apologetic about liking Indie music...?

It's inverse snobbery. Indie music is the best in the world.

I absolutely agree with dirty vicar. Besides it's quite pathetic, how could you like Destiny's child (pitiful commercial r'n'b outfit in case you weren't exposed to MTV) and dislike indie music (which at its worst, is still definitely better that Destiny's child fluff)...

I'm a survivor, I'm a survivor... ah ah, fuck off ;-).

Inverse snobbery is just for people who can't afford real snobbery (and this alone is quite snob ;-)

I give up. On so many fronts.

It's snobbery in the most literal sense cause it's being ashamed of one's roots - at least it is in my case. Indie music was where learned to love music, where I learned how to read about and write about music and where I made my first through-music friends. Then I got into lots of other stuff and probably to overcompensate and prove how much I was into it I slagged indie off.

Nowadays I genuinely think it's fallen on hard times and loads of it is rubbish but there's also a love-hate thing about the whole idea of it, which I've articulated through more postings, articles and reviews than I'd dare count so I'm not going to go on about here.

On the Internet indie is overrepresented and overpraised for reasons I've still not quite worked out. ILM and FT are probably the only place people are apologetic about it - on 95% of music sites people are apologetic whenever they mention radio pop, even though they like it for the same reasons everyone else does.

So a lot of my current anti-indie thing has elements of devil's advocacy (not in terms of saying stuff I don't mean but in terms of what I choose to emphasise). As well as my own personal conflicted relationship with indie music there's a sense of - well look it's not *that* good. There seem to be a lot of assumptions made about it which had gone unchallenged - nowadays the indie orthodoxy seems more in retreat and it'll be interesting to see how the relaunched FT copes with that.

ILM and FT are probably the only place people are apologetic about it

I dunno, I think in the UK at least there's been a long established culture of apology for indie.. I feel like I grew up with a certain amount of self hatred because I was listening to e.g. Spacemen 3 and not something genuinely avant garde & revolutionary, non-white, non- middle class. This is a telling example because many would now say S3 were genuinely revolutionary, unique, but at the time it was "oh I'm in the sad Indie ghetto"

Brit pop's triumphalism, Damon Albarn's idea of relevancy in terms of chart placing (Gorillaz vs Hearsay) was almost a self conscious inversion of this attitude. Hey we're in the charts, at last guitar pop is again relevant or at least if we pretend. I really don't where this culture of shame comes from. Indie's love affair with retro guitar noises / image? Easily beaten up puny indie boys like Murdoch & Pastel? Self deprecating middle class attitudes of the self deprecating middle class fans? Low sales? NME's C86 bashing?

It is interesting that people in the US don't seem to cringe and hide behind their fringes when they say they like stuff on Sarah.

Do agree that most indie music is nowadays unspectacular, though. And a lot of the good stuff is only worthwhile if you don't mind 60s stylistics (Aislers Set, Clientele) which considering how fresh it is otherwise, seems a lit quixotic on the part of its creators.

I don't really know how to define indie anymore. If it means "guitar bands on small labels", didn't that cease to be interesting about 10 years ago? It strikes me that "indie" was at it's strongest and most influential (not necessarily it's best, though) in the mid-80's, during and just after The Smiths and before dance. Dance and indie's convergence (Madchester and onwards) and the subsequent explosion of so many genres and sub-genres of dance and electronica seemed to swamp trad guitar-based indie, with the exception of a brief resurgence circa Britpop.

I cut my teeth on independant music in the late 70's (Rough Trade, Factory, Small Wonder, Beggars Banquet, Stiff etc), and I'll stand by that stuff forever due to it's sheer diversity, invention and desperation to kick down the doors to be heard. Ten years later for me 90% of indie guitar music was dull, conservative and all but dead. I saw the Wedding Present, The Flatmates and The Close Lobsters at the Town & Country club sometime in the late 80's, and the evening still depresses me. There's nothing to say that "small label guitar music" has to be useless, but unfortunately during the 90's IMHO it usually was. So I guess it's lame because most of the innovation and excitement in music is to be found elsewhere these days.

Back to this again. Basically, indie music in principle is brilliant. Some indie music is rubbish, but the form is great. From time to time the quality of the genre as a whole rises and falls - that whole Britpop thing was a particular nadir and came close to killing indie as a form. But the last few years indie music has been rocking along, or maybe I've just stumbled onto better music.

