Why claim indie as the centerpiece?

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.

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

(I'm clearly tired, off to bed with me)

Okay, I stepped over the line w/ Mojo. Mea culpa.

Out of current music, Mojo tends to prefer indie though. At least besides "returns to form" by old Mojo favourites.

That was kinda my point. If your year end list is dominated by indie acts, it doesn't matter what your nominal beat is, you're in thrall.

the thing with mojo is that it ties in perfectly with indie, 'cause indie is all about the olden-days-rawk influences.

i'm sure there's a lot of crossover between classic rock fans and indie-heads when it comes to acts like the white stripes or whatever.

"she wears denim wherever she goes, says she's gonna get some records by the status quo..."

If your year end list is dominated by indie acts, it doesn't matter what your nominal beat is, you're in thrall.

But the point here is, most of the albums that Mojo would want to put in their year-end list don't qualify. Because they aren't new. Mojo's "This year's best re-releases" list is probably a better reflection of the taste of Mojo writers and readers than the new releases one.

And, yes, indie is currently about the olden day rawk influences. Which is exactly why indie today (unlike 80s indie) is so great, and so much better than at least anything else being released during the past 20 years. Because it has the timeless qualities that makes it sound like it might as well have been made 30 years ago. Back when pop music was good, and not bad like today.

(well, along with other retro trends like electro and neoprog, both of which have also produced some of the best albums of the past 20 years)

the thing with mojo is that it ties in perfectly with indie, 'cause indie is all about the olden-days-rawk influences.

The cenception of indie that views all music forms as annexable territory is not the "indie = boys w/ guitars" concept.

"The Concept" is a killer tune tho.

indie wasn't about old influences in the 80s?

it was all about the byrdsey janglesomeness, that what differentiates it from the artsyness and innovation of post-punk, that's where it started as a musical genre.

If 80s indie = dino jr, then yeah, 80s indie = old influences.

But if 80s indie = big black, then not so much.

I'm American and I'm talking about American indie here. I understand things aren't quite the same across the body of water over there. Signal to noise.

The cenception of indie that views all music forms as annexable territory is not the "indie = boys w/ guitars" concept.

"The Concept" is a killer tune tho.

-- contenderizer, Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:26 AM

we've got totally different definitions here then.

i would say white boho/electronic stuff like beck or the beasties comes under the heading of "alt" or something. i still think of indie as being meta-classic rock.

big black to me were coming out of the tail end of post-punk or something...

yeah, i'm from the uk. altho i think a lot of brits would agree somewhat with your idea of indie.

Well, current Brit indie is definitely about old influences. Or at least the Britpop subgenre of Brit indie is.

But there is also a lot of music with old influences that couldn't possibly be called indie. For instance, Amy Winehouse very obviously has old influences. (But again, not white guys with guitars)

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.

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)