Author Topic: Indie but not really  (Read 2727 times)

alan nagsworth

  • it’s too much. too much fucking perspective
Indie but not really
« on: January 07, 2008, 06:22:37 AM »
What's the best example of so-called indie poignancy you can think of? You know what I'm talking about - these god-awful pop bands playing their own instruments (they're big boys now) thinking their lyrics are so thoughtful in their simplicity when they're just simple thoughts. Utter wank, in other words.

The best one I can think of is that new Bloc Party song, 'Flux'.. this song is an abomination, those ambient-sounding reverby guitars, that desperate attempt to appeal to nu-ravers but still remain every tight-jeaned cunt's favourite band, and the vocals courtesy of Cher in 'Do You Believe In Life After Love'... It's just so awful.

What? Not faux-poignant enough for ya? Well how about this for a cracking line: "We need to talk."

It's one of those lines that is commonplace in unhappy relationships, so Bloc Party thought, 'hey that is like so meaningful yet so simple because everyone knows what those four words entail.' Thanks for that lads. Putting phrases and slogans like that into songs probably stemmed from Radiohead, who actually made good songs out of it, and now everyone thinks that any old bullshit slung into a song will sound really smart and thoughtful, when in reality I wish Bloc Party would all fall down and not get back up again.



EDIT: I sound a bit like [STOP MENTIONING BANNED MEMBERS] when I get pissed off. Sorry if it comes across that way...

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2008, 11:32:25 AM »
Bloc Party never hid their admiration of New Order and in many ways their career draws a lot of parallels to the template of Joy Division / New Order (obviously not including the loss of their frontman). 'Silent Alarm' was the crossover album which had enough depth and innovation to cross over into the mainstream whilst maintaining a critical integrity, 'Weekend in the City' is the more dour introspective follow up and now they are stepping foot into a dance orientated sound, previously hinted with numerous dance remixes of their songs including a remix album.

With regards to your question, flick open the NME and select any one of the flock of post-Libertines bands like The Wombats, Courteeners, Pigeon Detectives, Cajan Dance Party etc. etc. etc. for examples of poignant wordplay


This thread could evolve into a discussion about the dilution of 'indie' as a musical genre. From Rough Trade to New Rave: The Demise of Indie

The Plaque Goblin

  • INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2008, 12:17:15 PM »
It should be 'Indie-style', just like when you go to the supermarket deli counter and the labels say 'Deli-style' because all the meat has actually been delivered pre-sliced in big plastic containers.

Vitalstatistix

  • Photocopies are not admissable as memories
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2008, 02:46:41 PM »
I never understood what Indie is meant to be to be honest. I always thought it was shite like Travis and Coldplay, but the term seems vague enough to encompass any Britpop band you'd care to mention, all the post-Strokes "The" bands, AND much of this 'nu rave' bollocks.

Isn't it meant to mean fucking independent or is that simply a long-dead idea now?

alan nagsworth

  • it’s too much. too much fucking perspective
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2008, 04:21:06 PM »
This thread could evolve into a discussion about the dilution of 'indie' as a musical genre. From Rough Trade to New Rave: The Demise of Indie

Shall we? It was the original idea but I didn't have much in the way of an opening post. At 5am I tend to spout incoherent shit, the best of which being my State Of Television Today thread, the worst being my decision to change my username... :-/

Let's see then... Indie: Another offshoot genre so non-specific anyone can jump aboard, or something much more sinister? Maybe these kids genuinely think their music is the freshest super-fly shit around, when in fact it's just super-fresh fly shit? People may argue that indie is dead, but what made it alive in the first place?

Where do you draw the line with the term 'indie'? Nobuo Uematsu composes the music for the Final Fantasy games as well as other titles, pretty much independently, and what he does as a whole is a pretty independent thing as far as being such a recognized composer goes. Does that make him indie?

Don_Preston

  • You should have bought me the truck, you fuck!
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2008, 04:33:47 PM »
Does that make him indie?

Depends. Does he have a haircut?

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2008, 04:39:06 PM »
These days Indie bands are not defined not by the music they play.

To be an Indie band you must have at least 2 or more members wearing Converse All Star trainers and the lead singer must also have been the target of a glibly ironic critique from Simon Amstell.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2008, 04:53:13 PM »
Indie used to mean independent in the 1980s but any band that was influenced by the music that tended to characterise 'independent' acts now is called 'indie'. Although I would tend to associate the term 'indie' with a very British pop sound as done by The Smiths and Oasis and newer bands like The Kaiser Chiefs. 'Alternative' music seems to be more appropriate for acts like 'The Strokes'.

