Post Reply 
"Does the world need another indie band?"
07-20-2008, 11:19 PM
Post: #1
"Does the world need another indie band?"
Discuss.

Me, I can't decide if my reaction is "Well, I wasn't there geographically or temporally for a lot of what you're discussing, so I can't disagree out-of-hand" or "Dude, you're just not looking hard enough, and did you know that you also come off as a jackass?" It might really just be a matter of shifting terms, and especially the difference between American perceptions and British ones. (Cue: Agent Zero, weigh in.)

At any rate, it was kinda interesting and I wanted to know what you guys thought.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 04:22 AM
Post: #2
 
The mistake he's made there is using the word "indie" at all. The problem is ladrock. Boyrock, if you want. All this post-Libertines/Arctics, "four sweaty boys with guitars", misogynstic, macho, sing-a-long-able at the expense of intelligence shite.

And because of the Libertines and the Arctic Monkeys [and the worse bands they spawned - The Kooks, The View, The Fratellis, The Courteeners etc. all of whom continue to do disgustingly well] this is thought of as "indie" when clearly it's a VERY distinct beast from the British Indie of say the angular post-punk pop of The Long Blondes, Bloc Party and The Futureheads or the less easily classified Los Campesinos!, Bearsuit, Johnny Foreigner, Let's Wrestle, Danananakroyd and so on.

See, there's actually a lot of really cool things happening in British indie at the moment but your average 13 year old isn't hearing about them. They're being played ladrock and nu-rave shit by Radio 1 and reading about in the NME [Sidenote: The NME are a large part of the problem. They're total cunts, by and large, they DO cover good bands and are even nice about them sometimes but they also spend a lot of time and energy MASSIVELY overyhyping boring, bad bands] and then buying their singles and their albums and then it's popular so people hear it and think This Is Indie. The obvious conclusion they should then draw is Indie Is Shit.

Ho hum.

I have faith, as I said, there's lots of great stuff happening at the moment and maybe at some point, dull ladrock will lose it's grip on the charts. Maybe Britpop is to blame, but only certain parts of it. People seem to be drawing on Oasis, Shed Seven and maybe the occasional Blur song. They're ignoring the BETTER Blur songs, Hefner, The Auteurs, 99% of what Pulp did [espescially they're ignoring what Pulp did best]...

I don't know. I put most of this down to the success of The Libertines. Who were shit. The Arctic Monkeys are better but none of their imitators are any good.

The Ting Tings being massively succesful has given me some hope. Perhaps now teenage girls everywhere will think "Wait, my brother's band sucks. Why aren't I making some noise?". Occasionally an indie band that ISN'T a ladrock band breaks through enough that I hope it'll inspire a few more people to go form a band and do something new and interesting.

CONCLUSION: British Indie - Problematic. Ladrock - Shit. Must be stopped. Post-Punk-Twee-Rock-Electro-Rriot-Fight-Pop - Excellent, should be encouraged.

Essentially, we need to stop being an indie nation that follows the NME and start being one that reads Drowned in Sound.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 07:12 AM
Post: #3
 
AZ, your sig is accurate.

CAUTION: Over the weekend, a short psychic escaped from police custody.
He is to be considered a small medium at large.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 07:23 AM
Post: #4
 
Well then, so am I.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 08:11 AM
Post: #5
 
Hmm..I think most listeners, and indeed, the writers of the article, are missing a very valuable point:

I don't care if the music I listen to is indie, only whether or not its good.

dogmatica, in 2006, Wrote:Please, rip on my favorite band. It makes me respect you and your interests.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 09:04 AM
Post: #6
 
Myles wins.

We can talk about it later
But there's no later
Is there?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 10:05 AM
Post: #7
 
Myles Wrote:Hmm..I think most listeners, and indeed, the writers of the article, are missing a very valuable point:

I don't care if the music I listen to is indie, only whether or not its good.

Well, yes, but if you find that music of independent origin tends to be more enjoyable then it's worth while keeping track of whatever people are calling "indie".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 12:02 PM
Post: #8
 
Agent Zero Wrote:
Myles Wrote:Hmm..I think most listeners, and indeed, the writers of the article, are missing a very valuable point:

I don't care if the music I listen to is indie, only whether or not its good.

Well, yes, but if you find that music of independent origin tends to be more enjoyable then it's worth while keeping track of whatever people are calling "indie".

Eh, it's just like alternative in the early 90's in grouping this vast assortment of music together that doesn't really fit under one banner. And I think its different for everyone. Obviously there's the Libertine/Artic Monkeys along withe White Stripes take on rock that's been given a lot of word here, but then again, Bright Eyes, The Paper Chase, Cursive, Death Cab For Cutie (though technically they're with Atlantic now). Saul Williams is indie, and he's a spoken word poet turned hip hop artist. Nine Inch Nails is technically indie now as well. And let's not forget our board's namesake.

But, then again, the band being "indie" or independent doesn't make it more or less enjoyable for me.

dogmatica, in 2006, Wrote:Please, rip on my favorite band. It makes me respect you and your interests.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 01:20 PM
Post: #9
 
I think what AZ is saying, from mathematical standpoint, is that for each personal musical taste there is a culture or movement that has a high rate of return. I can't think of a single band from the pacific northwest that I don't enjoy. So if something or someone tells me a band is good and they are from Washington or Oregon or BC I will always give it at least one listen because there is a very high rate return for me. Same thing with "indie" music. The culture of independent labels lends itself to music I enjoy so I keep track of it. There are plenty of "indie" bands I hate but I will still keep up on what's being talked about in the "indie" scene because of the rate of return. What the article, I think, is commenting on is that it has recently become popular(mainstream even?) to be "indie." And so we're starting to get a bunch of schlocky bands trying to imitate the success and style of other successful "indie" bands and this creates an oversaturation of bands of a particular style. The problem is that people who look to the independent scene for new styles of music that break previously unnoticed boundries in ways that won't allow them to be on major labels (yet. Decemberists anyone?) are finding they have to sift through the mud to find a small nugget of gold as opposed to the good old days when the mine was freshly dug and the walls sparkled.

Disembodied ringlets from hair that looks like Carrie Underwood's.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 01:24 PM
Post: #10
 
Affe Wrote:What the article, I think, is commenting on is that it has recently become popular(mainstream even?) to be "indie." And so we're starting to get a bunch of schlocky bands trying to imitate the success and style of other successful "indie" bands and this creates an oversaturation of bands of a particular style. The problem is that people who look to the independent scene for new styles of music that break previously unnoticed boundries in ways that won't allow them to be on major labels (yet. Decemberists anyone?) are finding they have to sift through the mud to find a small nugget of gold as opposed to the good old days when the mine was freshly dug and the walls sparkled.

Again, replicated "alternative" culture of the 90's, which really was the same thing. That bit of the article I do agree with.

"Emo" (which is a far, far cry from what is considered emo now) was indie in the early 90's. And not just trendy indie. There were a lot of DIY post-punk ethics among those bands.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't necessarily agree with the article's general assessment of indie culture.

dogmatica, in 2006, Wrote:Please, rip on my favorite band. It makes me respect you and your interests.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 01:27 PM
Post: #11
 
This article is like High Fidelity. Love the first half; hate the second.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 01:46 PM
Post: #12
 
johnnyfootballhero Wrote:This article is like High Fidelity. Love the first half; hate the second.

I don't know...The Cusack cannot be denied.

dogmatica, in 2006, Wrote:Please, rip on my favorite band. It makes me respect you and your interests.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 01:55 PM
Post: #13
 
Quote:1977: The Buzzcocks release their Spiral Scratch EP on their DIY label, New Hormones. Pop historians will refer to it as the first indie record

It's only true if JFH says it is...

Ben Stein Wrote:Flagpole Sitta, is a song about Eugenics.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 02:01 PM
Post: #14
 
johnnyfootballhero Wrote:This article is like High Fidelity. Love the first half; hate the second.

Have you read the book? It's the exact same except the main character is even more of a whiny undeserving asshole with absolutely no redeeming qualities. It's unnerving. I actually love that movie though. Sorry.

Disembodied ringlets from hair that looks like Carrie Underwood's.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-21-2008, 02:11 PM
Post: #15
 
Affe Wrote:
johnnyfootballhero Wrote:This article is like High Fidelity. Love the first half; hate the second.

Have you read the book? It's the exact same except the main character is even more of a whiny undeserving asshole with absolutely no redeeming qualities. It's unnerving. I actually love that movie though. Sorry.

I do too.

Although I did like how the book fleshed out the Marie character more.

dogmatica, in 2006, Wrote:Please, rip on my favorite band. It makes me respect you and your interests.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: