What makes a band indie?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I am a producer for an independent record label Silver Dragon Records.
I keep hearing about new "indie bands" which i happen to know are signed to major labels with huge marketing campaigns. Is indie just the newest term for a musical style or is there more to it? I believe there is. What do you think?

Mike (Producer SDR)

PS: Independent Rock Record Label Silver Dragon Records is based in Houston Texas and features Independent Rock Bands like our newest act Hard rock music icon and Houston indie rock band Lazarus X's . We also offer free resources for musicians. We offer tips on submitting a demo, getting signed rock music history rock CD’s and T Shirts, Download free rock mp3s recording music Houston music recording information, and much more.

Mike Davis, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 10:12 (twenty years ago)

Is indie just the newest term for a musical style or is there more to it?

??????

hobart paving (hobart paving), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 10:18 (twenty years ago)

Shit hair. Cloth ears.

Speedhump Bungle (noodle vague), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Crap drummer.

Dr.C, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

We've covered this before:

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/newanswers.php?board=2

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

Was that a joke, Dom, or did you cock up the link?

Speedhump Bungle (noodle vague), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

indie
-afraid of garlic
-cannot cross running water
-cannot enter your house unless invited
-intense lust for blood which is needed to survive
-immortal

pop
-gnarled long noses
-flies on broomsticks
-strange outfits
-casts spells

dance
-invoked by full moon
-hairy
-can only be killed by silver bullets
-mostly guys

Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

As I've said before, IIRC the term "indie" stopped meaning specifically something released on an independent record label and started being applied as some sort of general musical catch-all sometime in the early / mid '80's.

It was presumably meant to describe music which somehow, in some strangely indefineable way, sounded as if it ought to have been released on an independent record label.

Of course the fact is that just about any and every sort of music imaginable could be and in most cases already had been released on independent record labels; so inevitably the term immediately became completely and utterly meangingless.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

indie - a style of music loved by university students until they discover something far more intersting to listen to.

frenchbloke (frenchbloke), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:52 (twenty years ago)

1. Can't play

2. Can't sing

3. Can't write

4. Records sound crap

5. Crap live

6. Look crap

7. Just crap in general

Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:12 (twenty years ago)

That was "punk" rather than "indie", surely?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:14 (twenty years ago)

Oh no no no! I was never in a punk band!

Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:19 (twenty years ago)

As I've said before, IIRC the term "indie" stopped meaning specifically something released on an independent record label and started being applied as some sort of general musical catch-all sometime in the early / mid '80's.

...the never-ending debate. I stick with the indie label definition. Until the late '80s bands were 'alternative', or whatever sub-genre, whereas the term 'indie' was applied purely to the labels. As far as I can remember, it was the C86/EEC Punkrock Mountain thing that coined the phrase for the style ... although every sinlge one of those bands was on a tiny indepdent, hencethe term. I don't think it was until sometime later when majors tried to recruit the style of band associated with C86 etc. (eg Food records signing Blur), that the term became misused. I say 'misused', because such a variety of indie labels sprang up after punk, ranging from jazz-inspired stuff, sheer experimentalism, '60s pop etc. etc. and you vcannot really bracket all of that stuff together.

Jez (Jez), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:31 (twenty years ago)

As I recall, "alternative" was the expression that was adopted to replace "indie" in the mid / late '80's, when it became impossible to continue ignoring the fact that the expression "indie" had been rendered meaningless by over-use.

Of course the term "alternative" was inevitably and predictably rendered meaningless by over-use within a matter of minutes of its introduction; although naturally this fact was not officially acknowledged until several weeks later.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:53 (twenty years ago)

the term "indie" isn't really meaningless though is it?

it means something, to most people, even if that is no longer "independent label" etc.

Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 13:59 (twenty years ago)

"Oh no no no! I was never in a punk band!"

The drummer of a band I used to be in; which, I suppose for want of a better adjective, could have been loosely described as "indie"; used to insist quite vehemently that he hated punk - and he would get quite upset and indignant when I pointed out that most of the cover versions we did had been written by punk bands (Buzzcocks, Jam, Vibrators....) and that his own favourite bands (The Cure and U2) had both emerged from the punk scene.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:03 (twenty years ago)

In the US, it means sloppy playing and singing and a lack of production sheen.

57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:04 (twenty years ago)

So how would you differentiate between that and "Lo-Fi"?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:15 (twenty years ago)

I think of Lo-Fi as just indie with very bad production, to the point where it becomes an element of the music.

57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:19 (twenty years ago)

maybe 'lack' is a better word than 'bad,' not trying to make any judgement calls.

57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:20 (twenty years ago)

So would you say that U2 (just for example) display "sloppy playing and singing and a lack of production sheen"?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

Also, what are R.E.M. supposed to be indiependent of; or an indeed, for that matter, an alternative to?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

I wouldn't classify U2 or REM as indie. Maybe the fact that REM lets its politics be known makes them a bit unusual, maybe they have this in common with some lesser-known indie bands that do the same, ie Bikini Kill. Their music isn't purely entertainment and escapist like a band like Limp Bizkit's is.

57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

So would you determine whether or not a band is "indie" based solely on what they sound like or maybe their lyrical content; or are there other, possibly less tangible, factors involved?

Does what record label they're on factor into this equation anyweher and if so what's it's significance?

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 14:59 (twenty years ago)

could indie be a sort of a way to paint rock as the underdog in the face of hegmonic pop rap love, a way of keeping the rebellious artifice in place?

and it's contextual at the grammy franz ferdinand = indie at ATP franz ferdinand =/ indie?

elwisty (elwisty), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

Does what record label they're on factor into this equation anyweher and if so what's it's significance?

