Is indie dead?

January 26, 2010 8:40 AM

"What we’ve called it has never been stable—it’s been known alternately as “punk” for its early attitude, “underground” for where it happened, “alternative” when the mainstream held it up as an antidote to its own poison—each of these picked up then sloughed off when the semantic baggage grew too unwieldy. Most recently, “indie”—long thrown around as a signifier of how it got done (i.e. independently)—has become the nom du jour." Is indie dead?
posted by Slack-a-gogo (127 comments total)

.
posted by Floydd at 8:42 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Only if you give a crap what label you put on your music.
posted by spicynuts at 8:42 AM on January 26, 2010 [8 favorites]

The Decade in Indie by Nitsuh Abe who argues that indie has taken over the mainstream.
posted by Kattullus at 8:43 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

Newport Folk Festival, July 25, 1965 - Dylan plays electric, indie music not as good as it used to be.
posted by Artw at 8:43 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

Nitsuh Abebe

oh for that 3 minute editing window
posted by Kattullus at 8:44 AM on January 26, 2010

Yeah, sure. Indie's dead. Long live indie.

I shall need read the article.
posted by philip-random at 8:44 AM on January 26, 2010

I shall need read the article.

This is clear evidence of something or other.
posted by philip-random at 8:45 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Your favorite (genre label) sucks. They skipped New Wave, skinny ties, remember?
posted by fixedgear at 8:48 AM on January 26, 2010

I just came here to post this.
posted by nevercalm at 8:49 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Most indie-rock is neither indie nor rock.

(seriously, back in the 1980's and '90's, 'indie' just meant you were on an independent label, which covered everybody from atonal jazz improv to death metal to what-have-you. now it means a specific sound that isn't everybody's cup of tea)
posted by jonmc at 8:51 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

I will now proceed to embroider INDIES NOT DEAD onto the back of my ill-fitting cardigan.
posted by griphus at 8:52 AM on January 26, 2010 [9 favorites]

Only if you give a crap what label you put on your music.

So indie.
posted by molecicco at 8:54 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

For a brief period indie was a viable phrase that accurately described something. And then it became attractive to marketers that quickly broadened the definition so much that it didn't mean anything. Occasionally I very reluctantly use indie to describe much of what I listen to, but then I follow it with a few disclaimers and an apologetic explanation, so it's not really a useful phrase. I tend to instead default to "i listen to...you know...ummm....lots of stuff."
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 8:56 AM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

(seriously, back in the 1980's and '90's, 'indie' just meant you were on an independent label, which covered everybody from atonal jazz improv to death metal to what-have-you. now it means a specific sound that isn't everybody's cup of tea)

Every one of those terms in the pull quote now refers to a specific sound that isn't everybody's cup of tea, and while it's often debatable in which category a particular band or song falls, trying to pretend those are all the same subgenres of music is insane.
posted by Caduceus at 8:56 AM on January 26, 2010

trying to pretend those are all the same subgenres of music is insane.

I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to explain that back in the day, 'indie' was a political or economic term describing who put out music, not one describing how the music sounded.
posted by jonmc at 8:58 AM on January 26, 2010

(seriously, back in the 1980's and '90's, 'indie' just meant you were on an independent label, which covered everybody from atonal jazz improv to death metal to what-have-you. now it means a specific sound that isn't everybody's cup of tea)

Every one of those terms in the pull quote now refers to a specific sound that isn't everybody's cup of tea, and while it's often debatable in which category a particular band or song falls, trying to pretend those are all the same subgenres of music is insane.

His point is that, there was a time when 'indie' wasn't a genre but a description of how the music was made.
posted by molecicco at 8:58 AM on January 26, 2010 [5 favorites]

So if you don't buy albums, but instead just stream music via Hype Machine/Last.fm or listen to mixtapes, are you like some kind of nouveau-indie god? Or just a pirate?

the future hurts
posted by oinopaponton at 8:59 AM on January 26, 2010

I usually say "indie" when I mean "you've never heard of anything I listen to so stop asking".
posted by skintension at 9:00 AM on January 26, 2010 [6 favorites]

In 2010, we again find ourselves in strange times. More than 20 years have passed since the punk movement and its offspring ground a steel-toed boot into the shin of America’s cultural consciousness, and in that time we’ve seen it rise up, triumph and retreat in an endless cycle...


