RIP Indie Rock at Pretty Much Amazing

Click on the turntable on the left to listen to a continuous stream of music featured on Pretty Much Amazing - updated every day. For more, you can check out the Best Songs of 2011, or our Best Albums of 2011.

RIP Indie Rock music feature

Okay, sure, you like independent music. Fine. But what exactly does that mean? When you hear talk of independent music, what bands come to mind? Seriously, think about it. I’ve debated the term “indie” with friends, over-analyzed it with strangers, and completely dismantled it in heated arguments with just about anybody. Everyone I talk to has a different perception of what exactly indie music truly is. I remember having this conversation with a friend in the late 90â€™s and thinking that we’d nailed it down. Unfortunately, 10-ish years later, here I find myself reading Facebook walls and wondering what people really mean when they say they like “independent music.” Typically, the conversation rolls around to a few different locations but, generally, arguments about “what is indie” can be reduced to two basic tenets: 1) The label the band is on. 2) The style of music, or sound, that the band makes. I argue that neither of these make sense anymore, and that the term “indie,” as commonly used now, should be retired. Should be considered dead. Why? Well, this is why…

Label Argument

I guess the easy answer to what is indie is also the most obvious: indie music is music created from an artist who is signed to a an independent label, or a label unassociated with a major production house. That seems pretty straight forward, right? Well it only sorta makes sense. In the next argument I talk about where indie came from, but before we get there, know this: two of the bands that fathered modern indie rock are Modest Mouse (MM) and Built to Spill (BtS). Unarguably, these two bands are inseparable from the foundation of modern indie rock. “So,” you say, “what about it?” Well, when Modest Mouse started up, they banged around on a few little labels like K Records and Up Records. While on Up, MM released the influential album Lonesome Crowded West. For those of you that don’t know, Lonesome Crowded West is to indie rock what Nevermind is to grunge. It was an album that completely changed the music landscape of its day and is still influencing bands today. MM is a band that paid their dues, that recorded on small labels, and that created the definitive album of it’s music genre. They were legitimately, relative to the recording industry at large, independent. So, why am I telling you this? Although once on Up, Modest Mouse currently resides at Epic Records (owned and operated by Sony BMG). Going on the assumption that independent label = independent band, Modest Mouse is not an indie band. That’s it. That’s the bottom line, and it makes absolutely no sense. You can’t say all indie rock is on small labels any more than you can say all rap is on major labels. Genre and label should not be mutually exclusive of each other. After helping invent a genre and style of music like MM did, can you really lose that style just because you change labels?

Built to Spill has a similar story to Modest Mouse. They kicked around on small labels for a few EPs & albums (including a stint with Up Records), but since Perfect from Now On (really since a little before that, circa 1995) they’ve been on Warner Bros. Records. This is a band that has never enjoyed an exorbitant amount of airplay on radios. They are a band that tours for fans religiously, and that play 20-minute jam sessions as encores. Doug Martsch is one of the most legit play-cuz-he-loves-it musicians in the business, and his hometown (Boise) loves him for it. So, because they’re on Warner does that mean the music somehow changed? Is it no longer indie rock? After leaving Up they continued to put out absolutely mind blowing music (most BtS fans would argue that Perfect from Now On is one of the greatest albums in BtS’s catalogue) yet because they play on Warner they are a new genre? Jay-Z started his own label (you can’t get more independent than that) and became one of the highest selling artists of all time. Despite his independent label, no one considers Jay-Z an indie artist. Still, they continue to bill Built to Spill and Modest Mouse as such (rightfully so). Does defining either as independent based on label actually make any sense? Not in my mind. The label argument is out. Independent music cannot be classified by label size.

Indie as a Sound Argument

If indie isnâ€™t dictated by the label size youâ€™re on then maybe itâ€™s the type of music you play, or the sound your band creates. Indie has classically been paired with rock. When you hear people say they like indie they usually say indie rock. But that no longer begins to describe what people really mean when they say “indie.” The funny thing is that indie rock was a sound… once. In the early 90′s the American music industry had a fairly formulaic approach to creating music. (Sweeping generalization alert!) It was sterile and much of the pop/rock music had become pretty uniform and utilitarian. The American music industry had become the machine and it was cranking out music that it knew it could sell. Well if the music scene was the machine, then grunge was the rage against it. Grunge was so far off the beaten music path that when it took hold it quickly began to foster new sounds. One of those sounds that has less angst, more retrospection, and a little stronger musicianship is what now is referred to as the Northwest sound. The Northwest sound included bands and artists like Heatmiser, Built to Spill, Sam Coomes (and his many projects), Sleater Kinney, and Modest Mouse (acts that most educated music lovers now refer to as indie rock). These bands had a common thread running through them, and you can still go back and listen to those old albums & hear the similarities in sound. There was a unity of musicianship that existed with the artists at the time, and it was the Northwest sound. Because it was new and relatively different than other forms of music out there at the time, the other common thread that these bands shared was the lack of large label backing. These were artists that played a new type of music on independent labels. “Indie” became the buzzword that encapsulated the Northwest sound. Because of the association between independent labels and the Northwest sound, when you said “I like indie rock,” people knew specifically who you were talking about. Indie rock had become a genre. Soon, however, that all changed.

Through the mid to late 90′s, grunge hammered on, but so did the indie rock scene. Although not immensely popular in the mainstream, American indie rock and the Northwest sound began to gain popularity amongst college students. Small bands on small labels began playing music that had elements of the northwest sound at small venues in college towns across America, and it spread. Heatmiser broke up and Elliott Smith began playing his own music. Sam Coomes kept jamming on his keyboards for Quasi, but he also started playing with Bright Eyes and varying other bands. New acts emerged as semi-members of the genre, but quickly progressed beyond the scope of original Northwest sound. Tortoise, Belle & Sebastian, Bikini Kill, Blonde Redhead, The Sea and Cake, The Shins, Pinback, and others began playing forms of indie rock, but it was new forms that had developed past pure Northwest indie. Indie rock had splintered into sub-divided groupings. Folk rock, new rave, lo fi, indie pop, post-rock, math rock, slowcore, post-punk and others emerged as viable forms of music. It began to seem that although all of these forms of music crammed themselves under the indie umbrella, “indie” no longer fit under their individual categorizations. The Northwest sound that had defined indie rock was now sub-genre’d to the point that it was impossible to call a band like Wilco anything but alt-country, or June of 44 anything but math rock. Over time, indie rock was diluted to the point that people no longer cared about the Northwest sound as a specific style. Indie rock instead lost much of its original American heritage and became a way for hipster kids to describe the type of music that mainstream America wasn’t listening to. It has almost become shorthand for, “I don’t listen to what’s on the radio.”

