Is "Indie" a genre?

Mangaeyes · 12-25-2010, 02:21 PM

I think it has become a genre. Like pop - pop is supposed to be popular but it has its own distinctive sound.

Indie doesn't just mean independent anymore - I think its become its own genre.

~~Odyshape~~ · 01-02-2011, 02:28 AM

I think indie has its different effects when combined with different genres as kind of a prefix. Like indie rock by now has been pretty easy to identify as a certain sound (atleast for me) whereas as you guys said other "indie" genres aren't so easy like indie folk.

Hank The Drifter · 01-02-2011, 09:01 AM

I'm bad about plugging indie in front of a genre all the time. I'm not sure why I do it. I guess I do that to help separate the bands. For instance, I use 'folk' to explain Woody Guthrie but then I also use 'folk' to explain Tallest Man on Earth and those two are so different I feel that they can't possible be in the same genre so when I am suggesting TMoE to someone I just say 'indie folk' and usually they understand. Its probably more a bad habit than it is so much thinking its an entire genre itself lol.

TheBig3 · 01-02-2011, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

I'm confused. I thought bands were labeled "indie" if they shied away from major/commercial record labels. It seems to have become commonplace to append the labels "indie", "indie rock", "indie folk", etcetcetc, in describing the genre of artists or albums.

Does indie now refer to a specific sound? Is it legitimate to claim indie is a genre?

Indie has never shied away from Major Label Commercial Success. Thats just some angry piss-ants revisionist history of the sound. Its certainly a genre. I can't name one genre that has a universally mutual sound.

Gavin B. · 01-04-2011, 08:15 AM

The term "indie" doesn't describe any sort of musical genre. My own understanding of indie is that the term describes any kind of music produced by an independent music label as opposed to one of the four major labels that dominate the music industry.

Independent labels are responsible for producing most of the recorded music for the less commercially viable genres, like folk music, jazz, reggae and afrobeat. From my perspective nearly any music (regardless of genre) that is produced by an independent label is "indie" music. The confusion about exactly what indie music is began with the misuse of the "alternative" by the major label to market rock music in the early Nineties.

The term "indie" came into usage when the four major labels began marketing rock music using the catch phrase "alternative." Musically savvy folks began using the term indie to make a distinction between independent label music & major label music that was hyped as alternative music. In the 90's many major labels set up wholly owned boutique labels to fool the public into believing that they were purchasing music produced by an independent label. A lot of music buyers, myself included, shop by label and prefer indie label music because the music content is far more interesting than most music produced by the four major labels.

There have been indie labels around since the Fifties. If I'm not mistaken, Blue Note was the first indie label. Blue Note was established to record and market some of the less commercial bebop jazz artists that the major labels weren't interested in signing or recording. Miles Davis & Thelonious Monk recorded a great deal of music on Blue Note before the major label, Columbia Records decided sign them on and market contemporary jazz to a larger mainstream audience.

Here's of the most prominent independent labels

ROCK
Sub Pop
Dischord
Factory
Touch and Go
Matador
SST
4AD

FOLK MUSIC
Rounder
Red House

REISSUES & RARE MUSIC
Rykodisc
Rhino

REGGAE & WORLDBEAT
Greensleeves
Ras Records

JAZZ
Blue Note
Verve

TheBig3 · 01-04-2011, 09:02 AM

Anyone who's come to the forum is likely aware of that, and if they weren't they are. I'm sure everyone rolls there eyes when I do this, but who was recording music for non-commercial gains? Why record at all if this is the case? Unless you're showing your unborn grandchild how well you could play, there isn't really a reason.

And in any sort of free market society, its hard to imagine who wouldn't be truly independent. In todays modern technocracy, we don't even need labels and the idea that in an "independent" artist would even bother with labels is obsolete.

I think theres the idea in angry young folks that for some reason we should do the opposite of bands we hate, as if to destroy them. But anyone who's been out of high school for 3 years should understand there isn't a social political identity in the real world (primarily because you have real problems to deal with) and associating yourself with artist A or B means very little.

And to comment on a different side of the same coin, I'd argue that people who do this don't truly appreciate music. If you can't find 1 good thing (honest thing) to say about the band you hate the most then you're missing the point. To drudge up a cliche here, anger isn't the opposite of love, indifference is. The band you care least about isn't on your radar. For an act to draw so much emotion from you, they've at least done 1 thing right. Until you see that, you don't get music.

