Is Indie becoming the next rock?
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
I feel, at least, that Indie music has really taken over the last few years. It's my favorite for several reasons but to name a few:
-it's not the music they play on the radio that you'll get sick of in a month because you hear it every 20 minutes.
-you discover some really great artists before they become main stream.
-the sound can be anything from edgy to mellow to electric, a wide range of sound in just one genre
-they tour to many cities more often so you get to see your favorite bands live in a more intimate setting
One reason I think it's taking over is because many of the artists play at these big festivals like ACL and Lollapalooza and you're starting to hear these artists more and more on the radio.
So...
Is Indie becoming the next Rock or is what I am describing purely the definition of Indie music? Is Indie those artists that play at the festivals for cheap so someone will discover them and put them on a well known record label? Are Indie artists the ones I'm listening to now and if they are successful, you will hear them in 2 - 4 years? What do you think?
I going to go out on a limb here and say that Indie is different from mainstream Rock, not the next wave. Indie bands play more complex stuff, and this keeps them out of the mainstream (at least by the thinking of the industry).
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
What about Arcade Fire?
I'll try it. But to me, not being mainstream isn't a problem.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Music types and categories are primarily for radio programers (and clerks stocking music stores.)
With the amalgamation of the airwaves and reduction in places to buy CDs there are far fewer clerks and programers so these categories have less purpose.
It getting to the point where labels and genres limit a band's audience rather than define or focus their marketing efforts.
YMMV or course...
:roll:
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
I think Steven's last point is big. The problem is finding new music that is interesting. Categories don't help much. I suspect "Indie" is a valiant endeavor to create a category for worthwhile music that isn't super popular.
I see your point. I'll have to think more about it before I can respond!
While I agree most categories are created for selling, marketing, and radioplay purposes, with indie, you are talking about not only music but a certain set of credentials, properties, attitudes, and behaviors associated with a large subculture.
To ask "Is Indie Becoming the Next Rock?" misses the point entirely. It's a very complex issue, but the very definition of indie intentionally avoids the mainstream.
Music has been fragmenting ever since the early 90s and has only escalated in the time since. There is nothing that is going to prevent it from continuing to do so. That is the biggest separation of mainstream vs. everything else.
Think about it: If you were an artist, why would you sign with a major label today? The only reason is to try and become a huge star. There will always be artists that opt for that route, but they are increasingly fewer, and most of the established artists are in the process of finishing up their label contracts and going it alone. That in itself, to an extent, is indie. The lines continue to blur.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
Like ka33ka, I had to think about this a bit more. While I said categories don't help much, on the other hand sometimes they are all we have as consumers to try to find something new and good. BG's point that the business keeps fragmenting is why we need better category labels to help us wade through the complexity. In that sense I think indie as a label may be helpful.
What I'm struggling with is that the only options for finding new stuff we seem to have (other than categories) are "people like you also bought band X" and "This is a lot like some band you like". Those can be good, but sometimes miss. So, I'd like all three. But I'd really like these last two within broad categories like indie.
I don't fully agree that indie is just "non major label artists". You need add "within the broad rock/pop genre".
First, I agree with the statement "Indie" is a valiant eneavor to create a category for worthwhile music that isn't super popular...to mainstream listeners.
While I also don't agree with Indie being classified as "non major label artists" because a lot of the music you hear being classified as the Indie genre are in fact signed to labels...usually not major labels but they still have a label.
I don't think I missed the point entirely on asking "Is Indie becoming the next Rock," maybe I didn't explain myself. I'm just wondering is the trend going to become listening to all these "unknown" artists. Is it going to become the next wave of how we listen to music? Is what many people think of as popular music today called ROCK but we will soon be calling it INDIE. Based on the points I have listed above, are people going to fall out of the mainstream? Are people going to start joining this large subculture you already speak of?
Or is it simply the fact that the music I'm listening to today (as I consider myself in this Indie cutlure), in 2 - 4 years if the band is successful, signs with a label, becomes mainstream and there you have it...A Rock/Pop artist is born...they change their sound to fit into the label and no longer are they Indie and I no longer "appreciate" what they do for the music scene. (Incubus and Maroon 5 are 2 bands that give a good example of doing their own very creative thing and changing their sound based on becoming mainstream)
I don't believe the artists that are finishing up their label contracts and going alone are "Indie." They are no longer with label which yes, is the definition of Independent artists but just because you don't have a label doesn't put you into the Indie genre.
Sure, indie artists have labels. There are hundreds of indie labels, Sub Pop, Merge, Drag City, Thrill Jockey, Ipecac, Touch & Go being among the most well-known and respected--at least in the "rock" category.
Your other questions seem to be slightly albeit unintentionally contradictory: What is the definition of "unknown"? Just because The Hold Steady or Tortoise or Silver Jews aren't played on the radio, are they unknown? I'd argue not.
It seems that you're asking what the next mainstream rock will be. I don't believe there is one. As I stated in a previous post, music is too fragmented for that to happen again. The days of the world-beating bands like GNR or Pearl Jam or Smashing Pumpkins--and with those, I'm referring to the early 90s, not their present state--are done for myriad reasons.
And I think many artists have fallen out of the mainstream that were or perhaps still mistakenly are considered mainstream acts. Most of these artists got axed from the labels because they didn't sell enough and some are now making good music on smaller labels.
Finally, I agree with you: Just because you don't have a label doesn't put you in the indie genre. But that can make you an indie artist. There's a difference. I.E., Radiohead might be a mainstream band but I know of no better example of an indie artist.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback