Indie pop and Rockism

Those two tapes would be brilliant for a two-part C90 Go! if anyone fancies it. (I could always do it but I think my C81 is in my parents loft).

It seems to me that I remember reading the term used that way in the American music magazine Option. Of course, they would also have used terms like hardcore, avant-noise, etc.

i haf found c81 but not c86 (which rather shockingly possibly means i haf played the latter more recently than the former)

i wd sorta like to do a c90 on them both but i am so behind wiv stuff promised to for FT it seems inappropriates

Someone else can look up C86.

c81 side two:
Shouting Out Loud, Raincoats
Endless Soul, Josef K
Low Profile, Blue Orchids
Red Nettle, Virgin Prunes
We Could Send Letters, Aztec Camera
Milkmaid, Red Crayola
Don't Get In My Way, Linx
'The Day My Pad Went Mad', The Massed Carnaby Street John Cooper Clarkes
Jazz Is The Teacher, Funk is the Preacher, James Blood Ulmer
Close to Home, Ian Dury
Greener Grass, The Gist
Parallel Lines, Subway Sect 

Velocity Girl, Primal Scream (Creation)
Happy Head, The Mighty Lemon Drops (Dreamworld)
Pleasantly Surprised, The Soup Dragons (Subway Organisation)
Feeling So Strange Again, The Wolfhounds (Pink Label)
Therese, The Bodines (Creation)
Law, Mighty Mighty (Girlie)
Run to the Temple, Bogshed (Help Y'Shelf) [BOB SNOOM TO THREAD!!]
Buffalo, Stump (Ron Johnson)
Sharpened Sticks, A Witness (Ron Johnson)
Breaking Lines, The pastels (Glass Records)
From Now On, This Will Be Your God, Age of Chance (Riot Bible)

side two
It's Up To You, Shop Assistants (53rd and 3rd)
Firestation Towers, Close Lobsters (Close Lobster)
Sport Most Royal, Miaow (Venus)
I Hate Nerys Hughes (From the Heart), Half Man Half Biscuit (Probe Plus) [NOTE: INDIE INVENTS 'I HEART THE 70S' etc etc]
Transparent, The Servants (Head)
Big Jim (There's No Pubs In Heaven), The MacKenzies (Ron Johnson)
New Way (Quick Wash and Brush Up with Liberation Theology), Big Flame (Ron Johnson)
Console Me, We've Got a Fuzzbox and We're Going to Use It (Vindaloo)
Celestial City, McCarthy (Pink Label)
Bullfighters' Bones, The Shrubs (Ron Johnson)
This Boy Can Wait (a Bit Longer), The Wedding Present (Reception)

Mark says: erm i think the name for the phenomenon which changed this is OASIS!!

Sandy says: I think the name for the phenomenon which changed this is grunge and baggy - it didn't exist before that.

Mark says: post-punk indie (79-82, say) was fanatically anti- rockist (it's where the term arose), because it read the pistol's message as "rock is dead long live freedom"

Sandy says: post-punk indie (79-82) was enthusiastically pro-rock, because of the Public Images message 'You never listened to a word that I said'. The term (in its current meaning) arose after this period when, post-punk bands turned into rock bands and new-pop bands emerged (84-86). The term lost all meaning and any potency in 1986 when New Pop decreased - probably fix the time as the first Jesus and Mary Chain album.

Mark says: The C86 "movement" canonised a version of 60s "rock" (jangly guitar basically, byrds-to-VU third) as the truth- bearing countercanon: it was still eg anti-metal/prog (but also anti- disco and somewhat anti-rap)

Sandy says: The C86 era gigs I attended at the Splash 1 club and other gigs at Daddy Warbucks in Glasgow during the formative period were just people who liked all sorts of music. Sly Stone used to turn up often during the DJ sets. Dance Music and Rap were perfectly acceptable music. Trouble Funk could fill a dance floor. Prog less so, but it was Punk Rock that was important. Wire were much more important than Buffalo Springfield. VU album 2 was as important as VU album 3. The Stooges were seminal, the Ramones more so.

In a C86 fanzine I was (uh) 'associated' with called Coca Cola Cowboy. There is an interview with Sonic Youth (actually done in Daddy Warbucks) at a gig there about the time of Bad Moon Rising. 'Who are all these shite bands' asks Thurston when being handed the previous edition of CCC. 'We don't know' lie the CCC guys. The flirtation with cutie-tweeness was short and minimal for most folks - its absurd to think this was all that was happening in the mid 80s guitar music.

Mark says in the UK no one would have called the minutemen-SY- husker du crowd "indie" in the mid-80s, tho: i dunno, art-noise, post- rock, hardcore even (maybe...)

Sandy says: Forced Exposure magazine started turning up on sale at A1 in Glasgow (I still remember buying the one with Lydia Lunch on the cover in 86) many indie fans at the time were interested. were very interested. The requirement of 'twee' hadn't really been added to indie. There was certainly no incompatabilty with liking Husker Du and Big Flame. I would have called them indie and would have had been right.

1. Although I regard indie '81 as MY era, and I once owned "C-81" for a few days, I only remembered about half the tracks. Not really canon- forming at all now you examine the list closely, is it? Lots of acts that had already passed the point where they were the zeitgist (Buzzcocks, Dury, Cabs, Cooper Clarke, Subway Sect... even The Specials, tho' they were No.1 again that year with Ghost Town).
2. Whereas I guessed 17 of the acts on "C-86" before mark posted the list, even tho' I've never heard it. Quite what that says I don't know.

For me, indie (POP) and rock (Serious Music) converged at a time I think of as the rise of the psych-MBV / Spacement 3 / Sonic Youth: I suppose '87 / '88. This echoed the late 60s great bowel shift from psych into Rock: once as tragedy, then as farce etc. Historically questionable, no doubt, but you will never convince me otherwise, because that's the point when I went "ew, this is all too rockist for me" and moved on.

Did 'paisley' underground bands have that sound?

SST type bands were far far better. They took the punk sound but they were also aware that psychedelia and prog existed. The UK indie bands went for the 3rd VU album for inspiration and that's why most of it is crap.

Cavanagh's book= Is there a more thouroghly researched book that any of you have read? The birth and death of 'indie' are all in there.

i don't think and didn't say that c86-ness DOMINATED, i do think however think it helped establish (or maybe render public and concrete) a link between "indie" and retro-rock (which had been brutally broken by post-punk) => tweeness as a plague certainly came later, though it was already evident (c86 was NOT considered representative OR polemically and intererstingly interventionist in the way c81 was, I wd argue => but i was still just a teenyweeny idealistic punter in c81-days, an embattled and pissed-off and alienated journo in 86, angry that my paper was pushing such garbage)

i know because i was trying to write about it that it was pretty hard to get american "post-punk" (eg forced exposure type) guitar music taken seriously at the nme at that time (ok maybe what the nme said or did didn't determine how anyone else in the country felt in which case hurrah!!) (i remember having argts along the lines of "if you like sonic youth why don't you like big flame you big snob"... ans at the time = big flame make poor records...)

i don't understand what you're saying about pil: how ON EARTH were public image a "pro rock" operation?

if you're saying that the WORD "indie" did not exist prior to c.84 i think that's probably correct: it was still called "independent"/i think the indie zeitgeist was anti-rockist (along with all the anti-racist/anti-sexist stuff) (and the subsequent interest eg in jazz and african music) (and y'know the evolution of say the clash on sandinista!: i think the c81 proves that (yes it has some "rock" on it eg wah! heat, but very very very little what was considered "rock" at that moment) (obviously as this word has itself shifted meaning quite a lot there is room for disagreement or confusion) [the owners manual that comes with includes a guide to the INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTION NETWORK]

you're probably right about grunge: the oasis suggestion was just a guess (though i think there is a creation good => creation bad aspect here, which was possibly subterranealy prodding me)

no surprise to me that the glasgow perspective is very difft to the london perspective

haha now i think about this with a bit of hard perspective i realise for example that in 1981 i would have argued that JOY DIVISION were "not rock" because [er er luckily i nevah had to defend this position: "because i like them and i hate rock" jeepers, but there it is]... but the specials and the beat and all those were NOT ROCK and costello was NOT ROCK and etc etc (so no i don't understand when you say "pro-rock", unless you were playing tygers of pan tang as well as scritti politti)

Was that a band, or is this Elvis Costello? (I don't understand why he wouldn't be considered rock.)

ok this is not a very statement is it, since ppl keep misunderstaning that i am saying. by "movement" i believe i mean d.kelly, n.taylor and a.thrills, ie not a movement at all, by canonised i mean, crowded out interest in a wider range of stuff at the mag — viz jazz, african, reggae, soul, avant-weirdy whatevah — despite (i wd say and said then, though their market research insistently disagreed) considerable reader interest (as proved i am gratified to say by alexander blair's description of tastes in glasgow "indie" clubs ... rap was a more complex issue, cf THE HIPHOP WARS!!!!¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡!!!!!!!!

"jangly guitar basically, byrds-to-VU third" = my sneery description of contents of c86 itself, unfair i know to eg bogshed, but just compare the range of c81 to c86 (pere ubu to linx!), the c86 intent just SHOUTS we are narrowing your tastes down for your own good, and creation WERE ALWAYS a retro-label (i like the byrds and vu third and some creation releases BUT THEY WERE REACHING INTO THE PAST FOR VALIDATION WHICH PiL WERE NOT).

This matters less to me now as i am immensely old and "the only thing to look forward to..." etc etc...

(i mean, not to start a fight as it is mere terminology and words and all and of no great consequence — and also i am busy wrestling with mr tim "stockholm gothster" hopkins in the epic youth-vs-flame throwdown — but REALLY he is NOT ROCK)

Maybe I have a personal and idiosyncratically inclusive definition of rock without realizing it. (I have a feeling that when I was a kid I would have called a lot of the soul that I heard on the radio "rock," not knowing any better.) But a song like "I'm Not Angry"? Not rock? Listen to that guitar solo. Then again, I would probably consider "Green Shirt" to be rock, too. Am I the only one here who considers much of his music to be rock? If you don't want to argue it, that's fine: it's not a very interesting point.

(I'm not getting a lot of work done today.)

DeRayMi I have started a thread on it.

- I think mark in (rightly) damning the limited scope of c-86 is being a bit harsh on the NME since that was the state of UK indie IIRC outside the megabands (Smiths, Cocteaus, Depeche Mode, Fall). Interesting challenge: come up with a better tape, if we can, without using non-UK acts - I shall reflect on this over weekend;

- did we not prove by science once that JD = disco?

I'd agree C86 had a narrower scope that C81. I just disagree that C86 covered the entire range of the (alt/indie) music fans interests in C86.

I've just been for a rummage in my box room and found some editions of a magazine called 'The Catalogue' - it describes itself as 'the magazine for the independant music trade', the two I picked up are issue 31 from October 1985 and issue 42 from October 86 which is actually either side of C86 I think. There is an awful lot going on. Notably missing from the C86 cassette are the Mute (Blast First) and 4AD stuff. The back cover of October 86 advertises Head of David and Big Black. There are a whole load of interesting things on FON records. Mute seems to have started a dance imprint called 'Rhythm King' around this time. LAYLAH and NER seem to be busy too.

Perplexingly I found my own writing next to a small advert by a band called 'Yeah Jazz' stating 'Order this!' I cant recall the band or why I was so keen to purchase this item. I am pretty sure I would avoid any band with such a name on principle.

