A Pet Peeve, re: the term “Indie”
Allan, recently (actually, a while ago now) ranted (he called it a rant) about the definition of “indie”. And so, I had no other choice than to weigh in and write what follows:
Here’s my biggest pet peeve about people/music/and the internet music world: music snobbery and the use of the term “indie” to score cool points or to market an album/artist rather than using the term to describe an album/artist that has released an album independent of any record label support (which means that even if you’re on a small label, you are not independent, “indie”). This doesn’t mean that releasing an album independently means that its going to be good, or bad, its just a statement of fact. Major labels tend to release albums that are going to appeal to more people. Smaller labels tend to cater to niche markets. Independent albums are all over the map, some bands want to be signed on a big label, some don’t. Some artists release the albums as a hobby and some people want to make it a career (although, given the choice, I think there are a lot of people who wouldn’t object to being paid zillions of dollars to make music). I guess the point being, which Allan made, is that “indie” is just a short form for independent, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) say anything about what the music is like i.e. before The Beatles, Coldplay, the Rolling Stones, KanYe West, and Blink-182 were signed, they were “indie”.
Of course, that has not been what a fairly innocuous term has come to mean. Now, it means “not mainstream” or “band that no one has heard of”; and for a certain sub-section of the population this means “cool”, and for another sub-section of the population this means “douchey and pretentious starbucks drinkers”. But really, the co-opting of the term “indie” or the bastardization of the very simple original meaning, has everything to do with bands, small record labels, and music listeners in concert (no pun intended) trying to sell their music (or themselves) as decidedly different than people who listen to mainstream music. By no means does everyone in the “indie” scene try and market themselves like that, but there are some who do, and obviously it works. I mean, nobody (or very few people) want to see themselves as cogs in the machine, and the “indie” ethos taps into the desire of people (again, most people) to be viewed as individuals. This (the desire to be viewed as an individual), I think, accounts for the success of platforms like Facebook, Myspace, and, well, blogs.
Oh My God (It Still Means A Lot To Me) by The Wooden Sky
So, while I don’t begrudge the success of musicians/bands who successfully market themselves as “indie” (okay, I do a little bit) it seems to me that its counter-intuitive to what music is about. And music can be about a lot of things: advocating for justice, expressing feeling, scoring chicks, grinding it up on the dancefloor, whatever. And those who frequent this blog (Burgeoning Metropolis for people reading elsewhere) will know that I like a lot of different kinds of music — for instance my last picks of the week have been: #34 a rap album, #33 a college a cappella album, #32 a dance-pop album, #31 a folk-americana album, #30 a roots-rock album, #29 a country-rock album, and so forth. What I’m saying is that I understand that people like music for different reasons, and I think that’s a good thing. What I’m also saying is that people should like music for those different reasons — because they want to advocate for justice, share feelings, etc. — and not because they get a kick out of telling their friends that they knew about X before they got popular (though, it is fun to see a band you like have success) or because you’re looking to score cool points with your friends (though, its important to store up cool points for important occasions like Weddings and Birthday Parties).
This all may sound a little like the pot calling the kettle black since the bulk of the bands that I write about no one (and when I say no one, I mean if you pulled 50 people off the street in Toronto I’d imagine maybe one has heard my favourite record of ’09), but the difference is, at least in my head if no where else, is that I’m not trying to score cool points (anymore). To me (at least now), music is best when its heard live and the best to hear live if you can see the facial expressions of the people playing the music. Its about (barf) some type of communal, shared experience, whether that experience is sweating it out at the front of the stage or doing the whiteboy nod/underbite at the side of the stage. Or, its about doing drugs and getting laid…
Star Of Wonder/None Shall Pass (f. Aesop Rock) By Tor/Sufjan Stevens
Tags: opinion
i have to point out that the term “indie” does not refer to music that is not released on a label – the shorthand term for “independent” dates back at least as far as 1980 when the british “indie charts” were established, and an “indie” label is any that operates outside of the majors – the standbys like virgin, emi, chrysalis, etc. even the earliest of such labels like sun or stax could fit this definition, though the terminology did not exist then.
and furthermore, it’s easy to argue that the term “indie” was not invented to denote a particular style of music, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t more or less evolved into a genre with a very loose set of conventions. terms like “pop,” “alternative,” and even “punk” were conceived with similar intentions, but eventually as leaders begin to emerge the terms take on separate lives as vague genre descriptors. if i tell you someone is a pop singer you can form a basic idea of what they might sound like, and i could do the same with the term “indie,” even if the definition is much broader than it would at first imply. i agree that it’s a bit dubious that, say, +44′s myspace page listed them as “indie” for a while, but if you checked mark hoppus’s blog and looked at the music he was listening to at that time, it would make sense that he might characterize his band as playing a similar style of music. best example: a band doesn’t get much more indie than pavement was in their heyday, but the reason they appealed so widely is because they wrote damn good pop songs. can anyone argue that?