|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:31 am
When you search online to find out what "indie" is, it tells you that indie is short for independent and means that a band is not on a major label and independently markets themselves.
I think the definition needs to change a little.
I personally would put it this way, Indie is a genre of music and independent is not being on a major label.
Yes, I know that indie is short for independent, but R&B is short for Rhythm & Blues but the genre has nothing to do with that music anymore.
There are indie bands on major labels, Tegan and Sara, Death Cab For Cutie. They are major label "indie" artists because indie is totally a genre of music.
Discuss.
Indie bands to listen to (just a few):
Tegan and Sara
Local Natives
Grizzly Bear
Bright Eyes
Broken Social Scene
The Decemberists
Tokyo Police Club
The Smiths
Born Ruffians
The Acorn
Arcade Fire
First Aid Kit (folk/indie)
Deerhoof
Iron and Wine (folk/indie)
Kaki King
Fleet Foxes
An Angle
An Horse
Death Cab For Cutie
Foals
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:20 pm
I like a lot of bands that people consider indie, but I don't really like it as a label. I feel like it's misleading and doesn't really mean anything in terms of a band's overall sound. I mean, just looking at your list, Fleet Foxes sounds nothing like Broken Social Scene, yet they're both considered indie. As far as indie referring to being on an independent record label, I think that's an irrelevant point. Good music is good music, regardless of the label. Personally, I don't care enough to keep track of which bands are on major labels versus which are on independent, and which ones have made the switch into major labels.
And in case you weren't aware, I'm a total genre nazi. Genres are about a band's overall sound and stylistic choices. The term indie does not describe that, and therefore has no clout when it comes to judging and classifying bands, at least in my book.
[/rant]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Horrorshow Groodies Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A B Up Start Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:26 pm
ZOMG 9uiz, eyes totally luv n3v3r shout n3v3r and owl city!!!!111! theyz lik 707411y my favz 1nd1e 6andz
EDIT: had to add some leet to troll it up. im tired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:52 pm
Real Horrorshow Groodies I like a lot of bands that people consider indie, but I don't really like it as a label. I feel like it's misleading and doesn't really mean anything in terms of a band's overall sound. I mean, just looking at your list, Fleet Foxes sounds nothing like Broken Social Scene, yet they're both considered indie. As far as indie referring to being on an independent record label, I think that's an irrelevant point. Good music is good music, regardless of the label. Personally, I don't care enough to keep track of which bands are on major labels versus which are on independent, and which ones have made the switch into major labels. And in case you weren't aware, I'm a total genre nazi. Genres are about a band's overall sound and stylistic choices. The term indie does not describe that, and therefore has no clout when it comes to judging and classifying bands, at least in my book. [/rant]
R&B has nothing to do with rhythm and blues for example, when thats what is used to mean. Rhythm and Blues does not descibe artists like Justin Timberlake and Neyo.
And my list, Fleet Foxes is more a folk band than they would be indie so of course they Don't sound like Broken Social Scene, but then again, who does sound like Broken Social Scene? Noone.
How can the label aspect of things be irrelevant when that is what indie is? (or is defined to be at the monent)When you ask someone what indie is or look it up anywhere is will tell you that it is an independent label, or band on an independent label.
So I find that the absolute requirement for the name of the genre to 100% describe the sound is irrelevant. Its basically a genre that makes experiemntal music but I don't want to call it that because I don't like that word as much as I like the word Indie, honestly. And with most other genres there will come sub-genres.
People act like things never change, get with the times, things do change. Definitions are not always permanent.
People pretty much use it as a genre already anyway. Even the banner for this guild uses it that way. You can choose it as a genre when you put your band on Myspace.
As far as it being misleading, I could care less honestly.
I am not a fan of the idea that because something is one way, it cannot change because it is already one way or just because it can't or even just because people don't want it to change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Horrorshow Groodies Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:44 pm
IndieUndies00 Real Horrorshow Groodies I like a lot of bands that people consider indie, but I don't really like it as a label. I feel like it's misleading and doesn't really mean anything in terms of a band's overall sound. I mean, just looking at your list, Fleet Foxes sounds nothing like Broken Social Scene, yet they're both considered indie. As far as indie referring to being on an independent record label, I think that's an irrelevant point. Good music is good music, regardless of the label. Personally, I don't care enough to keep track of which bands are on major labels versus which are on independent, and which ones have made the switch into major labels. And in case you weren't aware, I'm a total genre nazi. Genres are about a band's overall sound and stylistic choices. The term indie does not describe that, and therefore has no clout when it comes to judging and classifying bands, at least in my book. [/rant]
R&B has nothing to do with rhythm and blues for example, when thats what is used to mean. Rhythm and Blues does not descibe artists like Justin Timberlake and Neyo.
And my list, Fleet Foxes is more a folk band than they would be indie so of course they Don't sound like Broken Social Scene, but then again, who does sound like Broken Social Scene? Noone.
How can the label aspect of things be irrelevant when that is what indie is? (or is defined to be at the monent)When you ask someone what indie is or look it up anywhere is will tell you that it is an independent label, or band on an independent label.
So I find that the absolute requirement for the name of the genre to 100% describe the sound is irrelevant. Its basically a genre that makes experiemntal music but I don't want to call it that because I don't like that word as much as I like the word Indie, honestly. And with most other genres there will come sub-genres.
People act like things never change, get with the times, things do change. Definitions are not always permanent.
People pretty much use it as a genre already anyway. Even the banner for this guild uses it that way. You can choose it as a genre when you put your band on Myspace.
As far as it being misleading, I could care less honestly.
I am not a fan of the idea that because something is one way, it cannot change because it is already one way or just because it can't or even just because people don't want it to change. I'm not quite sure I follow your point about change. Music evolves, I'm aware of that. However, genres by definition define the style of music a given artist plays. The term "indie" does not do that. And I don't see the significance of R & B in this discussion. Yes, current R & B has nothing to do with blues, but they're two different genres. R & B is stuff like Alicia Keys, while blues is stuff like B. B. King. I think most people are aware of the distinction. My point is that indie doesn't have a set sound. For example, to tell someone that indie is stuff like Arcade Fire wouldn't make any sense, seeing as that most bands that people classify as indie do not sound like Arcade Fire. Whether a band is on an independent label is irrelevant towards their actual genre. And I stand by my statement that record labels are irrelevant. Like I said, if the music is good, it's good, regardless of the record label. An additional point I'd like to make: If a band was on an independent label, and then switched to a major label, are they still considered indie? Because there are several bands on your list that are currently recording on major labels. If that is the case, why would they be considered indie? And if the indie classification includes bands that used to be on independent labels, it would suddenly encompass a vast amount of bands that no one would have considered indie, considering almost all bands start small and work their way up. It's a definitional inconsistency. At the end of the day, I could really care less what most people think about the term "indie". It is my opinion that indie is a useless term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:01 am
i stopped taking myspace genres as valid after they added "emotronic"
|
|
|
|
|
|
A B Up Start Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Horrorshow Groodies Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:16 am
A B Up Start i stopped taking myspace genres as valid after they added "emotronic" Emotronic, really? That is another valid point, though. Myspace genres aren't exactly legitimate a good portion of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:10 pm
Oooooh I see what you're saying. I didn't understand at first.
We can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A B Up Start Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:46 pm
Real Horrorshow Groodies A B Up Start i stopped taking myspace genres as valid after they added "emotronic" Emotronic, really? That is another valid point, though. Myspace genres aren't exactly legitimate a good portion of the time. theres also acousticelectro or something like that. (acoustelectro?..maybe...idk...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:13 am
A B Up Start Real Horrorshow Groodies A B Up Start i stopped taking myspace genres as valid after they added "emotronic" Emotronic, really? That is another valid point, though. Myspace genres aren't exactly legitimate a good portion of the time. theres also acousticelectro or something like that. (acoustelectro?..maybe...idk...) Haha. Wow...now that's disheartening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