Way, way, way more than 20 years. Seriously, punk was around and its offspring were shin-kicking before Rachael Maddux was born, if I were to hazard a guess. I have no problem with young people writing about things that happened before they were born, unless they get everything embarrassingly wrong. For instance, while one can trace some links between "punk" and "alternative," it is a rookie error to essentially conflate the two. A lot of what was called "Alternative" in the '80s was heavily produced and danceable stuff for college kids. So, yeah, this writer is not really impressing me with her mastery of the subject.
posted by Mister_A at 9:00 AM on January 26, 2010 [11 favorites]

It's not just a genre, it's an ethos!
posted by Artw at 9:00 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

music is not rebellion
posted by pyramid termite at 9:03 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

Back to mono!
posted by spilon at 9:06 AM on January 26, 2010

Mister_A: I assumed that the 20 years reference was to do with "1991: The Year Punk Broke".
posted by molecicco at 9:06 AM on January 26, 2010

I like some music. Other music I don't.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:07 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I say we have USDA-certified Organic music. No Autotune, only printed in small batches, and no selling out for commercials. HAMBURGER

Indie always struck me as kind of a silly thing to care too much about as a consumer, even when I was a college radio DJ and listened almost exclusively to indie. Yes, it's bad when an artist gets screwed by a label, but at the end of the day, it's a distribution system. I'm not going to judge music on that factor, unless it's a holistic act (like Lady Gaga, who's schtick is partly being unabashedly comercial).
posted by mccarty.tim at 9:10 AM on January 26, 2010

Most indie-rock is neither indie nor rock.


"Recent studies show that rock and roll is, in fact, dying."
posted by Burhanistan at 9:14 AM on January 26, 2010

The use of "indie" in the '00s replaced the use of "alternative" in the '90s to mean "whatever music is considered hip these days" while sounding vaguely as if one were referring to a specific genre. The death of "indie" would be more a linguistic event than a musical one.
posted by Jaltcoh at 9:15 AM on January 26, 2010 [11 favorites]

Reading this article is like walking around your home town looking for your dog after three feet of snow have fallen: it's tiring and slow going, and while you may recognize the names and signs you see along the way, it's becoming increasingly unlikely that you'll ever find the reason for being out there in the first place.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:15 AM on January 26, 2010 [5 favorites]

INDIE'S NOT DEPENDENT
posted by Dr-Baa at 9:17 AM on January 26, 2010

It's always problematic when a genre's name doesn't evoke formal qualities of the music (rap has spoken delivery, punk is thuggish ) but rather some social aspect of it (Merseybeat, new wave).
posted by bendybendy at 9:17 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Why don't we just call it Ear?
posted by swift at 9:17 AM on January 26, 2010

(seriously, back in the 1980's and '90's, 'indie' just meant you were on an independent label, which covered everybody from atonal jazz improv to death metal to what-have-you. now it means a specific sound that isn't everybody's cup of tea)

quoted for fucking truth.

I haven't read the article. ashamed to say that, for now, I'm all tl;dr and shit. but it seems to me that there was once a time where mainstream labels were all largely putting out the same type of thing, in various genres, and if you wanted something in a given genre that was different from what mainstream labels were putting out on that genre you could reasonably make the claim that indie stuff was scratching your itch where mainstream material was not. (in truth, I think hip hop is in that era, now, where the radio hip hop has one particular feel and it's kinda stale and reminds me of mainstream rock in the 80s, but the indie hip hop is doing something that scratches my itch quite a bit more.) at that time, you could say there was a scene, or movement, or what have you and only really be saying "there's something vital happening here in the indie scene for a number of genres that is missing in the mainstream and is interesting." and that was a pretty big deal, especially when it started anticipating the mainstream explosion that would come about with nirvana et al in the 90s.

the problem is that, in the same way it has happened for most underground or counter-cultural movements, the name gets adopted and branded to help sell mainstream records. and yeah, that basically kills the movement or scene or what have you.

so, without having read the article, yeah? indie's either dead or dying. sorry indie. looking forward to whatever the good shit is called in a few years.
posted by shmegegge at 9:20 AM on January 26, 2010

In relation to the current music scene, I'd say "indie" or "punk" or "alternative" existed in a somewhat pure form for about 2 months in 1976.
posted by davebush at 9:20 AM on January 26, 2010

His point is that, there was a time when 'indie' wasn't a genre but a description of how the music was made.

This is more or less accurate. First time I remember hearing the term "indie" was from my punk-rock-DJ-promoter cousin circa 1980. At first he'd been resolutely into the PUNK sound (Sex Pistols, Clash, Stiff Little Fingers, Dead Kennedys) but then things started to change. He started to get different, more expansive sounding stuff through the same small record stores, mail order connections etc that were supplying him with cutting edge punk. At first it bugged him but he quickly got over it, decided that if the goal was truly to bring down BIG MONEY's control of music, then this was the way to do it. The MEANS were the end.

Or, as the article points out:

“There’s a part of me that can never shake the indignation that [indie] once was about ethics and business practices,” Slim Moon says. “… There’s a grumpy old man about me that’s really upset that that’s not what most people mean when they talk about indie anymore.”

So yeah, like I tried to say before: Capital "I" Indie is dead; love live indie. Or, as a 50-something artist friend pointed out recently when the subject came up of "THE UNDERGROUND" being dead. "No it isn't. It's just gone back underground where it fucking belongs. I could show you where but first you'll have pass seven levels of initiation, and learn a secret handshake."

And JUNO sucks.
posted by philip-random at 9:21 AM on January 26, 2010

Your favorite band is obscure and awesome.
posted by Babblesort at 9:22 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

The death of "indie" would be more a linguistic event than a musical one.

This is exactly right. The article pretends to be about music, but it's really about how the big "indie" labels have become entangled with major labels. Which is fine and interesting, but it doesn't really mean anything for music itself. In fact, if you're pining for a 90s-esque "indie rock" sound, you can pick up the brand new, Pitchfork-approved Surfer Blood album, which was put out by a truly independent label.
posted by eggplantplacebo at 9:22 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Punk began with Woody Guthrie.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:23 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

*pours PBR Tallboy on the curb, moves on with life*
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:28 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Your favorite indie sucks.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:29 AM on January 26, 2010

This thread is really authentic.
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

music is not rebellion

"excess ain't rebellion/you're drinkin what they're sellin"
posted by spicynuts at 9:37 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I have a quantitative definition of whether a band is indie or not.
Calculate for each live show:

(numeric day of the week, where Sun. = 1 and Sat = 7)*80+(people who attend the show)

If the median of the shows played in one year under 1000, you can still be an indie band. So, if you're median show is equivalent to playing a sold out show at the Paradise Rock Club in Boston (capacity of 730) on a Friday night, you're out. If your doing the Middle East downstairs in Cambridge (capacity of 575) and it sells out on a Thursday night, you're in! (sorry for the Boston-centric examples)

Plus, this way you can still play a festival or two over the summer and not have it throw off your score.
posted by nowoutside at 9:38 AM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

The author could save herself a lot of hand-wringing if she'd take this simple advice:

1. Listen to whatever music feels meaningful and authentic to you.
2. Don't worry about what other people listen to.
3. Pop music trends are not social movements, and if you have the time to take them that seriously, you are probably underemployed.

posted by ixohoxi at 9:38 AM on January 26, 2010 [7 favorites]

Obviously Raiders is the best of the lot. I really liked him in The Last Crusade. I haven't seen Crystal Skull. Does he die in that? I hope not.
posted by Ratio at 9:39 AM on January 26, 2010 [11 favorites]

Well, the fridge bit seems in keeping with the series, but Jesus, the fucking CGI jungle chase... I think a part of my soul died whilst watching that.
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

It’s all so independent,” filmmaker Jim Jarmusch lamented to The Guardian’s Lynn Hirschberg in 2005. “I’m so sick of that word. I reach for my revolver when I hear the word quirky...

A Mission of Burma song reference in a quote about hating the independent? Awesome.
posted by nowoutside at 9:46 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

I only listen to music put out by a bloke who follows Steven Stapleton around with a field recording setup, and records Stapleton's footsteps. Then he releases the recordings on subscription-only 7-inchers, in pressings of 23. In order to obtain this subscription, I had to answer a detailed questionnaire.

In Etruscan.

I have already said too much.
posted by everichon at 9:47 AM on January 26, 2010 [5 favorites]

His point is that, there was a time when 'indie' wasn't a genre but a description of how the music was made.

If this is true, it was before the 90's. College radio, circa 1994-98, "indie" meant, roughly, "bands that are liked by people who like Pavement, Dinosaur Jr., Fugazi, et al." There may have been some place or industry where indie meant only the way music was produced, but I can say for sure that it was in common use as a genre description then.
posted by rusty at 9:48 AM on January 26, 2010

If this is true, it was before the 90's.

Some of us can remember those simpler, more innocent times, junior.
posted by jonmc at 9:51 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

A Mission of Burma song reference in a quote about hating the independent? Awesome.

The Burma song references an older saying derived from a German play. And apocryphally later used by Goering.
posted by mpbx at 9:51 AM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Here in LA there were a brief couple, beautiful years when KROQ was seriously winding down into the dotage it seems to have settled into now, and there was another station playing what most people called "Alternative" rock -- music for those who liked 120 Minutes on MTV (RIP).

It was called Y107 and though it wasn't playing music as forward-looking as KROQ did in its prime, it played a lot of great stuff. But it didn't call it Indie, it didn't call it Alternative.

It just said "Modern Rock" -- descriptive enough for the pop-inflected rock of its time (late 90s) without sounding like some marketer is trying to co-opt any "indie" or "alternative" cred.

And I like that term, and have used it myself when trying to describe my own music (most definitively Indie, though that term grates).
posted by chimaera at 9:53 AM on January 26, 2010

A fairly decent article on the reality of corporate co-opting of subcultures that is substantially diminished by aspirations of being bigger than its britches. Seriously, you're going to frame your discussion of whether "indie" is dead in the context of the philosophical-cultural implications of a major mainstream publication asking out loud (on the front cover no less) whether "God" is dead? The repeated implication is that there is something different and special about the co-opting of "indie," but I just don't see that the case gets made in this article. It all sounds like business as usual to me. Deduct further points for applying, with questionable purpose, the world's most overused Sufi parable of the blind men and the elephant on the first page, and for the lazy, increasingly tedious invocation of Pabst Blue Ribbon as the clichéd signifier of hipsterism. Curse this cult of cleverness.
posted by nanojath at 9:54 AM on January 26, 2010

I like this thread's earlier work.
posted by ChuqD at 9:55 AM on January 26, 2010 [14 favorites]

Judas!
posted by Flashman at 9:55 AM on January 26, 2010

". . . the only universally held truth about “indie” is that nobody agrees on what it means."

Well, you could say that about a lot of things really. Like . . . all of art. Nobody agrees on what "art" is either, but does that mean it's a useless or meaningless term? No. You can still talk about "art" with someone and have a pretty good idea of what the other person means. Likewise with "indie."

And so today we ask yet another question: Is indie dead?

Saying indie is dead is a pretty ridiculous argument to make when more people than ever are able to put out music independently of major labels by recording on their iPhone or whatever and posting it instantly to YouTube.
posted by ekroh at 9:56 AM on January 26, 2010

It's always problematic when a genre's name doesn't evoke formal qualities of the music (rap has spoken delivery, punk is thuggish ) but rather some social aspect of it (Merseybeat, new wave).

It's been 10 years since I used the term "indie" to describe music I listen to. Not so much because my tastes have changed, but because there's more expressive words or terms available. Indie, as a genre name, is certainly helping me avoid a certain quality and social aspect of music I don't much care for. In that sense it's helpful now more than ever.
posted by l2p at 9:57 AM on January 26, 2010

Indie rock isn't dead, mainstream rock is. Album oriented rock, dead.
posted by mpbx at 9:59 AM on January 26, 2010

Heh, nowoutside, your formula recasts a lot of popular Canadian pop bands as indie just because we don't have the population or weather to support live gigs the way we should. Also, I sent my son to school today in a pink "I love punk" shirt.
posted by saucysault at 10:00 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I have to say that this Carrie Brownstein quote from the article pretty much sums it up for me:

One is a shortcut for explaining to someone what music sounds like. I think most music fans would acknowledge that’s a vague definition, but it’s a quick way to let someone know—like if someone asks what something sounds like, you can go, ‘Oh, they’re sort of indie-sounding.’ For most people that have been listening to music for a while, that’s going to conjure up something. And then I think that I would also revert to more literal definition as well, to mean someone that’s independently minded, or following a set of rules or a philosophy that separates them from corporate music culture.

When I'm growing up, indie is both a sound (Belle & Sebastian being its epitome) but still a meaningful signifier of independence from corporations.
posted by Kattullus at 10:00 AM on January 26, 2010

this simple advice:

1. Listen to whatever music feels meaningful and authentic to you.

Oh shit. Already we've run up against something complicated and problematic (the way each individual approaches and defines "meaningful" and "authentic" must be in relation to external influences and factors amirite)
posted by naju at 10:01 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

metafilter: Curse this cult of cleverness.
posted by pyramid termite at 10:04 AM on January 26, 2010

I actually rather liked Juno.
posted by Artw at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2010

Okay, I actually seriously am not sure what to say when people ask me what I listen to. Mostly I end up just answering "pop" because

a) I enjoy talking with people about Lady Gaga more than I enjoy talking about the twee-pop bands I really like or the kinda-electronic DEVO-ish bands I like, and nearly everyone (aside from the last few hater holdouts) has an interesting opinion of her. And, hell, I like talking about Britney Spears, too.
b) (and I'm a little ashamed to admit this to myself) saying "pop" seems like an easy way to be kneejerk "different."