Conclusion

So, what is “indie?” Well, in its everyday Facebook usage it has become cotton candy. It’s a freakin’ twinkie. Its a useless word that has been hijacked and butchered by people on their way to being totally awesome. We all somehow grabbed on to the term for a while, and overused it mercilessly while it lost virtually all meaning (like when a salesman says your name, over and over and over). In current American usage, you say “I like indie rock,” and I hear “I listen to stuff you’ve probably never heard of.” I don’t care how small the label is or how non-mainstream the band is, unless they sound like the bands from the pacific northwest circa 1995, I propose that we stop calling it indie. It’s become a dumb and incorrect (and, admittedly, innocent) way to characterize music, and it seems particularly sad that we now use “indie” as a nothing word when we should be using it to immortalize an amazing movement like the Northwest sound. I say we all stop calling “anything I want other people to think is cool” indie and start referring to the sub-genre of whatever a particular band is actually a part of. And if you don’t know the genre, then get educated. Call indie rock indie rock, but the continued use of “independent” as a catchall phrase will end up doing the same thing to indie that certain hipsters did to emo … but that’s another topic for another time.

by Jeff Lind on February 26, 2009 ‡ 9 reactions

What did you think?

{ 67 comments… read them below or add one }

James February 26, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Good article! I was actually talking this over with my roommates the other day. “Indie” is so dead. Now it’s just dozens of sub-genres under what the GRAMMYs invented to be “Alternative Music.” That’s probably the only logical way to describe what everyone calls “indie.” An Alternative to pop, or “popular” music.

Anderson February 26, 2009 at 12:23 pm

unless they sound like the bands from the pacific northwest circa 1995, I propose that we stop calling it indie.

Really? Not the Smiths? Sonic Youth? Radiohead? The Pixies? Soundgarden? Yo La Tengo? Tom Waits? My Bloody Valentine?

Anderson February 26, 2009 at 12:24 pm

I think all of those bands… and others… were just as influential in the “indie” genre as Lonesome Crowded West

Val February 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Yeah, I agree with Anderson, Indie started a bit before 1995, but looking at the big picture: Jeff is 100%. The term “Indie” must be retired. Good article! You really know what you’re talking about.

Jack February 26, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Alright, cool. indie’s dead.. now how are we going to classify our favorite bands?

Let’s start a list.. what do we call:
Bon Iver?
Radiohead?
MGMT?
M.I.A.?
Lykke Li?
Robyn?
Spoon?
Arcade Fire?
those are just some artists off the top of my head. Maybe there should be a post defining these sub-genres we’re supposed to be using now.

Ben February 26, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Ummm.. let me take a crack at this:
Bon Iver? lo-fi
Radiohead? alternative rock/experimental/avant garde
MGMT? psychedelic/indietronic/indie-pop
M.I.A.? grime/electronic/alt hip-hop
Lykke Li? Indie-Pop/Female Vocalists (is this a genre yet?)/alt-pop
Robyn? electronic/electropop/dance/pop
Spoon? INDIE/alternative rock/alt-country
Arcade Fire? Alternative Rock/rock/art rock/chamber pop

Ben February 26, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Correction/Elaboration: Bon Iver – Lo-Fi/Folk/Acoustic

chris February 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Good article, Jeff.

I’d argue that the whole reason we lump things under the “indie” umbrella is so that we don’t have to abuse our slash keys when writing about our favorite alternative/rock/experimental/avantgarde/electronic/electropop/dance/pop/alt-country/art rock/grime/psychedelic bands. it’s a lot easier to say, even if it’s not factually accurate. If I asked someone what kind of music they listened to, and they responded “I’m into alt-country, chamber pop, avant garde, and alt hip hop”, I’d probably punch them in the face.

Additionally, I think that “Indie Band” and “Indie Music” are completely different things. Indie Bands are bands that aren’t on a major label (a slippery slope, when you consider how many boutique labels are actually subsidiaries of bigger labels), while Indie Music, as you describe, is more of a sound or philosophy. I think you nail it when you say Indie Rock is actually shorthand for music that you don’t hear on the radio.

Then again, you don’t hear much Insane Clown Posse on the radio either…

Luis Tovar February 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm

I totally agree with James, I think “Indie Music” should just be replaced with “Altnernative Music.” That is ONE thing the GRAMMYs got right.

Randi Baron February 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm

hahaha i kind of agree with everyone who’s commented already. i propose the end to the ridiculous amount of genres. like #6 ben wrote… there’s so fucking many of them who the hell can figure out what is what anymore. that’s why people group stuff under “indie.” it’s pretty much come to mean either a) unsigned, or b) original. the phrase “alternative” bothers me more actually, ’cause i never know what it’s an alternative to. technically EVERYTHING is alternative. and everything is unsigned at some point, and everything is original in some way….

so….. i’m just going to say i like music from now on and call it a day.

Randi Baron February 26, 2009 at 1:31 pm

sorry luis =/

Ben February 26, 2009 at 1:34 pm

haha! Good point Randi, but if someone asks me what kind of music I like, I can’t very well just say “Music.”

Most people know what alternative music means, at least a little. It’s basically an Alternative to the mainstream (or in most people’s minds, Top 40 radio).

But then again, most people know what “indie” means too. Maybe a music-defining-vocab reform is just too damn difficult.

Luis Tovar February 26, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Haha, you’re forgiven Randi, but I think Ben said it perfectly.

Astrie February 26, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Iâ€™d argue that the whole reason we lump things under the â€œindieâ€ umbrella is so that we donâ€™t have to abuse our slash keys when writing about our favorite alternative/rock/experimental/avantgarde/electronic/electropop/dance/pop/alt-country/art rock/grime/psychedelic bands.
lol. The Thinking Man strikes back.

Robin February 26, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Very true.

When people say what music I like, I now have to say “lots”. Indie can now mean anything which isn’t pop. So describing bands as indie is very silly. I still use “indie rock” but that’s only for bands like The Strokes and The Libertines.

Half Note February 26, 2009 at 2:28 pm

I’ve always hated the idea of labels but I understand their importance and necessity in defining things. It seems to me that the use of the word “indie” didn’t really pick up until 2000 and beyond and prior to that people used “alternative.” So the only conclusion I came up w/ is that “indie” is the new “alternative” and that people who are less familiar w/ genres use it as some sort of all encompassing label for anything that’s not on the radio (as you’ve mentioned). Ultimately, I agree w/ your conclusion that it’s been overused to the point that it’s meaningless.

Chris February 26, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I have another suggestion : perhaps we should just dump the labels. I’ve been on an oldies kick for the past couple of months (after having been a quintessential indie kid) and have been constantly amazed at how similar they sound to… indie bands of today. Thinking about modern indie bands now, I want to lump them in the same box as their forebears but that would be anachronistic. Perhaps what we should be doing it learning to analyse today’s bands and music in terms of their composing elements — how many of us are unable to write proper reviews because we lack this obvious skill?

Jack February 26, 2009 at 2:51 pm

also, we cant over look the fact that indie is not only for music any more. Its like a style, or even just something do discribe things are off-mainstream. but even after reading this article, which admittedly is very well written, i’m probably going to use indie do decribe my music tastes. and clothes. but thanks to you im kind of going to feel like a tool

Phil February 26, 2009 at 2:56 pm

I was going to say it, but Anderson beat me to it- forget “the Northwest sound” and Modest Mouse being the “founders” of indie, I can’t believe you missed the Smiths out.

I completely agree with everything that has been said above – alternative seems a much more fitting term. “Indie” has almost become a fashion term to describe the way that someone looks or a sort of net used to generalise an amount of softer rock music. It is completely ridiculous.

David February 26, 2009 at 4:32 pm

I think Ben got it right, firstly, but to me Indie means not as popular, or underground. By that standard, I don`t consider some of my favorite bands such as Vampire Weekend, Radiohead or MGMT Indie. Currently, what i`m calling Indie that I listen to is Tigersapien, Timid Tiger, Miniature Tigers, Filthy Dukes, Japanese Cartoons, Wale, Kid Cudi, The Knux, Tokin Black Guy, Against Me, Animal Collective, Crystal castles, *maybe mayne* Fleet Foxes or Decemberists, Gifted, Girl Talk, possibly Lykke Li or LCD Soundsystem, Wavves, Santogold(?), White Lies, etc.

Luis Tovar February 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm

David.. your comment inspired me to make an awesome iPod playlist for this fucking trafficked drive home

shrapnell February 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm

indie is guitar mostly, popular maybe/hopefully. Mainstream – likely… but that depends if everyone’s bored of the above

Joly February 26, 2009 at 9:00 pm

WOW!

Althea February 26, 2009 at 9:28 pm

Agreed. I always feel like the biggest pompous idiot calling anything indie, especially anything I listen to, so I never do. But the real question: what term is next? We’ve killed ‘alternative’ and ‘indie’, so there’s gotta be something out there that hasn’t been overused but inevitably will be.

Rene February 26, 2009 at 10:00 pm

Love the article. But disagree with the bands of the Northwest in 1995 thing. This just shows how music is becomeing harder to pin down with just one word. Most “indie” artist don’t even refer to themselves as “indie” which shows the flaw in the genre.

I truly agree that most kids put “indie” on their facebook to be a cool hipster. When its really just the title the stupid Apple store gave their Vampire Weekend album.

Anonymous February 27, 2009 at 12:02 am

When people ask me what I mean by indie, I always say: “It’s anything that is clearly not emo”. But then I always get in trouble (where to put Metallica, for example?). The fact is: I use the term “indie” just to make my life easier and sometimes, even knowing something is really not indie, I use it because it’s a cooler term than pop. And alternative reminds me of bands like Creed and Nickelback, I don’t like it.

LettertoJane February 27, 2009 at 12:48 am

Good write up, I never liked the term in the first place, but especially these days you just sound like a prick when you use the term indie.

Joe February 27, 2009 at 8:05 am

A fair and balanced takedown of the term “indie.” But finding a way around it is prickly, as has been pointed out.

How about this: when someone asks you what kind of music you like, say, “Well, lately I’ve been listening to . . .” and then throw out two or three bands that have been on your mind and under your skin lately. That way you don’t sound like a poser (well, possibly), and you acknowledge the question while at the same time sidestepping the inevitable overgeneralizations that it begs. Anyone who is truly interested in what kind of music you listen to will be be able to get an introduction to your tastes and can ask more questions if they want. Essentially, try to avoid talking about genres if possible, instead use the genealogy approach, talking about bands in terms of other bands. Yes it’s a bit snobbish and self-referential (but language is a prison anyway, right? words only refer to other words, so why not bands?), but if someone absolutely can’t follow the comparisons, then they are probably the type of person who will be satisfied with a truly universal categorization like “rock,” “pop,” “punk,” “metal,” or “rap.” You may feel like you’re not doing justice to your favorite artists, or your own very refined tastes, but who cares. Save the hair-splicing, deliciously geeky sub-style/sub-genre talk for intimate conversations with your closest aficionado friends (or any potential romantic interests who might be impressed).

Edward February 27, 2009 at 8:06 am

This is easily the most intelligent and well thought-out article I’ve read on PMA. Great job, Jeff!

However, I do disagree with your conclusion. The fact that the term “indie” has been completely perverted does not mean that it should no longer be used — simply put, calling the sort of music that we like “indie” is the quickest way to describe it. Someone who knows their way around a record store will know to ask the follow-up questions: “like who?” “what kind?” “Lo-fi, twee, folk, rock or hip-hop?” Those who draw a blank will realize the person they’re talking to has radically different tastes, and will politely smile and nod.

I’ll continue to call my music “indie,” and have it mean everything between MGMT, Built to Spill, Fleet Foxes and Radiohead.