Plainly Rhythm King was in the independent sector: but was it "indie"? I'm treating C86 as the crystallised distilled epitome of that legion of indieworld which shouted "NO"! (as in "it's just disco = corporate sell-out blah blah") Plainly this is unfair shorthand, esp as regards any number of Age of Chance fans, for example: however THIS LEGION EXISTED even in the mid-80s, though I don't believe it EMERGED ANYTHING LIKE TRIUMPHANT until 92-94 (when rave etc had been able to absorb and sustain and siphon off the Age of Chancers in very large numbers: and when — perhaps more to the point — rock, or if you prefer, "rock", as a mode may have seemed under considerable threat, eg 90-91?) The Catalogue went down when Rough Trade went into receivership, in the early 90s, as I recall (1993 would be my guess)

The seeds of Oasis In Excelsis were sown on C86, that I'm sticking by: as it happens I like Oasis a GREAT DEAL BETTAH than ANY of the groups on C86, but I also think Oasis are a marker of the end-point of a decisive shutting- down of indie possibility and limitation of indie range (a shut-down the rock papers increasingly played along with). C86 was more straw-in-the-wind than perncious influence, I'm quite happy to accept that. And fans out in the world have much more mutable and interesting taste than fans as reflected in rock papers: I think that's a given, except in times so fast=moving and turbulent that reflections shatter.

NME001: Dancin' Master [follow-up to c81]
NME002: Jive Wire [ditto: these marked in bold from now on]
NME003: (not yet located)
NME004: Mighty Reel
NME005: (not yet located)
NME006: Racket Packet
NME007: (not yet located) [I think this was a strong reggae compilation, via Island, proto-Tougher than Tough]
NME008: (not yet located) [except I think this is Mad Mix II, which is not assigned an NME number]
NME009: The NME Ace Case [retro compilation 50s rock'n'roll/blues available Ace Records]
NME010: (not yet located)
NME011: Department of Enjoyment
NME012: Checkmate [retro compilation of classics on Chess Records, a "division of Sugar Hill" ]
NME013: Night People [excellent retro jazz compilation, via several jazz indies]
NME014: Raging Spool
NME015: Little Imp [retro compilation of r&b classics on Liberty , a division of Capitol, a division of EMI]
NME016: Neon West [excellent country compilation, via RCA obv]
NME017: Tape Worm [the last true child of c81, a deliberately wide-ranging "post-punk"/"new pop" sampler]
NME018: Straight No Chaser [jazz classics courtesy Blue Note]
NME019: (not yet located)
NME020: Feet Start Dancin' [Northern Soul via Kent]
NME021: Pogo a GoGo [10-yr-anniversary punk classics compilation]
NME022: C86
NME023: Holiday Romance [useful Billie Holiday compilation, via Polydor]
NME024: We Have Come For Your Children [terrific psych-nuggets-protoprog-60s-punk compilation, complete with notorious Chris Long banned artwork of ugly rock type holding the severed head of a doll]
NME025: (not yet located)
NME026: Low Lights and Trick Mirrors [smooth jazz compilation]
NME027: What's Happenin' Stateside [rather unfocused retro-R&B compilation]
NME028: Hi-Voltage [not bad electronica/synth-pop/krautrock compilation]
NME029: I Dreamt I Was Elvis [rival Elvis rockers, via Ace]
NME030: Blow-Up UK [the happenin young jazz scene, 1987]
NME031: (not yet located)
NME032: Pocket Jukebox 2 [classic R&B via Charly] NME033: (not yet located)
NME034: The Tape With No Name [so-so country compilation]
NME035: One World [pretty good world music comp, yrs truly thanked on sleeve, though I had little input and quit the paper very shortly after hence NO MORE FREE TAPES for mark s and this list's abrupt end]

Irritatingly there are still too many holes to turn my theory into hard fact. One of the not-yet-located is Pocket Jukebox 1. The others I'm afraid escape me entirely: Gray Panthor Fraktion to thread!! Some of these tapes are genuinely tremendous, but they were losing impact and (I think) intellectual coherence by 1987: the diminishing returns of niche marketing (the name for this returns = Dad Rock, possibly).

There was also some vinyl, wasn't there: a Sugarhill comp and a Trouble Funk record?

First one IIRC has: JAMC, Tom Waits, Trouble Funk + Cocteau Twins
The other one I think has: Mantronix, Miles Davis, Billy Bragg(?), ?

Mark's tape list is interesting, but I still maintain you have to mostly look beyond UK to build your case for an alternative to C-86 (thought: was C-86 in fact first flowering of pop nationalism that peaked with Blur?). I realise C-81 featured non-UK acts (Pere Ubu etc) but you could have made just as diverse a tape in 1981 without resorting to overseas if you wanted.

I also had a look at my 'Catalogue's and also a short-lived publication called "Underground" (first issue Spring 1987 - includes loads of reviews and listings. Confirms my suspicion that 1985-1986 was a desperate time for UK indie (much as I liked The Woodentops, The Primitives and even The Wedding Present). Virtually the only noteworthy releases are on the reissues pages - this WAS a great time for reissues thanks to Ace, Demon, etc.) I guess if you liked GOTH you were all right too.

Things improved DRAMATICALLY in 1987, I should say, thanks to house, influence of Def Jam, and so on.

My copy of 'we have come' has bunny rabbits on it.

Pretty sure there are some vinyl NME numbered items too, "Sgt Pepper Knew My Father" and the Elvis one cna't go look at them at them moment...

Curiously these tapes don't seem to be collectable and I don't see them on ebay for instance. Anyone know where to fill in my gaps?

& so should Mr Hopkins

[I don't have the time, let alone anything else]

Our opinions diverge so much that I have to ask if the NME sent me the same tapes.

I find his assertion that they prove that rave culture was influenced by goth just ludicrous (see chapter 14 'From Bauhaus to Acid House'). Additionally his comment on how the NME tpaes influenced Sonic Youth (see chapter 37 'Beyond Goo and Evol') are simplistic at best.

Credit where credit is due, he is pretty OTM in the chapters describing the cover art.. I didn't know Ian Wright was the footballer! Though his dismissal of NME033 ("its just got writing on it"!) were disappointing. Surely it was obvious the 'text' is con - text... multiplex text... or something.

Its a shame he never mentions any of the music on the tapes apart from briefly noting on p894 that Don Thomas's 'Come on Train' on Pocket Jukebox 2 is fantastic. Looking forward to volume 2 though.

ps - you are SO GAY, ff fanboy!

And a house compilation, circa 1987? 88?

Does anyone have 'Stomping at the Savoy' tracklist?

Mojo's 50 Greatest UK Indie Records Of All Tim - Sound Opinions Message Board

50) Huggy Bear - Herjazz
49) The Delgados - The Great Eastern
48) James - Village Fire
47) Swell Maps - Read About Seymour
46) Camera Obscura - Lloyd, I'm Ready To Be Heartbroken
45) Half Man Half Biscuit - Trumpton Riots EP
44) The Wild Swans - The Revolutionary Spirit
43) The Pooh Sticks - On Tape
42) Fire Engines - Candyskin
41) McCarthy - Keep An Open Mind Or Else
40)Jane And Barton - It's A Fine Day
39) Josef K - The Missionary
38) Ride - Ride EP
37) The Bodines - Therese
36) Shop Assistants - Safety Net
35) The Primitives - Really Stupid
34) Saint Etienne - So Tough
33) The Sea Urchins - Pristine Christine
32) Elastica - Line Up
31) Stereolab - Peng!
30) The Wedding Present - George Best
29) Young Marble Giants - Colossal Youth
28) New Order - Temptation
27) Franz Ferdinand - Take Me Out
26) The Libertines - What A Waster
25) The Loft - Up The Hill And Down The Slope
24) The Vaselines - Son Of A Gun
23) Aztec Camera - High Land Hard Rain
22) Happy Mondays - Lazyitis (One Armed Boxer)
21) The Pastels - Up For A Bit With The Pastels
20) Spacemen 3 - Revolution
19) This Mortal Coil - Song To The Siren
18) Lloyd Cole And The Commotions - Rattlesnakes
17) Teenage Fanclub - Everything Flows
16) Wire - Outdoor Miner
15) Echo & The Bunnymen - Crocodiles
14) Belle & Sebastian - Tigermilk
13) The House Of Love - Destroy The Heart
12) Subway Sect - Ambition
11) Felt - Forever Breathes The Lonely Word
10) Primal Scream - Crystal Crescent/Velocity Girl
9) The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses
8) The La's - There She Goes
7) Arctic Monkeys - I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor
6) Joy Division - Transmission
5) My Bloody Valentine - You Made Me Realise
4) The Fall - How I Wrote 'Elastic Man'
3) Orange Juice - You Can't Hide Your Love Forever
2) The Jesus & Mary Chain - Psychocandy
1) The Smiths - This Charming Man

someone tell pinefox: 18: Lloyd Cole And The Commotions - Rattlesnakes

The free CD just got put on in the office, decent enough selection (and finishing w/ HMHB!) but the cover goes for a Smiths homage and looks more like something free with Marie Claire

In the past Indie music was seen as very distinct from Rock music. Rock music was what your little brother who was into Metal liked. Indie music was entirely different.
But now, there seems to be this lumping together of indie music and rock.
-- DV, Friday, 12 April 2002 00:00 (5 years ago) Bookmark Link

This never actually happened. Unless he's talking about Idlewild.

I would like to ask a ROCKIST question about indie pop.

How many GREAT ARTISTS or GREAT BANDS have emerged from it?

I don't just mean fun or loveable, I mean Great.

A few examples of Great people: Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Everly Brothers, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Davies, Brian Wilson, Byrds, Bacharach, Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, Lou Reed, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix, Stephin Merritt.

It seems to me that maybe the only contender for a GREAT BAND that has belonged to indie pop is ... Belle & Sebastian. Unless one counts the Smiths - but indie pop emerged from them more than the other way around.

Maybe the nicest thing one can say is that indie pop has always refused greatness and believed in something else.

Is Stephin Merritt not indie-pop? How narrowly are we defining this?

You're right, it could be argued that he emerged from indie pop. Most of his fans worldwide are, I think, indie pop fans. (Maybe even I count!) But he has always, or long, refused to be called indie, let alone indie pop, hasn't he? (OK, he doesn't necessarily get to decide what we call him.)

iTunes appears to call Magnetic Fields 'Alternative'. Again, one need not make much of that. But it is probably true that that is where he is situated by many. But maybe he would rather be considered 'Pop', 'Standards', 'Cabaret' or something?

Well, conversely, who of the above "great" artists can be narrowly defined as being internal to a sub-genre equivalent to indie-rock? Seems like most of those people either started a genre (a la The Smiths) or moved between genres (a la Merritt).

Is his name really spelt Stephin? I'd never noticed. If it is, I'm not sure he qualifies as 'great'. Even if it isn't, I'm still not sure. The average man on the street is NOT going to rank Merritt alongside Simon & Garfunkel or Elvis Presley. it's ridiculous to even suggest it.

but his hair is clearly superior to Art Garfunkel's.

That's debatable.

also Great:
David Bowie
the top Motown songwriters

probably Great:
Diana Ross
Curtis Mayfield
Smokey Robinson
Marc Bolan

possibly Great:
Debbie Harry / Blondie
Talking Heads

perhaps not Great:
The Clash
the Jam

definitely not Great:
The Razorcuts
The Orchids
Another Sunny Day
The Hermit Crabs

Tim F: ilx ate the post I was writing. 'indie pop' != indie rock, I think. The latter (though I don't like it) might be taken to include REM, Smiths, MBV -- all of whom surely have more stature than anyone we can think of from 'indie pop'.

I know that my use of 'Great' is idle and looks arbitrary - I'm just looking to gesture at something about stature. Michael Jackson, for instance (not even on my Great list), has that, in pop history - and I'm not sure that anyone in indie pop has ever had as much as him. Maybe this is what comes of being Indie. But it's not just about sales, this, but importance, creativity, recognition.

Also Great: Van Morrison, Carole King, maybe Rod Stewart; oh, and the Stones of course.

I do think the obvious conclusion is that something in indie pop has always militated vs Greatness, being suspect of it. And that may be a worthy feeling. But perhaps it has also shielded the cruddiness and lack of talent of many people who have actually made indie pop.

Sorry, yeah, I meant to say "indie pop" - yr point is taken.

But i think my point still stands - anyone who could unambiguously defined as 100% pure indie-pop is gonna seem less than great, because (ahem) "transcending genre" is usually considered one precondition for "greatness". e.g Michael Jackson is not disco nor R&B nor pop but all those things.

That is a good argument.

I think I am going to change my mind about Merritt and say he is an exception that proves the rule, in that he is a truly Great figure who DID emerge from indie pop. Maybe the texture of his records belies that, but I have an idea that he spent the first 10 years of his career playing to indie pop audiences (and maybe he still does). So he would then support Tim F's argument: he emerged from that milieu, or has relied on it for support / fanbase / appreciation, but has refused to musically bound by it in any way. And in his case it is unusually true that his greatness is connected to his ability to work in a range of genres.

And I still think (unsurprisingly enough) that Stuart Murdoch might be the other one - even more obviously tied than Merritt to that milieu, much happier to embrace and promote and live in it for years, even if the music slightly evolved beyond it. He is a genuine rare talent that has been nurtured by the aesthetics and world of indie pop - he is the purest example I can think of of a great artist being made by that genre. But I think there is a very noticeable dearth of parallel figures.

So, I think both Tim F and I may be right. I am quite convinced by his claim that to get real status, you need to transcend a genre. But maybe the 'problem' with lots of indie pop people is that they haven't even tried to do that.

Then again, maybe lots of them have, and still haven't been very good. And I like the indie pop genre or sound to start with, more than many others. But one way or another, it seems to produce small figures, worthies and cloggers - not world-historical special people.

ps

I'm not exactly a fan of his, but *maybe* Damon Albarn comes close to fitting the bill - early Blur were posy-Smiths / shoegaze era / baggy whatever (maybe this is too much indie ROCK not pop), and he is now considered a Renaissance Man by some

perfect example of someone who would surely like to be ultimate example of this, but isn't: Bobby Gillespie - NOT Great

posy = post
posy would be good
Albarn probably doesn't count anyway

It should be noted that I think the artists who don't transcend genre are v. important. The Sundays mean as much to me as Merrit or The Smiths do.

What about Pulp?

I don't really like them, but they probably do have Stature. But are / were they ever indie pop?

I like your support for non-transcending artists; I adore the Sundays almost (only almost?) as much as I do the other two acts you mention.

i notice that the Great Artists listed all had hits and sold a huge amount of records over the years.

i don't suppose indie-pop could ever really be about that.

Unless some indie-pop had an effect like Velvet Underground did. (Which it didn't obviously)

actually I am inclined to say that The Sundays are also a great act to emerge from indie pop, despite the letdowns of the 3rd LP. So that makes 3.

I guess indie pop despite its smallness might have had indirect influence on various popular and commercial things - from Britpop to ... Hello Kitty twee fandom? which (such influence) might be an interesting topic.

Oh I'm not saying there's no influence/effect , I just mean not on the scale of a VU.

VU's currency/rep was probably only half what it is now in 1988, maybe less. also it may help that they were NY-based.

How about...

The Pastels
Galaxie 500
Unrest
Beat Happening

As for New Zealand...
The Chills
Tall Dwarfs
Chris Knox
The Clean

You sure? The Strokes must've got a lot of kids into VU.
x-post

This conversation is utterly ridiculous.

"minor interest genre specific artists I like a lot" vs "all-time greatest cross-genre icons of recorded music".

Shearwater are ABSOLUTELY AS GREAT as The Beatles.

"Why has fraggle never produced an artist of the stature of Michael Jackson?"

Also...

The Yummy Fur were, in my opinion, totally great and totally indie pop.

Why are Senseless Things not held in the same renown as Miles Davis? Homophobic Asshole is at least as good as all of Kind Of Blue.

"minor interest genre specific artists I like a lot" vs "all-time greatest cross-genre icons of recorded music".

That's not why it's ridiculous though, so much as the fact that it can only come down to every different poster on the thread's personal ideas of where one of those ends and the other begins

I find it sort of interesting looking at people's different yardsticks as regards that, but anyone thinking they might draw anything conclusive from it is going to be sorely disappointed, really

Mencap is OTM I think.

I'm not especially convinced that the all-time great icons are cross-genre. PRIMARILY, at least, The Who = Rock, the Stones = R&B, Diana Ross or Curtis Mayfield = Soul. You can definitely be identified with a genre and still be considered a towering figure. What about the Sex Pistols - a band I don't care for, but they have big stature and are thoroughly identified with one musical movement. (But I'm not sure whether that example is helpful or not.) I still think there is something about indie pop that has perhaps prevented it producing towering figures.

All the time I hung around with and mixed sound for indie musicans in the '80's and '90's, the one thing that held it back for me was this insistence that any degree of instrumental technique/virtuosity was in some way suspect. You had to be a crap singer, or a crap drummer, or a barely-functional guitarist, like Lou Reed (even though Lou Reed is actually a brilliant guitarist) or whoever. Espousing actually practicing till you could play really well was heresy, people would thing it meant you wanted everyone to play like ywngie. I think this is why, when Mudhoney and Nirvana came to the UK, it was like, all the UK indie bands where these little porcelain figures on a table, and this plaid-clad arm just came and swept them off onto the floor in one movement.

Many times, at many levels, have I seen bands get to the point where they can make a leap forward into some kind of higher level, and instead they've copped out and gone retro. Ride are the most striking example of this, "Carnival of Light" what a let down.

"It doesn't matter how well you play, it's all about the ideas, man" is one of the most creatively TOXIC things ever put forward, and for years, that was way it was. this is why we have coldplay.

"It doesn't matter how well you play, it's all about the ideas, man" is one of the most creatively TOXIC things ever put forward, and for years, that was way it was. this is why we have coldplay.

― i hode interesting bracelet (Pashmina), Monday, September 15, 2008 4:50 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i should know better than to wade into a UK defined indie thread...buuuuut...if anything i think the prob with indie now as it older shambling type stuff is that there's too much pro chops...most indie bands now can play all too well....

coldplay number one isn't even indie (though i don't know what the hell the words means in england anyway)...but they are a big pop rock band, i guess they dress indie or identify indie or something but they have shit all to do with indie as i see it--->modern lovers--->swell maps––early pavement–––no age/abe vigoda etc etc.

but that's a us perspective and doesn't really mean anything here.

but Coldplay are all about musicianship (as in technical competence, a professional standard deemed by MANY as high) over ideas tho no? xpost

it's like saying supertramp were shambling because they didn't have super long prog guitar solos or something...or saying like U2 can't play. coldplay is just stadium rock that liked OK Computer (which was stadium rock anyway)

I'll admit the Coldplay bit was a bit of a troll, but they are a personification of deadening, basic, foursquare, non-rocking rock-school competence. One cannot imagine them blasting out something like "Tubes World Tour" or "Symptom of the Universe". I seriously doubt any one of them can play well enough.

"Indie" in the UK has a shifting meaning. When I got into music, in the early '80's, it was "released/distributed independently" which meant that Joy division were an "indie" band, but then so were Conflict, Hawkwind, IQ, the Icicle Works for example. Now it kind of means slightly not-quite-mainstream guitar rock, no? Maybe I'm wrong, I hven't read an NME or listened to evening radio one in over a year.

more like new bands who will be mainstream in 6 months as the nme hypes them up to claim they discovered them before they got big.

also, there's so much music i love that would not have been possible with out the idea that you didn't necessarily need chops to make music.

perhaps it opened the floodgates to a lot of shit but i say keep the floodgates open....listening to "jane from occupied europe" right now and i can't say i wish that kenny aronoff or aynsley dunbar was playing on it.

I'll admit the Coldplay bit was a bit of a troll, but they are a personification of deadening, basic, foursquare, non-rocking rock-school competence.

^^yeah competence! that's it...i'm talking about inspired incompetence!

np: "mom and dad like the baby more than me" by happy flowers

Why haven't minor label acts had globe-spanning success?

I think what it is, Matt, is that I spent a decade of my life listening, several times a week, to four piece rock bands where the singer was flat, the drummer hopeless, the bassist and the guitarist sloppy as fuck, and even though I was getting paid for it, it still used to boil my piss enough that 15 years later it still annoys me that this was the norm in the UK.

It isn't about aynsley dunbar or whatever, either! This is surely a UK/US divide thing, British rhythm sections are notoriously bad, never once in all the years I did live sound did i hear a drummer/bassist anywhere near as good as, say, Grohl & Novoselic, Peters & Lukin, or the guys from the Dead Kennedys or Black Flag! Mudhoney/Nirvana hit like a BOMB back in '88! People were listening to "Banwagonesque" and propping it as some kind of major peak in music! A bunch of us went to see Mudhoney and it was like, Jesus christ! THAT'S what it's supposed to sound like!

yeah pash. i think we sorta like the same things anyway, but it seems like the whole ideas of indie and punk mean different things to us and uk folks makes it hard to discuss. like it would never occur to me that coldplay were related to the smiths and joy division. like saying maroon five had something to do with meat puppets or something.

Norm in the UK: Memoires of an Indie Engineer

I like what Pashmina is saying, though I don't really like grunge.

I think there is a place - places - for competence - what am I saying, competence? Skill! Talent! Facility! David Cavanagh talks in his Creation Records book of 1980s UK indie guitar playing being a very weak field in which Marr belonged in a different league - perhaps he mentions Felt's guitarist too. Those bands' records survive partly because of the unabashed virtuosity of those two guitarists.

(I don't really like Felt but I do admire that guitarist, whatever his name is)

Wow, I used my months quota of exclamation points in that last post, didn't I.

You could probably do some kind of comparison between something like "Let them eat Jellybeans" or "Flex your Head" and "C86" and it would probably tell you loads about UK vs US "indie" aesthetics, in the '80's - early '90's anyway.

Competence definitely seems like the right term - in the Oasis/Travis/Coldplay lineage of brit indie there's not much in the way of great playing but it stills sounds very professional, the latter quality being something I'd maybe attribute to production. Also I grew up with the britpop-era stuff and I'd struggle to name more than a handful of standout musicians, even from the not-shit bands. Graham Coxon and Johnny Greenwood would be the obvious two guitarists I suppose.

"Indie" as the name of a musical genre, was originally coined in the mid 80s, and it meant bands such as The Smiths. At this time, the UK scene was dominated by bands whose most important instrument was the synthesizer, and as such, 60s influenced "guitar bands" were very alternative.

Even in the mid 90s, Britpop was alternative to what dominated the scene in a way. Not because it rejected the past (indie never has), but because it rejected the present, more like. Britpop was a reaction first and foremost in two ways. It was a somewhat Brit Nationalist/Anti-American reaction against the dominance of American rock and the gloominess and ultimately re-hashed metal of the grunge/"alternative" scene. But at the same time it would also become a reaction against hip-hop and dance, not because it was to begin with (the indie kids largely ignored hip-hop and dance altogether), but because it became an alternative for those of us who were tired of the hip-hop/dance dominance of the early 90s hitlist pop (read as singles lists).

Today, indie has of course gotten very much mainstream, but it is still less mainstream than the big popstars and R&B stars that totally dominate the Billboard Hot 100 in particular. So there is an alternative thing, even though there are of course other styles of music that are considerably more alternative and rebellious and less mainstream than indie.

How many GREAT ARTISTS or GREAT BANDS have emerged from it?

Depends on your definition of GREAT. Oasis have obviously meant a lot to a lot of people, and are also riding very high in album lists put together by people you can categorize as considerably "nerdier" about music than the average man on the street.

I'm not at all sure that I regard Oasis as Great - though a couple of them do or did have talent, and they made a big splash. But: did they emerge from INDIE POP?

that's what I was on about here: not the fact that Alernative music exists or whatever, but the world of the Orchids, Shop Assistants, Talulah Gosh, Desert Wolves, Sea Urchins, Springfields, Black Tambourine, Cat's Miaow ... actually there's a major artist maybe: The Cat's Miaow, for all their brevity, really did make records that feel epic and special.

Even with Americans and Brits differing over the definition of "indie pop" I fail to see how Oasis fits the bill.

http://www.emusic.com/album/Scharpling-Wurster-Rock-Rot-Rule-MP3-Download/10991486.html

Morrissey?

"Indie" as the name of a musical genre, was originally coined in the mid 80s, and it meant bands such as The Smiths. At this time, the UK scene was dominated by bands whose most important instrument was the synthesizer, and as such, 60s influenced "guitar bands" were very alternative.

Even in the mid 90s, Britpop was alternative to what dominated the scene in a way. Not because it rejected the past (indie never has), but because it rejected the present, more like. Britpop was a reaction first and foremost in two ways. It was a somewhat Brit Nationalist/Anti-American reaction against the dominance of American rock and the gloominess and ultimately re-hashed metal of the grunge/"alternative" scene. But at the same time it would also become a reaction against hip-hop and dance, not because it was to begin with (the indie kids largely ignored hip-hop and dance altogether), but because it became an alternative for those of us who were tired of the hip-hop/dance dominance of the early 90s hitlist pop (read as singles lists).

Today, indie has of course gotten very much mainstream, but it is still less mainstream than the big popstars and R&B stars that totally dominate the Billboard Hot 100 in particular. So there is an alternative thing, even though there are of course other styles of music that are considerably more alternative and rebellious and less mainstream than indie.

― Geir Hongro, Monday, 15 September 2008 19:14 (2 days ago)

OTM and concise.

Allmusic says:

Indie rock's more melodic, less noisy, and relatively angst-free counterpart, Indie Pop reflects the underground's softer, sweeter side, with a greater emphasis on harmonies, arrangements, and songcraft. Encompassing everything from the lush orchestration of chamber pop to the primitive simplicity of twee pop, its focus is nevertheless more on the songs than on the sound, and although both indie pop and indie rock embrace the D.I.Y. spirit of punk, the former rejects punk's nihilistic attitude and abrasive sonic approach.

Maybe that's a good starting point. I think the Magnetic Fields are a good starting point. Belle and Sebastian, too, although I don't consider them even close to great. I'll give you the Magnetic Fields, but I can't come up with much else. I guess Beat Happening was a decent one. The Apples in Stereo? The Go-Betweens? Saint Etienne? Of Montreal? I'd classify Saint Etienne as great without a second thought, but they seem to have emerged more from dance music than indie pop. The Go-Betweens, who are at least borderline great, are more '80s indie rock, generally speaking, than anything else. And the other two I can't really endorse, unfortunately.

How about the New Pornographers? Especially if we're looking at the last ten years or so, I think they're probably the best candidate. You could call them indie pop in the sense that they are an indie rock band with very strong pop leanings. And they're consistently good to fantastic for their genre (though not my cup of tea). Thoughts?

I don't really know them, but thought they were Country if anything.

It's nice that one other person, ilxor here, agrees with me about the plausibility of my question, though he / she doesn't agree about B&S.

You're right, ilxor: Go-Betweens are a significant band, but emerged from 1980s indie rock (but beloved by indie pop fans). St Etienne is a pretty good call! Maybe they did have something to do with indie pop, and maybe they do have some historic stature.

Apples In Stereo I haven't heard for a decade, Of Montreal I have never heard at all.

Actually I came back to the thread to say that Pashmina had sent me back to listen to 'The Concept' again. It's not that great, to be sure. But I would be interested to hear what Pashmina thinks of it exactly or why he dislikes it.

Most aspie troll thread ever.

Er, why? I don't really understand what the point of it is but it seems genteel enough

To be sure, there's some interesting discussion on here (Pash on musical chops raises a lot of interesting ideas), but honestly, most of the recent discussion boils down to "why aren't The Cat's Meow as renowned as Curtis Mayfield?", and "The Rolling Stones are an r'n'b band not a cross-genre musical behemoth" and then Geir trotting in and talking in even more ridiculously concrete terminology about things he doens't actually have any facts about.

This is the woolliest thread ever.

Well, not in conception but how it's evolved.

pinefox is the wooly bully?

To be so woolly in his distinction between indie rock and indie pop is pure woolly bullying.

I now feel like Werner Herzog in julien donkey boy - "Enough of your woooooooooolly booooooooollying."

I am not woolly in my distinction between those two things - except insofar as the distinction between two related areas (Philosophy and Literature, say) often is indeed woolly, or frayed or faded. No-one need apologize for seeking to recognize and think through the fact. But I have not at all dwelt on this woolly distinction on the thread. It is pretty clear to me what indie pop means. It is exemplified, in my mind, by Talulah Gosh and the Shop Assistants, and it is still going strong, or going weak, around the world today. It is not that hard to see that this mode of music is not the same as Reef, Oasis or Nirvana.

The original point of the thread was one thing, which I have not pursued. The point of the revival is simple and clear enough, and has raised some interesting responses, as well as some stupid and offensive ones.

Yeah I realise that Nick is exaggerating for the purpose of a zing but I don't see why there can't be some interesting points wrung out of the percieved distinctions between, and definitions of, 'great' or 'canonical' rock and whatever 'indie' is. Even though I don't think an empirical answer is possible, as I said before. Stephin Merritt seems like a good figure to throw in as a leading example to me, as well

This thread revival seems woolly to me insofar as it begins with a reasonable question (What "indie-pop" bands can be considered "Great") but fails to define what "Great" entails. Half the time it seems like the Pinefox is using the word "Great" to mean a band that seems fantastic and special to him alone, which sort of defeats the purpose of asking the rest of us. The Aluminum Group is an indie-pop band that ranks very high in my personal canon, as I'm sure Stephin Merritt and whoever the hell Cat's Miaow is do in Pinefox's canon, but it would be silly for me to seek any sort of consensus based on that.

I do think that Magnetic Fields and Belle & Sebastian are good examples of indie-pop bands that have been canonized among critics and the general public. I'd even argue that bands like the Shins and the Decemberists (who may well be canonized in a few years) are indie-pop in the sense that they're more interested in melody and songcraft than in noise and abrasion, but these days they're at the forefront of what's considered "indie rock" in the US, and I get the sense that the indie-pop that Pinefox is interested in is more deliberately opposed to hegemonic rock values.

why doesn't the pinefox want to indie rock?

I don't feel that I like indie rock much, now. I'm not even sure that I like most indie pop much, anymore, though I used to think I did.

jaymc's comments are sensible, I think. I think Shins / Decembrists are probably contemporary indie-rock but don't know them too well. I agree with jaymc that in these considerations, Greatness as in Canon gets blurred with greatness as in I like it. I have probably not succeeded in extricating the one from the other. But the Canon is a big part, the main part, of what I am getting at.

I guess that there other people whom I don't know very well and wouldn't love that much if I did - eg: James Brown, Sly & Family Stone, perhaps Chic - who I can nonetheless see are canonical, and have stature in some kind of music-criticism consensus. So again, it does seem like it's been possible to emerge from funk, let alone soul, and be considered Great. But the number of indiepop people of whom that can be said (and I know indiepop much better than I do soul or funk) is very small. So jaymc and I can agree that Merritt and Murdoch are rare exceptions to this rule.

I would submit that the "general public" has not a clue who Stephin Merritt is, but maybe I'm speaking out of turn. I just really can't buy Merritt (or B&S) as having anywhere near the impact of pretty much all the people the pinefox lists out upthread. Am I out of touch here?

Pinefox I keep interpreting your question as "why was indie-pop (by your definition and using the examples you cite) not more popular?"

I think the point is that Merritt seems to harbour ambitions and display aesthetics that aren't at all associated with indie, but will probably have an indie millstone round his neck if he makes records for another 20 years. Obviously he hasn't had as impact as all those other people cos he's not sold as many records

I guess my question is are people going to find inspiration in the music of Stephin Merritt for the next 30, 40, years? It's funny to me because he's got a pretty specific talent (essentially in my mind it's about writing very classicist songs and producing them in a very non-classicist way). Impact to me is having either such widespread appeal that non-music dorks know who you are, or having such a strong appeal to music dorks that you influence a lot of diverse music made years down the line. At least that's what I'm going with right now in a not-very-thought-out way.

No that is a good point I think - if one talks about his 'influence' he becomes a less useful example as so much of his thing is centred round being a genre tourist. I guess if there he created a legacy it would consist of a bunch of people trying to do a similar thing without sounding like him necessarily. That is getting kind of abstract now so I dunno

Ignore the word 'there' in 2nd sentence as it has no place there thx

are people going to find inspiration in the music of Stephin Merritt for the next 30, 40, years?

Yes.

"It doesn't matter how well you play, it's all about the ideas, man" is one of the most creatively TOXIC things ever put forward, and for years, that was way it was.

Ideas are always the most important element in any artistic endeavor. Sorry but its true.

The whole 'we hate rock' thing started with Vic Godard, who ditched punk noise for crooning and swing,
and in the mainstream with Paul Weller, who wanted to destroy his Jam following and get into jazz and soul.
Other indie bands followed the Postcard bands and started trying to be pop, accusing each other of
'rockism' for such crimes as wearing leather, having loud guitars. That was part of the early 80s culture wars,
but I don't think the indie rock or pop distinction has as much meaning these days.

I would submit that the "general public" has not a clue who Stephin Merritt is, but maybe I'm speaking out of turn. I just really can't buy Merritt (or B&S) as having anywhere near the impact of pretty much all the people the pinefox lists out upthread. Am I out of touch here?