One reason why I'm not ashamed to say "pop," though, is that the indie scene, post-grunge at least, seemed based in the idea that indie was pop music that was smarter than regular-people pop music, and that as such the people who listened to it were smarter than regular people. Which, well, was always wrong, but which is an on-its-face untenable position in an era where the smartest music around (and I say this as someone who loves veddy clever Belle & Sebastian-type tunes and lyrics) is recorded by the aforementioned Gaga.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:15 AM on January 26, 2010

I do actually reach for a gun when I hear Belle and Sebastian. Literally.
posted by Artw at 10:17 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Joe Beese: "Punk began with Woody Guthrie."

Rimbaud, if not someone prior.
posted by idiopath at 10:26 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Personally, I use "indie" less as a genre signifier and more as a way to subtract other musical possiblities. If I say something is "electronic synth stuff with an indie feel" than you can immediately cancel out the possibility of dancefloor techno or whatever else comes to your head when you think of "electronic." What you're left with is a kind of vague, albeit narrower, space. Then if you're more interested, we can get into more specifics of the sound, influences, gear, whatever.

To me it's the same way "literature" can only be used as a subtraction of genre possibilities for a novel. Or the way a Big Mac can only be defined as a smoke-flavored subtraction of all other cheeseburger possibilities.
posted by naju at 10:26 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Er, replace "literature" with "literary fiction."
posted by naju at 10:27 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

So much great music out right now.

After the hellish 90s, when everything "alternative" was a blazingly unoriginal, shoddily executed rehash of Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin*, MAN this is a great time to listen to music. You can go to the right blogs and find five bands you really like- that are genuinely good- you can do it right now!

Compare that to MTV ramming The Toadies down your throat nine times a day as some kind of "alternative." Compare that to Woodstock '99 and its $4 water and Limp-Bizkit-induced riots. Yeah, I'll take now, thanks.

*I love Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, but not inferior copies of them pretending to be a new "genre."
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:29 AM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Joe Beese: "Punk began with Woody Guthrie."

Rimbaud, if not someone prior.

"Socrates, like Ozzy Osbourne, was accused of corrupting the youth."
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:30 AM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

smoke-flavored subtraction

My indie-rock memory is a bit hazy - was than an indie label or fanzine?
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 10:32 AM on January 26, 2010

I actually rather liked Juno.

Right? When she was all "HEY IRIS GO HAVE THE LADIES SET FIRE TO THAT ASSHOLE'S SHIPS", I was all "OH HELLS YES".
posted by everichon at 10:34 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

People are endlessly fascinated with their own (needless to say, "eclectic") musical tastes.
posted by pracowity at 10:35 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I hate authenticity.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:39 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

Excuse me while I wipe my musical tastes off with this Kleenex.
posted by swift at 10:39 AM on January 26, 2010

I think you're faking it.
posted by jonmc at 10:39 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Both of you
posted by jonmc at 10:40 AM on January 26, 2010

Serge Gainsbourg invented punk.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:40 AM on January 26, 2010

Like so many questions that are so important to so very many people, all you can really do here is shrug, say "Who gives a fuck*," and move on.

Answer: No one. No one gives a fuck.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:50 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Nobody INVENTED punk, duh....it was DISCOVERED. By me.
posted by spicynuts at 10:51 AM on January 26, 2010

The problem is that there is no longer a clear communal way to embrace music these days. used to be that 'we all' listened to a.m., then f.m., then mtv, then college radio, so songs got traction and became part of the cultural zeitgeist. Now it's all so insular that there are no 'movements' in pop music. I certainly don't want to find my next band by caring about the song in the Bacardi commercial (though i was stoked to hear Langhorne Slim's voice in an ad the other day), but that's what it's coming to.
Yeah, your favorite corporate shill sux...
posted by OHenryPacey at 10:56 AM on January 26, 2010

After the hellish 90s 50s, when everything "alternative" "rock" was a blazingly unoriginal, shoddily executed rehash of Black Sabbath Muddy Waters and Led Zeppelin Chuck Berry...


I could do this all day. Let's do the '00s next!
posted by spicynuts at 10:58 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

ChuqD: "I like this thread's earlier work."

Good one.

Nevertheless, R.E.M. was not inducted into the Hall of Fame for the music they made on Warner Bros.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:58 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

This thread sounds better on vinyl.
posted by porn in the woods at 10:58 AM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

I hate music. It's got too many notes.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 10:59 AM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

olnopaponton: So if you don't buy albums, but instead just stream music via Hype Machine/Last.fm or listen to mixtapes, are you like some kind of nouveau-indie god?

