Indie Rock Education!

[Old Dude]

:humm:

So, if it's cliche, it's crap?

Or if it stands the test of time, it's classic?

No, and yes. Just because something is a cliche doesn't mean it's crap. It just means it's no longer new or innovative. A blues lead on a pentatonic scale is a cliche. But it can be sublime, or it can be ridiculous. Any 12 bar blues is a cliche, but it can also be something incredibly moving, or boring crap. So, just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it's crap.

However, the definition of "classic" is something timeless, something always current that has stood the test of time. So, if something has "stood the test of time", that makes it, by definition, classic. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

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.

That was a literary allusion. The sonnet is a special type of poem that must follow a strict formula for meter and rhyme scheme. Think of it as a limerick on steroids, or an Elizabethan haiku. It was another example of how a strict formula (like the suits force pop stars into following) doesn't necessarily stifle all creativity or imagination.

And when referring to the Bard, it's "Shakespeare's". Shakespears refers to two unrelated sisters who were outstanding British pop stars. "Shakespears Sister" are Siobhan Fahey, formerly of Banarama, and Marcella Detroit. They are pigeonoled as Pop rock, dance-pop, electropop, indie pop, and gothic rock. They were really good, and had hits in the UK and elsewhere.

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.

Even within the context of subjectivity, there are still objective things to note and observe. Whether or not one likes waltzes is a matter of opinion. But that a waltz is in 3/4 time is a matter of fact.

 

[Magic]

I know zero about music theory, song structure, chord progressions, and I can't read sheet music.

I am forced to rely on what I hear and what I like.


By naming a piece of music a "waltz" as defined by 3/4 time, is assigning a genre. Like it or not, we all organize music into genres. It is those objective aspects you're describing that defines the genres.

 

[Old Dude]

I know zero about music theory, song structure, chord progressions, and I can't read sheet music.

I am forced to rely on what I hear and what I like.


By naming a piece of music a "waltz" as defined by 3/4 time, is assigning a genre. Like it or not, we all organize music into genres. It is those objective aspects you're describing that defines the genres.

The thing is, in common parlance, a "genre" of music is not quite the same thing as a type of music. In the context we're discussing here, a waltz sung with a Southern accent, and with a pedal steel guitar accompaniment would be a waltz in the country genre. That same waltz, played only on acoustic guitars and sung by a barefoot woman in a print dress and wearing a headband would be a folk waltz, in the folk genre. Unless she was also Irish and someone was playing either a tin whistle or bodhran, in which case it would be a Celtic genre waltz. Play the same song in a minor key with excessively overdriven guitars and sung by someone imitating Cookie Monster, and it would be a death metal waltz. If any of the performers of any of the genres I mentioned didn't have a recording contract and were therefore "independent" of any connection or affiliation, they would all be indy waltzes.

In all of those examples, "waltz" is not the genre. It's the style or type.

Which still brings up the absolute total lack of any sort of recognizable, agreed upon definition of what is and is not "Indie". There are many, many criteria that go into determining whether a song is "Indy". Whether any given listener likes or dislikes a particular song is not one of them.

 

[Magic]

Actually, you are wrong. Genre is the type and style of music.


I do not believe that Indy actually defines a song, per say, but the band and who records, mixes, and markets their music. I do believe that Indy means "independent music label".

 

[Old Dude]

Actually, you are wrong. Genre is the type and style of music.


I do not believe that Indy actually defines a song, per say, but the band and who records, mixes, and markets their music. I do believe that Indy means "independent music label".

I see. It's a belief, like some sort of religious dogma. Did you ever consider that for people to communicate with each other, it is helpful to have a common, shared understanding of what words mean. Does everyone get to invent their own definitions of any and all words? I think I used this example in this thread before, or maybe it was another one. Since syrupy sounding "soft rock" like "We've Only Just Begun" is said to have a "golden" sound, and gold is a metal that is quite heavy, if I believe that the Carpenters' recording of "We've Only Just Begun" is heavy metal, does my belief make that so?

 

[Magic]

@Old Dude

That's what is so awesome about the civilized world, you can believe what you want.