No, I think you're right. When I used Magnetic Fields and B&S as examples of indie-pop artists that have been canonized, it's certainly not on the same level as Bowie or the Beatles or the Stones. Neither band is going to be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. It's more like I see them having longer-than-usual entries in a record guide. They've both been around for 10+ years, there are books about them, etc. And perhaps more pertinent to the thread, they've more or less risen above the indie-pop niche, unlike, say, anyone on Sarah Records.

Maybe that's a good starting point. I think the Magnetic Fields are a good starting point. Belle and Sebastian, too, although I don't consider them even close to great. I'll give you the Magnetic Fields, but I can't come up with much else.

The most perfect example of recent indie pop (or indie lite) would be The Kooks.

And btw. they may not be indie pop (perhaps not indie enough), but I am pretty sure Coldplay will be inducted in the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame in, like 20 years or something.

Sadly Geir is right about that.

Every second someone from Europe spends thinking about who does or doesn't deserve to be in the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame is a second they should have spent thinking about something else

I doubt even the Pinefox hisself will be listening to the Magnetic Fields in 30 years!

That's because 2038 is the year Merritt's scheduled to release his grime mixtape

I realize that I might not be around 30 years from now, but that is a somewhat cruel thing to remind a person of.

Even leaving aside the Coldplay comment, "The most perfect example of recent indie pop (or indie lite) would be The Kooks" - jeezus flipping H x. What does 'perfect' mean here?

pinefox did you post on the best pop star ever thread?

never seen it

ILXor's Best POP Star EVER!! Poll
There you go.

To be canonised you have to be very popular OR else MASSIVELY significant; Miles Davis, for instance, is in the canon despite never having sold as many records as pretty much any pop / rock / soul act etc, because of his influence (sorry Mark S) and impact. Ditto Velvet Underground, and perhaps Love. B&S, at their best, are a good little band who've written some nice songs. They have neither mass popularity or overarching influence / impact. No one from Pinefox's nebulous sub-sub-sub-genre of "indie pop" has either of these things, and THAT is why non of them are considered to be 'great' by anyone outside the rather narrow echelon of 'indie pop fans'.

stop hating on the cat's miaow you cunts

uh, Miles Davis did sell a lot of records

Not compared to The Rolling Stones or David Bowie or Stevie Wonder, though, which is what I was talking about.

No one from Pinefox's nebulous sub-sub-sub-genre of "indie pop" has either of these things, and THAT is why non of them are considered to be 'great' by anyone outside the rather narrow echelon of 'indie pop fans'.

Unless you count Coldplay, Travis and Keane as indie pop. All of them massively popular stadium fillers.

But no-one who likes indie pop likes them, ergo they are not indie pop.

Pinefox I keep interpreting your question as "why was indie-pop (by your definition and using the examples you cite) not more popular?"

That is surely the key question here. Assuming that indie pop is a meaningful and large enough genre to have had a chance of mainstream success.

But then... why isn't death metal more popular? Grime? Polka?

Coldplay, Travis, and Keane are all mainstream pop/rock acts, Geir, you fucking pillock.

The whole 'we hate rock' thing started with Vic Godard, who ditched punk noise for crooning and swing

Vic was singing "We oppose all rock and roll" long before he took up crooning and swing. Actually John Lydon has a lot of responsibility for the 'we hate rock' thing too.

Indie pop is not a nebulous genre - no more than any other genre (for of course, all genres have fuzzy boundaries). Anyone who doesn't get this does not know what they are talking about, and needn't bother contributing to a thread about 'indie pop'.

Mouthy is correct, though, to note that ColdKeanePlay is NOT indie pop.

I am happy to agree with Electric Sound: The Cat's Miaow are probably one of the greatest bands to emerge from indie pop. In fact I think they are the greatest pop act ever to come from Australia. It is quite funny to see people here who don't know them - but then, those same people probably think it's silly that I don't know people from genres they like.

I don't like the unnecessary swearing in the title (which I realize is quoting from elsewhere), but I think it is now somewhat accepted that this is one of the better online introductions to / definitions of indie pop:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/10242-twee-as-fuck

I've never heard The Cat's Miaow and would require a far more convincing sales pitch to do so than I've thus far read on this thread.

Coldplay and Travis (to a lesser extent Keane) came out of the indie scene. If becoming mainstream popular means they are not indie pop, then indie pop, by its very definition, will never have any huge acts. Obviously, huge acts are either popular or extremely groundbreaking and influential. Indie pop is by definition not popular, as I understand, and obviously has never had an aim to be groundbreaking in any way.

The thing is, Peter Cook doing his Sven from Swiss Cottage routine was actually funny.

It is odd how Mr Hongro, who I would have thought was big on categories, doesn't seem to get the indie POP idea, which is there in the thread's title and all over the article I just linked to.

In Geir's defence, Keane and Travis both occasionally remind me in their mellower moments of melodic pop predecessors such as Marmalade and the Tremeloes.

Explain, in simple terms, Geir, how Coldplay and Keane ever in any way whatsoever emerged from or showed any allegiance to whatsoever "the indie scene"? Travis, arguably, yes, signed to an independent label, but Coldplay and Keane both come directly from the U2 / Simple Minds lineage, NOT the B&S / Field Mice / Denim / Cat's Miaow / twee-pop / indie pop lineage.

Just because they played toilets before they were famous does not mean they are the same genre as Half Man Half Biscuit,

I think what Geir's getting at in his stumblingly clumsy way is that Coldplay and Keane are perceived by the wider public as being "indie" or that even clumsier catchall "alternative" even if historically they are not. The "pop" content is game for further debate.

(in an admittedly ultra-simplistic "indie/alternative = not The X-Factor" sense)

Other indie bands followed the Postcard bands and started trying to be pop, accusing each other of 'rockism' for such crimes as wearing leather, having loud guitars

The Ramones were pretty damned popular among indie bands!

Yeah the poppier punk bands were all huge influences on C86-era bands - as well as the Ramones, the Buzzcocks, Undertones & Blondie were huge!

lols @ Geir blathering on like he has the slightest clue what indiepop is.

Coldplay and Travis (to a lesser extent Keane)

hahaha i swear to god geir you mention these three bands in every goddamn thread...

THEY R THE BEST BANDS EVA

Where Is Beatles Band, Geir?

Where Is Beatles Band, Geir?

― Tom D (Tom D.), Thursday

Ha, Tom, who is going to get this reference outside of you, me and Marcello?

Mark Grout!

Of course. Sorry Mark!

I think what Geir's getting at in his stumblingly clumsy way is that Coldplay and Keane are perceived by the wider public as being "indie" or that even clumsier catchall "alternative" even if historically they are not.

Marcello OTM
Geir is not

Stadium MOR

I had some kind of half-formed thoughts over the weekend about something else that kiboshed UK indie in the '80's/'90's - there was this emphahsis on being some kind of "beautiful loser" - 2 of the primary creative influences at the time - VU and Big Star - were commercial failures in their time, no-one gave a fuck about either band until later as per canonical legend, & later on they were v v "influential" etc. The "no-one understood them" aspect was fetishised more than somewhat I think? Not really sure where I'm going w/this, but it seems to me that if ppl tried to follow that path/expend some of their creativity on this, and I think a bunch of people did, then the most likely result is yr not going to sell many records AND you're not going to make "timeless", "classic" influential-to-futur-generations rekkids like VU and BS did anyway? I mean, VU and BS probably wanted to sell shitloads of records back in the day, I'm sure. It seems like a kind of mechanism for failure.

2 of the primary creative influences at the time - VU and Big Star - were commercial failures in their time

Not only them by any means

Ideas are always the most important element in any artistic endeavor. Sorry but its true.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 20:30 (Yesterday)

Yeah but if you don't have some kind of facility that allows you to follow through on yr ideas, they you're limiting yourself to splashing about in the shallows forever, no? Plus, learning more things to do tends to generate more ideas, at least that's what I've found.,

The Stone Roses changed all that loser stuff though. It's not fair to blame what happened after on them though. Since they made (IMO) great music. Like you cant anymore blame the beatles or big star or VU for the shite that came after.

I'm not too sure.

For a start with C86 and similar there was a political subtext to what they did, i.e. deliberate reaction against shiny, flawless Thatcherite robo-pseudo-pop and neo-socialist reliability on self-contained/self-sustaining community, viz. ew are not Go West/Cutting Crew/Five Star; the downside was anti-technology for its own sake and questionable extension of that anti into areas like hip hop and House which might have nourished it more, the upside being that the music somewhow reached, touched and changed the least likely of people, i.e. isolated loner Kurt C in Aberdeen getting off on those Vaselines 7-inch imports and reassured that he wasn't alone in thinking this way, &c.

And of course MBV prove/disprove all of this.

I don't remember it as being anti-hip hop

Oh yes, because it was all technology/about making money/American (and probably also about being black but let's not go there). I well remember B. Gillespie at Splash One chucking a DJ out of his seat for playing House music in '86 instead of "real" music like Kim Fowley and um the Shop Assistants. The only C86 lot who spoke up for it AT THE TIME were Age of Chance.

Pashmina, there used to be debate on the B&S mailing list about their search for a big 1960s sound, and whether it was a sell-out of their shambolic early days or - as N. for instance said - this was simply what they had always been trying to sound like, and they had finally succeeded.

I guess the only relevance of that is: though they were content to be marginal (not giving interviews etc) they were not necessarily musically ambitious. And they have not in fact shunned global popularity (though most of us like them less now than before).

agree that Stone Roses did offer another attitude - we're gonna be adored
and Oasis took that on soon enough

actually it would be just about arguable that Stone Roses are a Great act that emerged from indie pop. Or if you prefer (as I'm sceptical about them, always was): a Canonical / much-cited act that emerged from indie pop (many of their early records *are* indie pop, unlike Oasis or many others).

so that leaves me so far with

Stephin Merritt / TMF
Stuart Murdoch / B&S
The Sundays
The Stone Roses
possibly Saint Etienne

Actually I came back to the thread to say that Pashmina had sent me back to listen to 'The Concept' again. It's not that great, to be sure. But I would be interested to hear what Pashmina thinks of it exactly or why he dislikes it.

I think it was "bandwagonesque" not "the concept" that I really disliked at the time. My memory is this. One of our regular P.A. gigs was an indie disco night that got put on every week @ newcastle university. This would be circa the end of the eighties-the beginning of the nineties. My memory is that there was a run of TF singles that all sounded exactly like "Freak Scene", even down to starting off with/using the same chords in some cases. Man did I ever get sick of hearing them every week. Then, out comes "banwagonesque" and the predominant music at the indie disco goes from Dino Jr knock-off to Big Star knock-off, quite outrageously so in the latter case, I thought. It was ALL YOU'D HEAR. I was so miserable, it was a chore, only a few years ago, I used to go to a similar regular night @ Newcastle Riverside & have a great time, with mainly the same bunch of people. Then came this night, the DJ put "Lithium" on, I'd never heard it before, and Nirvana had been this 1/2 decent black-sabbath-ish band to me up till then, my flatmate, richard, was into them, but I dug Mudhoney more. Anyway, "Lithium" comes on you know the way the chorus kicks off - it had a better tune, it was performed with real conviction, it totally fucking ROCKED. It was like all the creation bollocks of the previous year or so was a load of grey, miserable CLOUD, and if you've ever seen film of an A-bomb test, where the force of the blast blows the clouds away, well, "Lithium" was the BOMB that night, I can tell you.

I think what Geir's getting at in his stumblingly clumsy way is that Coldplay and Keane are perceived by the wider public as being "indie" or that even clumsier catchall "alternative" even if historically they are not.

No in the U.S. thinks this. Coldplay is that rarity: a massively huge rock band that sells out arenas and gets played on Top 40 radio next to Katy Perry. Were they to have debuted in the mid-90s, I could maybe see "Yellow" getting played on alt-rock stations that also played Dave Matthews and Sarah McLachlan, but that world doesn't exist anymore.

oh, and yes! MBV! MBV are the Great act that emerged from indie pop - that is clear, why couldn't I see it before! They were indie pop, more clearly and purely than any of the other acts I've just mentioned - and they became (very widely accepted as) Great (and in a way had always been great). So they are the proof that it can happen.

Do New Order count?

F.A.B. rhetoric, Pashmina.

I don't know what 'Freak Scene' is. But I am gonna come out and say, I totally get what you mean about 'Lithium' - I don't generally love Nirvana, and certainly think they became overrated, but that track might be the greatest thing they ever did. And yes, it's not just the raw power but the structure and the melody.

MBV and The Stone Roses I'll give you, but they BOTH became (widely accepted as) 'great' by stepping WAY outside what indie pop was. i.e. Cross-genre behemoths.

I think New Order 'came out of postpunk' if anything?

Probably yes.

Yes.

My question was, I think (perhaps I'm misremembering): have any Great artists emerged from indie pop? So MBV seem to be the one textbook case of this.

What do you mean "emerged from"?

I well remember B. Gillespie at Splash One chucking a DJ out of his seat for playing House music in '86 instead of "real" music like Kim Fowley and um the Shop Assistants.

Yes, well that's that drab Pastels indie fundamentalist scene - you weren't even allowed to like Bowie!

You need to qualify what you mean by great, Pinefox, which you didn't initially.

I remember when Stephen Pastel and Edwin Starr turned up on a Radio Clyde record review show sometime in the early eighties. The term was "mutual incomprehension."

Somebody told Stevie that Edwyn was showing up to review some records - you can imagine his disappointment

I never understood the fuss about the Stone Roses.

A mediocre workaday indie group who happened to be in a convenient place at a convenient time.

They didn't sell many records at the time either. In 1989 The Kids went for Simply Red and Jive Bunny.

"Freak Scene" is a 1988 single by Dinosaur Jr, Pinefox. It was quite the thing at the time. Here it is, with your regulation terrible indie video of the time:

I still like it loads, actually. I think it maybe goes on a little bit too long, but only just.

Well I loved the stone roses and still do. They were GREAT.

oh and I still love Dinosaur Jr, Husker Du, Mudhoney,Nirvana AND BANDWAGONESQUE (and Grand Prix)

Thanks, Pashmina.

I agree that the Stone Roses were, and have been, overrated. And I remember the big sellers of 1989, too.

Grand Prix must be the best TFC LP?

He did qualify great though:

A few examples of Great people: Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Everly Brothers, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Davies, Brian Wilson, Byrds, Bacharach, Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, Lou Reed, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix, Stephin Merritt.

I certainly take Merritt off that list but I think I get what the 'fox is going for. And MBV is the only thing we've discussed that even comes close to that sort of stature.

Yeah I think Grand Prix probably is even better. But I don't like any of the other TFC albums much. Songs From...... was such a disappointment at the time and I've never heard it since.

But i agree with Pash, the indie rock from the USA was better than most UK indie pop imo. Obviously the 80s stuff I like wasn't heard until the 90s. Nirvana were my gateway to music.

Yeah, my point was what was Nirvana's gateway to music and a big part of that from the Kurt point of view was UK indie pop.

Grand Prix must be the best TFC LP?

That or "C86" by the BMX Bandits!

That's a list of people he cosniders great, not a qualification of what he means by 'great' - I see nothing in common between Curtis Mayfield and Stphin Merritt, and Merritt's inclusion was obv. key to PF's modus operandi in reviving the thread.

I still wonder about MBV's stature next to those artists. I'm not convinced.

I seem to remember Scab Sutherland in MM saying that Radio City by Big Star was the best TFC album.

Yeah I was just saying I personally could buy that whole list save the last guy. Why I'm not the pinefox, I guess.

Yeah, my point was what was Nirvana's gateway to music and a big part of that from the Kurt point of view was UK indie pop

Heaven knows why though

so that leaves me so far with

Stephin Merritt / TMF
Stuart Murdoch / B&S
The Sundays
The Stone Roses
possibly Saint Etienne

Where do Pulp fit in to all this? (serious question, great discussion too!)

Happy Mondays?

Thanks, Charlie No4, for liking the discussion.
Pulp came out of an earlier period, didn't they, early 1980s - I don't know exactly what it was they were trying to do at that point, or who they thought their contemporaries were, pre-Britpop.

I thought of Happy Mondays the other day, though not sure they can be aligned with indie pop.

I like the discussion too, even if I don't always agree with what's being said. It's just nice to see some talk on ILM for a change.

In Geir's defence, Keane and Travis both occasionally remind me in their mellower moments of melodic pop predecessors such as Marmalade and the Tremeloes.

Keane and Travis use a larger number of different chords in one song that Marmalade did in their entire output. Oh, sorry, I forgot you are tone deaf and only notice rhythm and timbre.

Explain, in simple terms, Geir, how Coldplay and Keane ever in any way whatsoever emerged from or showed any allegiance to whatsoever "the indie scene"?

Their most important influence was Radiohead.
And as for U2 and Simple Minds, they were underground acts to begin with too.

I think what you guys forget about is that a lot of acts are underground to begin with, but once they reach a certain popularity they will always lose their "indie" or "alternative" status no matter what they were in the beginning.

During Britpop, most Britpop fans considered Simply Red and The Beautiful South boring MOR acts for established 30-something. Then, go 10 years back and you find that Simply Red and The Housemartins were both critical favourites with very much an "underground" following. And with largely the same musical style that they would still be playing 10 years later.

oh, and yes! MBV! MBV are the Great act that emerged from indie pop

I would never consider them indie pop in any way. They were way too radical, and not "poppy" enough, to fit with that term. MBV were a radical underground rock band. Too radical for their own good. Jesus & Mary Chain would fit the bill more, but their production values were of a sort that I wouldn't consider them indie pop either. In spite of a more melody/song-oriented style.

R.E.M. started out as indie pop though. On "Document" they weren't pop anymore (and not quite as indie as they used to either)

(And I would second Stone Roses too - not sure if I'd consider The Smiths indie pop)

I think what you guys forget about is that a lot of acts are underground to begin with, but once they reach a certain popularity they will always lose their "indie" or "alternative" status no matter what they were in the beginning.

I don't think it works this way, at least in the U.S. Nirvana never lost their alternative status, while bands like Ratt and Trixter were never underground, even when they were unsigned nobodies.

An indie rock band is not the same as an unsigned rock band.

Thank you for voicing that in a reasoned manner. I was just going to call him a thick cunt.

R.E.M. started out as indie pop though.

I thought you dated the rise of indie pop to the mid 80s?

I only mention this because while I think jangle pop is a foundation of indie pop, it seems a bit diff to me at the same time.

An indie rock band is not the same as an unsigned rock band.

OTM

An indie rock band is not the same as an unsigned rock band.

An indie rock band is a guitar based band that has debuted, but still doesn't have many fans. U2 were before "The Joshua Tree", when they became too mainstream to be considered indie anymore. "War" was mainly loved by those who didn't like the synthpop and new romantics that dominated the UK pop mainstream in 1983.

NO GEIR, THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

We're talking about aesthetics, about ambition, about allegiance and genre, not about fanbase.

Leona Lewis pre X factor victory was not an indie solo artist.

We're talking about aesthetics, about ambition, about allegiance and genre, not about fanbase.

Just because you think that U2, today, are very conservative doesn't mean that people were thinking the same way in the mid 80s. By then, the most radical thing you could possibly do was the ditch all synths and drum machines and play a hugely 60s influenced kind of music. The "indie" term started with The Smiths, who did exactly that.

An indie rock band is a guitar based band that has debuted, but still doesn't have many fans.

So a black metal band on it's 1st album is an indie rock band then? Hardly.

I marvel at Geir's bottomless pit of enthusiasm for making up arbitrary categories to slot artists into

HE'S UNSTOPPABLE

geir is one top of his wtf game today

respect

An indie rock band - in 2008 - is not a band on an independent label, let's make that certain at first. An independent label is not needed for being indie and hasn't been at least since EMI/Parlophone started the Food label in the late 80s.

I don't want to join in the Hongro-bashing - it's such a group blood sport. But I do have to say, Mr Hongro, you are WRONG to say that MBV were not indie pop. This statement suggests that you have not heard their early work. Their early work IS indie pop. No two ways about it, really.

okay i have never even heard of that label.

does this mean i can still listen to the Softies? Velocity Girl?

So indie pop is any act who plays guitar based melodic pop that is only slightly left of centre. But slightly means just a very, very, very little bit, or it isn't pop anymore.

Early MBV sounded a bit like Jesus & Mary Chain, which may quality. But it is their later work that has made them the canon band they are, and that later work is not at all pop by any means, regardless of whether you put pop in front of it or not.

of whether you put indie in front of it, I mean

I didn't say that MBV's later work was indie pop. I said that their early work was indie pop. That is not cos it sounds a bit like JAMC. It just is indie pop. If you have heard it, and know what indie pop is, then you will know that.

Do you think Shop Assistants = indie pop cos they sound like JAMC?

I am not sure if I would define JAMC as indie pop either. Blur, up to and including "The Great Escape" is a typical example of what I would call indie pop.

Geir do you have a spreadsheet that helps you keep track of all these crucially important genre distinctions?

If so I would like to see it, preferably cross-referenced with chuck eddy's

Then we are not using the same idea of indie pop. Mine is roughly what Nabisco is talking about in the article linked to upthread. It is a pretty well-known idea, not that obscure among music fans.

I would simply define indie pop as the most pop of indie acts. That is, Blur, who are obviously indie (Food may have been owned by a major, but their musical profile was very much an "indie" one musically), and also obviously pop (as in "not rock"). Alas, indie pop.

^^^SCIENCE

in chuck's definition, "indie pop" expands to include some bands traditionally considered heavy metal, like boney m and devo

What is certain is that the Britpop band were considered indie bands. NME considered them indie bands, Melody Maker considered them indie bands, Q considered them indie bands, Select considered them indie bands. They were definitely indie, and this did also include Blur, for instance. (And Pulp - another band who would be a very typical "indie pop" band)

Geir and Chuck should definitely have a long and lengthy discussion about genre definitions. On another board.

preferably in another dimension

I'm not sure I even want to read far enough back to sort out what the issue is here, but I feel like the Pinefox should be granted another degree for this one:

It just is indie pop. If you have heard it, and know what indie pop is, then you will know that.

i don't consider blur to be indie pop. to. um...something or other. but it's not indie pop as this reporter knows it.

Grand Prix must be the best TFC LP? - An outsider opinion, perhaps, but I believe the correct answer is the (unfortunately-titled) Howdy! It's just that so few were paying attention by that point, that its subtle charms were lost to the world.

