Minimalism has always been a huge component, and being great friends with the other guys in your band is equally important. I could go on…

Indie is an ethos first and foremost… more than a label or a sound it is artists that are creating beyond influence (if that is possible.) But, it is at least attempted.

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.

Thanks Tart! I am sort of claustrophobic…

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

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?

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.

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.

(1) John Peel was anything but mainstream. Sure, he had the midas touch when it came to introducing new bands to our ears, — 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 ‘indie’ had a stranglehold on the perception of what the term stood for then the musical education of subsequent generations was irrevocably tainted.

The end.

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 ‘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 , associated with most ‘indie’ & independent releases, due to the asscociation of MONEY.