The idea of independence from commercialism is some ridiculous notion that what sells is bad. To get to the radical root of the math, its because you think the masses are stupid. To one end, thats because they aren't as invested as you are, to the other - so what? Understand that the music other people like wasn't dwelled upon for hours. Had it been, they may have come to the same conclusion as you, or at least a more tolerable one.

There is nothing of value from independence beyond the individual. As a listener you're never without an option, so why the rage? In the West, the "dollar" rules, so rage with your money. Thats the only thing that makes anyone give a **** anymore. Well, that or an unexpected tit shot on a childrens show but you can't buy that. I know. I've tried.

Dotoar · 01-05-2011, 08:16 PM

Indie, isn't that the music of the native americans?

Placeholder_ · 01-06-2011, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Anyone who's come to the forum is likely aware of that, and if they weren't they are. I'm sure everyone rolls there eyes when I do this, but who was recording music for non-commercial gains? Why record at all if this is the case? Unless you're showing your unborn grandchild how well you could play, there isn't really a reason.

And in any sort of free market society, its hard to imagine who wouldn't be truly independent. In todays modern technocracy, we don't even need labels and the idea that in an "independent" artist would even bother with labels is obsolete.

I think theres the idea in angry young folks that for some reason we should do the opposite of bands we hate, as if to destroy them. But anyone who's been out of high school for 3 years should understand there isn't a social political identity in the real world (primarily because you have real problems to deal with) and associating yourself with artist A or B means very little.

And to comment on a different side of the same coin, I'd argue that people who do this don't truly appreciate music. If you can't find 1 good thing (honest thing) to say about the band you hate the most then you're missing the point. To drudge up a cliche here, anger isn't the opposite of love, indifference is. The band you care least about isn't on your radar. For an act to draw so much emotion from you, they've at least done 1 thing right. Until you see that, you don't get music.

The idea of independence from commercialism is some ridiculous notion that what sells is bad. To get to the radical root of the math, its because you think the masses are stupid. To one end, thats because they aren't as invested as you are, to the other - so what? Understand that the music other people like wasn't dwelled upon for hours. Had it been, they may have come to the same conclusion as you, or at least a more tolerable one.

There is nothing of value from independence beyond the individual. As a listener you're never without an option, so why the rage? In the West, the "dollar" rules, so rage with your money. Thats the only thing that makes anyone give a **** anymore. Well, that or an unexpected tit shot on a childrens show but you can't buy that. I know. I've tried.

I can get down with this.

Regardless of whether or not indie can be 'officially' be labelled as a genre (whatever the hell that means), there's certainly no denying that there's a particular sound or aesthetic synonomous with the term.

TheCunningStunt · 01-07-2011, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Indie, isn't that the music of the native americans?

No.

Anteater · 01-07-2011, 01:29 PM

What's interesting about an argument like this is that if we're going by the traditional definition of Indie, then a lot of modern jazz, black metal and 99.99% of modern progressive rock are about as "Indie" as it gets, as beyond most of the extremely well known albums from those respective genres in their heyday, almost every band who tries to strike out in those fields is on an independent label or are self-produced.

Otherwise, Gavin nailed it right on the head. The whole "Indie" sound that a lot of pop, rock, folk and electronic stuff gets tagged with these days are generally artsy people doing artsy, occasionally accessible music who like to think they're alternative to what gets tagged as "alternative" in big name publications and your local Target.

12-25-2010, 02:21 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mangaeyes Groupie Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: England Posts: 25	I think it has become a genre. Like pop - pop is supposed to be popular but it has its own distinctive sound. Indie doesn't just mean independent anymore - I think its become its own genre. __________________ Twitter \| Last.fm \| deviantART

01-02-2011, 09:01 AM	#23 (permalink)
Hank The Drifter Take it easy, but take it Join Date: May 2010 Location: Georgia Posts: 213	I'm bad about plugging indie in front of a genre all the time. I'm not sure why I do it. I guess I do that to help separate the bands. For instance, I use 'folk' to explain Woody Guthrie but then I also use 'folk' to explain Tallest Man on Earth and those two are so different I feel that they can't possible be in the same genre so when I am suggesting TMoE to someone I just say 'indie folk' and usually they understand. Its probably more a bad habit than it is so much thinking its an entire genre itself lol. __________________ “If a song can't be written in 20 minutes, it ain't worth writing.” - Hank Williams