*See also: Echo & Tha Bunnymen's What Are You Going to Do With Your Life? & Siberia

in chuck's definition, "indie pop" expands to include some bands traditionally considered heavy metal, like boney m and devo

Rofl. This thread was worth it just for that.
Geir, you are so very very very wrong.

A few examples of Great people: Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Everly Brothers, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Townshend, Davies, Brian Wilson, Byrds, Bacharach, Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, Lou Reed, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix, DJ Martian

Part of why I worked on the article Pinefox linked upthread was the realization that I could no longer refer to indiepop as a distinct genre and still count on being understood. You could refer to "indie pop" and people would naturally and intuitively think, well ... a band like the Shins, they're "indie," and they're poppy, so it must mean bands like that. Or you could refer to "twee" and people would think of it as a quality -- it'd be "that thing that people always call wimpy English bands." The lines had blurred and the old sense of "indiepop" had lost its purchase, and it seemed useful to take a stab at pinning that old meaning of it down so it wouldn't be entirely forgotten.

One reason this seemed important is that people had indeed begun to think of the terms as referring to popular strummy regular-old-band bands like the Shins, and that was frustrating to me, because my experience of indiepop -- especially in America -- was that it was quite aggressively scrappy, sometimes bratty, sometimes confrontational; that it took HUGE risks in terms of possibly embarrassing itself; that even when it was the same three strummy guitar chords, it was rarely ever anything close to ordinary.

I think Pinefox raises something interesting by talking about how difficult it is to imagine an indiepop band being "great," how that kind of greatness just doesn't apply here. The idea was too insular, probably, from its very conception: it created this thing where you could be absolutely legendary within this tiny subculture, but it'd invariably seem insane to even compare you to the greats. That in itself is probably good evidence of how indiepop existed as an almost radically weird subset of music or subset of the indie scene.

It makes sense to me that people don't talk about or recognize it as the distinct thing it once was; like I said, the lines have blurred and the purchase has been lost. But I do think that a lot of current music in its area makes a whole lot more sense if you're aware of how that distinction used to function. Which, like I said, is why I took a sort of rough and embarrassing -- and, now that I look at it again, really clumsily self-edited -- shot at getting down how that used to work. And why the first sentence is "Indie pop is not just 'indie' that is 'pop'."

beat happening chapter of "this band could be your life" to thread

great book

this whole thread is like the part in neverending story part II where the kid turns to one of the imaginary creature things and says "gimme five!" and the creature is like "five what?"

Who was the last genuinely great indie band?

I'd give it to B&S

or Spoon maybe

Not The White Stripes?

do they pre-date B&S?

(I checked and they do not - B&S first album is '91, WS first is '99)

'91? wtf I mean '97

haha wait wtf am I talking about my conception of time is all backwards uh yes the WHITE STRIPES! them.

I have great trouble knowing what people mean by 'indie' anything, if we are just going by the sound of
the record, the approach to songwriting, etc.

the lesson of this thread is obviously: ASK GEIR

Geir what bands are in your indie canon?

I would like Nabisco to know (and I think he does know) that this is NOT a thread, or discussion, attempting to define indie pop. Because if it was, I would be embarrassed about it. It was, as I think Nabisco gets, about the odd relation between indiepop and pop Greatness. And I tend to agree with what Nabisco says about this, especially re. how you can be Great in that tiny scene and unknown outside it - that is crucial and, yes, defining of the scene in a way.

(I would say that Nabisco won't be able to see this post, but I think that no longer applies - he quoted me upthread so I think he must have removed the filter from his computer.)

Why would he have killfiled you?

I mean, nabisco is one of the fairest people on here (unless you had a falling out I was unaware of and sorry to bring it up)

Any great indie bands from 2000 onwards?

I think it must have been something I said to him in the Guggenheim.

All the time I hung around with and mixed sound for indie musicans in the '80's and '90's, the one thing that held it back for me was this insistence that any degree of instrumental technique/virtuosity was in some way suspect. You had to be a crap singer, or a crap drummer, or a barely-functional guitarist, like Lou Reed (even though Lou Reed is actually a brilliant guitarist) or whoever. Espousing actually practicing till you could play really well was heresy, people would thing it meant you wanted everyone to play like ywngie.

Was the UK really like this at this time? This is actually fascinating if so. Like, people refused to practise? Even the high school punk bands I knew as a kid were fairly serious about their musicianship.

It seems weird though. Even e.g. Joy Division and the Smiths sound like pretty tight bands, on record at least. (Certainly XTC.)

During the shoegazing/baggy era it may well have been like this. Particularly the shoegazer bands seem a bit like probably rather talented musicians that seem to have made a point out of sounding as technically crap as possible.

With Britpop it all changed - I think the most important thing Britpop did to indie - other than bringing it on top of the UK singles charts - was to add production values.

The thing about Indie is that it seems to include a vast variety of styles compared to any other genre. So many things get included under the heading. For example, I'm pretty sure I've seen people refer to The Knife, Sugababes, Schneider TM, Animal Collective, Royal Trux, Mary Margaret O'Hara and Sonic Youth as indie. Yeah, that's bit strawman-ey, but indie just seems to be anything that's on Pitchfork now.

I disagree Geir. Plenty of 80s indie records had polished or original production, notably Joy Division, New Order,
(who worked with a number of top producers like Arthur Baker), Smiths, Bunnymen.
In what way do, say, Elastica sound better produced than The Saints?

They made more use of synths and drum machines (e.g. Simmonds).

The thing about Indie is that it seems to include a vast variety of styles compared to any other genre. So many things get included under the heading. For example, I'm pretty sure I've seen people refer to The Knife, Sugababes, Schneider TM, Animal Collective, Royal Trux, Mary Margaret O'Hara and Sonic Youth as indie.

In the 80s, even Stock/Aitken/Waterman products would be defined as indie, simply because PWL was an independent label. About the same time Parlophone started their "Food" label, with way more "indie" sounding music than PWL, and it was around this moment that "indie" became the name of a musical genre rather than just a term describing marketing.

I disagree Geir. Plenty of 80s indie records had polished or original production, notably Joy Division, New Order,
(who worked with a number of top producers like Arthur Baker), Smiths, Bunnymen.

Joy Division/New Order were pre-indie in some way. Same about Echo & The Bunnymen. Postpunkers were never afraid of production values.
But, yes, The Smiths sounded quite good at times. The Stone Roses - as great as they were - tended to sound really shit though.

I remember Pete Waterman being interviewed in NME sometime in the eighties and saying that the Smiths would sound much better if SAW wrote and produced their records.

I don't think shoegazers were talented musicians trying to sound bad. I think they were either quite good and sounded quite good (like Ride's drums and lead guitar for instance), or maybe were just competent and used shoegazing as a way of gauzing over that (such simple and slow ways of playing guitar). But perhaps there was also a kind of skill in using the FX and finding that sound.

I tend to agree with Hongro that Britpop took 'indie' into a different level of 'production values', and indeed sound - it is hard to think of an earlier 'indie' record that sounds like Parklife. But as I have said before, this is not really what I consider Indie Pop, which is what the thread was about. But that's OK. It is funny how this thread has become All-Purpose Indie thread for its 5 minutes of fame.

All the time I hung around with and mixed sound for indie musicans in the '80's and '90's, the one thing that held it back for me was this insistence that any degree of instrumental technique/virtuosity was in some way suspect. You had to be a crap singer, or a crap drummer, or a barely-functional guitarist, like Lou Reed (even though Lou Reed is actually a brilliant guitarist) or whoever. Espousing actually practicing till you could play really well was heresy, people would thing it meant you wanted everyone to play like ywngie.

Was the UK really like this at this time? This is actually fascinating if so. Like, people refused to practise? Even the high school punk bands I knew as a kid were fairly serious about their musicianship.

It seems weird though. Even e.g. Joy Division and the Smiths sound like pretty tight bands, on record at least. (Certainly XTC.)

This was an idea introduced with punk - that it was about energy, not a refined playing technique - and it persisted with the post-punk scene, and then the indie scenes that emerged from that, although somewhere along the line the notion of 'energy' was lost too, leaving just no technique in some cases.

XTC were somewhat older than the average punk band so they had already learned to play, in a different era. Joy Division, on the other hand, preserved a punkish angularity and feverish energy in their style, but because they were serious about what they were doing, and doing it day in day out, became very good technically (within the confines of the style).

Something that amazes me is how good technically a lot of young bands are now. You can listen to any unsigned alternative rock (not self-consciously 'indie') band on Myspace and hear drumming that is much more solid and accomplished sounding than that on most of the hard rock of the late 1960s to early '70s. The problem can be that it's too good (at least for my taste).

They should all be replaced by Simmonds machines (e.g. drums).

The Simmonds was an electronic DRUM KIT, not a machine.

Phil Collins would have been way more effective if he had drummed on a synthesiser from Nursery Cryme onwards. Otherwise the early Genesis work is marred by unwelcome elements of rock as practised by Free and Paul Weller.

Rock is a genre which is more hard and sometimes less melodic than Pop, and more mainstream than Indie.

The ghost of Freddie Mercury must be horrified at the rude roughness that Paul Rogers has brought to the hitherto immaculate sheen of Queen. If Roger Taylor had indulged in more of the engaging drum machine work that he brought to classics like "Come Undone" they would be less desperate to employ crude Rock singers to tarnish their melodic-over-metallic sheen.

I remember Pete Waterman being interviewed in NME sometime in the eighties and saying that the Smiths would sound much better if SAW wrote and produced their records.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday

I thought it was Geir who said that.

good thread?

great thread.

I repeat again

Geir what bands are in your indie canon?

Probably the Crowded Houses.

yeah geir, we're all in fuckin' suspense here. please tell us more about your taste in music for the love of christ.

Jelly and the Fishes.

I don't think shoegazers were talented musicians trying to sound bad. I think they were either quite good and sounded quite good ... or maybe were just competent and used shoegazing as a way of gauzing over that. ... But perhaps there was also a kind of skill in using the FX and finding that sound.

Quoting this because that last part gets at something that's central to me. The whole mentality of indie seems to me to involve replacing the idea of technical skill with what we might call stylistic skill. If someone says Kevin Shields is a brilliant guitar player, they're probably not saying this because they think he has loads of technical skill or a wide vocabulary of playing styles or anything; they're saying this because it occurred to the guy to wrap tape around his tremolo arm and make bendy sounds as he played. "Finding that sound" seems key to me about a lot of indie -- so much of it throws away the idea of playing or singing in a way that's skilled or impressive or accomplished, and focuses instead on playing or singing in a way that's suggestive of something, where the arrangement of elements just happens to have a resonant style to it. (There was a thread at some point where we talked about different definitions of the indie mentality, and I think I always came back to this one -- that it often wants to stylize rock music, to put the same sorts of twists on it that you can see in visual art: like the rock album is a nude model and one person renders it blocky and cubist, another one's more pointillist, another uses impressionistic swirls...)

And this seems to me like something that's critical to understanding indiepop, and one thing that's subtle and maybe sometimes misunderstood about it: the way that a lot of it is amateurish or shambling is intended as a sort of style. It's not just that it's rickety and that's not supposed to matter because who cares; that rickety fragility or joyful messiness is a point of style in itself, an arrangement of sounds that can have its own resonances and communicate something. It's part of the point, part of the proposition. But that's incredibly complicated, because this proposition is not always super-easy to differentiate from just being clumsy or incompetent.

