|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Jul 21, 2008 19:32:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jul 21, 2008 22:40:55 GMT 1
No, a load of nonsense from a musical snob.
Nobody asked the media to call mainstream rock "indie". Why does he list Scouting For Girls as indie just because they play guitars? Who is he going to call indie next? McFly?
Didn't the Beatles release on their own Apple label? Didn't that make them indie in the old sense?
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,614
|
Post by TheThorne on Jul 21, 2008 23:42:50 GMT 1
He actually speaks more sense than I thought he would but major record companies have always signed bands that sound like 'the hot new thing', their was major label sounda likes for The Smiths,Stone roses, Oasis and now its The Libertines & Arctic Monkeys. The thing is the sounda likes are forgotten if they dont do anything individual or interesting and some soundalikes actually outlast or equal their peers such as The Charlatans for example
But is true though if you speak to a teenager like the girls at my work they consider Scouting for girls indie as much as Kings Of Leon ( who I woudlnt call indie either btw) or The Arctic Monkeys. They are not as we all know they are 2 indie what Busted where to metal but it has always been like that. EMF where the pretty Pop Will eat Itself and even Blur were to begin with a major label answer to The happy Mondays.
Indie is not gone in the senses he speaks about, if he wasnt to old to go to clubs he will see that most preserve the genre pretty well, you are not likely to hear One Night Only at an alternative night in Edinburgh. They are playing exciting music from all cultures and styles that capture the spirit of indie and that includes dance & hiphop in many cases as it has always done with The Beastie Boys, My Bloody Valentine, Primal Scream and of course The Happy Mondays & New Order.
Oh but in his defense he cant be that much of a music snob as he isnt scared of hiphop like so many 'music' fans around here. Jay Z played Glastonbury and proved so many small minded people wrong.
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,614
|
Post by TheThorne on Jul 21, 2008 23:47:12 GMT 1
Oh and calling The Beatles indie is just pedantic the word wasn't even coined til the early 80s it does not work that way but a lot of The Beatles albums helped form the modern sound of indie of course especially 'Revolver' and 'Sgt Pepper' but thats not the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jul 22, 2008 20:16:36 GMT 1
I was saying that the Beatles were indie later on in the oldfashioned sense because they released on their own record label, and not because of their sound, although their later sound was certainly ground-breaking, which I think seems to be your main criterion.
And I'm not scared of hip-hop or dance I simply don't like most of it and I guess others don't too. I don't like it when forms of this music are passed off as "indie" or rather, I should be expected to like it. I also don't like being told what I'm not supposed to like.
In my day genre labels were rather unimportant in the UK, it was only the US that insisted that every bit of music needed one. The majority liked "pop" music and pop music was a mix of styles. The Smiths were somewhat different but were still a chart band from my point of view so liking them wasn't really that "alternative". Liking them for their music (and lyrics) is fine. I like their music and have all their albums but it wasn't a statement to be alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by IndiElectronica on Jul 23, 2008 18:29:33 GMT 1
big 'indie' bands i'd call out are pixies, pavement, radiohead, new order (ok joy division too), etc - basically my any of my top 50 groups that have sold to non-indie audiences - broken out if you will due to their TALENT and GOOD SONGS... they may be on non-indie labels BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!! it's the spirit of the music, the ingenuity etc... something most people will never understnad. so this is just another discdussion that ends up being a simple question of what you consider indie and then fighting for no reason. There are many non-indie bands on indie labels and of course vice versa....
|
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jul 23, 2008 21:01:15 GMT 1
Oasis aren't indie though and never were, at least not at the time of Definitely Maybe. But they were labelled as being such. At the time of the album Whats The Story Morning Glory and they were one of my favourite bands I argued with one of my friends that they were not indie, that they were a mainstream band who played rock-orientated music.
I don't think kids like Scouting For Girls because they think it's indie, I think that's the sort of music they want to listen to and they'll like it whatever genre you call it. If you played them "real" indie they may like some of it too but there will probably be a lot they don't like, but that's the case with everyone. There's a lot of guitar music I don't particularly like, most of it in fact. I used to see a lot of live music around 9 years ago and got to see a lot of indie bands who never made it anywhere other than a support band for a slightly bigger band who hadn't really made it either and much of the time they had the sound but had no tunes.
