what is indie rock/indie pop etc

iamhunted

Should we be using the word 'indie' so wrongfully? thats the question I'd like answered.

Shouldnt 'indie' be reserved for real, independent labels and bands? Bands that release on their own label, small labels - like Julius Geezer Records, Out on a Limb, Model Citizen etc (to name just a few proper Irish indie labels)?

if so, why are bands like pixies, smiths etc etc called 'indie' when they are actually from major, mainstream labels?

Is this an old argument?

dahamster

iamhunted wrote: »

if so, why are bands like pixies, smiths etc etc called 'indie' when they are actually from major, mainstream labels?

They didn't release on major, mainstream labels

iamhunted

4ad arent/werent exactly indie. Bauhaus for example where a pretty big band int he 80s. I would argue if rough trade were also indie considering they were one of the biggest distros at the time. By indie I mean small, independant with limited finances.

FredBaby!

its hard to know really! i mean is indie a style of music, like pop or classical or is it called indie because its on an independant label? These days i think it has turned into a style of music. if Britney Spears was signed to an indie lable we wouldn't call her indie, because her music is quite clearly pop!

Every band with guitars are called indie these days but for me indie music is...i don't know...a band that have a certain something different about them like quirky lyrics. its not because they dress a certain way or have a 'cool' haircut. i feel the whole 'indie' thing (whatever that is) has just been taken over by 'the man' trying to get down with the kids...

id love to know what other people think!

iamhunted

FredBaby! wrote: »

its hard to know really! i mean is indie a style of music, like pop or classical or is it called indie because its on an independant label? These days i think it has turned into a style of music. if Britney Spears was signed to an indie lable we wouldn't call her indie, because her music is quite clearly pop!

Every band with guitars are called indie these days but for me indie music is...i don't know...a band that have a certain something different about them like quirky lyrics. its not because they dress a certain way or have a 'cool' haircut. i feel the whole 'indie' thing (whatever that is) has just been taken over by 'the man' trying to get down with the kids...

id love to know what other people think!

same here - I think it has moved from a description to a genre. if it has, someone should move it back as proper 'indie' labels look like making a bit of a comeback over the next decade.

lordgoat

iamhunted wrote: »

Should we be using the word 'indie' so wrongfully? thats the question I'd like answered.

Shouldnt 'indie' be reserved for real, independent labels and bands? Bands that release on their own label, small labels - like Julius Geezer Records, Out on a Limb, Model Citizen etc (to name just a few proper Irish indie labels)?

if so, why are bands like pixies, smiths etc etc called 'indie' when they are actually from major, mainstream labels?

Is this an old argument?

Originally it was bands on independent labels. This has now changed to encompass pretty much everything played in whelans at the weekend.

So no indie shouldn't be reserved for anything. Like everything else, music and genres change. Look at what pop sounded like in the 60's to what is called pop now. Same genre title, completely different sound.


TBH people trying to categorise music into little boxes and mouthfuls is, in my opinion, completely pointless.

People's front of Judea Vs Judean's people's front.

iamhunted

the peoples front of judea! :pac:

grumpytrousers

Course just to chuck a spanner in the works....the de facto way you defined an Indie group was to check was it on one of the following labels, or it's US equivalent

EMI, Virgin, Polygram, Sony/Columbia, MCA or Warners.

If it wasn't, it was an 'independent' label. Britney Spears was signed to Zomba/Jive and was thus technically Indie.

The rot set in when the majors started to set up their own mini-labels. EMI formed 'Food' records on which Blur recorded. Sony went and bought Creation records but kept the imprint.

Indie is notoriously hard to define; in a sense it's pointless - but then I've always felt that labelling genres is a waste of time anyway.

MikeHoncho

iamhunted wrote: »

the peoples front of judea! :pac:

Spliters!!!

This one has been flogged to death already. The term has become what it has become and there is not much that can be done about it at this stage.

S.M.B.

