Why claim indie as the centerpiece?

I guess I'm just intrigued by the stuff I mentioned upthread. Why does P-Fork (arguably the web epicenter of American indie music) try to cover the ENTIRE spectrum of pop/art music, when similar sites/mags affiliated with other genres tend to stick to their pond?

yeah, this is a good question.

Why don't all mags cover the entire spectrum of pop music. They used to in the past. Before Mixmag and hip-hop specialist mags started popping up, there was Kerrang and that was that. All other mags were generalist.

Yeah, exactly. That's the flipside to the same question.

I mean, if we suppose that Q's readers are mainly into indie, Q certainly does a job of trying to open up their readers to the best stuff within other genres. Why don't Mixmag try to open up their readers to the best stuff without other genres than the ones Mixmag's readers are mostly into?

Does the Source feel the need to weigh in on the new Shins? Why not? What's the difference in POV?

Best thing about this thread is that it's running parallel to this one.

Allows one a grace period for being dorky.

maaaaybe:

pop music has become increasingly fragmented, yet indie still retains ideas of importance and universality left over from the classic rock days it takes its cues from... so therefore indie writers feel the urge to branch out a bit, include some other things that seem as relevant.

The key is: Classic rock was universal and all important back in the day. Indie still is, to those of us who pay attention. Those who don't, well, let them have their world. And, you know, apart from a few white middle class people, most fans of dance or hip-hop wouldn't bother bitching about indie's dominance of music media, as long as their favourite music dominates all other media anyway.

Another thing: I don't like the indie term that much myself as it doesn't really describe what the genre is about anymore.

Basically, Q is a classic rock mag more than an indie mag. Only the classic rock they write about was made in 2008 rather than in 1968. For instance, Coldplay, Travis and Keane obviously have way more in common with classic rock than with indie. And Q readers tend to be huge fans of those three.

(Some may call them AOR rather than Classic Rock, but Classic Rock stations do play a lot of AOR)

indie centerpiece vs. herb alpert centerpiece

http://borrowedblossoms.com/mpc/docs/images/center_45rpm_record.jpg

This didn't really go the way I wanted it to.

Slightly off-topic, because I cannot follow the above discussion at all, but are we using "indie" to refer to "indie rock" or music that is independent or lesser-known? Because to be completely honest, the three stages of music listening referred to at the very top of this thread could apply to people that listen to indie rock or indie metal or indie rap or indie electronica or whatever other genre I've missed.

I was using the term indie to refer to a very broad genre that incorporates but is not limited to "indie" (guitar-based pop) and "indie rock" (late 80s/early 90s style "underground" music). Basically the Pitchfork universe. Dominated by literate, sensitive, guitar-driven pop, but branching out in lots of directions from there.

Agree the the stages of listening Ned described way back when aren't at all unique to indie fans.

My interest was in how indie defines and constructs itself, with regard to ostensibly non-indie music. Was springing off the OP to observe that indie rock (as a big amorphous social blob) seems to place a premium on familiarity with ALL music EVERYWHERE, and that other genre's don't generally do this.

Note to self: use imagination powers to fix bad writing in last post.

Re: why the Source doesn't cover the Shins, I think the 'indie' world view takes a lot of pride in intelligence, it's 'thinking man's rock' and a thinking man would take pride in a broad perspective, right? So they naturally dabble in all sorts of genres in order to appear worldly and intellectual.

Other genres/scenes don't seem to have that conceit, they don't have that link between intellect and musical taste. In indie's case it's a defining characteristic.

Like (to make a nebulous concept concrete for me) how some indie artists attempt to do "metal" albums (thinking specifically of Goblin Cock here), or how you have bands on the Invaders compilation in where it's clearly dudes that listen to indie rock starting metal bands?

Yeah, I think that's exactly right, if a bit harshly worded. To be honest, I've had something similar floating around in my head since the revive here, but couldn't come up with a good way to articulate it.

that was to the X

I guess that self-defined position as "thinking person's music" answers the OP's question and mine. Indie isn't necessarily seen as the center of a musical universe, but rather sees itself as existing in the center OF a musical universe. By the act of regarding (expressing an interest in) "other genres", it organizes them in a manner that makes them seem somehow subordinate - like cultural accessories.

I don't think this is wrong or bad or "oh noes, cultural imperialism", but it's very different from the often isolationist/protectionist stance of other genres.

Yeah that sounded a bit dickish, eh? Wasn't trying to judge, just didn't word it well enough. I don't hate you, indie, I promise.