Adam February 27, 2009 at 8:33 am

Good article. A few thoughts:

I’m currently living in the UK, and over here “indie” means something entirely different. It is used to refer to the scene-dominating post-Strokes/Interpol/Libertines/Killers bands like the Editors, the Arctic Monkeys, Pull Tiger Tail, Does It Offend You Yeah?…

I strongly agree with:
“Iâ€™d argue that the whole reason we lump things under the â€œindieâ€ umbrella is so that we donâ€™t have to abuse our slash keys when writing about our favorite alternative/rock/experimental/avantgarde/electronic/electropop/dance/pop/alt-country/art rock/grime/psychedelic bands. itâ€™s a lot easier to say, even if itâ€™s not factually accurate. If I asked someone what kind of music they listened to, and they responded â€œIâ€™m into alt-country, chamber pop, avant garde, and alt hip hopâ€, Iâ€™d probably punch them in the face.”

Subcategories are great for theming your own ipod. But, for public discourse purposes, I’m quite happy telling other people “I don’t listen to the radio” or “You probably have never heard of the bands I like”, rather than say “indie”.

I’m not sure lumping it in with “alternative” (an even wider category) helps either. I’m fairly certain that a decade ago people were declaring alternative dead, and asking for it’s use to be restricted to references to the Seattle grunge scene.

Stan February 27, 2009 at 10:40 am

If Indie Rock no longer has a definition,
What is Indie Rock?
What is Blog House?
Labels make everything so much more confusing.

brennan February 27, 2009 at 11:11 am

i’m in the UK as well and indie has kind of gone the way of emo in the last 5 years or so. in that it’s just a pre-fab fashion choice available at all major stores and mostly an easy way to insult teenagers “oh he’s well indie.”

i agree with above posters about ‘indie music’ referring to generally off-the-radar stuff while ‘indie rock’ or ‘indie bands’ are pretty much 4 white guys with guitars and drums.

Brian February 27, 2009 at 11:20 am

You glazed over the obvious fact that the rise in the usage of an ugly, non-descriptive catch-all “indie” coincided with the death of the record store. The need for descriptive genres in the act of discovering music has nearly vanished as people look search for singles on the internet using search engines embedded in iTunes, limewire, etc where the genre becomes a back story to the song. No longer does one have to decide whether or not The Beastie Boys are carried in hip hop or rock, or whether or where exactly in the floor map LCD Soundsystem falls. When you don’t have to actually think about these things, “indie” is an easy fall-back.

Not only does this impact the act of acquiring music, it also alters the way we discover new music. That definition as a means of exploration also loses value when last.fm, iLike, iTunes, etc inform you of what other artists you may enjoy based on how the artist sounds. The genre may be mentioned, but why bother looking at it when you can discover artists that sound the same without having to learn about what characterizes their sound and makes them sound the same. Where it was once the realm solely of music aficionados an expansive knowledge of artists is also becoming more commonplace amongst people who care to neither analyze or understand the differences and similarities a specific piece of music compares to other pieces.

And don’t underestimate the appeal of a phrase like “indie” and the subversive tones it carries to disenfranchised bored white suburban youth.

I think all of these things contributed significantly as well.

I don’t like the word “indie.” I will only ever use it if describing legitimately independent artists in conversation with others who know what I am talking about ie referring to Born Ruffians or the D’Urbervilles as “indie rock.” Otherwise the word just annoys the hell out of me because it’s used by lazy people, is a poor descriptor, and dumbs down the language we use day to day. So if you don’t like it, do what I do. Don’t use it.

MayZ February 27, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Good article. And you’re right: When I say â€œI like indie,â€ what I really mean is â€œI listen to stuff youâ€™ve probably never heard of.â€ It’s too hard to explain what kind of music I listen to…but, so I don’t violate your indie definition, I’ll just start replying, “I listen to stuff you’ve probably never heard of.” Or maybe I’ll just tell people I listen to country.

TJ February 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Wonderful piece of writing, Jeff. As a guy who writes a blog railing against “indie music”, I’ve had a discussion with myself about what exactly I meant by that. Your article basically summed it up fairly well. I’ve come to determine it’s not indie music in any form I dislike, it’s the “hipster” culture that surrounds it and is convinced that nothing good ever came out of a major label and that once a band has a song on the radio, they suffer eternal musical damnation. Kudos.

Chris Huff February 27, 2009 at 2:20 pm

To me (an old man), indie was R.E.M., The Feelies, the db’s, The Connells – bands from Winston-Salem, Athens, GA, or Hoboken. Some Brits – Robyn Hitchcock (who authentically released like 8 albums independently before being signed), The Smiths. Indie was characterized by a jangly pop sound based on Velvet Underground guitars (i.e. no Clapton leads), Beatles pre-LSD, and the great 60s garage bands (See Lenny Kaye’s Nuggets compilation). These were the kids raised on late 70s punk who rejected the noise of punk and the excess of 70s dinosaur rock.

Now “indie” is a term used to describe a group of bands that tend to look and sound the same. They are true to the original indie form in that guitar solos are simple or absent. They are generally still jangly guitar-based bands, but the difference seems to me that there are so many that sound alike, it’s hard to tell who is who anymore. Maybe I am an old man.

I don’t really see Radiohead as indie though – they are too dramatic. The Hives, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Canadian Invasion – these are all indie bands. The Strokes. The Killers push the line of indie. Indie’s a fine category – I think though you have indie hip-hop, indie rock, indie jazz, etc. Capiche?

Drunk Country February 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Hi there.

Nice attempt at deconstructing a conversation that started way back in the early 90s, & one that will never have a conclusion purely because of the evolution of (a) the music that’s being pigeonholed & (b) the common langauge that seperates us all.

The real trouble with your argument, however, is that it is American music-centric & the music you are referring back to is deeply indebted to the origins of ‘indie’.

‘Indie’ (generally with a lowercase ‘i’) as a term originated & was ‘defined’ in the UK (not the US, sorry folks) back in the mid-80s. It was being used way before that period, but it was then that the music press (as they do now with other so-called genres, rather presumptuously) grouped together what they deemed archetypal bands dominating the listening habits of the post-punk/post-DIY ethic/college & university student/Melody Maker, NME & Sounds Magazine reading demographic, who clearly didn’t purchase Top 40 music & its like, & came up with what they considered to be the deifnition of that ‘movement’ indie. This became known as the C-86 generation (following the NME’s C86 cassette & subsequent Rough Trade compilation album) &, unamimously clasped to the breast by the listening public as described above, pretty much defined everything there was (& is) to know about ‘indie’. As set in stone then, ‘indie’ has & always will be a way of describing a sound (be it production or style) defined by the recording environment/restrictions (financially/socially/etc.) imposed upon, or circumstantial to, the bands involved. The fact that it happened 20years+ ago makes it, the term & sound, no less relevant.

The evolution of the ‘indie’ music scene for the next 5-10years pre/mid-Grunge consiously or subconciously aspired to that defining moment in 1986. Genuine ‘indie’ music, releasing on independent labels such as Creation, Rough Trade, 4AD, Factory & so on, suddenly found a massive audience. Larger sales meant room for experimentation &, by proxy, an even wider audience. Slowly the music itself evolved from its jangly guitar core & the sound broadened into areas that, at the time, were associated with the more ‘mainstream’ styles/genres â€” think M/A/R/R/S & Pump Up The Volume as a perfect example.

It wasn’t, however, until Grunge happened &, directly off the back of its cross-over success, other ‘independent’ & some ‘indie’ bands started being cherry picked by major corp labels (Sonic Youth for example). With this, certain majors started dabbling in (or purchasing outright) independent labels & the boundaries truly started to blur. For example, you could blame the independent/progressive Pixies (who were never ‘indie’ moreso avant garde rock, much like Pere Ubu) for Grunge, & you could blame Grunge for Liz Phair (who was ‘indie’ – but only for the first EP & 2 albums) â€” Matador would never have happened without Nirvana, Geffen & Madonna‘s thirst for world domination in all areas. But, I digress…

It was then, about mid-90s, when the ‘indie’ chart in the NME etc. became meaningless from the point of view that (a) the once truly ‘indie’ & ‘independent’ bands featured were now directly on majors or subsidaries thereof, & (b) the music had become too produced & clean/bereft of the DIY ethic, associated with most ‘indie’ & independent releases, due to the asscociation of MONEY.

In short, it’s when American musicians/journalists/etc. (for want of a better phrase) hijacked the term/ethic/aesthetic & applied it, wholesale, in a rather haphazard/uneducated fashion, to inappropriate bands & music styles. Very much like creating The Monkees in reaction to The Beatles. Reverse Engineering, I believe the term is.

Once the Americanisation of ‘indie’ had a stranglehold on the perception of what the term stood for then the musical education of subsequent generations was irrevocably tainted. Hence, I’d wager, the reasoning for this conversation in the first place.

Hell, it’s a tough snake-eating-its-own-tail discussion, frankly, because you really have to start at the basics & you really do have to seperate the term ‘indie’ & ‘independent’. They are not one & the same. Never have been. Still, whatever ‘indie’ supposedly means today it is definitely too fragmented in terms of audience perception (the younger you are, or where you are geographically located – despite the internet – the less likely you will be to have heard of certain bands/movements/labels, etc.) to get a proper all encompassing definition. But, it does exist & it is very, very relevant. You only have to listen to, say, the Swedish music scene to know how massive the ‘indie’ sound still is (& I am NOT counting Lykke Li – she’s nowhere near ‘indie’). Try Those Dancing Days, Pelle Carlberg, Hello Saferide, Strip Squad, Ironville, Stars In Coma, The Social Services, Salty Pirates, New Found Land, First Aid Kit, & Bonnie & Clyde to name but a tiny few.

In conclusion, my advice would be broaden your listening tastes & habits â€” not just geographically but chronologically also. Music, in whatever form, doesn’t start & end at college radio or Hype Machine.

Peace.

Emily February 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Good argument, Jeff.

Does anyone remember the “legend” of BtS screwing over Rolling Stone on a mag interview and then getting black listed by all the music magazines? I love that story, but I am afraid to tell it because I haven’t fact-checked it. Maybe it’s just a Boise legend.

To your defence, and for everyone who is shocked and amazed by your negligence to leave off such formative bands as the Smiths: seriously though? Because this is a beast of an arguement to tackle, and you have to start somewhere. MM and BtS, in recent history are great places to start.

The BtS story is something like this: Doug sent someone else in his stead to do the interview for Rolling Stone. The interveiwer obviously knew nothing about BtS because the friend posing to be Doug totally BS’d the interview answers. The article went to print (either it did or did not, but such a better story if you say that thousands of copies printed, no?) and someone caught on. It cost RS money to reprint, they pulled the article, and BtS was blacklisted, including a nasty article about them in Spin.

Anyone hear that one before? “Doug is so cool!” “Yeah, he plays basketball at the downtown YMCA” “His kid goes to high school with my friend” Common refrains you hear at The Record Exchange in downtown Boise.

Just Bryan February 27, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Very nice article. I catch myself misusing the term indie and alternative sometimes and this one friend always corrects me.

The thing is that sometimes I just need to make clear that it’s not one specific genre. So if it’s not just hiphop and not just rock, or not just electronic, I call it alternative. But it’s absolutely true that those keywords have become such a wide term that it doesn’t really narrow down the options.

Btw when people ask me what music I like I rather answer with some examples of my favs of the top of my head (Gorrilaz, the Killers, Foo Fighters, Girl Talk, Kanye West, Radiohead, Daft Punk, etc.) and then maybe some more recently discovered or recently listening to artists (Kid CuDi, Lily Allen, Kings of Leon, the Strokes, Whitest Boy Alive).

The best way probably though to describe my musical taste is:
“I like a LOT! but overall my preference goes to guitars and rock-y tunes.”

Tart February 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Ok, a few pointsâ€¦ sorry it’s long… I got excited
1. origins: Yes the term â€œindieâ€ was created in the UK but even earlier, DC. â€œAn â€˜independent chartâ€™ debuted in the pages of NME in October 1979. The weekly began to call selected independent retail outlets such as Flyover Records or Rough Trade to get a list of the top-selling releases at each record storeâ€ (p. 32, Empire of Dirt by Wendy Farrow) Rough Trade was run as a cooperative by folks from the punk scene, fyi. Which leads me to my second point, â€œindieâ€ wasnâ€™t the beginning of anything.

I look at the emergence of this indie thing not as the creation of something much but as the dissolution of real independence from the big label. Keep in mind that bands like The Jesus and Mary Chain didnâ€™t hit the charts until they signed with big label subsidiaries, (1985, with Blanco y Negro Records, a sub of WEA), The Smiths were trying to dump Rough Trade as early as 1985 and Morrissey was notoriously outspoken about wanting to sign with a major label throughout his career in the band. Punk music had already proved that small labels couldnâ€™t make a dent in the music market or in the cultural scene outside of their small sub cultural corner. Music couldn’t change the world, the message of the sixties was wrong again and again.

