You say you don't like indie, but.......

maybe they're jaded indie scenesters who got snubbed by some elitists...

to dismiss Tortoise as "indie drivel" would be a contradiction in terms

I would *never* do that. I would instead dismiss them as a perfectly fine example of aural Sominex without the appeal.

'Does this make any sense?'

Yes.

Yes it makes sense. See also our anti-indie kids article (except you cant sorry cause it's not back up yet). We got a ton of flak for that most of which failed to appreciate that only indie kids, albeit disappointed wannabe-ex indie-kids, could have written it. Though maybe that made it worse.

On the other hand while it's pretty much impossible to gain a knowledge of individual indie bands without becoming aware of the broad corpus of 'indie' and also 'the scene', it's possible to gain a knowledge of them without *embracing* the broad idea of the music or 'the scene'.

surely a lot of people get into Tortoise etc via reviews in Jazz or Dance music magazines. i had no idea that they had any indie following at all until recently. ('indie' to me refers to guitar bands only)

i've heard enough indie to realise i only like a certain few bands and have no interest in the rest

I'll dare to say: No - it does not make enough sense. I don't know what the point, the direction, of what you're saying, is.

I don't know that 'indie' quite exists as it did - economically, primarily - but also aesthetically. But then again there are still swathes of tiny bands playing pop - so are they indie?

I think that my feeling - which I have never quite realized or enunciated before - is that the word Indie is a little past its use- by date. It says 1980s to me. That's a good thing, a good legacy (and I immediately genuflect to Mr Hopkins and Dr C on the specifics of the scene/s). But there seems to be something a bit bogus, somehow, about using the word now (as on the 'London indie scene').

What I mean: 'Indie' is kind of like people saying they are Punks or Hippies. I know people do say that - but I think that when they do, we note a kind of *historical identification* doing on. "I am a Punk" = "I still believe in 1977" (fine!) - etc. For me, "I am Indie" = "I still believe in 1986" (also fine).

Note: I think use of the term "indie" on this board sometimes falls into the "if it's good, I'm not going to call it indie" trap -- or at least a peculiar (or maybe peculiarly British) conflation of "indie" with middling guitar-pop bands. The term never pops up in reference to bands who are doing something interesting coming from an indie direction: Clinic or the Clientele or Mercury Rev, for example. (I.e., if a band does anything interesting beyond normal indie parameters, they're considered not-indie, even though my conception of indie has always had a lot to do with the effort to work outside of those boundaries.)

I think the difference has to do with the British conceptualizing indie as a static genre, a specific sound, while Americans (or me, anyway) conceptualize it as a particular aesthetic vein that happens to enjoy the listenership of a particular "indie" audience. Which, admittedly, pulls a lot of stylistically different bands under the same umbrella, from Mouse on Mars to My Bloody Valentine. But if you don't do that, then you have to suddenly admit that "indie" kids no longer listen to very much "indie" music.

[Possible explanation of this = British "indie" as largely stemming from a particular post-punk sound, while American "indie" developed as a catch-all banner for underground rock ranging from hardcore to folky guitar-pop?]

The last time I was reading NME on a regular basis, Daphne and Celeste were all the rage. I remember reading a lot of stuff along the lines of "Daphne and Celeste are here to kick your butt! Death to the indie saddoes!". That seemed to be the general jist of it anyway.

Now when the marketing/A&R staff were 'formulating' Daphne and Celeste as a product, was there an anti-indie agenda? I think not. Why should there be? Obscure indie-rock wasn't a 'threat' to D&C's position in the pop marketplace. It wouldn't even have been an issue.

This is the point:

Generally, it's only those who actually LIKE independent music that seek to set mainstream pop music up in opposition to it.

Going off on a tangent, I'd say this kind of inverted snobbery is the reason why I stopped reading the UK music press. When NME journalists talk about "indie losers", more often than not it is a response driven by middle-class guilt - as if rejecting your cultural background somehow demonstrates that you respect others. It's kind of like a man wearing a man t-shirt that says "Small Penis" on it just to show he's not a 'typical guy'.

I think Dan has a good basic point in re NME infighting, but it frays pretty quickly once you step outside an NME-centric constituency esp. the extremely narrowcast NME of the 90s (I stopped reading it and writing for it in 1988, and went to Wire, basically in total frustration at NME's switch from dealing with EVERY kind of music c.1977-83 to a fairly limited tranche, which at that PARTICULAR moment had a fair proportion of UK listeners, but sure doesn't now). Obviously I'm pro D&C because they're objectively great: the problem with being pro-D&C from within NME is that the cause you're fighting is already long-lost there — yes indie should be fighting for its canons of quality on much wider terms, but those terms are utterly meagrely constituted in rock-paper terms.

