Indiephilia!

I know you don't want indie defined negatively, but to the extent that there is an indie aesthetic it is based on oppositionalism, on seeing "our" music as different from the soul-less music of The Man.

The difference is perhaps that reggae / soul (to take my own example) may have a relatively limited defining aesthetic scope at any particular moment, but that changes quite fast. Indie, on the other hand, tends to a much broader aesthetic but moves on much more slowly.

Stepping aside, one thing I've never liked in music is when people criticise music for being "commercial", partly because I remember when I only liked mainstream music and hipsters would scoff at it in those terms. But I do think disliking music for being "uncommercial" is also bad - music should be liked for its own qualities. And I do think in general that indie music just gets on with being music rather than trying to chase market share.

That is what I hate about Blur - they chop and change styles all the time not as the muse moves them but as they see their bank balance shifting.

A slight problem with the position I'm adopting - I'm drifting worryingly into "we mean it, mannnnn" territory.

I think Indie is so prevalent in my musical tastes and musical collection for the reason that Indie is such a bloody catch-all term. It's like Classical - it's come so far from its original meaning that just as now the term Classical means anything with a string section, from Medieval Saltarellos to Baroque string quartets to 19th century Romantic operas.

I guess indie just means "anything that still has guitars" which actually doesn't ring true, either then, cause then how can synthpop bands like Add N To X and Ladytron still be "Indie"?

The most committed indieophile (probably even including myself) will probably tell you "I don't necessarily like indie, I like Pop Music!" but their definition of pop will be an odd one that includes the Ramones and the Smiths.

Whenever we try to define indie we fail. Because there are too many definitions, some aesethetic, and some supposedly financial. So how are we supposed to tell you *what* we like in indie, and *why* we like it when we can't even define what IT is?

Would it horrify people if I told them that the REAL reason that I love the Smiths is not even for the lyrics, even though they often touch my heart and my mind but for those blessed TREMOLOS that Johnny Marr felt obliged to pour over every loving guitar chord. So I like the indiest band in the world for spacerock reasons. So there.

My main gripe abt indie: it is a cultural cul-de-sac. It rarely seems to lead its listeners on to other types of music/ways of expressing yrself, and draws from the smallest number of interesting sources (Nick Drake, Pixies, Nirvana, The Byrds, The Smiths, Primal Scream, The Shop Assistants blah blah)

OK, we'll put it another way. Take your favourite indie band. They are good at what they do. Why is it worth doing?

I'm sorry Tom, a problem here is that I'm not really a theorist of music, more someone who strings together in-jokes.

Thinking about this issue a bit more, the reason I like indie music is that it's G*R*A*T*E.

It just strikes me that with almost every other kind of music there are long justifications available of why it's good, whereas I don't remember reading one for indie. Most indie writers work on the assumption that indie is good and worth writing about and then take it from there, it seems to me.

Like - and I'm sorry to harp on this again - I say "I like [Britney]" where [Britney] stands for all of pop and someone says "I dont believe you" or "Why on Earth?". I say "I like [Pavement]" where [Pavement] stands for all of indie and nobody says "You don't really", very few people say "But why?" and the most common response is either "Yes my favourite album is..." or "No a better band are...".

But there is nothing inherently naturally likeable in the sounds [Pavement] make so why is this interrogatory stage skipped? It seems to be assumed that as a white late twentysomething male who owns a lot of CDs my interest in indie is 'natural' and questioning it would be somehow perverse. This ties in with Nitsuh's thread - do the people who like indie like it because it's made by 'their sort of people'.

Now I'm a bit sad that this thread isn't the celebration of indie I hoped it might be - so I'll leave these thoughts for now and think instead about why indie *is* good.

That is... TEXTURE.

But any "what's so great about fucking indie...?" thread is going to suffer the same fate. No one can agree on what it is. How can you decide why something is great if you can't even agree what it is?

What's so great about fucking hip-hop? What's so great about fucking pop? What's so great about fucking jazz? Can you give an honest and objective answer to any of these questions that doesn't come down to personal taste? You're just overly defensive about your Britney fucking Spears obsession. No one would ask you if you said your favourite artists "Well, what the fuck is so great about jazz?"

And you ask this question as if Britney were the antithesis of indie when, TECHNICALLY, due to her record label, Britney is bloody indie.

I suppose this is why 'we' talk so much about indie in negative terms - it is 'our' music so we feel more qualified to criticise it than music made by those from different backgrounds to ourselves (certain forms of hip-hop, for example).

I never asked for anything objective. I want generalised expressions of personal taste, a bit of enthusiasm.

Fans of hip-hop, pop and (less so) jazz all have to defend those genres, aesthetically, in general terms. In my experience that kind of writing is often illuminating and inspiring, more so than saying "I like it because I like it" or assuming the music doesn't need that kind of writing.

If I'm defensive about liking pop it's perhaps because I'm expected to defend it so bloody often. I was using it as an example to illuminate the special treatment indie gets.

Dave 225 makes some interesting aesthetic points. So it is possible to move beyond "It's the texture" and getting all sweary at the person asking.

I think this is often a good thing.

**Indie music was/is different. It was/is more artist oriented**

This is often a bad thing.

**That is also a reason that indie is very diverse**

What, more diverse than "not-indie"?

**For me indie music is more personal. It talks to me. It shows me that there are people out there with similar feelings and thoughts as me**

Indie rarely connects with me emotionally. Commercial Pop often does - in a simple direct fashion that I love. Dusty Springfield - "What Do You Do When Love Dies", Len Barry-"1-2-3", Abba-"SOS", Daft Punk - "Digital Love" all hit the mark. Most indie doesn't, for me. I don't demand this from all music all the time though, and where indie works is where I might be able to get a similar feeling through sound alone, or some peculiar and unexpected combination of sounds and lyrics.

>>> Fans of hip-hop, pop and (less so) jazz all have to defend those genres, aesthetically, in general terms.

Do they? To whom? Do hip-hop fans really worry about 'defending' their music? I think they have more 'belief' in it than that - and they probably don't care what other people think. (I am not interested in 'defences' of hip-hop, either, so am not likely to ask fans to provide them.)

You'll probably think it superfluous, or at least over-familiar, if I say: I like pop music - so please don't hive off the word 'pop' for stuff that you like and I don't.

Now to answer the question.

I believe that taste is socially constructed. Insofar as I like 'indie', it's because I belong to a historical / economic / social / gender / cultural fraction (ie. convergence of the right factors in all those things) that have made me the kind of person that like it. If I *don't* like 'indie' (which is also kind of true), that also belongs to the same social context - as reaction vs the first set of factors, or whatever.

In other words: the reason why I have *an affiliation with independent-label guitar pop of the 1980s, and some of its appointed precursors (Byrds) and successors (B&S)* is that I am the right kind of person to have such an affiliation - I am the kind of person that you might expect to have such an affiliation.

I think there's still sth more in your question, though: you're saying, maybe: OK, given all those 'constructing' factors and determinants: what do you like about the sound of it? Is that right? I can try to answer that (ie. give you a list of sounds and effects I like), but the reasons for my like might just turn out to be more of the same 'determinants'.

Sounds I like: jangling guitars; 12-strings; chorus FX; shiny, gleaming guitar sounds - these have a kind of visceral effect on me (which is also, I assume, socially constructed).

Tambourines / percussion?: cf. eg. the rhythm tracks on Ride's 'In A Different Place' (in a way paradigmatic for me of some of the Good, though 'limited', things about 'indie'): these do something to me that I have never quite been able to define.

Lyrics: the particular effects that 'indie lyrics' can have: eg: relation to the listener's life: yes, Morrissey is paradigmatic: this can do sth for me (for usual reasons as above). BUT NB: many indie lyrics are also really BAD at doing this, and VERY IRRITATING. (eg: Shed Seven?)

General effect of 'authenticity' that underlies some indie attitudes: real instruments, real people, whatever: as described in Reynolds 86??: dubious and under suspicion, yes: but probably still has some effect on me.

Speed, rush, blast: as in a record like Ride's 'Taste', which is not a terribly 'intelligent' record, but gives me something of the sound and the experience I need.