2. inclusion: itâ€™s important to remember that even at the start, indie was criticized as a “white” affair (David Hesmondhalgh, Indie: The Institutional Politics and Aesthetics of a Popular Music Genre, Cultural Studies, vol 13 ). And think about what other genres were emerging at the time and vying for recognition: Hip Hop, Rap, House. A good discussion to continue, in my opinion, is how white is indie music now?

3. radio is key: DCâ€™s discussion on the US/UK thing really brought to mind an argument for the true history of independent music â€“ music independent of major label support and major radio play. Thatâ€™s also a crucial part of this as you all have already said. I think it goes back a lot farther. To be independent you have to have an outlet for your music and that has always been radio. And in the US, college and homespun radio stations were it. BUT, in Britain, the situation is governed by the simple fact that radio was/is (?) controlled by the government. â€œHistorically, Britain had few media outlets for music and few radio stations that played contemporary music. Until the 1960s, there were only four national radio stations, supplemented by a meager number of stations broadcasting to local regions and a varying number of pirate broadcastersâ€ (Empire of Dirt, p. 30).

In the US this situation did not exist. Radio was largely unregulated and extensively used in rural areas as well as urban centers and so independent music was more freely distributed and heard from a much earlier date. So, the argument that â€œindieâ€ music in the sense of an independent label (one independent from major label control) must be rooted in the 1930s and 1940s, when African Americans hit the airwaves with Blues and early Rock-n-Roll. Independent Rock-n-Roll labels â€œemerged as largely â€˜authenticâ€™ advocates of rock â€˜nâ€™ roll practices. In this context, independent record companies were defined through a set of beliefs about the importance of musical â€˜differenceâ€™, the declaration of an â€˜alternativeâ€™ cultural sensibilityâ€¦â€ (p. 13 Stephen Lee, Popular Music, 1995) That is the DIY that DC is talking about, the DIY that formed the basis for the punk aesthetic of both the US and UK, that spirit of resistance and unspoken refusal to be silenced by the mainstream and to remain a subculture with a larger culture of consumption.

Are we gonna say Elvis Presely is indie. No, surely not. But let’s acknowledge that Sun Records was an amazing independent label. The end.

Tart February 27, 2009 at 4:41 pm

So, indie charts/descriptions were/are always meaningless. That’s the moral of my story for the “too long to read, don’t care that much” crowd. LOL

Luis Tovar February 27, 2009 at 5:00 pm

I want to print this page out and show it to my friends. But then I remembered just linking then is faster

Drunk Country February 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Tart, now you know you’re being pedantic, don’t you, simpy so you can, in a roundabout way, agree with everything I just said?

I acknowledge the NME was at the forefront of ‘independent’ label-based music in the contemporary sense (let’s leave the likes of Sun Records etc out of this because the real point gets sidelined in favor of territorial pissing), it was them what introduced the C86 generation in the first place, but that’s not the point of what I was saying or the point of this whole thread. We’re talking about the origins of ‘indie’, which, yes, came from independent record labels in the UK borne from the DIY Punk ethic (Stiff, for example, anyone?) but don’t translate to blues or soul or hip hop or punk or anything else that’s clearly not on the radar as far as the understanding of ‘indie’ is concerned.

& yes, the ‘scene’ was criticised as being ‘white’, but again, not the point of the thread. Hip Hop/Rap was, to all intent & purpose, black for decades (let’s not count Vanilla, eh?) until Eminem came along (but, hell, who since, really, with so much impact?). So, you know, what’s your point? By stating what ‘indie’ wasn’t all you’re doing is validating what it partially was.

The point I was making concerning the difference between ‘indie’ & ‘independent’ was to make a clear definition that just because you’re on an independent label doesn’t make you ‘indie’. Even The Beatles were ‘independent’ at some point.

Which brings me to Radio. UK radio differs & differed wildly to US radio purely because of the size of the landmass. Simple as that. You guys effectively have a whole mess of countries under one boundary, where as we only have 3. Therefore it’s understandable independent stations sprung up to suit local needs.

However, once we started to realise that the BBC was never going to break out of its responsibility for ‘family’ broadcasting that’s when Pirate Radio &, in particular, Radio Caroline, came into their own. We went offshore in order to satisfy the listening demands of the non-mainstream. From there we were suddenly opened up to all kinds of music & that continues to this day (although, RC is now pretty much commercialised – but still furiously independent). John Peel cut his teeth on RC &, like a fifth column, played whatever the hell he wanted for decades on his BBC show(s). His influence spawned a ton of DJs playing non-commercial music, which spread to the TV (The Old Grey Whistle Test, for example), & eventually localised commercial radio stations sprung up everywhere. Today, local & digital & internet radios play far more of a role in music dissemination than BBC Radio 1 (although BBC Radio 2 does have some cracking shows on, too). &, p.s., it isn’t nor ever was Govt. controlled – simply regulated by broadcasting law because it receives money via a license fee, which is paid by the public.

Finally, the point I alluded to regarding the ‘independent’ chart was that for years, in whatever publication, it was the go to section to find out what had been released & by whom – simply because you hardly heard about the releases anywhere else. As soon as the majors started cross-breeding with the bands/labels it became a redundant source of information AND ruined the feeling of it being an exclusive club. This then had a knock on effect of (a) your favourite band turning up on Top Of The Pops & the general charts & (b) the NME being clever/pedantic & including independent label releases by labels/bands clearly not of an NME buying liking (Kylie & Jason, for example). The NME thought it was ironic, but it signaled the death of the rag as a serious read & the beginning of this very conversation. Which, like I said, will never ever conclude.

Tart February 27, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Ok, DC, I’ll give on the fact that we are agreeing on much, true. And I’ll leave the radio argument out, although I do think Peel might still be a strong connection to the mainstream somehow, (no time to think on that now).

However, you still stick to your argument that indie had at it’s core a pure “indie” soul of untainted independence and aesthetic that shone from an outsider position to the music industry and that became corrupted sometime in the mid 90s when some indie bands went to major labels. Do you not?