The idea was that this was music Major labels wouldn't touch as it wasn't deemed commercial, or universally accessible ... hence the release on an independent label.

Jez (Jez), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 15:09 (twenty years ago)

Originally, of course, this is true: but then, as the independent record labels started demonstrating that some of those types of music which the major labels wouldn't previously have touched because they considered them to be "uncommercial", actually could be commercially viable profitable; the major labels started to musicle in on those areas themselves.

So we ended up with a situation where the type of bands that previously would only have been able to get signed to independent record labels, were actually getting signed to the majors.

Obviously this meant that it became a nonsense to continue to differentiate between bands that were otherwise comparable in every respsect, simply because of the size of the record label that was releasing their records; so it all ended up geting called "indie".

Add in to the equation at this point - just to confuse maters further - a number of formerly "independent" record labels and distributors being acquired by "majors"; several "majors" creating a number of subsidiaries that were deliberately designed to look and act as if they were independent (except with the added clout of the "major" behind them when it was needed, of course) so that the once clearly-defined lines of demarcation between "indie" and "major" became blured beyond all recognition, and at this point all the tag "indie" actually referred was some intrinsically vague (and inherently irrelevant) concept of something that the the majors might not previously have been prepared to release historically, but which they were probably quite happy to get involved with at least to some extent now....

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 16:04 (twenty years ago)

I do miss the indie charts from the late 80's, when it was the only time The Close Lobsters or Loop would share the top 10 with Kylie Minogue or Yazz.

Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 16:09 (twenty years ago)

Originally, of course, this is true: but then, as the independent record labels started demonstrating that some of those types of music which the major labels wouldn't previously have touched because they considered them to be "uncommercial", actually could be commercially viable profitable; the major labels started to musicle in on those areas themselves.

The opposite of this is true too, with independent labels putting out non-indie style music cos they can sell it to indie fans.

I'm thinking of indie hip hop, Helen love style pop-indie stuff etc.

mei (mei), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

Indian?

wombatX (wombatX), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 21:46 (twenty years ago)

"Indie" as we all know is short for "indiella" (In·di·el·la). The term was used widely up until the mid 80's when, due to overuse, "Madurella" became a the favored term for the genus.

Strains belonging to this genus are isolated specifically from cases with black-grain eumycetoma. The fungus enters the human body via trauma and the progression of mycetoma is very slow which may take several years. Mycetoma remains localized and involves the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissues, the fascia, and the bones. Tumefaction and draining sinuses are typical.

A combination of antifungal and surgical therapy is usually preferred for treatment of cases with mycetoma. Ketoconazole yields favorable response rates when used for polonged durations of as long as 8 to 24 months. Griseofulvin may be used in patients who do not respond to ketoconazole.

Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

yeah, doesn't indie have something to do with spam threads?

viagra distros? keepin' it hard and all.
m.

msp (msp), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:16 (twenty years ago)

Hey Stewart, I think making a distinction between indie record labels and majors is relatively easy to do, while for bands it's a bit more subjective. Sonic Youth jumped onto a major label when they put out Goo. The playing stayed the same but the production got a bit better than on 'Daydream Nation,' probably just because they had a bit more money and time to spend in the studio. Not sure what my point is here, though.

57 7th (calstars), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:18 (twenty years ago)

If you want to play in a band but you are too good or have outgrown the need to play amateurish punk stuff and too clever to play and write songs with corny old blues changes and licks or corny old Beatles changes and licks, then you can write songs with some other, possibly proggy, chords and presto!- you are an indie band.

Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:28 (twenty years ago)

But would you say that either of those albums, particularly Goo, display sloppy playing as such? They sound pretty tight to me. If anything, "Dirty Boots" was probably more technical than a lot of what (else) was on rock charts at the time. Even if DN gets loose at times, super-tight proggified tracks like "'Cross the Breeze" and "Candle" would seem to demonstrate that it's a deliberate choice that they only make some of the time.

xpost That seems like it may be a little closer to the mark, if heavy on value judgments;)

sundar subramanian (sundar), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

Hey Stewart, I think making a distinction between indie record labels and majors is relatively easy to do

i'm not so sure of that. where do you draw the line? what about labels that appear to be independent but have major company investment? or labels that are entirely independently owned but have major distribution? or labels that are owned in whole or in part by a major but use indie distributors? what about, say, V2? etc etc blah blah can of worms yadda yadda yadda.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 22:37 (twenty years ago)

Maybe I should be prefacing all my observations with the words "In the UK...." because I have no idea how things compare in the US.

Nevertheless there are certainly some labels that are very clearly "indie" and some that are very clearly "major" but as fact checking cuz points out above there's a huge number that fall into some grey area in the middle.

Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 24 February 2005 09:52 (twenty years ago)

What makes a girl fierce?

What makes a boy cry?

What makes a rock rock?

alext (alext), Thursday, 24 February 2005 13:02 (twenty years ago)

The UK/US indie distinction is important. Fer instance I know Oasis was considered 'indie' in the UK, whereas around the same time, '95 or so, indie in the US was Pavement, Archers of Loaf, Beat Happening etc (Matador, Alias, K etc). I'm in the US so that's where my viewpoints are coming from. You're right about the labels though, I mean, how much money did Matador get from Warner to funnel through to the bands?

57 7th (calstars), Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:08 (twenty years ago)

"What makes a band indie?"

The same people who think Spiderland is a good album like them.

skint, Thursday, 24 February 2005 14:31 (twenty years ago)

xxpost:
You forgot

What makes a man start fires?

Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 February 2005 15:14 (twenty years ago)

why do punk rock boys go out with new wave girls?

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 24 February 2005 15:51 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.