01-04-2011, 08:15 AM	#25 (permalink)
Gavin B. Model Worker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,248	The term "indie" doesn't describe any sort of musical genre. My own understanding of indie is that the term describes any kind of music produced by an independent music label as opposed to one of the four major labels that dominate the music industry. Independent labels are responsible for producing most of the recorded music for the less commercially viable genres, like folk music, jazz, reggae and afrobeat. From my perspective nearly any music (regardless of genre) that is produced by an independent label is "indie" music. The confusion about exactly what indie music is began with the misuse of the "alternative" by the major label to market rock music in the early Nineties. The term "indie" came into usage when the four major labels began marketing rock music using the catch phrase "alternative." Musically savvy folks began using the term indie to make a distinction between independent label music & major label music that was hyped as alternative music. In the 90's many major labels set up wholly owned boutique labels to fool the public into believing that they were purchasing music produced by an independent label. A lot of music buyers, myself included, shop by label and prefer indie label music because the music content is far more interesting than most music produced by the four major labels. There have been indie labels around since the Fifties. If I'm not mistaken, Blue Note was the first indie label. Blue Note was established to record and market some of the less commercial bebop jazz artists that the major labels weren't interested in signing or recording. Miles Davis & Thelonious Monk recorded a great deal of music on Blue Note before the major label, Columbia Records decided sign them on and market contemporary jazz to a larger mainstream audience. Here's of the most prominent independent labels ROCK Sub Pop Dischord Factory Touch and Go Matador SST 4AD FOLK MUSIC Rounder Red House REISSUES & RARE MUSIC Rykodisc Rhino REGGAE & WORLDBEAT Greensleeves Ras Records JAZZ Blue Note Verve __________________ There are two types of music: the first type is the blues and the second type is all the other stuff. Townes Van Zandt

01-04-2011, 09:02 AM	#26 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	Anyone who's come to the forum is likely aware of that, and if they weren't they are. I'm sure everyone rolls there eyes when I do this, but who was recording music for non-commercial gains? Why record at all if this is the case? Unless you're showing your unborn grandchild how well you could play, there isn't really a reason. And in any sort of free market society, its hard to imagine who wouldn't be truly independent. In todays modern technocracy, we don't even need labels and the idea that in an "independent" artist would even bother with labels is obsolete. I think theres the idea in angry young folks that for some reason we should do the opposite of bands we hate, as if to destroy them. But anyone who's been out of high school for 3 years should understand there isn't a social political identity in the real world (primarily because you have real problems to deal with) and associating yourself with artist A or B means very little. And to comment on a different side of the same coin, I'd argue that people who do this don't truly appreciate music. If you can't find 1 good thing (honest thing) to say about the band you hate the most then you're missing the point. To drudge up a cliche here, anger isn't the opposite of love, indifference is. The band you care least about isn't on your radar. For an act to draw so much emotion from you, they've at least done 1 thing right. Until you see that, you don't get music. The idea of independence from commercialism is some ridiculous notion that what sells is bad. To get to the radical root of the math, its because you think the masses are stupid. To one end, thats because they aren't as invested as you are, to the other - so what? Understand that the music other people like wasn't dwelled upon for hours. Had it been, they may have come to the same conclusion as you, or at least a more tolerable one. There is nothing of value from independence beyond the individual. As a listener you're never without an option, so why the rage? In the West, the "dollar" rules, so rage with your money. Thats the only thing that makes anyone give a **** anymore. Well, that or an unexpected tit shot on a childrens show but you can't buy that. I know. I've tried. __________________ I've moved to a new address

01-05-2011, 08:16 PM	#27 (permalink)
Dotoar Supernatural anaesthetist Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Örebro, Sweden Posts: 436	Indie, isn't that the music of the native americans? __________________ - More is more -

01-02-2011, 02:28 AM	#22 (permalink)
~~Odyshape~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 526	I think indie has its different effects when combined with different genres as kind of a prefix. Like indie rock by now has been pretty easy to identify as a certain sound (atleast for me) whereas as you guys said other "indie" genres aren't so easy like indie folk.