Which bands are good now, DV?

the thing with indie is, you can at any point throw your cards up and declare the whole thing to be redundant, and no one's going to come and ring your doorbell to argue with you. You've got to make an effort to find the best records, and if you consider it a priori pointless because there are no good indie records anymore, then clearly your attitude will remain unchanged, and your knee can keep jerking ad infinitum.

If you went to a Wedding Present gig, then with respect, you got what you deserved Dr. C. If you'd attended contemporary AR Kane, Galaxie 500, Felt, Spacemen 3 gigs (gasp! yes, there was good indie music then as now) your story might be different.

But to turn your question back on yourself, what do you listen to now that's good and non-indie?

What Tom said, except I was never much into indie in the first place. Even at my most alt-rock-worshipping, I truly didn't give a shit who was on an indie label and who wasn't, and never got into the habit of dismissing bands as sell-outs or whatever. Just look at a few indie- rock-oriented web sites and you'll know why indie fans' superiority complex needs to be torn to shreds.

I went to Wedding Present gig with friends who liked them IIRC. I saw all the other bands you listed too, and only Galaxie 500 are worth anything. I still love "On Fire" and "Today". Felt were good up until they signed for Creation in about 1984. I do like some of the Flying Nun bands too - The Chills, The Clean...

I've listed what I'm listening to now on Simone's thread. Add Andrew Weatherall's "9 o-clock drop" compilation, The Kinks "BBC Sessions", Josef K, Magnetic Fields, The Associates, Tortoise and 808 State and that sums it up. Some of it's on independant labels, and some not. It's not always possible to tell these days.

hmmm.. you've stymied me by bringing alt-rock into the bargain... does this class as "indie" or not, I will study the "is indie a genre" thread. I will then join the Pinefox Club of Good Humoured Bemusement

Dr.C if some of your fave records nowadays are on indie labels, why did you post categorically that indie is all over?

And why do you list your late 80s indie faves shortly after posting categorically that indie was dead in the late 80s?

this is why I asked the question: a lot of people on ILM give indie a kicking where quite clearly their background and record collections are 90% indie (not necessarily meaning you, Dr. C). It seems a hidden agenda is in existence.

My question in any case was, when people recommend their favourite indie records why do they simultaneously apologise for the indie-ness of their choices. This implies actually thinking Indie music is good to start with.

Also, did you know there is a new Clean record coming out this summer on merge records - www.mergerecords.com ? :-)

Peter - in my first response I tried to define what I thought the definition of "indie" might be based on my interpretation of your original question. I've been talking about indie "guitar-pop" or indie "guitar-rock". Usually that's what I've found people to mean by "indie". If that's not what you meant then I'm sorry, we're at cross-purposes.

To debate the merits of music based on the whether it happens to be released on a major label or a small independant would be completely pointless. It's like arguing that albums with an even number of tracks are worse than those with an odd number. It's never made any difference to me how records are funded and distributed. I'm certainly not saying that independantly released music is all over.

Well if not Dr.C, Peter, then who are these "lot of people"?

It strikes me that the kind of amused/bemused/frustrated/passionate/furious/detached way that people here often talk about indie is the same way that they talk about pop or hip-hop or disco - often acknowledging its wonder at the same time as its limitations and its absurdity.

To debate the merits of music based on the whether it happens to be released on a major label or a small independant would be completely pointless

sure, if this was the sole criteria of the debate. Indie partisanship is tedious and self defeating. So is being the playlist programmer for Radio 1, obviously.

I kind of feel that a lot of the bands we've already mentioned would have been made to sound like REM if they'd signed to majors, though. Food for another thread, perhaps.

Well if not Dr.C, Peter, then who are these "lot of people"?

OK Tom, fair enough. I'm not trying to get anyone's back up. But I do think my point holds, as you yourself admit above:

Then I got into lots of other stuff and probably to overcompensate and prove how much I was into it I slagged indie off.

my question is, why did you need to "prove how much" you were into other music? I'm not trying to put anyone down, I'm genuinely curious.

why did you need to "prove how much" you were into other music? I'm not trying to put anyone down, I'm genuinely curious.

Because being solely into indie is so uncool (-;

Because most of what I got into was pop and dance musics, and indie culture - or the bits of it I rubbed up against - was no friend of either of those musics. I got a bit sick of people telling me I didn't really like the things I liked, and offense was and is often the best defense.

It was the 90% figure that worried me, not the idea that a lot of people here listen to indie, which is plainly true ;)

yeah, the 90% figure was (wildly) patronising, and probably offensive, and I apologise.