I’m arguing the opposite. “indie” never had such a pure soul, it was in and of itself the expression of exasperation with punk’s attempt at gaining this untainted independence while also hoping to influence the music industry and society. That’s why the boundaries were always blurry. Your example of Sonic Youth is good for this argument of mine, thanks! They were never really “indie” in sound, (only in label) but really more “noise” or “experimental” and only after signing with a major label were they forced into the “indie” box. But there was no box. “indie” was always just a reaction to punk or to hip hop or to house or to rap, it never had any core value and certainly no core sound like some jangly guitar stuff as many claim. If you want to make an argument for “indie” as a sound then why is it not Britpop or jangle-pop? That’s why it was so easy for “indie” to slide off into some “too produced & clean/bereft of the DIY ethic” aesthetic. It was never based on that DIY ethic in the first place. It wasn’t based on a sound, on a geographical source, on a label affiliation, but only on a subcultural reaction. And that reaction petered out quite quickly in the political climate of the mid 80s in both our countries.

It was then, about mid-90s, when the â€˜indieâ€™ chart in the NME etc. became meaningless from the point of view that (a) the once truly â€˜indieâ€™ & â€˜independentâ€™ bands featured were now directly on majors or subsidaries thereof, & (b) the music had become , associated with most â€˜indieâ€™ & independent releases, due to the asscociation of MONEY.

Tart February 27, 2009 at 6:19 pm

oops, meant to cut that last quote at the end, was using it as fodder, hahahha

Drunk Country February 27, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Tart, & this’ll be my last say on the matter, you’ve misjudged a few of my points:

(1) John Peel was anything but mainstream. Sure, he had the midas touch when it came to introducing new bands to our ears, â€” but those bands were never after mainstream fame. To be played no his show, or do a Peel Session, was accolade enough. He was a true independent, hell, maverick, spirit. I can understand your confusion on the subject as all you have is Howard Stern P

(2) I don’t argue ‘indie’ has a core or soul, I am arguing that I strongly perceive ‘indie’ as a term was born in the mid-80s under the C86 collective umbrella, which took a broad sample from a number of leftfield & fringe bands, all of whom pretty much were guitar-based, & gave them a tag by which they could be referred. It was a term that became synonymous with that type of music &, therefore, what indie really is. However, to your point: ‘indie’ was never politicised, music industry-wise or otherwise. It was purely about the music. The Wedding Present were never about anything other than fucking marvelous 100mph tunes. The Cocteau Twins were never about anything other than the beguiling & the beguiled. Etcetera & so on. I think the difference lies in that you’re seeing it from an American perspective having come to true ‘indie’ after the fact (unless, of course, you were listening to The Wedding Present, The Darling Buds, The Primitives, The Kitchens of Distinction et al back in the day – if you were, then apologies).

(3) The Jesus & Mary Chain were never ‘indie’, regardless of what label they were on. The Smiths, however, regardless of what Morrissey said about joining a major, were.

(4) I should have made it a little clearer, I never meant Sonic Youth were ‘indie’ – I meant they were on an indpependent label.

(5) Britpop is an entirely different thing to ‘indie’ – that was purely a media cooked up nonsense to (a) define Britain as a country with spikey attitude/personality-based music to counter the American dominted Grunge scene (you have to remember, Britain was suffering the media’s insistence that we were in the midst of a so-called second Summer Of Love & they needed a new Beatles & Stones angle to promote the idea), & (b) it was borne from ‘indie’ – all the bands associated with is were based in indie ethics (except maybe Oasis, but that’s a longer more dumbed down argument) & all were on independent labels. Blur’s first was 100% ‘indie’. Menswear were solid ‘indie’; My Life Story = ‘indie’. Jack = ‘indie’. Pulp had been ‘indie’ for bloody years – now there’s a perfect example of the evolved ‘sound’ for you. The Stone Roses were termed ‘baggy’ – but that was basically ‘indie’ music you could smoke pot & neck amphetamines to.

(6) Jangle-pop, as a term, doesn’t exist outside of (American) journalism & possibly blogs (although I don’t read it that often). I have never knowingly referred to anything as jangle-pop, nor have I ever read an article outside of Paste or Spin that ever uses the term (& I despise both those tabloid-esque rags). However, jangle-pop is essentially ‘indie’ in nature, but journos are afraid they’ll sound derivative by using that term. So they took the obvious route & described the guitars. & you wonder why the kids are so confused as to what they are listening to…

The fact of the matter is, ‘indie’ was born in the UK & just doesn’t translate to the US – mainly because the US didn’t even hear the ‘well known’ advocates until well after the fact. The vast majority of the bands that were 100% ‘indie’ didn’t make it past the first hurdle. Which brings me back to my point that:

Once the Americanisation of â€˜indieâ€™ had a stranglehold on the perception of what the term stood for then the musical education of subsequent generations was irrevocably tainted.

The end.

Sean February 27, 2009 at 7:17 pm

I’ll boil all of this down to a very simple truth – any attempt to categorize music into convenient labels will always result in more or less meaningless terms being created. What does ‘Alternative’ mean? What did it ever mean? Nothing. Even when it was in frequent use none of my friends could ever describe it meaningfully. U2 were ‘Alternative’ and so were NIrvana. What did they have in common? They weren’t ‘Rock’. That’s about it. ‘Indie’ may have meant something 25 years ago, but it no longer does due to overuse and misuse.

However, I’ll always side with the argument that its origin was more about an ethic than a sound or what record label you were signed to.

Tart February 27, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Oi! You really do cling to this idea that there exists a moment in history that defined a type of music and that moment was screwed up by us ‘mericans just the way we allowed The Monkees to muck about. Yes, it WAS only about the music, agreed, as everyone had already given up believing in music doing anything but be music. Yes, I WAS listening to the Weddos and some of the others, as well as our counterparts here, who were making many of the same noises at the same time, by the way. We were all caught up in the crossfire of Reagan/Thatcherism and punk was dead and goth was not here yet and metal was for the lower classes and the ignorant, and face it, “indie” was un-reflectively for white, middle-class, youth. And it was all about the music. Yes This business of “translation” is crap. It was created between and betwixt us. And there’s no pureness to any of it. There, I’ve said it plain and simple and made my horrible truths known. Throw the flames my way, you bastard, DC xoxoxoxo muuuahhh!

Sean February 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm

This is why I feared this discussion so – the inevitable mention of Menswear. The horror, the horror…

Drunk Country February 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm

I only mentioned them – didn’t say I liked them.