However, getting others to think like you and believe the same as you can be difficult, especially if your belief defies logic.

As far as a discussion on "invention of word definitions" and the shared understanding of words, let's save that for another time.

Getting back on topic.........


Indie Rock Education.


If Indie Rock is NOT a genre, what is it? Why has this term been used to describe a certain style / type of music since the 1980's?

 

[Old Dude]

@Old Dude

That's what is so awesome about the civilized world, you can believe what you want.

However, getting others to think like you and believe the same as you can be difficult, especially if your belief defies logic.

As far as a discussion on "invention of word definitions" and the shared understanding of words, let's save that for another time.

Getting back on topic.........


Indie Rock Education.


If Indie Rock is NOT a genre, what is it? Why has this term been used to describe a certain style / type of music since the 1980's?

"Indy Rock" is a marketing term invented by the suits who've done their best to destroy creativity while maximizing the profits they extract from the artists who actually create music. The suits use the term to describe music as a product to sell, like so much laundry detergent.

 

[Magic]

I disagree.

The "suits" did not directly create Indie Rock, however, the "suits" we're the reason why artists created the Indie Rock movement. It was a spirit, a creative spirit of the artists to make music on their own terms.

I could never explain the creation and further evolution of Indie any better than the documentary Music for Misfits: The Story of Indie

I suggest you watch it!

Here is a link to the 3 part playlist of the Documentary
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnO70nW0OsoeZROzPBgBbzZTLeljnfKMM

 

[Old Dude]

I disagree.

The "suits" did not directly create Indie Rock, however, the "suits" we're the reason why artists created the Indie Rock movement. It was a spirit, a creative spirit of the artists to make music on their own terms.

The suits named "Indie Rock". That's why I said it was a "marketing term". The people who created Indie Rock didn't sit down and think of a name and then make a product to fit the name. They creative people created. And once the suits saw that they could make a buck off of the creative peoples' creations, they shifted into action.

Suits almost never create anything. If they could create, they wouldn't be suits! Suits are the leeches who live off of the creativity of others. As is almost always the case with any trend in any aspect of show business, first the creative people come up with a new idea. Then, the suits and other leeches figure out how to maximize profits from those creations, and how to enable more people to make more product that's similar to what was created, and the suits and leeches market it. Yes, the suits and leeches do (sometimes) facilitate the creative people getting to receive and enjoy the fruits of their labor. And sometimes they don't.

The suits discovered and named "Punk". They didn't create it, but they exploited it. The suits discovered and named Progressive Rock, and then exploited it.

 

[Magic]

I knew you were going to say that. I searched all over the Internet for references to who first used the term Indie rock. There are none, at least none that I could find.

It appears to have originated in the UK, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the "Suits" is referring to the big music execs of the USA.

I cannot comment on who created Punk since that isn't a genre I am versed in.

As far as Progressive Rock goes, I'm not a cultural expert on the subject but I believe its origins go way back in the 60's. Which would make it a movement before the "Suits" had so much control over the music industry. In fact, I think even Bob Dylan has been classified as Progressive.

However, I do consider Progressive rock a legitimate and defined genre.

@joe is our member who is very knowledgeable on Progressive rock. I'm sure he could rattle off the origins and educate both of us.

The suits named "Indie Rock". That's why I said it was a "marketing term". The people who created Indie Rock didn't sit down and think of a name and then make a product to fit the name. They creative people created. And once the suits saw that they could make a buck off of the creative peoples' creations, they shifted into action.

Suits almost never create anything. If they could create, they wouldn't be suits! Suits are the leeches who live off of the creativity of others. As is almost always the case with any trend in any aspect of show business, first the creative people come up with a new idea. Then, the suits and other leeches figure out how to maximize profits from those creations, and how to enable more people to make more product that's similar to what was created, and the suits and leeches market it. Yes, the suits and leeches do (sometimes) facilitate the creative people getting to receive and enjoy the fruits of their labor. And sometimes they don't.

The suits discovered and named "Punk". They didn't create it, but they exploited it. The suits discovered and named Progressive Rock, and then exploited it.