mainstream confusion

As a nexus of aficionados, how do you folks feel about this definition, in tomorrow's NY Times:

"Indie pop is literate, low-fidelity, oft-downbeat music that doesn’t sell very well and is usually distributed by undercapitalized independent record labels."

the same piece calls "the Velvet Underground — the ur-indie band."
(Just for the record, the closest VU got to "an undercapitalized independent record label" was the venerable Verve, at the time owned by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (a forerunner of indie film, perhaps?))

That is such a widely held misconception it may as well be true. My guess is when people think of "Indie" in film and music - they think "Independent Thinking." It is almost synonumous with non-mainstream.

Generally, I view "indie" as anything not released on a major label. To me, that's about as far as the label "indie-pop" (or "indie-rock") can really go, in describing the music itself. The music covers too broad a stylistic range for me to try to describe it.

I always liked Christgau's term "semi-pop," which he applied to music that didn't (or couldn't) reach a wide audience, but was still pop enough to be accessible to a "mainstream" listener, if only said listener got the chance to hear it. (I'm pretty sure the Dean coined that one.)

Not an Artic Monkeys fan, but I‘ll paraphrase ‘em:

Whatever people say indie is, that's what it isn't.

I almost feel that to be true. It’s a totally subjective label / genre / sound / style / business philosophy / economic model / mindset / etc / etc / etc.

About the only explanation or definition I've ever felt cozy offering up concerning "indie" is that it's more the musical equivalent of a home-cooked meal than the fast-food, mainstream options. That's about it. I make no distinction about the status of the issuing label (as distribution chicanery can very quickly muddy those waters) or the sound. It can be literate, lo-fi and downbeat. But it doesn’t have to be. For every Clientele, there is a Pizzicato Five. Is one more indie than the other? I know I dig the former and loath the latter, but both are basically what I'd term "indie."

As far as the other bit, I do tend to think that the Velvet Underground are (or were) one of the major points in the indie-rock firmament. The Indie Ur-band? That's a bit much. Just a bit. Might it be more accurate to say that the band (or your regard for them) is a generational shibboleth? It seems like back when I was an impressionable youngster, just about everyone who wasn't playing hardcore (or noodling with synths) was referencing the Velvets in one way or another. In fact, it got to be a little "de rigueur." Yawn.

Basically, it still (for me) goes right back to ... homemade meatloaf / chili / what-have-you. It's delicious and nutritious and satisfying. I love it. I do not (and would not) expect the rest of the world to be lining up at lunch hour to buy a serving. That would be weird and inconvenient. Let the rest of the world eat McDonalds for lunch while listening to (insert crap du jour here).

Anyone born in and raised on McDonalds, by the way? I'd love to hear your take on this.

...

If by some miracle, Madonna snuck a sad, lo-fi demo tape of songs about Bukowski into the Matador catalog (and it didn‘t sell but a measly few thousand copies), would it qualify as “indie” by default? I think not. “Material Grrl?”

When the Butthole surfers “moved” up to a major label, did they become "not-indie" by default? More like fast food? I shudder to think of it.

"I’ll have the Boiled McDove!”

...

Trying to define "indie" is somewhat akin to asking:

“What is ETHICAL music?”

Hours of fun, but … c’mon.

Low-fidelity? - I'm pretty sure some stuff hoping to fall into that category these days would more likely be overproduced.

From Hollowbody Kay ..."Basically it still (for me) goes right back to... homemade meatloaf ...."


Meat Loaf read this and thanks you for giving him some independent, literate cred. He always knew he was smart.



Post Edited (06-28-09 10:01)

The first sentence is obviously too broad, and the second sentence fragment certainly could have conveyed the notion of VU being a stylic progenitor of some indie groups more precisely.

Perhaps some of us here are a bit more careful about circumscribing our subjects than some glib music critics...?

After reading the article, I believe the writer had an axe to grind, and it wasn't with indie pop or the Velvets...the contempt he feels for Murdoch is palpable throughout.

I also found the line "writing sad songs can mean a harsh life" kind of interesting. Mightn't it not be the other way around? A harsh life means writing sad songs? Sure seems like that might have been the case for the two individuals trotted out as ur-mopes - Nick Drake and Morrissey.

Drake suffered from clinical depression, which is a medical condition and not likely a result of writing mopey poetry, and there's plenty of contention around the fact the idea that he committed suicide, as the writer emphatically states as fact - two of the people closest to Drake, his sister and Joe Boyd, are convinced that it was an accidental overdose on an anti-depressant that was still new to him at the time.

And Morrissey grew up gay and outrageously smart and clever, qualities that will still get a kid beaten up on a regular basis, and was most likely worse in the 70s, when even Elton John and Freddie Mercury still found it in their best interest to be coy about their sexuality rather than open about it.

I'm probably reading too much into that single line, but it just struck me wrong as I read it.

sounds like the guy ira quoting 'indie' is pissed just cause his film got rejected solely on the soundtrack.

like duh, L is for LOSER.



Post Edited (07-01-09 22:59)