Indie Music & Its Place In Rock History

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Screwtape2

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
18,353
Location
Omaha, Nebraska “With Screwtape on Kettle Dr
My problem with most books on popular music is that they ignore entire genres and only cover radio friendly artists. So my question to you is this:

Will Indie music and artists from the genre be remembered in books that cover rock history 10 or 20 years from now?
 
Bands that have broke through to the mainstream like Death Cab for Cutie and Arcade Fire will be remembered.

What will be remembered most is how the internet, in all of its hype-inducing glory, pushed these small bands into the limelight.
 
Probably. There were tons of Indy bands from the 70s and 80s that get mentioned today. The whole hardcore movement (Black Flag, Minor Threat, Bad Brains) never got into the mainstream, but they're still cited as influences. THe Pixies and Jane's Addiction were never mainstream per se (Been Caught Stealing, I guess got through) but they're still considered leaders of the Alt scene. Same with Television, Husker Du, The Replacements. Tons of others.

Maybe you're reading books written on the genre of mainstream music?
 
A lot of the "independent" bands of yore were appropriated into the mainstream in some way, shape, or form. Usually, they were lumped together as geographical, flash-in-the-pan subgenres like "Grunge", the "Manchester Scene", and "Menudo". Within a few years, there will probably be some category to reference Canadian alternative rock Big Bands with Violins and Wailing, or the post-punk, neo-Manchesterians like Bloc Party and The Futureheads. Bands of this type will always be remembered by their peer group, but rarely will anyone (except obscure folks) reference them individually. If they don't register in the public consciousness now, there's very little chance that they will reverberate in the future... in books or other media.
 
Screwtape2 said:

Will Indie music and artists from the genre be remembered in books that cover rock history 10 or 20 years from now?

Depends on who writes the books. :shrug:
 
I'm writing a book about this, seriously, it will be out on July, probably

I wish I had better English to traslate some of the texts
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
Bands that have broke through to the mainstream like Death Cab for Cutie and Arcade Fire will be remembered.

Do you really consider them having broken through to the mainstream? Because I know that most of my friends and family would have no clue who they are.
 
I wouldn't consider Arcade Fire mainstream, at least not yet. But Death Cab For Cutie gained considerable airplay for the first time in their career with "Soul Meets Body", so I'd say they are in the process.
 
Amongst "cool" people who actually have ears and fingers that can click on a MySpace or an NME or a Pitchfork or a Facebook or a Last.FM website then yes....death cab and arcade fire ARE mainstream...the problem is the age gap. Older people are scared of computers and dont take the time to look up whats going on in the music scene. Because as much as I hate the terms "indie" and "hipster" they really are the buzz words in todays music scene. The rock and roll groups that are set to take the world on fire go by the names of 'Arctic Monkeys', 'Arcade Fire', 'Bloc Party', 'The View', and 'Kings of Leon'....and they are all "indie bands in their 20's. Peace.
 
Bonochick said:


Do you really consider them having broken through to the mainstream? Because I know that most of my friends and family would have no clue who they are.

I think Death Cab has broken through, at least with most kids my age.

Arcade Fire, yeah, you got me there.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Indie is a term that's often misused and abused.

It's not a genre!

Amen to that!!!

What really bothers me is people who only will listen to independent artist and as soon as it becomes mainstream they won't have anything to do with them.

I think people like that just like to think they are cooler than everyone else because they liked them before they were popular. I don't have my ear enough to the ground on those things and I hear them in usually the second wave of popularity. Does that make me less of a fan if I hear it later than others?

I think not
 
Screwtape2 said:
My problem with most books on popular music is that they ignore entire genres and only cover radio friendly artists. So my question to you is this:

Will Indie music and artists from the genre be remembered in books that cover rock history 10 or 20 years from now?

books on poplular music , what a waste of time ,
you listen , you know what you like
 
mediaman44 said:


Amen to that!!!

What really bothers me is people who only will listen to independent artist and as soon as it becomes mainstream they won't have anything to do with them.

I think people like that just like to think they are cooler than everyone else because they liked them before they were popular.
I totally agree.It's a form of snobbery in my opinion.I remember when i was at school in the mid-eighties (in the U.K.) it was realy uncool to like U2 as they played bigger venues than some backstreet pub ,so of course they must have 'sold out to the MAN'.The irony is of course that the bigger a band gets the more say they have in there direction and some of the small bands do exactly what there told to get a record deal.
 
Arcade Fire concerts sold out in 2 minutes and their album debuted at number 2 on the billboard chart. i'd say that's at least relatively to extremely mainstream..
 
When will people realize that Indie has nothing to do with popularity? It's just a label...literally.
 
indie means different things to different people.
but there is definitely an 'indie' subculture, which makes it relatively real if difficult to define.. and what isn't difficult to define. nothing! nothing's not difficult to define, that's what.
 
Indie is... A state of mind... I guess Indie music can be famous too... There is a lot of indie culture around nowadays and not only in terms of music... Clothes, the way some people face life, books...

I consider Arcade Fire an Indie rock band, and their populary has something to do with that too... they know how to use that status and they do it almost perfectly.

Belle & Sebastian is a great band wich I consider Indie too... They're not near as popular as Arcade but there are a lot of people who love their childlike style.

There's also The Fiery Furnaces, even The Killers, in spite of the great popularity, they have Indie influencies, and I think they'll be in history of music...

So yeah... I think Indie Music can be in history but they will not be reported as that because Indie is not a music genre, it's many other things...
 
SkeeK said:
Arcade Fire concerts sold out in 2 minutes and their album debuted at number 2 on the billboard chart. i'd say that's at least relatively to extremely mainstream..
Rabid fanbase + digital sales + small concert venues. It's manufactured hype, from one way of looking at it. It's not intentional, of course, but Neon Bible dropped from #2 like a rock after the first week of sales. It's a very telltale statistic.
 
As far as I'm concerned you're "Indie" if you're signed to an Independent label, and you're not if you aren't. Simple as that. At least as far as artists are concerned. And I don't really buy into the whole "Indie subculture" bullshit either.
 
Back
Top Bottom