Cack Hen

  • HAI ILU
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2008, 05:28:47 PM »
Bloc Party's first album is very good, and people who lump them in with Kaiser Chiefs almost certainly haven't heard them.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2008, 05:37:15 PM »
I thought Indie started out meaning that you were on an independent label but later on came to mean that the band was creatively independent, i.e. they weren't compromising their music to keep the record company happy, it probably has become a bit meaningless now though.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2008, 05:55:49 PM »
I think there was a similar conflict between 'indie' bands in the 80's. Read Simon Reynolds 'Rip it Up: And Start Again' for a detailed account but basically many 'indie' bands and even some labels operated under the umbrella of major label giants. Influential indie darlings like Talking Heads and PIL released challenging albums despite being part of a 'scene' which opposed mainstream control

Fugazi are an obvious example of an 'indie' band I suppose

jaydee81

  • 081 811 8181
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2008, 05:58:22 PM »
Quote
There's a new type of music called indie rock

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2008, 05:59:04 PM »
This thread could evolve into a discussion about the dilution of 'indie' as a musical genre. From Rough Trade to New Rave: The Demise of Indie

So much stuff feels diluted these days.  Look at Band Of Horses.  They're on Sub Pop.  It's unlikely with their brand of jangly stuff they'd even get through Sup Pop's door ten years ago.

Cack Hen

  • HAI ILU
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2008, 06:04:57 PM »
Oh, but an example of truly, truly atrocious modern indie-rock is this:

[youtube=425,350]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyCi4CMD29w[/youtube]

'let's dance to Joy Division, and celebrate the irony'

Enough said.

NoSleep

  • feat. Keith Jarrett and his singing parrot
    • Space Is The Place
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2008, 06:09:45 PM »
Isn't it meant to mean fucking independent or is that simply a long-dead idea now?
Major-ie just doesn't have the same ring.

The earliest independent UK record label I can think of would be Derek Bailey's Incus Records in the 60s.
Sax/Bass/Drums trio Back Door originally released their first album on their own label in '74.
I think independent labels abounded in the States yonks before either of these. John Fahey's first release "Blind Joe Death" was in 1959, and I'm sure there were many more before him.
None of the above called their music "indie".

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2008, 06:45:18 PM »
Oh the bliss of this thread! I have to deal with cunts every week yelling at me because I refuse to play dreadful stuff like The Wombats, The Libertines, The Arctic Monkeys...and that new Bloc Party single. I didn't actually like any of the new album apart from the Sebastian remix of....the second single I can't even remember the title to. The video to Flux is awful too, just...awful.

I've been an obsessive fan of music since about 91, and the way the scene has changed has become unbearable lately. I hated the Britpop times, you know, when Loaded suddenly became acceptable reading material for people that liked guitar music too, and when that ended I was relieved, but I can honestly say I'm finding this current age of music, where everyone is so so obsessed with their fucking hair (although if I'm honest I can't really talk, I have a hairdo) and they're extremely posh, extremely spoilt, and suddenly being right wing is apparently acceptable. There is nothing unbiased, I haven't read the NME for a few years now, but when you've got everything being sponsored, and national magazines starting clubs and promoting gigs and getting other independent promoters involved, then everything becomes a fucking advertisement and there is virtually nothing thats actually promoting anything for the love of it anymore.

Strangely, I think I'm actually responsible for a load of shitty bands getting attention, which depresses me even more, Jack fucking Penate for one.

Cack Hen

  • HAI ILU
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2008, 06:51:03 PM »
Why are you responsible?

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2008, 07:06:25 PM »
Why are you responsible?

You didn't teach him those god awful dance moves, did you?

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2008, 07:08:35 PM »
Oooh, am I upsetting by mentioning things regarding my job and stuff? I'm not au fait with forum stuff, but it seems that the tags are mentioning stuff like that so I shall not mention any more.

And a quick reply/explanation. I started promoting a few years back because I as a severe agoraphobic and it was a last ditch attempt to force myself out the house, and I thought music would be something that would help me to do so. I somehow did well, and also at the time it was a way of being outside without talking to much (I was in speech therapy as I'd had some neurological problems) because the music would be the main focus. My ex decided to follow suit, with my ex best friend that he'd gone off with during me having the neurological upset, and being the arse he saw what I was doing and decided to start a club for kiddies (he likes young kids, makes him feel special when people look up to him) and one of the bands mentioned on this thread formed at his clubs, and went on to be young and mediocre, just like all his bands. Jack tossywank was focussed on due to the sudden fascination with his club. If I hadn't promoted, he'd never have done it I doubt, in the seven years we were together he never talked about it once, ever. He now enjoys giving young kids drugs to keep them cheery for gigs. So proud.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2008, 07:11:29 PM »
I regret posting the "Who's responsible? Mindbear fucking is!" tag now.  I never post tags usually, and it was just a crap Manic Street Preachers reference.