I find myself occasionally feeling ashamed of liking some indie bands more than anything else, and I wanted to analyse why by comparing other's experience of the same hot flush ... :-)

Hey, I've got a Club!

As long as it's not meant for baby seals...

baby seals are probably welcome as long as they are bemused in a good humoured way. Unlikely if they've just been horrifically butchered, of course.

Now it's sounding like that one bit in the "Interesting Drug" video.

Indie -- heh heh heh. No, why bother, I already had my say. Just that a guitar and a painful expression to match painful lyrics does not equal automatic unquestioned genius, something which can't be stated enough.

I think it can be stated enough. Does it need to be stated again?

Clearly yes, or I wouldn't have to say so. ;-)

This is a belated reply to Dr C.'s "who is good in indie now?" question.

Off the top of my head: Belle & Sebastian, Sleater-Kinney, Calexico, Yo La Tengo, Super Furry Animals, Godspeed You Black Emperor, & Broadcast. I'm sure there are others.

Sleater Kinney seem to be the Blair Witch of indie music, people either desipise 'em or love 'em, not much in between.

Perhaps its not about apologising for the indie records, more about appearing to be an indie kid. That would require an apology, heh heh heh.

Tom, re: your comments on independent music being overrepresented and overpraised on the internet and not quite knowing why etc.. Well perhaps that is true, perhaps it is, but when you say overrepresented do you mean in terms of talk relative to sales, or are you comparing from personal experience? The reason I ask is because I'm sensing that there must be a very different public sense of the whole music industry going on there in Britain. Is there the same stranglehold on radio, for instance? Of course I'm sure there is something of that sort, but I have to wonder if it is reaching the same ludicrously uniform degree as it is in North America due to all the deregulation in the last decade (which left small stations to be picked off by the radio conglomerates like pawns) so now it's just a local version of the same station playing the same payola music everywhere you go. The internet is currently the most viable alternative, and I think that so many people are so bored with the same safe 100 songs in steady rotation that they are rebelling by turning off their radios and MTV and to compensate are often championing the most obscure stuff they can stand. The smart ones of course will sift through to champion only the good ones, but like most every rebel movement, it's more than half full of people just looking to believe in *something*, anything. It's like it's the *idea* of indie that's driving it, and the music itself can be sort of irrelevant. There are some good articles on Salon.com that talk about (better than I can) what's going on with American radio right now and how it's probably even worse than your average fed up listener suspects. http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/04/30/clear_channel/index.html

I mean, I *know* some of it is crap, but I want the opportunity to hear it first so as to decide for myself - they're even killing Napster - without which I wouldn't have heard even half of what I genuinely consider my favourite songs right now - so if championing the whingeings of uber-indie of the month is what it takes to buck the trend - it seems so worth it.

To add : so that's probably also why Americans are, to paraphrase Peter, seem more 'confident' in their rejection of pop and embrace of alternatives - because if they have taken that step, there was a motive behind it and there's almost a pride and self righteousness in their stance. That would be the annoying part of 'indie kids' I would suspect. Unfortunate, to say the least.

Canada is possibly even worse, the same conglomerates seem to have influence up here, but on top of their crap, we have Canadian content laws (which I won't quite tear into as they do have certain merits) that make sure that we hear Celine, Shania, and Len sandwiched between every two 'foreign songs' - which would be fine but it leaves room for only the *most* commercial of all the commercial stuff from everywhere else. I hear far less British music now than I did ten years ago. Which sucks. I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find I'm very sympathetic to the promotion of *anything* outside of the corporate agenda even if they're giving us absolute gems. I need the choice. It's like, when forcefed, your absolute favourite food in the world will suddenly be shit. That's just some kind of basic human instinct.

Indie = not just music, but when used pejoratively a sort of attitude about music. Closed off, hedged in, ghettoised etc. etc. Clearly it's a minority of listeners who are like this and they exist in the same proportion in any other musical scene. It's just that the indie proportion of fanatics (as opposed to someone who listens to any of pop or house or hip hop or classic rock or metal exclusively) seem so much more literate and interested in proselytising among the masses.

In essence they're the popular music equivalent of the radical left: both are characterised by intellect and broad *and* deep understandings that are strangely accompanied by an ideological/aesthetic rigidity and tunnel vision. Better than the inarticulate rigidity you find elsewhere I guess, but stupid rigid people are at least easier to ignore.

Many times on ILM there have been exasperated questions along the lines of "how can so many of you like pop/r&b etc" (ignoring or being unaware of the general tone of FT/NYLPM for a long time) as if the idea of smart people not devoting themselves exclusively to indie and/or the avant garde is genuinely distressing, or at least the cause of major cognitive dissonance. Such a response seems to emphasise to me the good work of FT/NYLPM even more.

DV's list seems to prove my original point - if these are good examples, them most of the excitement and innovation is elsewhere.

Kim's got an excellent point up there, I have to say. The process by which top 40 music comes to our ears, at least in North America, has become so impossibly corrupt and fraudulent that you kinda have to say "fuck this shit", and many are bound to take this too far and take refuge in indie-rock insularity, rejecting all major-label music, or all pop and R&B. Indie insularity just feeds off of how *closed* the pop marketplace is right now. It all started when punk got rejected by the mainstream media over here, I think. Can't really blame music fans for getting mad that Journey was being chosen over The Clash and wanting to create their own alternate network where shit like that wouldn't matter.

DV's list seems to prove my original point - if these are good examples, them most of the excitement and innovation is elsewhere.

yeah, like in the huge jump between Belle and Sebastian and 69 Love Songs

I don't really buy the argument that US listeners are being force fed the top 40. There are top 40 stations, but in most major markets there is at least one quasi "alternative" station and usually a college radio station. If you don't like Britney, you can usually change the dial and find something else. And I live in a city where 50% percent of the radio stations have Canadian content laws applied to them, and I still wouldn't have problems finding Nirvana or even Belle and Sebastian on the radio if I were so inclined. It might be different in a more isolated area like Idaho or Nebraska.

My thought is a lot of the indie kids feel resentment because their music was very popular for a stretch of time in the nineties, and now it has been pushed back into the margins in favor of pop.

Personally, I'm ashamed of indie, for the same reason that I'm ashamed of who I was ten years ago. Things have moved on, and me with them. I don't hear music the same way, the whole language has changed, and the overall message of the music seems limited, even pretentious in the context of what I enjoy now. I tend to see it for what it was, appropriate at the time, and maybe someday I can find some angle that'll let me enjoy it again. But right now, I can find the same marginalized genius in almost any genre, now they've all splintered and we have the net. But, I miss being part of the scene, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

1. Charlotte, what did you mean exactly? The variations in tone are starting to confuse me.

2. The claim that FT is necessary to show people the way out of their narrow-minded indie visions, etc, is patronizing.

3. DV, I saw 3 of the bands you mention at ATP last month, and they were all rubbish. But one or two of the others you mention are not rubbish.

Nicole: Well... I can only speak for myself on this one, but Montreal doesn't even have a pseudo-alt station (not that those are usually very helpful if you're not into Limp Bizkit or Slipknot in a big way) and college radio here is mostly a series of special-interests shows (lesbian followed by bluegrass followed by industrial followed by African music) that doesn't make for very good background listening. No one is being force-fed Top 40, true, but the alternatives are equally corrupt or dull. Do you listen to the radio a lot ?

but Pinefox, are you bemused in a good humoured way?

I meant that saying Belle and Sebastian are shit and Magnetic Fields are great, and simultaneously that indie is dead is like saying bananas are in stock but apples aren't therefore there aren't any fruit and veg stalls in Berwick Street.

Now even I'm confused. I would contend that Broadcast are a bloody fantastic band though, just as good as all yer new wave / post punk faves from the Good Old Days

1. but Pinefox, are you bemused in a good humoured way?

I suppose so.

2. I meant that saying Belle and Sebastian are shit and Magnetic Fields are great, and simultaneously that indie is dead is like saying bananas are in stock but apples aren't therefore there aren't any fruit and veg stalls in Berwick Street.

And there are, too. I think I saw some there only the other day.

3. Now even I'm confused. I would contend that Broadcast are a bloody fantastic band though, just as good as all yer new wave / post punk faves from the Good Old Days.

I believe you. But they were rubbish at ATP.

It all gets back to your definition of indie. Anyway this radio thing puzzles me - I realise that radio plays a different role in North America, but in the UK it's just about the last place I'd look for new music. I never have, except for the odd John Peel or Mark Radcliffe maybe a few times a year, and they're patchy. Don't even mention XFM.

Dr C: How do you find out about new music (besides Napster) ? I brought up radio in the context of where people hear pop, which is through radio more than in any other media (thought it might be different in Europe).