...that link between intellect and musical taste. In indie's case it's a defining characteristic.

-- adamj

Hell, I think presumed intellectual/aesthetic superiority is maybe THE defining characteristic. It's the only unifying point I can see between, say, Big Black, MF Doom and Belle & Sebastian.

Presumed by an audience who places a premium on intelligence, I mean.

I think maybe part of the difference between indie and other genres is that (from what I've witnessed) indie people tend to pat themselves on the back for incorporating elements from other genres, whereas in other genres, bands either assimilate other influences quietly or get lambasted for selling out.

(To wit, the critical love Vampire Weekend get for incorporating African rhythms)

And by "selling out" I mean that, at least in metal, which is the only genre I can really speak confidently about, the fans seem to be very wary of both acts that change direction and new genre hybrids, i.e., rap metal or metalcore, which probably fits in with what you were saying earlier about the isolationist/protectionist stances.

indie people tend to pat themselves on the back for incorporating elements from other genres

Yeah. I think indie people (including me), tend to pat themselves on the back for being aware - or worse, "correctly aware" - of as many things as possible.

like liberals?

It's funny too, 'cuz indie's desire to be friends with ALL GENRE makes it (unsurprisingly) something of a pariah. Nobody wants indie coming around with its Plastic Littles and Early Mans and fucking up what used to be a perfectly nice place we got here.

Well, as shown above, "indie" is such a broad, encompassing genre, whereas fans/purveyors of rap, metal, electronica etc., have (in a very general sense, of course) more concrete genre aesthetics.

Alfred: Also OTM - I think there's probably a lot of crossover between the "buys mostly indie stuff" and the "always votes democrat" demographics. Then again, I think you aren't supposed to mention that.

I don't know if you can really glean much from that, most of the metalheads I know are definitely on the left side of the coin. Of course, I live in Los Angeles, so that probably throws off the demographics...

Yeah, I don't want to go to far down the class/race/politics wormholes. Not cuz i think they don't apply, but just cuz nothing good ever comes of it. Really, really surprised, by the way, that this has been allowed to progress as far as it has...

"far" being a supremely relative term

What, a civil discussion? You can find those occasionally here.

About "indie rock"? Yeah, I suppose it's possible...

concrete genre aesthetics

I think maybe part of the difference between indie and other genres is that (from what I've witnessed) indie people tend to pat themselves on the back for incorporating elements from other genres, whereas in other genres, bands either assimilate other influences quietly or get lambasted for selling out.

Surely not in hip-hop. Hip-hop is more about taking elements from other genres and using them out of context in a way that fits with the hip-hop style.

True, but they tend not to promote the sources in the same way.

A certain element of tokenism toward other genres is pretty much inherent in indie. Fonarow has some good thoughts on this in her book on "The Aesthetics and Rituals of British Indie Music"

It should also be noted that, by its very unassuming nature, indie rock has a much lower "learning curve" then other genres-- it's a lot easier for a lot of people to get into the Shins than, say, Emperor, or even Metallica.

Jeff, what exactly do you mean by "learning curve"? A big part of what determines what people "get into" is how what they're considering getting into their way of living, and how they want to live. So is what you mean: for college-educated folks, indie rock fits into their current and anticipated way of life better than metal does?

But limiting this to college-educated folks just makes this about class aspiration again.

When I was in HS way more people were into Metallica than indie rock. So I'm not sure about what you're saying.

What's funny is that five or six years ago, Pitchfork was lambasted by ILM precisely for sticking only to indie: when they started reviewing hip-hop singles, this was largely seen as a Good Thing.

Breihan changed the game.

It should also be noted that, by its very unassuming nature, indie rock has a much lower "learning curve" then other genres-- it's a lot easier for a lot of people to get into the Shins than, say, Emperor, or even Metallica.

-- Jeff Treppel, Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:20 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

if it's easier for people to get into metallica than the shins, why is metallica a zillion times more popular?

emperor maybe, but how hard was it to get into "enter sandman"?

i think more ppl would find no age offputting than metallica because of the production values.

it is a good thing, but otoh they didn't review 'New Amerykah' xposts

i don't really see tokenism as a bad thing for the most part.

for me, it was a way that actually made me get into other stuff..you start out as some college kid buying like one miles davis CD, now i buy way more jazz than anything that's actually considered "indie rock"

What's funny is that five or six years ago, Pitchfork was lambasted by ILM precisely for sticking only to indie: when they started reviewing hip-hop singles, this was largely seen as a Good Thing.