Which might be one reason no one dreams of seeing world-class Greatness coming out of indiepop acts.

Indie's emphasis of sound / style over craft can also be viewed in a cultural context as a rejection of proletarian values, like being able to work well with one's hands. As if an indie musician's thoughts are so superior to those of ordinary folks' that it demeans him to have to translate them into music through a process as pedestrian learning a trade.

Or maybe that's all bs, but I think they're a question of *why* an indie musician has the kind of mentality you describe.

as pedestrian *as* learning a trade...

Indie's emphasis of sound / style over craft can also be viewed in a cultural context as a rejection of proletarian values, like being able to work well with one's hands. As if an indie musician's thoughts are so superior to those of ordinary folks' that it demeans him to have to translate them into music through a process as pedestrian learning a trade.

but the way -- especially the indie labels worked -- was much MORE work intensive...screening your own covers and posters, paying for your own manufacturing and distribution, forming underground venues, etc etc, thinking K records, beat happening stuff here....or like in the old guided by voices documentary where they make like 1000 different covers and they all work day jobs and stuff....

(again this might be a us/uk divide thing...but yeah true "indie" values were very DIY to me, approaching music as your own little business where you did everything yourself)

Geir what bands are in your indie canon?

From the mid 80s onwards:
The Stone Roses, Jesus Jones, The Charlatans, Blur, Oasis, Pulp, Suede, Dodgy (arguably not indie), Ocean Colour Scene, The Bluetones (debut album only), Travis, Coldplay, Kaiser Chiefs, The Kooks, Franz Ferdinand. Those are the GREAT indie bands from this era.

I remember Pete Waterman being interviewed in NME sometime in the eighties and saying that the Smiths would sound much better if SAW wrote and produced their records.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday

I thought it was Geir who said that.

Not, Pete Waterman, no. But Trevor Horn or Alex Sadkin could have done wonders.

Jesus Jones

but the way -- especially the indie labels worked -- was much MORE work intensive...

no need for the past tense here, btw

The Alarm should also be in there (my indie canon, I mean)

These bands are better than the more famous ones because they were smoother, more well-produced, more melodic and with lots of brilliant singalong qualities.

Indie's emphasis of sound / style over craft can also be viewed in a cultural context as a rejection of proletarian values, like being able to work well with one's hands.

You could just as easily argue that it's an embrace of proletarian or populist values, in terms of the way it rejects elite education and codified skill in favor of the raw self-made unskilled ideas of musical laypersons, blah blah blah -- in fact this is argued a great deal with regard to punk.

I'm not sure either argument is all that complete or full of overarching significance; both have vague elements of truth that don't really tell us a huge amount.

Geir what bands are in your indie canon?

From the mid 80s onwards:
The Stone Roses, Jesus Jones, The Charlatans, Blur, Oasis, Pulp, Suede, Dodgy (arguably not indie), Ocean Colour Scene, The Bluetones (debut album only), Travis, Coldplay, Kaiser Chiefs, The Kooks, Franz Ferdinand. Those are the GREAT indie bands from this era.

― Geir Hongro,

I can't say I have ever considered Jesus Jones or Ocean Colour Scene indie at all (not since the 1st album anyway, and NOONE considers that a great album either)

And Coldplay are just not indie in anyway.

because they were smoother, more well-produced, more melodic

In other words, they weren't really indie.

From "Parklife" onwards, there was no opposition between indie and production values anymore.

jesus christ, they're SIMMONS pads, not simmonds

From "Parklife" onwards, there was no opposition between indie production values anymore.

Aww man can this not be a play-with-Geir thread?

(Hahaha although his sense of an "opposition between indie and production values" is kinda funny and relevant given the discussion we were having and the thing I was trying to say about lots of indie/indiepop production types being style propositions in and of themselves -- which, NB, I can't believe I got through without pointing out "lo-fi" as the obvious example, a way of recording that soon enough wasn't just meant to be tolerable or forgivable ineptitude but an interesting set of sounds in and of itself, a resonant style)

Indie in the 80s and indie in the 90s were different simply because the 90s differed from the 80s.

In the 80s, indie wanted to be everything the typical synth-based mainstream pop of the time was not.

In the 90s, the mainstream had been taken over by hip-hop and dance and it was more natural for indie to be everything hip-hop/dance were not.

Production values were not neccessarily opposed to hip-hop or dance, but a lack of production values wasn't quite as important as it was to be alternative to the mainstream in the 80s either.

Indie in the 80s and indie in the 90s were different simply because the 90s differed from the 80s.

truthbomb

I hear the 70s were also different from the 60s!

The 1880s and the 1890s were pretty much the same though.

I liked Nabisco's long post. It moved the discussion on, for me - it made me think.

Some of what Hongro just said in his post may have been true, as well, actually.

well it's true the 80s and the 90s were different

Lo-fi and DIY are mentioned (dr and tape releases are THRIVING), these things do still exist. It's just the mainstream music press(inc NME etc) just aren't interested anymore.
But then again, who is interested in the mainstream music press anymore?

DJ Martian

Does he actually read it though? ;)

Pinefox did you go in for DIY/tape trading at all? Do you buy home made cdrs by bands? It cant just be indie rock/punk/metal/psych folk/noise/drone bands who do all this. Surely DIY indie pop still exists?

And yes, Geir, we know you're not interested in lo-fi production or tape/cdr trading as you prefer cd and high production values.

A lo-fi production may be worthy if the melody is good (and the vocals mixed high enough for the song to actually be heard), but I would always have preferred it hi-fi. :)

But I find todays "indie" as you call indie, too overproduced. Indie rock (or indeed rock in general) especially shouldn't be too produced as it sucks the life out of it.

10 seconds till Geir pat response #2354, "There is no such thing as over-production"

Pinefox did you go in for DIY/tape trading at all? Do you buy home made cdrs by bands? It cant just be indie rock/punk/metal/psych folk/noise/drone bands who do all this. Surely DIY indie pop still exists?
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As

I don't know that much about any of this but yes, it does - this year I have put out two eps on 3-inch CDR, on this label:
http://www.cloudberryrecords.com/

OK so now we appear to have "Indie Rock" and "Indie Pop"

Um, wasn't that the donée of the thread? And certainly of the thread revival?

I haven't read it all. I don't know what Indie Pop is though, to be honest. Are Belle and Sebastian really a pop band?

Music doesn't need "life". It needs detail and sophistication. The more details the better.

Postpunkers were never afraid of production values.

And neither were most indie bands, they just couldn't afford them.

This thing about indie bands deliberately sounding messy and underproduced is largely a myth

I think it is fair to say that some could afford production values back then. It was more of a trend. But still, of course Britpop had larger budgets than 80s indie, which is part of why Britpop was more produced.

My two main pet peeves about 80s indie production are not that much about budget though, rather about way too much reverb and mixing vocals way too low in the mix.

The financial constraints are consistently ignored tho, most indie bands would have given their right bollock to spend 3 months in the Bahamas with George Martin producing them, but who was going to pay for it?

And that also goes for affodring rehearsal time in proper rehearsal studios AND affording proper equipment

I don't exactly disagree. It may have become sort of an ideological thing among some indie fans, but it is true that 80s indie would have been more produced had they been able to afford it.

One would expect that Factory Records could have afforded a larger production budget for the first two Happy Mondays albums though, considering the money that was being spent on cover design.

Well pashmina was only talking about the bands he did sound for I think, Tom. Not indie rock or pop in general.

Just looking at pinefox's link. What band are you in PF?

The only band there I've heard of is Je Suis Animal, and only because they get mentioned a lot on the watercooler thread.

The First Division (sold out!) and The Arc Lamps (available!)

Tom D: for definition of indie pop, see Nabisco article linked to upthread;
or indeed (I've only just looked at this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/article606267.ece

http://www.indie-mp3.net/C86%20Essay.pdf

http://unpopular.typepad.com/unpopular/2005/07/c86.html

Musically its key characteristics were jangling guitars, a love of sixties pop and often fey, innocent lyrics.

Geir should like it then
x-post

And I did. Particularly when they turned off the reverb, put the vocals more in the forefront, and separated the instruments somewhat more in the stereo sound. :)

that squeaky clean indie pop sound of the late 80s. who listened to this stuff? what cultural moment did this kind-of music fit into?

and can burt_stanton make a thread about them?

Yes. I was looking through youtube and it seems like ther'es a milllllllion of these bands that have this sound somewhere between the Wild Swans and Sarah Records. I guess people were really into it? Was it something that happened parallel to the Sonic Youths and Spacemen 3s of the time? Also it's too cold to leave the apartment.

Type faster, maybe you'll stay warm that way.

that stuff was one of chief reasons why I spent the late eighties listening to KNAC and KDAY (metal and rap respectively). pls to turn volume up above 3 and not romanticize awkwardness, sexlessness.

but yeah there was a minor cult around it - I always hated that they called it "pop," as if there were some aesthetic/formal quality that makes something pop when it seemed to me that whatever pop's aesthetic/formal qualities might be at a given time, music isn't "pop" unless it appeals to lots of people. I mean: I can totally see the argument "the following qualities make something pop whether people like it or not" as long as there's a qualifier before it: sixties pop, eighties pop, Urban Cowboy boom pop. But when you build a whole new subgenre around these qualities and call it "pop" when a huge part of the subgenre's character depends on its appeal to a small subculture, then no, that's not pop, and besides, a number of these bands seemed to have thought they would have been more popular in an earlier era, which, y'know, no, & besides nostalgia is obnoxious.

I would guess that the members of Belle & Sebastian have an alarmingly complete collection of this kinda stuff.

Burt is stabbed and while pursued by the children, is assisted by a child named Job. Realizing the situation his girlfriend is in, Burt follows Job and Sarah to the cornfield. Meanwhile, Malachai has turned on Isaac when the latter refuses to try and use Vicky as a lure for Burt, Malachai decides to have Isaac crucified as another sacrifice. Night falls, and the ritual begins.

I always hated that they called it "pop," as if there were some aesthetic/formal quality that makes something pop when it seemed to me that whatever pop's aesthetic/formal qualities might be at a given time, music isn't "pop" unless it appeals to lots of people.

You appear to be mixing up pop with popular music.

Pop is a musical genre, characterised by being more melodic, more "produced" and with less rough edges than "rock"
Popular music is a sociological phenomenon describing whatever is popular with the masses.

Well, I'm not talking the stuff that's totally tweeish and gawky, like the Pastels and all that shit. The stuff that comes from that tradition but is slightly mainstream but still "underground" ... that really clean "alternative pop" 120 Minutes used to play in like, 1989 or 1990. Did it inspire people enough to see it live? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Pop is a musical genre, characterised by being more melodic, more "produced" and with less rough edges than "rock"

I know some of you like to think this, but the term pop is short for "popular." As far as I'm concerned if it's not popular then any attempt to claim the "pop" mantle is just weird cultural self-positioning.

Also, the so-called "rough edges" of rock are every bit as produced and fussed-over as the "smooth" ones of pop

...and if it ain't classical nor folk (ie ethnomusic), it's popular music, despite trying to quantify its popularity.

I was going to say that "pop" was also a part of that "serious music" v.s. "not so serious" (i.e. pop) dichotomy.

Indie pop also sounds better to the indie pop fan's ears than "wimpy faggot music" and other descriptions gruff non-fans probably gave it ("losercore" being another possible description).