Possible BAD thing about 'indie': its relative lack of attention to *melody*. I'm no expert, but I don't think that eg. Wedding Present, Darling Buds, were melodic genii. Too much droning and unimaginative construction. I have often thought in terms of 'generic indie melodies' (I have written a few, for pastiche purposes), and would be interested in further definition of them (think Primitives, Buds, Shop Assts - sth about the actual melodic movement is distinctive - I *think*). I have become more interested in (and tried to learn from) 'Good' melodicists: Berlin, Bacharach, Macca, et al. So 'melody' possibly = a bit of a false trail in search for what sounds GOOD about indie.

What d'you think?

My point, marred by my annoyance was this:

This idea that *you* have to defend your Britney-loving POP! tastes, while us indie kids *never* have to critically address our music's merits is utterly ridiculous. In what rarified, elitist, music-geek atmosphere does this happen? IL* and Pitchfork and whathaveyou? Not in the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world (I mean, this is the PUBLIC that is putting these artists at the top of the chart) you don't have to defend loving Britney, but you DO have to defend loving The Smiths every bloody day. I mean, this is a culture which thinks the Stereofuckingphonics are "indie".

Walk into the office where I used to work, where Britneypop or Classic Rawk was the norm, and even owning OK Computer was "daring"... your POP! obsession would not even bat an eyelid. On the other hand, if I dared to listen to music without headphones, I'd be subjected to "Yuck! That's just the same chord played over and over again for an hour with different effects and no melody!" (no, I think you'll find it's the sublime drone texturescapes of Spacemen3) or "Eurgh! What is that caterwauling? Is someone killing seals? Soundss like bleeding whalesong!" (actually, I think you'll find that's the sweeping etherial majesty of Sigur Ros) or "Is that the band that does the song about smack again?" (Grrrr, I think you'll find that's the Dandy Warhols' appealing mixture of pop melodies and spacerock texture.)

What Alex says, for me, hits the mark. I like it because it is just more personal. Contrived, manufactured POP! can occasionally hit an emotional mark (I mean, yeah, you don't have to keep reminding me that my beloved Ronettes were the manufab pop of their day) but mostly it doesn't. I mean, honestly. A song like Bootylicious is proto-dronerock and I love it, I'm the first to admit that. But mostly the genre fails to hit the mark.

There was a crap, crap indie record store in upstate NY that used to advertise itself with the slogans "You don't buy your clothes at the mall, so don't buy your records there, either." When I was a teenager, I agreed, then I decided that it was simplistic and not true. Now I'm coming back to the idea. My ass and my aesthetics don't fit into Top Shop one size fits all. So why should I try to squeeze my emotions and my sentiments and my musical tastes into this reductionist one size fits all music?

Badly produced, tinny, occasionally clumbsy, whinging, self obsessed, overly clever, melodically challenged, and everything else that indie might be, it still fits me better.

I think it's a good thing if you want bland lowest common denominator music designed to appeal passively to as many people as possible, the musical equivalent of Titanic or some piece of Arnold Shwarzenegger shite, or the kind of slard that fills TV schedules. But in any kind of aesthetic terms it's surely a bad thing.

I mean, I don't think that an artist following their own muse without any compromise is of necessity going to produce good work (it depends how good your muse is in the first place), but some commmittee of suits chasing a demographic is inherently handicapped.

back to indie music - if you want a vision of a world of indie-less hell, go read the latest Rolling Stone.

I think the one thing we can perhaps say Kate is that we work/ed in very different offices. CDs I have been praised for bringing in include the Smiths, XTC, the KLF, Dylan, and I had a long and involved conversation with an Icelandic. Most CDs arouse no comment. CDs I have been dissed/teased for listening to include Britney and Five and 'Sparky's Magic Piano'. So maybe we can advance the idea that music listeners feel defensive about the music they find themselves forced to defend in everyday life (wow big idea huh).

(I think offices which play music out loud are crap whatever the CD though. Way too 6th form common room.)

(I am still working on a post about why indie is GRATE though)

Oh aye. My team leader has recently started doing this, much to the irritation of myself and the coworker opposite.

I'm thinking about an proper answer to this thread, and will contribute one as soon as I'm feeling a little less feverish. Props to Pinefox for his response, which I enjoyed even though his definition of indie seems rather different from mine.

Tom E: it's become 'indie vs pop' because you, unlike me, keep using the two terms as opposed.

I'm not sure this quite hits the mark though.

But then again, when I think "indie" I'm not thinking of Pavement, Superchunk, etc. (I'm not a fan of straight-up "indie rock" at all, unless that includes something like Versus or Yo La Tengo). I'm thinking "independent-label music, esp. the kind that isn't easily pigeonholed", so again, we probably have a problem with the definition of "indie".

My own interest in independent-label music partly relates to the means of its production -- typically, when it comes to music made after 1980, I have a much easier time finding sonically-appealing records on independent labels, because I can't stand the heavy compression, mega-treble-boost, giant drums, etc. that so many records use. I like the sound of many independent-label records as a thing in itself. It also relates to the willingness of its practitioners to explore ideas that for whatever reason are not generally magnets for the attention of the mainstream. So when I think of myself as listening to independent-label music, I'm casting a broad net that includes Low, Ida, Bedhead, Landing, Arovane, the Need, Kicking Giant, Deformo, the For Carnation, Datacide, Piano Magic, the American Analog Set, even Stereolab. And although many of these bands do "subvert mainstream culture" in interesting ways, that doesn't adequately describe why I'm drawn to them.

I think I meant, leaving aside the social aspect, "subversion" for its own sake. "Subversion" for the sheer thrill of a new perspective, just like a funhouse mirror.

it is a different take on music only insofar as any new music is

The distinction I was trying to make is that indie-as-a-whole (the broad swath of all oppositional musics) is united by having made this it's primary raison d'etre. "Mainstream" listeners are for the most part judging music on its ability to execute certain conventions well, albeit with minute twists to "keep it interesting." "Indie" listeners are for the most part judging music on its ability* to make large-scale twists on those conventions, albeit with enough conventions satisfied for it to still function coherently.

* Not band-by-band, but in general; thus that tenth-generation MBV soundalike is still perceived as contributing to a general twist on What Music Is.

Yes, the thrill of the difference is there, but it doesn't sprawl in all directions, nor is difference the same as newness. Mod-revivalism is v.v. indie but utterly backwards-looking. No subversion there, nope.

What I'm saying now is not so much that "this is what indie is" or "this is why indie is good" -- what I'm saying is that this is the desire that seems to animate much of what indie is, and also the desire that draws people to enjoy indie in the first place.

"Indie: a musical mentality in which dominant and familiar musical conventions are paired with new or different variations on those conventions, thereby creating a potentially exciting tension between the dominant paradigm and alternatives to it."

"Indie: a musical mentality in which the primary goal is to pair dominant and familiar musical conventions with new or different variations on or subversions of those conventions, thereby creating a potentially exciting tension between the dominant paradigm and alternatives to or attacks on it."

I just spent ten minutes agonizing over "the primary goal" versus "a primary goal" in that sentence.

(thus...)

Avant-garde: a musical category in which the primary appeal is the introduction of entirely new paradigms, conventions, or methods to the overall musical vocabulary.

Mainstream: a musical category in which the primary appeal is the effective, interesting, and enjoyable execution of those conventions forming the dominant, most familiar culture of a given community.

I've been listening to the B*R*I*L*L*I*A*N*T Moldy Peaches album a lot lately. And I've been listening to a lot of B&S as well.

Now, what's so enjoying about the Moldy Peaches is their complete ramshackleness, while what's appealing about B&S is their roccocco arrangements and stuff. So why assume that there is such a single respones to "indie" music.

That's if you take me as typical of all "indie" fans, of course.

(Personally I fail to see how E6 constitutes much of a twist on anything - most of it strikes me as simple revivalism of a faded-out part of the mainstream, not to mention most of it strikes me as entirely horrible to listen to. But I'll take Nitsuh's word for it.)

Tom is of course correct, though just to be explicit about it the argument as I would phrase it would be a defence of the musics he mentioned and not an associated attack on indie, which often performs this feat as well.

(seemed silly and crass to repost.)

Which is precisely why indie listeners started digging into house, hardcore, and techno toward the middle of the last decade, and pop at the beginning of this one! Keep in mind your complaint, Tom, about equating "liking pop" with "liking only pop" -- the same goes for loads of indie listeners.

As it stands, a very large number of indie bands did incorporate these influences, and at a comparatively early stage in the game. It's one of the annoyances of the Indie Movement that instead of nurturing these artists critics and audiences repeatedly skewed the discourse towards personalities and "real songs you can sing down the pub", or, in the case of America, a constant and rather stifling insistence on the values of PunXoR.

As far as the "indie movement" and its reaction to those artists who steered toward other genres -- well, I never picked up on the criticisms or insistences you mention, but I've never felt much of a generalized "indie movement" either. This may just be a geographical difference.

All of which is not to attack indie music or indie fans, but to suggest that maybe an appreciation for the middle-garde can only be a partial factor that might serve to explain the success of certain bands, styles and movements, but ultimately falls slightly short of explaining indie as the great big mess that it actually is.

*Point on punxor: it strikes me that grunge, lo-fi, hardcore and emo - the four main strands of US indie unless I'm mistaken - are all twists on or manifestations of a certain aspect of punk (yes there are exceptions like Tortoise style post-rock etc. but the four styles I mentioned could form a comfortable coalition government I reckon). While a lot of bands in these areas do certainly come up with new ideas and new 'middle-garde' twists, I reckon they're ultimately working in a limited range due to that relationship, like a dog running on a leash - note that this does not necessarily have any bearing on the quality of the music.

** I should note that my opinions on this sort of thing are geographically influenced. The effect which grunge had on the Australian indie music scene was to my mind actually much more radical and devastating than it was in the US or the UK.

And yes, I think we've found a point of agreement. The only thing I'd add is that the fact that all indie listeners didn't shift to equally middle-garde genres shouldn't necessarily serve as a blanket indictment: switching listening genres is something of a big move. I imagine a lot of indie listeners just stuck with the program out of sheer inertia, or lacked enough exposure to other genres to be able to revise their opinions of them, or whatever else. Sort of what I was saying above -- the way "new sounds" accrete stable genres around themselves, and certain types of people will go on listening to that sound forever, as a convention, the way boomers might listen to Beatlesque pop or old people might listen to big band music.

* Note -- THIS IS NOT A BAD THING: it's just that we've digested that sound enough to normalize it, and I suspect this'll happen more and more until making a record in that style is the equivalent of, say, making a power-pop record or a typical Brit "indie" record.

*this is not universally true of course, and there's a whole raft of dance fans and musicians that revere the older, classic, established sounds. But thankfully they're not overwhelmingly powerful within the discourse.

It's a fucking cultural artifact.

I see Custos already tried to revive it, but you can't just snap your fingers, say "revive", and expect the villagers to rise up with their outrage and their farm implements. You have to give them a direction. Here's my attempt at same:

How much has the ILM stance toward whatever dichotomy that may or may not exist between "indie" and chart pop changed since late 2001(when this thread first lived and breathed)?

(And if this doesn't work, maybe a whole new discussion with a link to this thread?)

Okay, more serious point:

There are plenty of new ILMers (including myself) who've not had the opportunity to discuss this, and just 'cause we're newbies, that doesn't give the ILM old guard the right to wave their hands so vaguely (been, done, t-shirt bought) and dismiss us.

(Then again, I might be the only newbie who cares... in which case, I'll discover that my own revival of this thread is as futile as that of Custos back in March, right?)

There are interesting points which never really went anywhere upthread on geek-coolness and the 'naturalness' of young middle-class men liking 'indie'.

I think it was on this thread that nabisco, as then wasn't, said some things that have halfway stuck with me, about indie as a kind of swerve from the mainstream which would remain noticeable even if repeatedly diluted.

Perhaps that wasn't what he said, or meant.

Oh well. At least I tried, dammit.

(*Rampaging mob charges up the street, and stops in front of Custos, who is standing there, eating a candy bar*)
ILX MOB: RAAAAARGGH!
CUSTOS: Uh...they went...um...(*points*)...that way.
ILX MOB: RAAAAARGGH!
(*Rampaging mob charges 'that way'*)