...or rather *Grim Kim* brought it up.

I get to hear about new music via the music press, friends, and ILM and other websites. I have the odd Napster session, but don't really have the time to use it that much.

Patrick: As a matter of fact I do happen to listen to a lot of radio.

Admittedly, a great percentage of it is crap. But I would say that's pretty much par for the course wherever you go, North America or otherwise. It's not limited to top 40, though: there's crap in jazz, psuedo-alternative, and the indie schmindie that I hear on college radio. I really don't even consider Detroit (where I live) to be that major a market, and there's still a fair number of choices out there. Unless you're a classical music fan, maybe, because there is no classical station.

Pinefox says: "The claim that FT is necessary to show people the way out of their narrow-minded indie visions, etc, is patronizing. "

How is it any more patronising than belittling people for liking "this pop shit"? FT's "necessity" (which sounds strange, but yeah, anyway) is that it shows how the exclusively indie-focused view might be narrow-minded. If people choose not to agree, cool, it's their life and their cd player.

I guess I should clarify - my definition of indie is music released in some way other than through the major record label's marketing machine. I don't consider it a genre at all, though I am aware of the style/sound that is commonly referred to as 'indie' lately, but I'd say the term is just as much of a misnomer as 'alternative' became after the success of Nirvana, Pearl Jam and cohorts. Alternative stations are not *really* alternative at all right now - they're just major label rock stations that draw the line somewhere just before Aerosmith (because that fits in better with the classic/hard rock format on the same corporation's other station a few points over on the dial). Listener requests are all but pointless now. Ever notice how strange it is that people only seem to request what's already approved for rotation? It's highly doubtful that this is an accurate reflection of the listeners real requests. I mean, does no one *ever* ask to hear anything different? - or maybe we don't even bother anymore because we know the game too well, like "I know I just heard you play 3 Deep thirty minutes ago, so I know you guys WILL play it, and I wanna say hi on the air to my friend Christa, so please play 'So Into You'. Yes, you'll play it? Great!". College radio I'll give you is a last bastion of DJs and program directors who can play what they LIKE, and what they think is GOOD, without some industry rep putting the kibosh on it - but I have to wonder, for how much longer? Advertising is cropping up in schools more and more - recently it was either Coke or Pepsi trying to pay our public schools here to run commercials on TVs installed in all the classrooms. It's like a fucking joke. I mean, I get it. I get the point of the reverse generalising that goes on here and I understand that the picking on indie is happening as a dig at the perceived

Oh, song for song, top 40's no worse than any other format - in fact, it's probably the lesser of many evils. I used it as an example 'cause it's harder to ignore, but nearly all commercial radio is just as corrupt, I'm sure.

oops... perceived snobbery within that community. However I think that it's something that should be done carefully. I mean that it's potentially damaging much in the same way that the easy targeting and quick dismissal of very radical feminists should definitely not apply to the validity of the whole feminist movement.

Re: radio/video being ok and not forcefed because there are more options than top 40 'pop', what should be considered is that *all* genres are being marketed via these conglomerates, alt, country, jazz, rock. NOT just pop. Each genre has a niche station so you don't have to hear anything else but your chosen favourite genre - I mean, if you wanna start talking narrow... Sorry, if I gave the impression that I meant just pop. Not trying to be contrary just for the sake of it after all. :) I might disagree with the pro-pop sentiment, might even be half offended by it (as someone above says happens) but that comes from a conviction that a monopolized industry is contrary to free expression and free access. It has less to do with pop music itself, and almost nothing to do with the fans - aside from a vague annoyance that such brilliant folks as one finds here, just won't fight the good fight alongside. ;) Or something like that.

Tim: it's not more patronizing. As far as I can tell, it's about equally patronizing.

PineFox, if you think some of the bands I like are rubbish, then you're rubbish.

I don't think there is enough reasoned debated of this sort on the board.

"It's like arguing that albums with an even number of tracks are worse than those with an odd number."

I've NEVER really liked [sorry: still can't say the "a-word"] LPs with the same number of CUTS on each side. It's just so thoughtless.

Obviously a CD with seven [grits teeth] 'tracks' is better than one with eight. Nine is much the same as six. Ten is an abomination, as is eleven.

Mark, while we're covering yr interest in numerology, any chance of explaining why nos 17 and 23 of the Merzbox are "obviously" to be avoided (as you mentioned on another thread...)

Cuz if you include them you have 14. Duh.