Why claim indie as the centerpiece?

1. Getting deeper into music and increasingly dissatisfied with MTV schlock, you discover the world of 'indie,' getting your feet wet with the biggest bands of the genre (ahem).

2. You move deeper into indie, feeling increasingly hip as you discover more and more bands that hardly anyone knows about. Indie becomes the center of your listening world, and you will defend it to your dying day.

3. You realize that you're being pretty closed-minded about the whole affair, and you start to branch out--discovering other genres, other eras of music. And you also start to feel less ashamed about liking mainstream music or music that other people think is cheesy; you sort of 'rediscover' things you had neglected for a while. However, there are some indie bands that you still really value and love, and you hang on to those, although you appreciate them differently, without so much smugness.

Maybe people who think indie is the center of listening are stuck in stage 2. It does feel neat at first to know about all these bands that (it seems to you) no one else does--it feels as if a whole world of music is opening up to you, and it's quite easy to think that this world is all-encompassing. Another thing about stage 2: it's quite easy to forget that you were ever in any stage except this one, and you might even deny that you were (e.g. "Yeah, man, I always hated [insert non-indie band here]!"). Sorry about the rigidity of the 'stages'--I was just trying to sort stuff out.

And I'm curious about this social stratosphere: whose stratosphere are we talking about? It's definitely not mine, so I would like some elaboration on it, because I'm intrigued by what it meant.

I am afraid I don't really have a social strata at all, which isn't something I like. I'd feel better if I did.

amazed that this groundbreaking view was worthy of note here! explains a bit, i guess.

Great revive! Congratulations on your superiority to the ILM of seven years ago!

Hurrah superiority!

This thread doesn't seem inferior to me, though it never really went anywhere. Basic idea is sound.

i claim indie as my codpiece

i claim indie for my three-piece

I claim indie for world peace

The more I'm with you, pretty baby
The more I feel my love increase
I'm building all my dreams around you
Our happiness will never cease
'Cause nothing's any good without you
Indie you're my centerpiece

yes, that's exactly what I was doing, congratulating myself. Congrats on your outstanding interweb interpersonal readings!

(guess i'm the only one to blame for still being annoyed that 95% of people on a board who spend a good deal of time in front of a computer consider themselves masters of psychology)

yes, that's exactly what I was doing, congratulating myself. Congrats on your outstanding interweb interpersonal readings!

amazed that this groundbreaking view was worthy of note here! explains a bit, i guess.

this is partly to do with indie taking a heavy influence from classic, canonical "important" rock bands of the 60s and 70s. music journos (esp older ones, altho younguns do it too) like to see nice, easy signifiers of importance: solid songwriting, rebellion, talking a good game, etc...

none of these things are necessarily bad of course, but writers and fans are going to be more willing to get behind something that ticks all those boxes in terms of "relevance" or whatever than something unprecedented that might just turn out to be this year's fad.

music journos do what now?

sorry to generalize, i'm new here. i'm sure people have made similar points a billion times already.

alternate explanation that is just way too bizarre to have been contemplated: i didn't know ILM itself was that indiecentric (not a bad thing) prior to me discovering it. knowing that, it explains some things (a good thing!).

In my case, I didn't get into indie until the 90s, which was about the time indie started sounding more like the music I used to love in the 70s and 80s than the stuff in the hitlists did. I still have very little fascination for 80s indie, which I find underproduced, with the vocals mixed way too low in the mix and generally way too much reverb.

Really? Underproduced? You don't say...

Anyway, indie fans/critics really do posit indie as the "center of the universe", but not to a greater extent than jazz, country, metal or avant/experimental types do with those genres.

Thing that indie does that IS weird & unique is that it sees all other genres/types of music as bordering bodies into which one's toes might naturally dip - as neighboring territories that might be annexed at will. Decibel doesn't cover world pop, country, indie rock, noize and academic art poop in addition to its bread & butter METAL. But P-Fork tries to catch the "cream" of everything, everywhere. (I guess it's arguable that P-Fork is more "music fan/crit generalist" than indie, but that seems disingenous. P-Fork pretty much defines the state of current American indie rock/pop.)

I'm not bashing indie or P-Fork, and I'm not suggesting that a every site/mag/fan shouldn't be open to the widest possible range of available musics, but I do wonder why this is so essential to indie identity, and so rare in the media attached to other genres.

I cannot see why it shouldn't be essential everywhere. And the point here is, NME, Q et al aren't indie mags. They are generalist mags. They cover a little bit of everything, but still tend to prefer indie over other genres, although establish non-indie rock acts will usually also get a lot of coverage there.

Besides, you also have mags such as Mojo and Select, which could hardly be called indie mags. Yet, these mags also cover more or less every genre there is. And still end up with year-end lists being at least almost as indie dominated as the ones in NME and Q. Because they think it's, well, not the best music, but at least the best current music.

