This is an essay in response to this article:

Does the world need another indie band?

After reading an elitist tirade against the misuse of the word “indie” as applied to bands today I began to cultivate an existential theory of my own. I wondered why many folks continue to get their panties in a wad because the meaning of “indie” has changed from a way of defining a band’s origin and operation to a particular musical style and physical presentation. Because hipsters value the first definition over the second? Because it was once an admirable category to fall into but is now associated with what could be construed as an unseemly privileged rebellion? Because indie was once synonymous with cool but lost that association as it became an overused commodity exploited to sell a manufactured identity? Are people truly worried that a band might be defined by a designation that while once was used to show individuality, now is used as a way to gauge similarities?

The word has changed, so what?

If we all know what the new definition is, and somewhat agree on the new definition, then what does it matter? Is there any benefit from knowing that when a band is slapped with this title now it doesn’t mean what it once did? Does being indie in the original sense somehow magically make the music better? The designation has always been loosely defined, given to mostly white male rock musicians that worked with small “independently” owned labels, or musicians who recorded their music in their bedroom, were played on college radio, slept in their vans,  had liberal arts degrees and enjoyed underground followings. It was a term glorified for it’s ideology. Early practitioner’s were admired not only for their experimentation and originality, but for the perception of a courageous endeavor to follow their own vision without compromise -  the problem that critics often fail to acknowledge is that it worked. They developed alternative ways to share their work, sought out and created a new audience and proved they could be successful on their own terms. By  bypassing traditional paths they carved new ones that they enjoyed access to without the approval or help of anyone but themselves. They gained control of their ideas and thrived on making their own decisions rather than having to give in to concession. As it became more and more clear that there was not only one way to attain prosperity and the musicians at the forefront of the movement reveled in there accomplishment, the more others became interested in this alternative method. Although, it must be pointed out that neither path has been proven to be superior to the other, but rather a personal choice. value can be found in both having complete control but also having complete responsibility and the compromise of giving up some freedoms in order to have an investment made in you and your art. Different strokes for different folks, ya heard?

The problem those with “experience” have with the new “indie” tag is that it is no longer asociated with any specific movement, but rather has become cheapened by becoming extremely common.  As the people who have aligned themselves with the methodology has grown and evolved, the definition of the term has followed suit, taking refuge with those that sought it out, at peace with the fact that as soon as the grouping reached a certain capacity,  those that have chosen to base their identity on their seperatists ideals would run for the hills anyway.

Whatever the true definition used to be, it doesn’t take more than a subscription to Spin and a few music blog RSS feeds to know most people who use the word realize it now defines a style of collegiate rock music, an attitude a band represents, and their personal appearance, a package that perpetuates a lifestyle that some might use in defining themselves. It is a word that has been co-opted to describe something or someone that is an outsider - by choice. It’s an idea, that while is still frequently used to define something as separate from the majority, has evolved into  a perception of something valued by a specific targeted audience. Basically it is used as a marketing tool to sell a quality that unfortunately, you can’t actually purchase. Not in it’s authentic form, anyway.

The downfall of this obviously, is that by definition, when something is manipulated to be perceived differently, some might come to the conclusion that in reality it is not the thing it is now being portrayed as. Meaning, if you do something for the specific reason of making someone perceive you in a specific way, like listen to a certain band, or style your hair in a particular way, doesn’t that mean that you are not that way naturally? If I wear Chuck Taylors because I believe they will make me cool, is that really cool? Or if I naturally choose actions that result in a particular perception, isn’t that the one that is actually true?

Everyone dislikes something or someone that portrays itself as something it isn’t. In simplest terms, we react to it as if it were a lie, which I guess it kind of is. Lies are often interpreted as a lack of respect and a grasp for power in a relationship .

We all know that Nirvana is one of the most famous indie success stories, they were on a small label called Sub Pop, but when they broke big and got huge they reaped the same access and privilege of being on a major. They made videos, did big tours, were in mainstream magazines -  the question is - would they have enjoyed the same success if they had been signed to a major label for their first album? I doubt it. Because the idea they were selling was that they were outsiders, they were not aligned with the “man” and they were independent. But in the end they made it to a level where there was no definable difference between them and any other successful rock act on a major label.

So back to the question of why it is so annoying to the elders that a band made popular today on MTV be called “indie,” a designation once bestowed only upon those that could be considered outside of the mainstream. Here is a quote from the article that stirred my interest in the first place:

John Niven was an indie fan in the 1980s, an A&R man in the Britpopping 1990s, and is now the author of Kill Your Friends, a sadistic satire of the record industry of which he was once an enthusiastic member. “I was in Gap a few weeks ago and there was some sort of generic indie music playing,” he says. “I was with a friend who’s a promoter and a bit younger than me. After about three or four tracks I asked him: ‘Whose LP is this?’ And he said, ‘No, it’s a compilation.’ Every track sounded identical. The guitars, the production; all these bands sound like they’re made in the same studio with the same producer. It’s such a ball-less, soulless, generic whitewashed indie sound. You could probably take a member from each band and throw them together in a new group and no one would be able to tell the difference. They’re completely interchangeable. Scouting for Girls are like the sound of Satan’s scrotum emptying. They’re abysmal.”

By his own admission, Mr Niven assumes the music is “indie.” No one calls it this other than himself.

His statement is also certainly analogous to saying that all black people look alike or more parallel, all rap sounds the same. Of course, I realize that these types of generalizations only hold water because of the limited of time on has spent actually paying attention to the genre. The more time one spends being exposed to anything the clearer the details and differences become. Ever had a friend who just didn’t get Arrested Development - (which is clearly genius!)

Rock has always shared similarities that have defined the sound of every decade. Obviously there comes a time when a specific sound becomes redundant and uninteresting, but isn’t that a necessary step in motivating someone to try something different? If we didn’t get burnt out on certain styles to the point where we are so affected that we have to take action, what would ever cause change?

Another thing brought up in the article is a lack of a true “indie” scene around today. I have to disagree with this wholeheartedly. There is a real  “indie” scene, at least where I live, and it is not about fashion or a specific sound, and because it is “independent” it is not advertised, promoted or sold to the mainstream. The only true way to gain awareness of it (and this is with any music) is to be part of it. You can’t look at the media or any widely consumed entity and decide that if something is not on it’s radar it does not exist - that just doesn’t make sense. Once anything becomes common knowledge it tends to start evolving in a new and different way and stops being what it one was. When critics condemn fetival bookers of filling their rosters with similar sounding bands I can’t help but argue that, of course, music festivals are going to fill slots with a lot of bands that are very similar, they are trying to make money and it just makes good business sense to go with a product that has a track record - even if it’s a knockoff.

Another complaint of old schoolers that I am often amused by is that while they were once part of some revolutionary period in their particular scene, they are disappointed that the next generation have not carried the torch - because it seems to me any young independent group that is creating things that are new and innovative wouldn’t want those old timers around anyway!! Not to mention new and exciting deveolpments in anything are often hard to define as they are happening. They are often remembered as more precious than they actually were. I must refer once again to Grunge - sure people in that scene may have been aware that something a little bit diifferent was going on - but it really wasn’t that different for anyone to expect how it would become so all-encompassing in it’s reach and grow to define much more than a music scene.

Was anyone at a Mudhoney show thinking, “This is totally going to reshape the attitude of an entire generation, influence fashion from thrift stores to couture collections, and still be listened to by 12 year olds in Ohio 14 years later!”

Returning to the issue of looking to the “experienced” (I hate calling people old!) to comment and compare the past with the present, well, it just seems obvious that they would not be privy to anything happening that could truly be defined as independent. Have you ever gone to a show and been really excited that there were a bunch of old dudes hanging around, or did it automatically make you feel like it wasn’t as cool or underground as you wanted it to be? And believe me, I know I am one minute away from being on the adult team, I just accept the fact that when I get there I will lose touch with a lot of the newest innovations and ideas. Experience is very valuable, but it is also limiting. And once someone has a certain amount of experience, it can separate you from certain things in a positive and negative way. You can not only lose the connection with the most driven and passionate members of a group, which will often be the youngest because they have the most to prove and the most time to prove it, but the things that are thought to be valuable and relevant but the experienced and the inexperienced are often completely different. value just simply change and we become unable to understand . How can a person 20 years a person’s senior really be able to decifer the impact of anything the younger person experiences?

In the same way a really “happening” nightclub has a shelf-life, so do magazines, websites and music. If you are on the forefront of anything, eventually the thing that once made you edgy will become common place and will attract the second and third wave of adopters until it is an afterthought. The reason it is hard to continually be cutting edge is because when there is a new idea formulated followers are both won and lost, and sometimes more tend to be lost.

I am certainly also bemused that many bands are lumped into genres more based on their hairstyle and attire than the music they play. But I get it and I am extremely aware of when a band is selling a persona or attitude more than their music, which becomes merely an accessory used to add to the concept. It doesn’t take much to figure it out, I usually know when I am being marketed to and what exactly it is being sold. And I admit that unfortunately, even when I know the what is and is not an illusion, I can sometimes take the bait and let myself be influenced as to what is and is not actually valuable. Hair and sneakers shouldn’t have a part in determinig whether you like a band or not - in a perfect world, only the music would matter.

But I admit I have definitely been turned off by a band based on what they look like. I know I have dug a song and later when I saw the band in a video or on a magazine cover, I promptly changed my mind. I toy with the idea that I can defend that attitude based on the idea that the song’s essence, meaning and purpose can be redefined by how I might perceive them, but I haven’t really tested that theory. My perfect example would be Maroon 5. I was in Japan when I saw their first record and had never heard of them. There were no band photos and I had nothing to judge them by other than the music, which I listened to in the store and liked. I bought it, brought it home and listened a few times and found it to be enjoyable. Then when the band had their first video and begin to become more and more popular, I liked them less and less. Same music, but different perception of the personality of the band. It’s totally cliche but if a shy, hipster intellectual sings about love I am enthralled, but when a slick, confident rock star type sings the same exact sentiment, I am yurned off. I know why musicians with ambition choose a genre to align themselves with which has led to the designation of “indie” to lose it’s original meaning.

However, the former definition of indie was just as tainted. It was rarely applied to DIY metal bands or caberet singers dreaming of making thay Sondheim compilation, even though they might have just as easily fallen into the category. It has alwas been related to a certain narcisstic veiwpoint as it still is. Some bands were looked up to because they played it off like they CHOSE to be on an indie, while others were judged as not good enough to be on anything but. Being labeled “indie” was still a statment, something that bands definitely used to define themselves. The definition, as we have covered, was just different.

Finally the article that started this, my very own tirade, another shortsighted thought led me to a humorous analogy:

At the same time, the Arctics’ supposed recipe for success – the much-hyped MySpace profile that let them build a fanbase without a budget – has been co-opted by the rest of the industry. Like the establishment of those boutique brands, it’s now just another major label marketing ploy.

Which is pretty much akin to this imagined converation:

Caveman 1 - “Man remember when Jim invented fire? that was so cool!”
Caveman 2 - “Yeah, but now everybody has it so, you know, the thrill is gone.”
Cavement1 - Yeah, it sucks now, but when he did it the first time, I was totally there, and it was rad.”

Of course, after writing all of this I also must point out that the article that spawned this essay was written about the British “indie” scene, which kind of too negligible to be worried with anyway…

But I had a free night…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites