So does this:
Over here in continental Europe, alt rock and indie are often put together. I'd say indie has some kind of retro element, like late 60's/70's lo-fi guitar sound or 80's new wave, like Franz Ferdinand.
Except that I always have a problem with the 80's new wave as "indie", probably just because it doesn't fit my definition above.

To me, "indie" definitely describes a genre, not a band's label or their fame/obscurity (although, as for the latter, the problem starts right there - where to group really famous bands, like e.g. Coldplay? They're not rock, they're not pop, and if you don't count elevator music as a legitimate category, methinks you'd have to go with indie. Hmm.)


IMO Coldplay is pop, not indie.

IMO Coldplay is pop, not indie.

Yeah, see, to me pop is more like the really evil stuff, like, hm, *trying hard to think of internationally recognizable examples*,like, the Spice Girls (I honestly can't come up with any current names. WTF?) Admittedly, Europe has a lot more of that than the US.

Yeah, see, to me pop is more like the really evil stuff

Ever heard of the CrazyFrog?
Crap like that is evil. You'll beg to hear some spice girls songs...

Certainly not prog rock. Progressive rock to me is the likes of Rush or Yes or The Wall by Pink Floyd, with album-long songs and concept albums with huge symphony productions and the like. To me, Radiohead doesn't even touch that.
Right. Van Der Graaf Generator, Amon Duul 2, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Can and King Crimson aren't prog because they don't sound anything like Yes or Rush, then. I'll have to remember that in future.

Of course we can! What would it be otherwise?

blues-rock?

Ooh. This is an angle I can adress from.

Mudhoney's lack of musical success has much to do with why indie is musically successful. You see, when independant labels started springing up (having little to do with producing music that we would label indie today) musicians struggled to find economic success because there wasn't the network of producer's, suppliers, places to play shows, musicians, and zines that would allow indie bands to actually make money. We can see some of the early examples of this in bands on the SST, Alternative Tentacles, and Dischord records, who each had to forge their own touring circuts (which grew gradually larger and larger) especially when they were driven out of cities by police brutality (Black Flag being the primary example of this).

Indie struggled to try to reach the level of commercial success that the Sex Pistols had had on major labels without being eaten alive by the existing musical creation (which created New Wave to try and market and sell punk). Ironically, in many ways, when indie finally did become so broadly popular, it had been eaten alive by it's own style.

Gotcha. (I'm well aware of the history of the independent labels in the 80's, but I wasn't so clear on when "indie" actually came into it)

Over here in continental Europe, alt rock and indie are often put together. I'd say indie has some kind of retro element, like late 60's/70's lo-fi guitar sound or 80's new wave, like Franz Ferdinand.

But the more I think about a definition the more confused I become. Luckily, not even record stores are able to label the bands correctly, so...

yeah i think that completes my definition, the retro element.

yeah i think that completes my definition, the retro element.
Bands who sound a bit like the Smiths or the Buzzcocks?

Bands who sound a bit like the Smiths or the Buzzcocks?

yeah, but less the buzzcocks.

yeah, but less the buzzcocks.
It's a pity: they're better than the Smiths. :(

It's a pity: they're better than the Smiths. :(


says who? :)

I don't get it. "indie" is supposed to mean on an independent label, right? Why then are bands like Franz Ferdinand and the Hives described as "indie"? Franz is signed to Epic, and while the Hives once upon a time had "indie" credibility, not any longer: they are signed to Interscope, which to me seems like a pretty big label. Hell, i've even heard Radiohead being called "indie".

I thought we already solved this problem. While in the late 80's nad early 90's "Indie" did mean an independent label, the term has evolved to indicate the type of music those early labels would put out. Superchunk, Archers of Loaf, Drive like Jehu, to name a few. Their music was too radical at the time to be even "Modern Rock" or Alternative. So they were labeled Indie Bands. The name stuck and slowly became a genre.

Franz Ferdinand and the Hives would not be called Indie Rock. They are what musicologists would call Neo-Garage Rock, along with The Strokes, The White Stripes, and Jet.

RadioHead, while having Indie Rock roots, is now considered more Avante Garde, or the more popular term, Art Rock.

The quality of these bands aside, why does the label "indie" stick? Is it supposed to describe their sound, then? How do you have an "independent" sound? What does "indie" sound like? Seems to me that those three bands I listed earlier are pretty different from one another. Why not just call it "alternative rock", which makes a bit more sense? (Assuming that the definition of alternative rock is "not classic rock"). It also seems to me that "indie" is closer to the mainstream than most of its adherents would like to admit. I don't hear anything too new or interesting from most of the modern "indie" bands anymore.

You could call them all Alternative Rock, but just like calling a band Metal, there are different sub categories. Indie sound is encapsulated better by Modern Bands like Bright Eyes, Death from Above 1979 (which is a reincarnation of 2 guys from Drive Like Jehu), and Death Cab for Cutie.

Bah. Just one of those silly terms that annoy me. Any fans care to explain all this to me?

I hope this helps clear a few things up.

says who? :)
Says me.
I like a lot of the Smiths stuff, but there's none of it that can hold a candle to I Believe or Orgasm Addict... :p

Franz Ferdinand and the Hives would not be called Indie Rock. They are what musicologists would call Neo-Garage Rock, along with The Strokes, The White Stripes, and Jet.

...

Indie sound is encapsulated better by Modern Bands like Bright Eyes, Death from Above 1979 (which is a reincarnation of 2 guys from Drive Like Jehu), and Death Cab for Cutie.

My feelings exactly, just way better put.

I don't get it. "indie" is supposed to mean on an independent label, right?I would say that the indie sound is characterized by lo-fi recording, or at least sounding like it was recorded lo-fi.

Why then are bands like Franz Ferdinand and the Hives described as "indie"? As I understand, in the UK they're on indie labels.

Strangely my favourite radiohead album is pablo honey, although I haven't been able to find anyone who agrees with meI agree with you, it's easily their best album. I haven't heard anything post The Bends that I would even call listenable, aside from one song from Kid A (This doesn't mean that there aren't songs by them that are listenable, just that I haven't heard them.)

indie has subsequently become a term for music resembling what might have been called "alternative" in the ninties. it's really mostly just a vehicle for people to be more scene and shit like that, since indie doesn't really have anything to do with DIY ideals anymore and it's become a way for kids to be cool and shit. for example, "all the indie kids hang out at that coffeeshop downtown."

so fuck it.

but there are people out there actually trying to perpetuate the indie scene, the old indie scene i mean, in which bands actually cared about DIY ideals and fighting payola and unethical practices of major labels, i.e. making bands change their sounds to suit radio play, shorten songs, etc. as much as i really don't give a shit about this band/guy and think they/he are/is really overrated, bright eyes is doing a lot to further this cause. m. ward also released a record this year that commemorated the last few truly independent radio stations.

I never really thought about the definiton of "Indie", although i have modest mouse and franz ferdinand cd's which are "indie".

IMO, 'indie' was first used to describe independent labels, not just that produced independent music, but music that shied away from the highly polished production of the major labels. The term as I know it emerged from the '80s, and was synonymous with music in the vein of The Smiths (perhaps the ultimate indie band) et al.

Problem is, since then it's been bastardised beyond recognition, until it can be used to define any music on an independent label (even Epitaph, the least independent indie label ever), or a particular type of music, ie. that is similar to the main original indie bands. For example, Oasis were widely called 'indie' in the mid-90s, despite being on a subsidiary of Sony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_music
Yes, it's a wiki article, but it's a very good one.