Billy Corgan Rips Indie a New Asshole - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-11-2005, 12:49 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,640
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Basstrap
I don't think he's being fair
many 'indie' artists have tons of focus and talent but they're music can't be accepted on a mainstream level.

I think he's talking more to the bands who conciously avoid the mainstream, the ones that preach about the dangers of the mainstream.

I think he's exactly right. I think the whole "indie" attitude is bullshit posturing.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-11-2005, 04:42 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I think he's talking more to the bands who conciously avoid the mainstream, the ones that preach about the dangers of the mainstream.

I think he's exactly right. I think the whole "indie" attitude is bullshit posturing.
Considering what is mainstream/popluar in music, TV, movies (granted I haven't seen all that many movies lately, but I haven't been temped by much either), and art, I don't feel that avoiding pandering to the masses is a bad thing at all.

If the type of dreck the masses want is your forte, I say good for you -- go for it. You'll probably be very happy and make lots of people happy too.

However, the following quote describes the "indie attitude" which suits me perfectly:

Quote:

For Kilbey, the Church is an exercise that requires nothing beyond the purity of the music. He believes in the purity.

“In this world, although most people are eating at McDonald’s and Burger King, there’s always a few people that want to go to that little restaurant that serves nice food they actually cook themselves using fresh ingredients and love and care. Even though most people don’t want that … That’s where the Church comes in. We are not a huge fucking corporate concern. We love what we do … Especially in America, in each big city, there’s always 500 people that want to hear something that somebody cares about."

"For me, I would rather listen to nice music and eat nice food. There are people out there that don’t. They want McDonald’s and Slayer. What can I say? That’s just the way is.”

BTW, The Church fits my definition of indie, which is: unsigned band/musician or signed to a truly independent label (not an "indie" subsidiary of a major) and distributed by an independent distributor. (they have been on major labels earlier on in their career (not in the past 10 years or so though), but it was never a really good fit and for the most part they hated it -- and also got royally screwed financially. ) Hell, I don't even think they have a manager.... As for "indie cred," actually caring about the music they make and only putting out work they like and are proud of (at least at the time -- we're all entitled to look back and say "what were we thinking?" even musicians ), with little regard for the commercial viability gets a big thumbs up from me. The quality of the work, not the salability, must be paramount (for me anyway). If a band can achieve both, great. But quality trumps quantity for me any day.

So I think much of what you think of "indie cred" depends on how you define "indie." While there certainly are many poseurs who call themselves "indie" there are also many absolutely genuinely independent "indies" about.

As for Corgan -- I guess he really is mainstream.... I had to google him to figure out who the hell he is.
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 06-11-2005, 08:43 PM   #18
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,640
Local Time: 07:04 PM
The Church did have a time when they were in the mainstream.

I think there's a huge difference in pandering to the mainstream and having the mainstream come to you.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-11-2005, 08:47 PM   #19
Refugee
 
bollox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,315
Local Time: 01:04 AM
lol, yeah billy! next he should resume his beef with stephen malkmus! he has a point too, in 20 years the only people who will care about pavement will be some aging hipster assholes
__________________
bollox is offline  
Old 06-11-2005, 10:33 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:04 PM
me like beer
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 06-11-2005, 10:35 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
yeah the Church is evidence of a greater symptom of the problem.

When Under the Milkyway was a hit, they were all about the mainstream, now, nobody wants to buy their shit, their label drops them and suddenly they are "indie". The truth is they are probably the same guys trying to just make music for a living, when they got hot, they were bigger, now they aren't. Now they are explaing away their lack of popularity.

So it's Big deal, live for the music, live only about the music, then why do you still try to sell it to so many people?

If you are on the small label, you dont get to so many listeners, but you suddenly have credibilty. I fyou are on bigger indie labels, you ar eseen as the next big thing. It's all a ruse, bullshit.

If you are selling your music to people, on any type of regular basis you have no more credibility than Britney Spears.

I am not saying I don't like the Church, they are just the one example to use in this thread. I am saying if they are so "indie" then why dont they just give up and play gigs for nobody for no charge. They still cut albums and try to make a buck.

Okay fine, it's their living, then then they are seliing their soul no more or less than Britney Spears, everyting else is image and attitude.

This is the crux. It comes down to images and attitudes.
Go over to the Radiohead forums and try comon sense, they actually get offended.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 06-11-2005, 10:38 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
me like beer
Me too. WTF are you doing?
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 06-12-2005, 12:44 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bollox
lol, yeah billy! next he should resume his beef with stephen malkmus! he has a point too, in 20 years the only people who will care about pavement will be some aging hipster assholes
in 20 years nobody will know about Elliott Smith, the Flaming Lips, and hundreds of other bands. that doesn't make them any less good
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 06-12-2005, 01:01 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Originally posted by U2DMfan
yeah the Church is evidence of a greater symptom of the problem.

When Under the Milkyway was a hit, they were all about the mainstream, now, nobody wants to buy their shit, their label drops them and suddenly they are "indie". The truth is they are probably the same guys trying to just make music for a living, when they got hot, they were bigger, now they aren't. Now they are explaing away their lack of popularity.

So it's Big deal, live for the music, live only about the music, then why do you still try to sell it to so many people?

If you are on the small label, you dont get to so many listeners, but you suddenly have credibilty. I fyou are on bigger indie labels, you ar eseen as the next big thing. It's all a ruse, bullshit.

If you are selling your music to people, on any type of regular basis you have no more credibility than Britney Spears.

I am not saying I don't like the Church, they are just the one example to use in this thread. I am saying if they are so "indie" then why dont they just give up and play gigs for nobody for no charge. They still cut albums and try to make a buck.

Okay fine, it's their living, then then they are seliing their soul no more or less than Britney Spears, everyting else is image and attitude.

This is the crux. It comes down to images and attitudes.
Go over to the Radiohead forums and try comon sense, they actually get offended.

They are on an independent label, with independent distribution -- yep that is indie. I did make a notation in my earlier post that they had been on major labels earlier in their career, but were now (the past ten or so years) on an independent label with independent distribution.

Is it so hard to believe that some people are really quite content doing what they love and making enough to get by without wanting to appeal to the masses?

They don't need to explain away their lack of popluarity, it's quite simple -- most people don't want to hear the music they make. But because they love what they do they make it anyway and they sell it to those interested in it. No big publicity push, no big hype. Just selling their music to people interested enough to buy it.

Loving the music more than the money doesn't mean they must give their music away. What it does mean is that they don't make music merely to sell -- their primary goal when they make the music isn't to move so many units -- it is to make a song they love. And they figure if they love it, there will be enough people out there who will also love it so they can pay the rent for another few months (and then make more music). Sales don't determine for them whether or not the music is good.

You talk about attitude, but when I tell you their attitude is "we make the music we like and some people will probably like it and buy it" you claim they are selling their souls. Just how is that selling their souls? They aren't altering the songs one iota to make a sale -- it's the music they like, exactly how they want it to sound.

Quote:
I am saying if they are so "indie" then why dont they just give up and play gigs for nobody for no charge.
Well.... if they are playing for nobody they are playing for no charge.... And at the prices they charge for tickets their gigs are practically free.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 08:50 AM   #25
Acrobat
 
TheRooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hiding out in the big city blinking
Posts: 391
Local Time: 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bollox
lol, yeah billy! next he should resume his beef with stephen malkmus! he has a point too, in 20 years the only people who will care about pavement will be some aging hipster assholes
I'd rather be an aging (as we all are anyway) hipster asshole than a 40 year old clinging to their twenties when their music was popular, ie. disco and soon to be 90s dance.

I don't want my bands to get popular because I don't want to share my music with people who watch American Idol and have Eminem or Justin Timberlake in their CD collection. I'll be the elitist and say that they cannot appreciate the bands that I enjoy. They won't be able to understand the subtleties to the music all they want is the sha-lalalalas to sing along to with their friends on the way to their next drunken binge. What I have noticed is that after bands make it big they push to make their sound more maintstream to reach a larger audience, they want more success and they usually lose their sound that made them unique and good. I have no problem admitting that I rarely like bands as they get more popular. There are a few exceptions. So I'm an elitist asshole to many of you, but at least I've got some good music to listen to that I don't have to share with the ignorant masses.
__________________
TheRooster is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 09:38 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 10:34 PM
I listened to Billy's solo album (it leaked) and I must say it is not very good at all.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 09:47 AM   #27
Acrobat
 
OnFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 386
Local Time: 01:04 AM
That is pretty funny and I'm sure mostly true but it's true from the perspective of an artist that has acheived mainstream success in the past. To get an idea of what it's like to be an unknown going the indie route or trying to acheive mainstream success, go check out the movie Dig!
__________________
OnFire is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 09:47 AM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:04 PM
I've thought of taking up the electric guitar. Anyway, if I ever bother to do that and ever bother to get any good and if I had a band, I'd make my own music and be done with it. If I make a lot of fans or none at all, it wouldn't bother me.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 09:50 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheRooster
I don't want my bands to get popular because I don't want to share my music with people who watch American Idol and have Eminem or Justin Timberlake in their CD collection.
Hmmm...funny, my sister listens to a lot of Justin Timberlake, Eminem, and "American Idol" stuff, and yet she also likes many a deeper, lesser-known artist, too. I distinctly remember her saying she liked a couple of Radiohead songs, she likes U2's music (they're not lesser-known, but they've certainly had many a deep song), she likes a lot of classic rock songs, etc., etc. Why assume that just because somebody listens to Justin Timberlake they're automatically a stupid person who won't get the deeper lyrics from another artist?

Sorry, I just personally think musical elitism is rather silly. I hate the idea of putting music into little cliques and saying so-and-so can't hang out with/listen to this artist because they aren't from their genre, their music isn't "deep enough" (and yet again I bring up this argument: I love songs with deep lyrics as much as the next person. I think a great deal of my music collection is full of artists who have depth to their lyrics.

But can somebody PLEASE explain to me when this thought process came around that songs with not-so-deep lyrics should automatically be considered bad? I really don't understand that, and I'd really like to know what exactly is so bad about those kinds of songs. It's totally your right to call them bad, yes, but I just don't get WHY).

And besides that, if you think that the popular music people are listening to now is so stupid, I would think you'd WANT your favorite artists to become more exposed, so that people can listen to something intellectual for a change.

You're totally entitled to your opinions. I just personally don't agree at all with the idea of musical elitism and the stuff that comes along with it. And I don't like the idea of stereotyping people based on the music they listen to, either.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 06-13-2005, 09:53 AM   #30
Acrobat
 
OnFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 386
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I've thought of taking up the electric guitar. Anyway, if I ever bother to do that and ever bother to get any good and if I had a band, I'd make my own music and be done with it. If I make a lot of fans or none at all, it wouldn't bother me.

Melon
Dude, just fucking do it man! What are you waiting for? I picked up an acoustic just over 3 years ago and bought the eMedia begining guitar software which you can probably get on Ebay for $15-20. A decent electric or acoustic is going to cost about $350 new but you can get a functional acoustic for around $100.

Now, I just wished I started alot sooner, it changes the way you listen to music.
__________________

__________________
OnFire is offline  
 

Tags
billy corgan, zwan

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com