Sean February 27, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Yes, but even acknowledging their existence makes the angels cry.

Justin Leon February 28, 2009 at 12:02 am

This is an outstanding article.

I really couldn’t say it better myself. I began to listen to indie music a few years ago. For the most part I feel snobby whenever I have to explain why I like a certain band from England. Of course with anything it has been bastardized completely.

People try to listen to the music and dress up like hipster fucks and try to “ironic”. At the same time they are doing the opposite, just trying to fit in. I just like listening to the music and not trying to make a statement.

With that said it is depressing to find that numerous of the so called indie labels are owned by RIAA scumbags.

Jeff February 28, 2009 at 10:39 am

Discussing the semantics of the origin of the usage of the word “Indie” in relation to its modern day uses is pointless and wrong. “Punk” music got its name from a magazine, but arguing “after a certain point, *descriptive term* is not a viable term” is misleading. The word “punk”, and really, just about any musical genre term, evolved with the bands, and looking at where the usage originated doesn’t indicate what it means today.

Yes, Indie is used as a catch-all for a certain sound of music, and a pretty encompassing umbrella, but why does that mean that the term is no longer credible? If you hear an alternative music song you hadn’t heard, and an “indie” song you hadn’t heard, 9 out of 10 times you’d know which is which. And isn’t that why we label music with genres? To give us a sense of what to expect? Well, you hear the term “Indie” and you generally expect something in the realm of what you’re going to hear.

So, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Jojo September 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm: Thats exactly what I was thinking.
Reply

Tart February 28, 2009 at 11:46 am

Well Jeff, I’m of two minds on this genre thing. Genres are useful for what you just said, it helps let the reader know what to expect when she turns on the track to listen. But that’s a double edged sword as well, because as DC and I have (pedantically, yes I stand rightfully accused) outlined above, genres have histories. I actually hate the indie term because of its history, a history I lived through as an adult.

History matters, you’ll never convince me otherwise. We like or dislike music of specific genres, in part, because of where we are in our lives at the time we were exposed to them. And sometimes later in life we go back and find lost genres which is cool, but that doesn’t happen often. For that reason, I typically don’t listen to songs that are labeled indie, expecting them to be all hippy/happy with jangly guitars and goofy vocal harmonies, which when I was 21, when they first came out, seemed ridiculous in light of the experiences I was living through politically and socially. Yes, that’s a huge and awful stereotype of the music and it’s often quite wrong and you’re right to claim that it’s changed from what it started out as. But those things don’t change my aversion to the term. Play me an indie song and tell me it’s folk/pop and I’ll like it, I’m only human …. curiously, the longer I blog, the more I’m finding indie music on my radar.

But who uses genres? Only those of us who write about music as DC has said. The rest of the listening public will typically say “I listen to Radiohead and MGMT and old New York Dolls” instead of trying to lump those bands and their musical taste into any sort of cohesive kind of description. They’re much smarter than us!

Yeah, “indie” is broken, I still say let’s toss it out and keep chopping up labels to describe music so that people know what to expect. No one aligns themselves with one particular genre of music anyway. Only music bloggers try to limit themselves that way for the purposes of self-promotion. That’s what’s so cool about PMA, it’s one of the rare blogs that refuses to be boxed in. Thanks! xoxox

Luis Tovar February 28, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Thatâ€™s whatâ€™s so cool about PMA, itâ€™s one of the rare blogs that refuses to be boxed in. Thanks! xoxox

Thanks Tart! I am sort of claustrophobic…

Alexx February 28, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Can I just say… this was an amazing read. Amazing! Not just the article, but the comments as well. Especially Tart and DC – wow guys, you really know your stuff.

Zach That February 28, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Very interesting read, thanks for making it.

I work in the film industry and the same thing happened earlier this decade. There was a clear division between indie and mainstream films…then Sundance and even Slamdance now, are full of studio influence and excessive marketing.

The way I like to think of indie music is in two catagories…mainstream indie and indie. In film, mainstream Indie would be Little Miss Sunshine/Juno…films that started relatively small but then had studio backing. In music, the unknown, hip music is indie until it gathers a large following…Mainstream Indie music would be MGMT and others that hit it big but started as a buzz band around smaller circles.

I think saying Indie doesn’t exist anymore is a wrong decision…rather the music (sound) has found such a following that it is necessary to split them into two categories.

Jack February 28, 2009 at 2:52 pm

It hurts my brain to try and figure in Indie’s history. I’d rather be ignorant and call MGMT indie.

Sean February 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm

I’m in 100% agreement with Tart here – history and disposition are such a critical ingredient in our musical makeup. As a kid, I never liked or cared for the more aggressive side of punk, whether it be hardcore, screamo, etc. I just couldn’t abide it. I think that’s because I’ve never been a terribly angry guy, so I didn’t need music as a release for aggression. But I have friends who absolutely loved the stuff, and they found it very cathartic to listen to it or pogo around and mosh at live shows. It was just pointless screaming and noise for me, but for them it was a much more meaningful experience that let them sort of cleanse their souls in the process. I was a much more inwardly emotional kid, so ‘Indie’ (or whatever we want to call it) accomplished something similar for me (my sister was also crucial to my early music tastes – The Cure, Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, etc.). I usually internalized my moods as best I could, so that kind of music spoke to the ‘inner’ me. But many years later, I revisited a lot of that music and found value to it. I’m a massive punk fan all these years later, and I can even appreciate cheesey 80s metal now! I’m still not crazy about screaming, but I’m more open to it.

Ming February 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm

When someone asks me what kind of music I like I keep it simple by replying, “Anything that doesn’t suck!” Think about it.

Jack February 28, 2009 at 6:22 pm

@Ming, that’s an annoying, shitty answer! lol.

muruch March 2, 2009 at 7:43 am

This is why I usually refer to the style of music that others call “indie-rock” as “mouse rock”, because “indie” is an outdated term that people slap on any bland band that copies Modest Mouse or Death Cab. Much in the same way that “alternative” used to refer to non-grunge rock bands like Smashing Pumpkins until any non-grunge act (from Tori Amos and Bjork to Stone Temple Pilots) got shoved under the same label. It’s also a big reason why I’m more interested in reviews that describe in detail how an artist/album/song sounds as opposed to discussing just their history and lyrics with a generic genre label and mp3.

BAE March 12, 2009 at 6:15 am