Indie Rock Education!
- Thread starter Magic
- Start date
Zombeels
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Posts
- 1,717
- Reaction score
- 15
Indie isn't really a genre but more of not being mainstream. Today's mainstream music encompasses a certain sound and attitude. It's safe, non-threatening, bland, water-downed, over-polished production, non-creative pablum. It doesn't break any boundaries. It doesn't bring anything to the table. Back in the 90's alternative music was the cure to counter the mainstream but the record executives created their own safe, water-downed alternative bands so the word lost it's meaning. Indie became the new alternative. Indie may have started out meaning the artist was on an independent label but the two are not synonymous with each other anymore.
If you hear a song that you believe doesn't fit on today's mainstream radio, chances are it's indie.
Gabble Ratchet
Senior Member
^^Couldn't have said it better myself LG.
Scotty The Rebel
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2013
- Posts
- 902
- Reaction score
- 1
So acts on Epitaph Records and SideOneDummy Records are considered Indie Rock?
Old Dude
I do not suffer fools gladly.
Of course we want Indie!!!
Post those bands in this forum, foxhoud. Fat Possum Records is exactly what I mean by a non-major record label. I have not excluded any band from the Indie forum, but just because the band's label is not a big corporation, doesn't mean the band isn't popular or liked by its fans.
Post 'em up! That is why I have this forum here
I'll drag this old thread up because of the final question. If what makes a band "Indy" is that they are unsigned, what happens when they get signed? Do they have to surrender their Indy license? Is there a ceremony where they are kicked out of The Indy genre? If their label fires them, what must they do to rejoin?
@Old Dude
I'm not sure I fully understand you're thoughts on what it is to be "Indy". I'm gathering that you feel an Indy band is unsigned. By unsigned, I mean they have no record label. To be "signed" means they have a record label.
Indy bands, by my own personal definition, do not have a big corporate record label. A lot of times these Indy bands will create their own record label. They don't follow the mainstream corporate formulations of how to create and market music.
This is where my original thoughts came from in regards to the topic of "what is an Indy band?" I'm as confused as the next person on what bands get classified as "Indy".
However, I did go through and read this thread again to refresh my old gray cells on everyone's opinions on the topic of Indy. I started this thread to not only educate myself but get further input from others.........two heads are better than one, right!
I think my final conclusion is that Indy is not only an over- genrefication but any music that does not encompass the mainstream repetitive, humdrum, no creativity style music.
I'm not sure I fully understand you're thoughts on what it is to be "Indy". I'm gathering that you feel an Indy band is unsigned. By unsigned, I mean they have no record label. To be "signed" means they have a record label.
Indy bands, by my own personal definition, do not have a big corporate record label. A lot of times these Indy bands will create their own record label. They don't follow the mainstream corporate formulations of how to create and market music.
This is where my original thoughts came from in regards to the topic of "what is an Indy band?" I'm as confused as the next person on what bands get classified as "Indy".
However, I did go through and read this thread again to refresh my old gray cells on everyone's opinions on the topic of Indy. I started this thread to not only educate myself but get further input from others.........two heads are better than one, right!
I think my final conclusion is that Indy is not only an over- genrefication but any music that does not encompass the mainstream repetitive, humdrum, no creativity style music.
Old Dude
I do not suffer fools gladly.
Overgenrefication is the curse of the music industry. But vague generalities as defining factors is almost as bad. Terms like "mainstream" are so vague that they're pretty much useless. Almost all musical trends begin as innovation, progress to common, and end up mainstream cliches.
True, almost all trends end up a cliche. The key being 'almost'.
There once was a day that David Bowie appeared on stage and made music his theater. This innovation of reinvention has never been duplicated. I would never call his talent common let alone a cliche.
The more time that passes, the less likelihood we have to see any new innovation in music. This, I believe, is the reason music fanatics & critics have become bored with music of today. The endless parade of "sound alike" vocalists, guitar solos with nothing new to offer, and sampling of music of the past. The latter being the new trend that disturbs me the most (saving that for another discussion).
In my opinion, mainstream is not at all a vague description. Mainstream equals common. For example, today's pop music is common. Completely void of imagination. The music follows a safe formulary created by the corporate record labels as a means to guarantee profit.
If not mainstream, how would you describe today's music?
I also want to add, there is plenty of good music out there today. You just have to know where to look and give new bands a listen.
Old Dude
I do not suffer fools gladly.
Good Lord, the generalities and stereotypes truly abound, don't they?
This quote has been attributed to a great many people. I don't know who really said it first, but it's true. "95% of everything is crap." Truer words were never spoken. Throughout the history of written or recorded music, there has always been a small portion of extraordinary content that was destined to fulfill the cliche about standing the test of time. And, at the same time, there was a huge volume of total crap that has been thankfully forgotten. Classical masters like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and all the rest were contemporaries of composers whose names and music is forgotten. Some of the songs on some of the greatest classic rock albums ever recorded are pure shit. Even David Bowie recorded some album cuts that his staunchest fans would rather skip over. It happens.
The classical Sonata form was a formula. Some of the greatest symphonies in the world follow that formula. The basic 12-bar blues has been used to write dreadful, throwaway songs, and classics that deserve to live forever. Katy Perry and Taylor Swift crank out some catchy little ditties (when they aren't feuding), but some of their songs are truly genius. Do you condemn Shakespeare's sonnets because they slavishly follow the formula for a sonnet? Some of them were outstanding. Some were meh.
I like to think of myself as a champion at finding obscure yet excellent music, including a lot of modern stuff. Even more of what I find is newly created music by artists of yesteryear that the suits have abandoned.
But the point isn't about whether it's "mainstream" but rather whether it's a cliche.
:humm:
So, if it's cliche, it's crap?
Or if it stands the test of time, it's classic?
I love a deep discussion but you will loose me (as in, it goes over my head) when rock music, or more to the thread title, Indy Music, is somehow contrasted or compared to Shakespear's Sonnets. I am fully aware of my intelligence capabilities, and I just don't see where you're going with this.
Music is and always has been subjective. Either you, as an individual, like what you hear or you don't. No ones opinion will change that.
Believe it or not, my music taste is VERY eclectic. I don't pigeonhole myself to one genre of music. I'm open to just about anything....except opera and Rap.