NME, Q et al aren't indie mags. They are generalist mags. They cover a little bit of everything, but still tend to prefer indie over other genres... Besides, you also have mags such as Mojo and Select, which could hardly be called indie mags. Yet, these mags also cover more or less every genre there is. And still end up with year-end lists being at least almost as indie dominated as the ones in NME and Q.

Not admitting that you are indie-centric to the point of actually being just-plain-INDIE is one of the ways that indie exerts this weirdly entitled hegemony over all music everywhere.

maybe part of the problem is that indie (or more accurately its supporters) can't really decide whether it should be either:

all-important music-for-a-generation-classic-rawk (omg libertines = teh clash guyz!)

or

marginal, ever-so-slightly-outsider music for discerning rock scholar types. (a status it hasn't enjoyed since before... the stone roses? oasis?)

"indie exerts this weirdly entitled hegemony over all music everywhere"

hmmm, looked at the charts recently?

What's the overlap between people who use the word "Hegemony" and ex-indie fans anyway, 80%?

In other words, Duane Zarakov had this nailed in 2001.

More like 90% (smiley). But, yeah, bidfurd/DZ not totally offtm.

um, indie = independant. Something that can exist outside the market.

The market now dominates. There is no indie anymore.

I don't have a problem with bands getting their music exposed via advertising deals, etc, but that is, by definition, inside the market.

Fair point, but it's also kinda beside the point. Indie is as indie does, and declaring the term invalid won't make the concept go away.

Had more to do with disengaging from the uglier aspects of the market than with the market as a whole. After all, the market wasn't any LESS dominant in '88.

Thing is, these are ALL indie mags.

If Mojo is an indie mag, then The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan and David Bowie are all indie acts.

Don't confuse indie with "white guys with guitars".

Yeah, Mojo is not an indie mag. (term in abeyance, but still)

The rest stands though.

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.

Oops, let me clarify -- I just meant that, for indie rock fans (not sure where Euler got the class aspiration thing from, I wasn't talking about that at all), it's easier to see indie rock as a launching point to other genres because a lot of it (not all) is more easily accessible, in the same way that I jumped from AC/DC to Megadeth to In Flames.

Wait, so you're saying that for indie rock fans, indie rock is more easily accessible?

For mainstream rock fans, the more mainstream forms of indie rock are more accessible than, say, extreme metal. True, but kinda self-evident.

No, I'm just trying to say that the more accessible the music is, the easier it is to see as a centerpiece, in the same way that I look at classic rock as the centerpiece of my listening world, not black metal.

indie rock does get a lot more artful and daring than the shins though, who admittedly i like quite a bit

and the reason I got into class-based stuff is that what's accessible is gonna depend on who you're talking to. If we're talking accessible to the vast majority of Americans, then let's use record sales as a measure and compare, say, the Shins to Metallica.

Why is it so important to indie fans that everyone be so broadminded?

This isn't something that is exclusive to indie fans. Fans of classic rock or classic pop (that is, non hip-hop-influenced 60s/70s/80s-style pop) also tend to have this need to be broadminded. In fact, fans of all "white" genres other than metal/hard rock (and to some extent dance, if dance can be counted as "white")

That's not a bad point, Geir, though it does threaten to turn this into a "race thing".

there's no answer to the question "what type of music do you listen to?" that won't make you come off like kind of a choad, if you're giving a shorthand answer that is. (possible exception: "everything", but even there...)

"Metal" is a good answer to that question, 'cuz the "no, fuck you" is sorta built in.

The "What type of music do you listen to" question is rather easy to respond to for fans of hip-hop, metal or electronica. Or to the kind of braindead people who respond "I like all kinds of music" and then usually means mainstream hits only. Indie fans will never answer "indie".

Personally, I think "Do you have 10 minutes?" is the best answer ;)

"Indie fans will never answer "indie"."

You've obviously never met my girlfriend's sister, who (along with her boyfriend) I use as my default indie strawman. And when I was in high school, I definitely used to say that I listened mostly to indie rock, even though that both was and wasn't true (indie rock and industrial, and that industrial was almost all on indie labels and was a form of rock, but wasn't indie rock, know'm'sayin'?).

As for the question, I usually go with either whatever I've been listening to most recently (today, Notorious Byrds) or a made-up answer like "Fartcore."

Regarding the amoeba-like grasp of "indie," I remember feeling confused one day when my neighbors, all recent immigrants from various SE Asian countries, were playing reggaeton loudly. They'd only ever played, like, Canto-pop (and Vietnamese versions of the same), and I was stuck between thinking "How odd—it's all in Spanish," and castigating myself for racist assumptions.

Indie fans will never answer "indie".

obviously RONG

indie = punks got into the 60s (but you know, before all the trippy stuff)