Indie rock is irrelevant. Pitchfork is irrelevant. There, I said it. I know a ton of people are up in arms right now with disgust over these statements, but admit it, they are both true. They’ve been true for quite some time now. Let it go; you’ll feel better accepting the facts.
Seriously, think about it: What is indie rock? It’s nothing. It’s a term with no meaning anymore. It’s a blanket “genre” used by people who don’t want to admit they listen to clichéd mainstream music. Do I listen to “indie rock?” Of course. Do I use the term? Yes, but I’m trying to avoid it. So I’m not here to completely blast everything about the music that falls into this lazy term. I’m just here to point a few things out.
By definition, indie rock is music that should be on an independent label, correct? It was a term used for a new type of sound that was not accepted by the mainstream when it first appeared. It was the underground “alternative” rock music, even though alternative was another worthless term that meant nothing. Nowadays “indie rock” is supposed to be associated with something, I assume. I implore someone to explain to me what this something is. Off-tempos and alternate guitar tunings are present in tons of music, so these can’t be the deciding factor in the genre, especially when they are more prevalent in math rock and post-hardcore. Lyrically, everything is based on the same concepts as other forms of rock music, so it isn’t that either. It’s certainly not based on the whether the band is on an independent label or not, seeing as super popular bands on major labels still get put under the genre. I’d also like to make the point here that being on a major label’s sub-label does not mean they are independent. That’s like saying Lady Gaga is indie pop because she’s actually on Akon’s label. This brings another point, even if Kon Live didn’t have Universal as it’s parent company, and truly was an independent label, nobody would consider Lady Gaga an independent artist. So what’s the difference between Lady Gaga and say, Modest Mouse? The fact that Modest Mouse was once on a small label? The fact that Modest Mouse is rock and Lady Gaga is pop? In any other form of music, if you are pulling in tons of money and getting a shitload of radio airplay, you’re not considered “indie” anymore. For some reason, the indie rock crowd thinks their music is different.
Let’s move into this a bit more. Take a look at bands on labels like Level Plane. In a broad sense, these bands fall under “rock” music, but nobody would call them indie rock. Everyone calls them post-hardcore, screamo, emo-violence, etc. So why are so many bands simply considered indie rock? It’s pure laziness. It’s also proof that the mainstream controls peoples’ views on the subject. People who don’t really know anything about music say they listen to things in broad genres. “I like pop.” “I listen to rock music.” Sorry pal, but you just told me nothing. Saying you listen to pop means you could listen to anything from Andrew Bird to Madonna. Maybe you do, but I highly doubt that is what was meant to be conveyed. I could also argue that the reason people would never consider City of Caterpillar an indie rock band is because they are doing something to remove themselves from that genre. Sadly, most bands considered indie rock are fucking boring and all sound the same, so it’s easy to lump them into a useless category.
As I said before, I think the main reason people feel the need to call music indie rock is based in the fear of listening to mainstream music. Guess what, hipsters, you are listening to mainstream music. Is that so terrible? Stop trying to pretend you’re still finding shit “under the radar.” WXRT and Pitchfork are now one in the same. Pitchfork says Animal Collective is amazing (which they aren’t, btw), and XRT plays Animal Collective heavily. They play Vampire Weekend, Panda Bear, Wilco, (insert cool indie band here). I like XRT, but so does my dad. My dad is not “underground,” and he doesn’t think he listens to underground music. You know why? Because he doesn’t give a shit about being in a counter-culture. To him music on the radio is popular music. He doesn’t care if it was on Pitchfork or some guy in women’s jeans says it’s avant-garde. It’s accessible music. It’s not under the radar; it’s not indie. If you find me someone who still legitimately calls Weezer an indie rock band, I’ll give you a dollar. People would laugh at the thought of Weezer being indie rock, but their story is exactly the same as all the so-called indie rock bands today. What the hell is the difference?
Listening to popular or correctly categorized music is not a sin, so stop trying to hide behind inappropriate names to make yourself feel better.
Interesting post. There’s so much to talk about, I really don’t think a comment box is appropriate, so I’ll be succinct. I like pop. As do you. It’s okay to like pop.
Indie, like “alternative” previously, is just the last in a long line of terms that originally had a definite meaning which becomes less-clear as it gains momentum. Punk … “emo” … jazz … hip-hop … swing … “rock n roll”. It’s a process that exists for the entire verbal lexicon, not just music.
I think the crying foul about the loss of “independent” music is particularly funny because the term “independent” is completely elitist. It renders all other music as “dependent”. (In)Dependent of what, I have no idea. Money? Listeners? Electricity? Food and Shelter?.
Here’s the deal: The only way to guarantee your music will never gain popularity and then inevitably be co-opted by the mouth-breathing populace is to make bad music. Skill-less, nonrhythmic, atonal noise.
Hilariously, in our post-modern world, skill-less nonrhythmic atonal noise may still become popular at some level because some people crave anti-music despite their bodies telling them that the harmonics are unsettling, and discordant. It is actually appreciated for it’s deliberate lack of things that the human body sense as pleasing.
Case-in-point, New York’s Alphabet City “No Wave” scene — discordant performance/music that immediately was dismissed by “no wave” musicians themselves, incorrectly applied to other artists, and curated by a guy who now produces Coldplay singles. Ta-da.
I completely agree that indie rock was an old term that got bastardized, but I think that’s all the more reason to drop it. If a band used to be an anarcho-punk band, but stops writing music about anarchy, they can’t be considered an anarcho-punk band anymore. I think one of the main things when to drop the label and just admit what you really are.
Most of all, however, I think the main point I was trying to make is that “indie rock” is so broad that the genre is worthless as an explanation. It’s like saying there are two types of rock: indie and mainstream. That’s obviously not true.
Hmmmm, when a word fails to describe anything, is it still a word?
I’ve been feeling the same way lately, so I’ve cluttered my band descriptions with words that are completely useless in analyzing a genre or a band’s respective sound. I hope that some of them can catch on; but in any case we need to do our best to expand the vocabulary of every musically inclined person out there. Great post!