Dude, you wish. I was talking to a friend in an increasingly successful Toronto-based indie band recently, and he told me the hippest thing just now (or just then, as this was a few months back now) was to release your new songs first on cassingle only. He was apparently not shitting me, though to his credit I could tell he wished he was.

Me, I'm not paying another dime until the 8-track revival's in full swing. If my music doesn't have random-midsong track-change hiccups in it, it's not authentic music.
posted by gompa at 11:00 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Socrates, like Ozzy Osbourne, was accused of corrupting the youth."

uh, ever heard of enkidu? that dude was punk as fuck
posted by Copronymus at 11:14 AM on January 26, 2010 [4 favorites]

Indie-rock was absolutely a sound and real scene from the late eighties and most of the 90's, defined by bands like Pavement and Guided by Voices and bands of that ilk on Matador and Merge records and Teen Beat etc. It sometimes had a low-fi element to it like those two bands above, who eschewed technical and production prowess for authenticity and creativity and generally a lot pot-smoking. And there was a look to it as well, that I guess could be called hipster-esque, without the eyeliner or glam elements. It's antecedent was hardcore punk and it was I guess almost a reaction to the regimented plain-spoken cookie cutter formula that hardcore became in the early and mid-80s, after it got co-opted into metal.

Indie, in and of itself, as a qualifier I suppose could signify anything that had a DIY element to it and avoided mainstream trends or characteristics, and probably was more or less free of aesthetic constraints, unless it was specifically a certain genre.

That's the story. And anyone want's to dispute or argue about it. I will fight you.
posted by Skygazer at 11:15 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Punk goes back to Grog, the caveman who refused to be initiated into the sacred stick slapping tribal rhythm and instead banged his own damn stick without formal training from the elders. That guy was a real structuralist rejector, and he could sure whack the heck out of a stick.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:18 AM on January 26, 2010

He's the one who banged out the riff to "Louie Louie" on a rock, right?
posted by jonmc at 11:20 AM on January 26, 2010

I miss the 90's, before the default template for local bands was Dashboard Confessional.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:21 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yeah but Grog sold out right about the time CaveTV did their first cave painting of his song 'Grrg ddjj kkkgkkakaakk rrrrrr'. Anything that came out after that was just tribal product.
posted by spicynuts at 11:22 AM on January 26, 2010

I only listen to sad bastard music.

*puts on Neil Young, cries alone*
posted by Think_Long at 11:30 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Well played, Paste magazine. I read nearly every word in that article.
posted by shownomercy at 11:35 AM on January 26, 2010

I only listen to the player piano.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:35 AM on January 26, 2010

"It's like those hip musicians with their complicated shoes!"
posted by Sys Rq at 11:37 AM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Mister_A: I assumed that the 20 years reference was to do with "1991: The Year Punk Broke".

Then she should have said "almost 20 years" (1991), not "more than 20 years" (which would have to be before 1990).

Also, despite "The Year Punk Broke," I'm pretty sure punk had entered the "cultural consciousness" before 1991.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:39 AM on January 26, 2010

If punk's indie's not dead, it certainly deserves to die. - Jello Biafra Some bitter asshole.
posted by cazoo at 11:40 AM on January 26, 2010

> Also, despite "The Year Punk Broke," I'm pretty sure punk had entered the "cultural consciousness" before 1991.

Entered, kicked over the furniture, passed out on some upended cushions, and rolled out in the morning.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:52 AM on January 26, 2010

I have fond memories of a WMSE dj named Mot in the late 80s. That is all.
posted by everichon at 11:56 AM on January 26, 2010

I usually say "indie" when I mean "you've never heard of anything I listen to so stop asking".

This is what people say when they mean "I'm much more musically sophisticated than you are, and your pop sensibilities offend me, but I have no interest in sharing with you music that I consider worthwhile."

Indy died when people started spelling it with an "ie."
posted by solipsophistocracy at 12:22 PM on January 26, 2010

Indy died when people started spelling it with an "ie."

They say the same thing over at the Speedway.
posted by jonmc at 12:24 PM on January 26, 2010

Indy died when people started spelling it with an "ie."

They say the same thing over at the Speedway.

No, they say it died when Tony f***ing George took over.
posted by philip-random at 12:32 PM on January 26, 2010

He's the one who banged out the riff to "Louie Louie" on a rock, right?

Hey, speaking of fossils, Iggy was (and maybe still is?) fond of that song too!
posted by kittyprecious at 12:37 PM on January 26, 2010

This is all a very entertaining discussion until you hit forty, realize Hanson's "Mmmbop" is perhaps the greatest pop single since the Jackson Five's "I Want You Back", and decide to stop fighting battles you lost two decades ago.

IT'LL HAPPEN TO YOU, TOO.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:40 PM on January 26, 2010 [9 favorites]

Punk Rock died in Vancouver, 1992 I'm pretty sure, at a party to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Zulu Records (maybe it was the fifteenth). All the local legends and luminaries were there, drinking, smoking, hanging out, not having much fun. Eventually a supergroup of ex-punks took the stage and did a bunch of sloppy disco covers. It was ironic.

For some insane reason, I was tripping on ecstasy with a few younger friends (all just little kids when punk first BROKE). We ended up piling into my car, driving out to the suburbs and looking for a rave that we never found. So we ended up down by the Fraser River listening to Aphex Twin on a ghetto blaster.
posted by philip-random at 12:40 PM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

So much great music out right now.

There's always been great music. What's excellent about now (as opposed to pre-Napster) is that we have free access to virtually all of it.

Compare that to MTV ramming The Toadies down your throat nine times a day as some kind of "alternative."

I preferred MTV back when they actually played videos. I'm sure I'm not the only one who watched 120 Minutes every week.

And c'mon you guys. Possum Kingdom is one of the great guilty pleasures of the 1990s.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:47 PM on January 26, 2010

"Indie died when the first kid said/ 'Indie's not dead, indie's not dead.' "
posted by orme at 12:50 PM on January 26, 2010

Possum Kingdom is one of the great guilty pleasures songs of the 1990s.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:53 PM on January 26, 2010

Something isn't dead if people are still writing articles about its possible demise. Unless it's a Russian premier. Or a terrorist mastermind.
posted by tigrefacile at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2010

BitterOldPunk, you are a bitter old punk.
posted by Artw at 1:08 PM on January 26, 2010

The Toadies have better songs than Possum Kingdom.
posted by furiousthought at 1:13 PM on January 26, 2010

Punk goes back to Grog, the caveman who refused to be initiated into the sacred stick slapping tribal rhythm and instead banged his own damn stick without formal training from the elders. That guy was a real structuralist rejector, and he could sure whack the heck out of a stick.

Well, that explains the outfits, then.

Hippies had been around for a whole 9 years when punk first appeared. And that was only, you know, 44 years ago.

A few more and easy listening radio stations will be playing blue hair music in more ways than one.
posted by y2karl at 1:17 PM on January 26, 2010

OK, I am innumerate--34 years ago. But still...
posted by y2karl at 1:20 PM on January 26, 2010

Punk rock dates back to the precambrian age when single-cell organisms decided to flagelate their motile cilia clockwise instead of anticlockwise.

At roughly the same time rap started not being as good.
posted by Artw at 1:25 PM on January 26, 2010 [3 favorites]

The Decade in Indie by Nitsuh Abebe who argues that indie has taken over the mainstream.

He's also got an excellent blog full of long-form, well thought out, articulate musings. Somehow this seems contrary to the spirit of Tumblr.
posted by kersplunk at 2:19 PM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

Rap had a bit of a renaissance in the Permian though.
posted by Mister_A at 2:43 PM on January 26, 2010

Sell out.
posted by Artw at 3:01 PM on January 26, 2010

The author is clearly missing the fact that the kids really don't care about labels anymore, because the major labels have already lost. The Us vs. Them dichotomy is dead, the labels aren't a threat, they're no longer The Man, because they're far too weak. They don't control popularity or distribution, they should garner more pity than fear. For all intents and purposes, major labels might as well be indie labels now.

This is precisely why indie is dead. The word indie means indpendent, which is a reaction against the status quo. Without the status quo (The Man record labels), there is no longer any need for indie — which is probably why I'm hearing people now use phrases like "eclectic", "random stuff", or "pitchfork-y" amongst the like-minded, to describe the music they listen to. The author hints at several points about how winning equals death, but doesn't fully internalize the reality that the war really is over and should therefore be ignored, labels have lost and we don't care anymore — the author should do the same.

With postmodern rock, we've literally deconstructed the labels, there is no what's next, there's nothing to fight against, there's just the music.
posted by amuseDetachment at 3:35 PM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

While I'm sure it feels really good to make sweeping, generalized pronouncements like that, the fact that major labels and their pals at ClearChannel and Viacom are still the gatekeepers for an overwhelming majority of the population.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:54 PM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]

I have no problem with young people writing about things that happened before they were born...

I think the same thing about the Crimean War.
posted by Evilspork at 3:59 PM on January 26, 2010

Punk goes back to Grog, the caveman who refused to be initiated into the sacred stick slapping tribal rhythm and instead banged his own damn stick without formal training from the elders. That guy was a real structuralist rejector, and he could sure whack the heck out of a stick.

You want "whack the heck out of a stick"? I gotcher "whack the heck out of a stick" right here.

*actually, that's tube, not stick. and it's, uh... ten tubes. anyway, it's better than radiohead!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:03 PM on January 26, 2010

entropicamericana: Who cares about the majority of the population? The labels don't control what I listen to. ClearChannel is dying, Viacom doesn't play music anymore.
posted by amuseDetachment at 4:04 PM on January 26, 2010

The author is clearly missing the fact that the kids really don't care about labels anymore, because the major labels have already lost. The Us vs. Them dichotomy is dead, the labels aren't a threat, they're no longer The Man, because they're far too weak. They don't control popularity or distribution, they should garner more pity than fear. For all intents and purposes, major labels might as well be indie labels now.

Except that's clearly not true, because I get to know about artists like Akon or Lady Gaga even though I have essentially no interest in listening to either. Everyone acts like anyone can be famous or popular or widely recognized now, but we're still far from a level playing field—major labels and the conglomerates to which they belong can put into motion an entire media infrastructure devoted to promoting their artists in every way possible. Meanwhile, even big indie labels like Merge Records admitted they had never had to put together a grand marketing plan such as the one used to promote the last Arcade Fire album—and the example they used to illustrate the scope of the promotion was posters in every Borders store. That's nowhere near the sustained push that big major label artists get.

Yes, the internet has helped even things out, but this too has its pitfalls. You would think that independent artists would take advantage of their agility in the new media environment and come up with interesting new ways to promote and distribute their music. Unfortunately, instead of indie artists learning to innovate and major label artists following suit, what I see is far more of the opposite: indie artists taking advantage of the internet to mimic big-label marketing initiatives. Just take a look at the e-mail account I barely read anymore because it is chock full of press releases from bands, most of whom probably have minuscule audiences and yet have releases written in the same breathless prose as any fresh-faced pop-punk band pushed by a major label. Now everyone's covered in that same sweaty sheen of pseudo-corporate promogrease, big band or small.

There's still plenty to fight against, if you're the sort of person who still thinks defending the independent ethos is worth anything these days. It's just that most people have given up the fight and adopted the enemy's methods.
posted by chrominance at 5:21 PM on January 26, 2010 [2 favorites]

Well, I just mentioned it because you were initially talking about how they no longer control popularity and distribution. I assumed you meant in general. If you're revising that to mean they no longer control it for you, well, congratulations and welcome to the party.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:22 PM on January 26, 2010

entropicamericana: I'm not revising it, I'm saying that they're not relevant anymore. Just because Clear Channel controls the radio doesn't mean that they are the sole agent that makes or breaks bands. There's a reason why ClearChannel is increasingly interested in the Rap and Spanish/Latino markets. It's incredibly hard to name more than a handful of rock bands that aren't "indie" from the past several years. Even though the majority of the population sources their media from traditional means, I'm saying that they aren't relevant. Ultimately, it isn't the traditional sources (nor mainstream consumers) determining the success of bands. The machine is broken when it comes to selection. While it's true that there are still manufactured bands, they're increasingly rare and are eating up a smaller share of the pie.

I suspect the disagreement that we have is that we are arguing about different things, you're talking about distribution, I'm talking about curation. It's true that the primary functional role of labels are distribution, but I'd argue that their primary social role is curation. It is the curation that I've always had a problem with, not the distribution. The internet has, IMO, equalized and replaced the curation aspects, but has not (yet) completely replaced the distribution. What I meant in my reply was that I don't give a crap what other people use for their means of distribution.

chrominance: Yeah agreed, bands suck at marketing, but I supposed they're supposed to be only good at making music. They are doing things like giving interviews to MP3 blogs and directly interacting with fans. In any case, I don't have any problem with bands using traditional marketing.
posted by amuseDetachment at 6:48 PM on January 26, 2010

I don't know whether I agree that "indie" is dead, because I don't know what "indie" means anymore.

I swear that I saw a Thai mor lam artist called "indie" on last.fm once. At that point I gave up understanding how other people were using the term. I still label a lot of the music I have as "indie," but that's because I don't know what else to call it yet.

Good music is still out there no matter how people describe it though.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:53 PM on January 26, 2010

Obviously Raiders is the best of the lot. I really liked him in The Last Crusade. I haven't seen Crystal Skull. Does he die in that? I hope not.

Only on the inside, Ratio. Only on the inside.
posted by Quonab at 11:17 PM on January 26, 2010 [1 favorite]