I find it quite funny how people brand the use of genres within music as a pointless act yet find themselves posting in an "Alternative & Indie" sub-section of a forum.

grumpytrousers

S.M.B. wrote: »

I find it quite funny how people brand the use of genres within music as a pointless act yet find themselves posting in an "Alternative & Indie" sub-section of a forum.

touché. Lemme put it like this. I know indie when i hear it, but I can't define it. The lines between genres are a lot more blurred than you'd think though; you only need to know there's two types of music, the stuff you like and the stuff you don't. I tend to find that a lot that *others* call Indie/Alternative is the kind I like, but that's not a hard and fast rule either. Not by a long chalk.

course then there's my unashamed love of what they call 'pop' music as well, which doesn't help matters, does it?

lordgoat

S.M.B. wrote: »

I find it quite funny how people brand the use of genres within music as a pointless act yet find themselves posting in an "Alternative & Indie" sub-section of a forum.

Glad we amuse you. If i had my way as i've said on numerous times, i would have one music forum, with very little subdivisions.

But keep up your wonderful contributions...

iamhunted

what lord goat said. Plus, theres a difference in categorising a forum and defining music based on now misued terms. I suppose the same goes for alternative. it used to mean the alternative to the mainstream, now its a genre to describe part of the main stream.

Course just to chuck a spanner in the works....the de facto way you defined an Indie group was to check was it on one of the following labels, or it's US equivalent

EMI, Virgin, Polygram, Sony/Columbia, MCA or Warners.

If it wasn't, it was an 'independent' label. Britney Spears was signed to Zomba/Jive and was thus technically Indie.

The rot set in when the majors started to set up their own mini-labels. EMI formed 'Food' records on which Blur recorded. Sony went and bought Creation records but kept the imprint.

Indie is notoriously hard to define; in a sense it's pointless - but then I've always felt that labelling genres is a waste of time anyway.

exactly. you'd be hard pressed these days to find an 'indie' label that isnt owned by one of them (well, except for ones liek those mentioned in the OP)

The reason I posted this thread is that, imo, the term 'indie' or 'indie label' will be coming back into its own again in the next few years considering the way the music industry is right now, and the massive changes that are happening - so it'll need to call itself something else if people arent going to start confusing it with the genre 'indie'.

S.M.B.

lordgoat wrote: »

Glad we amuse you. If i had my way as i've said on numerous times, i would have one music forum, with very little subdivisions.

But keep up your wonderful contributions...

All I'm saying is that the classification of music into genres is clearly off value to some people. How much interest one pays in this genrefication is up to each individual. I see absolutely no need in complaining about the whole process and if it benefits others then why shouldn't it stay.

iamhunted

S.M.B. wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the classification of music into genres is clearly off value to some people. How much interest one pays in this genrefication is up to each individual. I see absolutely no need in complaining about the whole process and if it benefits others then why shouldn't it stay.

I cant answer you since personally I dont choose what music to listen to because of hows its tagged. the music itself is much more interesting than its 'genre'.

lordgoat

S.M.B. wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the classification of music into genres is clearly off value to some people. How much interest one pays in this genrefication is up to each individual. I see absolutely no need in complaining about the whole process and if it benefits others then why shouldn't it stay.

The point is you have to work within the system provided. You see absoutely no need to complain - fine. But you also find it funny that others disagree with you and the way things are. I don't get that. There are alot of small contradcitions between your two posts but it's sunday morning and it's not worth tearing them apart.

stateofflux

i think as said the use of the term is so commonly attached to a genre (thanks to NME magazine i think).....that there is no going back ....i hope the terms "post rock" and "math rock" fizzle out....cringeworthy...even the term "post punk" is rediculous in my opinion.....but the term "indie" is necessary i think as a genre description for people......

HouseHippo

In all honesty who gives a ****, music is music, If i like something I don't care which genre

there are so many feckin branches of indie these days....shoegaze, baroque.....Its a genre now nothing to do with the band being signed or not unfortunately but sure what can ya do