On the subject of labels, most of the traditional indie bands attempted first to get onto big labels and were rejected.
|
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,614
|
Post by TheThorne on Jul 24, 2008 7:44:01 GMT 1
omg NM Oasis were on Creation one the biggest & best indie labels ever and if you dont consider 'Definitely Maybe' indie thats 70% of indie music out the window hehe
They were indie in the label sense of the word which meant a lot more in the early 90s as 'The Chart Show' for example based its indie chart countdown on the fact you were on a indie label not indie sound (although they did cheat sometimes).
So Oasis had lots of Indie Chart number ones but you are right they are mainstream rock but rock in the early 90s was considered to be grunge or metal not just boys with guitars.
You may not like classifications but you try to use one yourself just because you ignore the media as much as possible doesnt mean you are right. Dont you ever go with the consensus about anything???
|
|
|
|
Post by IndiElectronica on Jul 24, 2008 13:29:17 GMT 1
for what it's worth, i don't consider oasis indie and never did... don't care what label were they on either (see above)  |
|
TheThorne
Member
*Hillside, slip and slide, feel the pain, it's no surprise!*
Posts: 27,614
|
Post by TheThorne on Jul 24, 2008 16:25:48 GMT 1
The definition of Indie you could argue about it for weeks and still not get an answer but whatever you say the writer is correct the term has been diluted there is no getting away from that.
I prefer the term alternative anyway and that is one thing you could never called 'Scouting for Girls', apart from 'alternative to talented'
|
|
|
|
Post by Maximo Mark on Jul 24, 2008 18:46:30 GMT 1
Oasis (and similar bands from that period) were labelled as Britpop, the POP part of that being the key part of that. They were essentially a pop group but used a far different style to the 'pop' acts around at that time. Now I don't really see much difference in the likes of Pigeon Detectives, Kaiser Chiefs or Wombats (apart from maybe a lack of substance but that's another issue entirely...) yet they, along with every other band with a guitar now, are labelled indie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Jul 24, 2008 18:57:29 GMT 1
the problem is that indie has crossed over into the mainstream. the basic concept of indie is that it is alternative and creative. the ingenuity and attitude can't be faked, the general concept around it all is anti-commercialism and non-mainstream....
therefore now with all this indie pop its just one big contridiction because pop is mainstream catchy tunes for the masses.
a lot of bands these days are "indie pop by numbers". just because the term indie is coined does not make them indie and who cares? if you like the music what genre it falls into isnt relevent in my book. i like radiohead, new order and the smiths as much as i like lightspeed champion, we are scientists and the wombats
|
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Jul 24, 2008 19:03:21 GMT 1
exactly, the modern wave of bands are indie "pop"
people have caught on that manufactured pop is very boring, one person singing along to a backing track (half the time a cover) is pretty sh*t, so now everyone is into the bands that have catchy songs and play and write their own stuff. it might not be ground breaking but it is a hell of a lot better. the only issue is they have lumped it in with real indie
|
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jul 24, 2008 21:25:31 GMT 1
Under your classification though Scouting For Girls could be classified as "indie-pop" if that is what describes that kind of music now. Just because it has an indie tag doesn't mean it has to be good. There is bad music in every genre. Even in the days of Mozart there were also a load of others like Salieri. And they're not that bad although their songs do all sound quite similar, but that's the case with many bands. They might even conceivably play at a rock-festival at some point.
I think the "brit-pop" label didn't appear until the Blur/Oasis chart battle. Commercial radio stations (i.e. Capital) didn't actually play those bands until that point. Not sure they even played "Common People" by Pulp. Once they felt forced to play them or lose their listeners, they decided to give it a label with the word "pop" in it.
Lumping it with real indie could be good for real indie if it means that fans of those artists will explore more, although I'd be more interested in getting semi-indie radio stations to add a bit more obscure music to their playlists.
|
|
