What is modern indie?

Hey guys,

Brief message. What is indie nowadays? I honestly have no idea. I am a fan of many different artists these days, but I have no idea what indie is anymore. For example, Britney Spears is a dictionary definition of an indie artist! When I was growing up, if someone on 4AD, recorded an album, they were indie. Sub-pop were indie. They were something different than the norm offered out to us.
Shed Seven, Echobelly are two examples of indie bands from the 90's. Who is carrying the flag nowadays? Who are we (unfortunately, for us) going to discover in ten years time?


Who is modern indie? Or is it dictated by record companies with an amazing back-room staff, who tell us who to listen to?

lordgoat

You could argue that bands who do it all on their own via myspace etc are the modern version of indie, but i just think accessibility to music has meant that labels and genres have become blurred... It's too early for a long rant but i'll try and reply later...

maccored

indie lost its meaning about 20 years ago. Its now just a genre tag people use to describe a musical kind of sound rather than an attitude.

lordgoat

maccored wrote: »

indie lost its meaning about 20 years ago. Its now just a genre tag people use to describe a musical kind of sound rather than an attitude.

So 20 years ago indie was used to describe an attitude?

maccored

dont know about you, but to me it did. It meant bands and labels that done things for themselves and didnt have massive financial backing. that required having the right attitude. Obviously thats open to interpretation. I suppose these days the nearest thing to have to 'indie' are the independent musicians doing their own thing - but when people say 'indie' that isnt what they mean.

Houlilala

Indie is just punk but with clean guitars, it is these days anyways

S.M.B.

Whatever modern indie is, I propose we now refer to it as Mindie.

lordgoat

maccored wrote: »

dont know about you, but to me it did. It meant bands and labels that done things for themselves and didnt have massive financial backing. that required having the right attitude. Obviously thats open to interpretation. I suppose these days the nearest thing to have to 'indie' are the independent musicians doing their own thing - but when people say 'indie' that isnt what they mean.

I'd point out that there are far more bands today doing things for themselves than there ever has been. It's far easier to get heard since all you need to do is set up a myspace page and put a little bit of effort into mailing people. It's the exact same attitude that you are referring to, no? The only difference is that it is a hell of alot easier to get heard but there are also alot more bands fighting for attention. Overall it balances out i think. Those good enough will find an audience and hopefully make a good living from it. Unless it's like Jackson C Frank.

To me, at the moment indie would be anything from the classical definition of it - sub pop etc... to what you'd hear on phantom. I think far too many people get hung up on the label 'indie'. I don't really care for labels/genre's too much, they pigeon holes and divide where i would just pile it all on top of each other.

ludwit

Indie nowadays is whatever people understand by the word. This varies amongst groups of people and there is a lot of overlapping but no singular definition. That it has lost meaning is only natural considering its strict origins.

Still though, mention indie to me and I think of boring boy guitar pop that the majority of people who like 'indie' think is automatically superior to chart pop and has extra meaning than chart pop when its nothing of the sort.

maccored

lordgoat wrote: »

I'd point out that there are far more bands today doing things for themselves than there ever has been. It's far easier to get heard since all you need to do is set up a myspace page and put a little bit of effort into mailing people. It's the exact same attitude that you are referring to, no? The only difference is that it is a hell of alot easier to get heard but there are also alot more bands fighting for attention. Overall it balances out i think. Those good enough will find an audience and hopefully make a good living from it. Unless it's like Jackson C Frank.

To me, at the moment indie would be anything from the classical definition of it - sub pop etc... to what you'd hear on phantom. I think far too many people get hung up on the label 'indie'. I don't really care for labels/genre's too much, they pigeon holes and divide where i would just pile it all on top of each other.

Im in agreement with you - my point is that too many people "get hung up on the label 'indie'" rather than something which references musicians doing things for themselves.

Howard the Duck

Indie is music that likes to rock but not too hard

Bootsy.

Indie is the cat from down the street

Bootsy.

Howard the Duck wrote: »

Indie is music that likes to rock but not too hard

Perfect!

SilverScreen

Houlilala wrote: »

Indie is just punk but with clean guitars, it is these days anyways

But how does that explain all the indie bands that use distorted guitars? Or the punk bands that use clean or even acoustic guitars? The definition of modern indie is simple and it's the same as it's always been, it's music released on independent record labels. It covers a whole spectrum of styles and sounds.

maccored

Zero1986 wrote: »

But how does that explain all the indie bands that use distorted guitars? Or the punk bands that use clean or even acoustic guitars? The definition of modern indie is simple and it's the same as it's always been, it's music released on independent record labels. It covers a whole spectrum of styles and sounds.

isnt that the issue though? bands signed to major labels are nowadays also classed as 'indie'