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.Now the finale question, Why is Indie Rock a music genre? Good question! I don’t have the answer to it either. But my best guess would be because it is music you either love or hate and some expert said “lets make this underground movement a genre”, and like all things these days, it has to have its own label, therefore, all unheard of bands and independent label bands are now a genre.
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
@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.
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.
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.
But the point isn't about whether it's "mainstream" but rather whether it's a cliche.