PDA

View Full Version : The Indie Phenomenon


moments.
April 19th, 2011, 04:30 PM
So that title I just made up, but basically, as I'm sure you all are aware of, although it isn't as prominent recently as a little while ago. This notion of being 'indie' or being an individual, particularly when it comes to music tastes to the point where people stop listening to various music because they got popular or on the radio.

What do you think about this rationale and view point of music? Do you think music should be listened to because you like it, not because you want to define yourself as part of one group over another?

TheUltimateSacrifice
April 23rd, 2011, 08:26 PM
It's not even a genre to anybody that matters, so it's about as much as a phenomenon as drinking urine.

Misheard Whisper
April 24th, 2011, 01:35 AM
I think you may have confused the origin of 'indie'. As far as I am aware, it has nothing to do with being 'individual'. Rather, it refers to music released through an 'independent' record label, as opposed to a major label like Sony or EMI or whatever. (idek)

The concept of 'indie', then, actually has some form, as musicians releasing through these less . . . subjective channels have more freedom with how they express themselves through music, while major record labels are concerned with what they want the public to want to hear, and little more. /cynic

Calling it a 'genre', though, is definitely wrong. Indie music varies as widely as mainstream music does (some would say more so) and saying 'I like indie music', straight-up, is just asking for trouble. It's like saying 'I like eating fruit' - while this may be true in general, there is fruit out there that will kill you if you so much as lick it. So I prefer to listen to music based on what I like, as opposed to which record label it came through.

Arlen
April 26th, 2011, 10:08 PM
I think you may have confused the origin of 'indie'. As far as I am aware, it has nothing to do with being 'individual'. Rather, it refers to music released through an 'independent' record label, as opposed to a major label like Sony or EMI or whatever. (idek)

The concept of 'indie', then, actually has some form, as musicians releasing through these less . . . subjective channels have more freedom with how they express themselves through music, while major record labels are concerned with what they want the public to want to hear, and little more. /cynic

Calling it a 'genre', though, is definitely wrong. Indie music varies as widely as mainstream music does (some would say more so) and saying 'I like indie music', straight-up, is just asking for trouble. It's like saying 'I like eating fruit' - while this may be true in general, there is fruit out there that will kill you if you so much as lick it. So I prefer to listen to music based on what I like, as opposed to which record label it came through.

You're correct about the label thing, but I think it has evolved further then that.

A lot of Indie music usually has the same kind of feel, but I think everything that can't be placed in a commercial genre is considered Indie?

Gold warehouse
April 27th, 2011, 08:20 AM
I think they involved into hipsters.

Regardless, I think it's either a myth or just a stereotype. I've never met anyone who actually does refer to themselves as such or disregards anything that becomes "too mainstream" I only ever see it used to refer to someone else (usually in a derogatory way). It's very uncommon for people to actually follow such a trend, and anyone who does is just a try-hard. In this day and age I find it hard to believe any real subcultures exist. When you look at the punks/goths/skinheads etc. of the 70s and 80s, those were real subcultures; today we're just all too diverse.

And yes people, indie is a genre. Genres are not some scientific law, they're merely labels. I mean, who the hell came up with the name "grunge", it doesn't mean anything, but it's still a genre because it is a label for a specific sound, just the same as indie. Deal with it.

Oryx
April 27th, 2011, 08:38 AM
And yes people, indie is a genre. Genres are not some scientific law, they're merely labels. I mean, who the hell came up with the name "grunge", it doesn't mean anything, but it's still a genre because it is a label for a specific sound, just the same as indie. Deal with it.

What people are discussing is whether there is a specific sound to indie, considering its origins. Think of an indie film. Are they all the same? While there are similarities between all indie films, an indie film also needs a genre, whether it's comedy, romance, horror, or...whatever the name for the genre with art films is. Artsy? But the point is, just like films, there's indie rock, indie punk, indie country, because it has to do with the record label, not the sound for the most part.

Although when people think "indie", they often think of acoustic, somewhat alternative type music, at least in my opinion. Often I find myself telling people they won't know my favorite bands, but it's not because I don't want them to. I always want to share my music and have people like it, it's just that Pandora sent me to a whole bunch of artists that no one has ever heard of. I'm more than willing to see my favorite bands get popular, they just haven't caught on like other artists.

Although I'm not as "anti-label" as most people are. For example, I was having a discussion on politics with someone. Instead of saying "I'm Republican on most matters except for ______", he insisted on telling me his views on every single issue because he was so afraid of me labeling him as a Republican. I would have much preferred the faster answer, not because of any stereotype, but simply because it's easier and faster to say that, and means the exact same thing. Therefore, if someone asks what music someone is into and they say "indie rock", I don't necessarily think it means that they'd stop listening to their favorite bands because they got popular, I just know some indie rock bands so I know the general idea of what music they like the most.

Gold warehouse
April 30th, 2011, 03:42 AM
What people are discussing is whether there is a specific sound to indie, considering its origins. Think of an indie film. Are they all the same? While there are similarities between all indie films, an indie film also needs a genre, whether it's comedy, romance, horror, or...whatever the name for the genre with art films is. Artsy? But the point is, just like films, there's indie rock, indie punk, indie country, because it has to do with the record label, not the sound for the most part.
OP's post was about the alleged "indie lifestyle" which is in fact a well known concept, contrary to the belief that it only means a band releases music independently.

It's original meaning was to do with the record label. Now it often isn't, I remember the indie rock hype in the UK back in the mid 2000s, bands like Kasabian, British Sea Power, Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand; they all have a distinct sound. Then over in America you have the indie pop scene consisting of a lot of bands with a similar sound as well. Sure it's broad, but if you think about it almost every genre is.

Indie is a genre; and as for the meaning of releasing music independently, then it's a separate word to simply describe a band. It's like trying to discuss the importance of buying food from the supermarket or growing it yourself. Important to the person that's growing the food, but pretty much irrelevant to everyone else. Why should it matter to the listeners whether a band are signed to a major record label or not? It doesn't affect the type of music a band have at all, so it can't be used to describe them. If someone asks me what my favourite band is, I don't say "oh they're a Factory Records band" because nobody would have a clue what I'm talking about.

This word indie has been thrown around so much it doesn't even have a real, single definition anymore.