(I might add that I am no huge fan of The Wire's current mode of address to this problem, tho at least they recognise the EXISTENCE of a large number of other kinds of music...)

Ahhh, case in point: the only Americans I know who like Daphne and Celeste are ultra-indie.

I suppose this does support the thesis here: (1) indie listeners perceive themselves as more open-minded than pop listeners, since they are listening to such "underground" music, (2) indie listeners become even more indie via competition at being indier-than- thou, (3) indie listeners get older and realize that their indie tastes are as narrowly codified as pop is, only different, (4) indie listeners becomes "more indie than indie" specifically through listening to non-indie things -- thereby replicating the thrill they felt at breaking away from the pop mainstream by doing the same with their self-selected indie mainstream.

For better or worse, this describes my musical evolution pretty well, which is why I'd argue that the above isn't a calculated thing: it seems a pretty normal progression to make through the musical landscape. What's unnecessary is all of biting at those who are a few steps behind one in that progression.

For God's sake, Nitsuh, why don't you start a blog? I'd read that fucker every day. Perceptive and lucid as always.

Christ Nitsuh, don't you know that biting at those a few steps behind you is what the indie-mentality is all about? Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, my evolution was slightly different. It really happened on encounter of an actual indie-scene which was in contrast to the heretofore exciting imaginings I had conjured up in high school. Then I just sort of cast hopelessly about, and well near forgot about music until I got taken by hip-hop, due to the influence of a few friends and lots of parties.

I dunno, Sterling -- I guess it depends again on how you're defining "indie." If you mean underground or obscure music in the most general sense, that's true -- but if you're saying that tendency is particular to indie indie, I'd point out that metalheads or prog-rockers or jazzbos are just as scoffing toward the not- completely-initiated. And even here on ILM, where the focus is remarkably broad and all-inclusive -- I guarantee you that almost any of us, if we found ourselves in conversation with a huge fan of Starsailor or Korn or some other band "proven by science" to suck, would be doing the same thing. It's probably just a little more evident when it comes to indie because indie is construed as an all-around hipster thing, intellectually, fashion-wise, etc. -- an all-out metalhead can't make many claims to hipness other than within his own circles. So I suppose what I'm saying is that indie kids only come across as insufferable hipsters because non- indie kids assume they're insufferably hip, to which I say: ha, ha, ha.

Same thing with jazz, by the way. I used to live with a guy who, whenever we'd have a party, would have five or six girls in his room looking adoringly at his records and his saxophone and talking about how much they'd always wanted to get more into listening to jazz but just needed someone to guide them.

D&C not released in US yet (allegedly because they didn't want their schoolchums to hear the lame-ass music they were making in the UK heh heh)

Yep, but "U.G.L.Y." was on the Bring It On soundtrack. My extremely non-indie little sister found out about it without my help.

Where are these girls Nitsuh? Are you saying I've just been missing the saxophone?

Pinefox: What happened in 1986? I mean this as a sincere question because I don't know a lot about UK indie.

I bet Lloyd Cole released an album!

But really, the answer actually strengthens your point. Blonde Redhead is a good indie band, and they have developed ties to Fugazi and Sonic Youth, which has helped strengthen their sound, particularly production value. I mean, if there were an abundance of good indie-rock bands, not all of them would make those connections and get that kind of support, right? Matador isn't putting out shit except for attempts "Hey, we're still hip" electronic and hip-hop credibility. Almost any other current indie band I like has electronic overtones: The Faint, even Malkmus' new band is all synthed out, Trans Am...wait...The White Stripes are really good, but I think it is as close to 'classic' rock as it is to 'indie'...same with those damned Strokes, though I'm doing my best not to like them (it is a fucking catchy single, but I still think they are SOOOOO contrived). Also, Cursive is really fucking good, but I think that the whole 'post-hardcore screamo' thing (i.e. Still Life) is really a genre unto itself, that At The Drive In used to fit in nicely. But, shit, after The Pixies, Pavement, Sebadoh, Built To Spill and so on, how fucking had must it be to be a relevant indie rock band with something different and worthwhile to offer? You can't just mix your indie with electronic - everyone's onto it. I honestly think it is all about a rediscovery/exploration of the '70s CBGB sound (which I'm afraid to say seems to be EXACTLY what the Strokes are doing) - if indie bands could start riffing on The Ramones, Devo, Talking Heads instead of Sonic Youth, Nick Drake and the Steve Albini sound, we might actually get some interesting new stuff.

1986 = Indie Year Zero. Pixies formed.

Does C86 have anything to do with the significance of that particular year, perchance?