Interesting story, Mindbear.  Don't be put off by wankers posting unfunny tags, like me.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2008, 07:19:13 PM »
I accidentally clicked on your profile and recognised the name of the band. It seems you're playing my friend Rorys club! I think I'm going to that. It's a small world on the net no?

And I get the reference, if I'd known i'd play any small part in the careers of the bands he's made famous, I would have banned myself, perhaps even called the police.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2008, 08:03:08 PM »
Bloc Party's first album is very good, and people who lump them in with Kaiser Chiefs almost certainly haven't heard them.

It's alright, not sure I'd say it was very good. It's pretty overrated, but has a few good songs, and the drummer is excellent. The new album is pretty gash though, plus I don't get why the singer has such a boring voice despite being black.

Quote
Fugazi are an obvious example of an 'indie' band I suppose

I thought they were a punk band, or a 'post-punk' band.

If I had to give an example of indie, I'd probably say the smiths or something.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2008, 08:09:58 PM »
I think Fugazi were meant in ethics, as opposed to jangley guitars...I could be wrong though.

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2008, 08:12:21 PM »
Doesn't Flux sound like Big Country?

Whenever I think of "indie" I think of Felt, strangely.  A level of obscurity seems to be part of it.  Something like the Stone Roses or Oasis, though, I'd think of as "rock".

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2008, 08:30:55 PM »
Doesn't Flux sound like Big Country?

Whenever I think of "indie" I think of Felt, strangely.  A level of obscurity seems to be part of it.  Something like the Stone Roses or Oasis, though, I'd think of as "rock".

Maybe it's because bands like Oasis featured heavily in the Indie chart on ITV's the Chart Show in 94 when they were slightly obscure with loads of other far more obscure stuff. Oasis definetly seemed to me far more alternative than they really were because I didn't know all the influences when I was younger and to a young boy they just looked and sounded quite weird and psychadelic.

chand

  • "like Louise Mensch but with a sexy beard"
    • https://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2008, 08:34:25 PM »
I thought they were a punk band, or a 'post-punk' band.

They're post-hardcore, you jackass. God, don't you even know anything?

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2008, 08:43:29 PM »
A level of obscurity seems to be part of it.

It also has connotations of not being able to play your instrument too well, for me anyway.

Cack Hen

  • HAI ILU
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2008, 08:45:00 PM »
I can't help but wonder how long it's gonna take for the next indie 'thing' to happen. Everybody's been feeding off the garage rock/indie-disco/post-punk thing for nearly 7 years now, it's definitely time for something new. There was that 'new-rave' shit that lingered like a bad smell for about two years, but that'd fading out, unsurprisingly (it doesn't help when the best band from that scene are Klaxons - though they do have a couple of good songs). Oh, I remember there being a few attempts at indie-grime quite recently, but it was shocking.

The trouble is, as good as The Strokes' first album was, it had such weak competition, it wouldn't have taken much at all to make people sit up and think "maybe Limp Bizkit aren't all that!" But how long is it gonna take for people to want something other than this brand of indie that's been popular for over half a decade? There's always bait in the water (Gallows, Klaxons, Hadouken) but it's too shit for anyone to bite properly. I don't know if we have to wait for everybody to get bored before the next 'thing' can come, or if it's just a matter of waiting for somebody to make an extraordinary album in a particular genre to get the ball rolling. The question is, will the general Indie Public buy into it if the current scene still has a tiny bit of life in it? If so, I fear a change could be a long time coming.

For the record, I'm perfectly aware that the music world doesn't begin and end with "mainstream indie" but it's interesting to monitor the progress of it. Besides, things may be bad now, but who's to say something special won't happen one day soon? Music dies the day you give up on it. 

Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2008, 08:56:17 PM »
I remember the years between the death of Britpop and the arrival of the Strokes/White Stripes was fucking grim for a follower of indie music. There seemed to be nothing about for a teenager looking for 'their' band (Idlewild seemed to be the closest I found). As I got older I realised there was tons of good stuff around in 1998/99 it's just that stuff like Arab Strap, Mogwai, and Bonnie 'Prince' Billy wasn't really what I was looking for back then.

Vitalstatistix

  • Photocopies are not admissable as memories
Re: Indie but not really
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2008, 09:06:21 PM »
There was always Radiohead..