Fun Stuff > BAND
Dance Music (Now with added 'name that song!')
sp2:
First, for Khar:
http://www.nothingnice.com/index.php?pageNum_Recordset2=184&totalRows_Recordset2=279
Second.
"Indie" is the single most bullshit term ever. Indie as it is colloquially used describes a certain kind of pretentiously playful poppy alternative. It has no connection to the actual label a band is on. Most of the punk scene is on independant labels. Most of the industrial scene is on independant labels. Most of the post-hardcore scene is on independant labels. Most of the electronica scene is on independant labels.
Additionally, the label a band is on means nothing about the quality of that band. I've heard shitty bands from independant labels, even beloved labels like Sub-Pop. I've heard damned good stuff that's on majors. A major label just means you have more money, more funding for equipment and touring, and your music gets advertised more, so more people end up hearing it. I doubt many of you have heard the Constantine's new album, but I bet all of you have heard something off the new Coldplay, whether or not you'll admit it.
If I want to listen to music, I want to listen to something I enjoy, that incorporates musical techniques that intrigue and inspire me. If I am inspired by certain types of music and not by others, why should I listen to the types of music that don't inspire or intrigue me? Interpol bores the shit out of me, so why should I listen to bands that sound like them? Trail of Dead, At the Drive In, and stuff like that really inspires me, so why shouldn't I listen specifically to that sort of music? And how the hell is that a marketing ploy?
kidd o:
to fault this term for the reasons you have listed is the exact argument that I've been making about all categories. Funny enough I do describe any band not connected with a major label as an Indie band. Bands that ascended to major labels but maintained creative control over their music I feel are also Indie.
Indie = Independent of control
But thats what it means for me. And because it's my interpretation of the term I'm not here to say that yours is wrong.
as for the bad/good argument I agree with you. I don't like all Indie. But the important thing is that even bad Indie is more tolerable than pre packaged fluff.
If you want to listen to music that you already enjoy why does it need a category to be placed in?? I mean do you have to give everything you listen to the litmus test to see if you're allowed to like it? You're not capable of just listening to something free of preconceptions and evaluating it?
Just to let you know I've seen all three of the bands that you've listed below and I'm proud to say I enjoy lots of bands that sound nothing alike.
the marketing thing? I don't need to get into all of that. Do some research, form your own opinion. But know that there are people out there who spend their whole lives figuring out how people think then applying that knowledge to the construction of music in order to satisfy people of designations that they’ve created.
sp2:
A) Independant music is no more genuine than music on a major label. not all Major label artists are Britney Spears. There are plenty of perfectly talented and genuine artists that are on majors, and they have just as much to offer to the scene.
B) Marketing and distribution are a double-edged sword. There are many albums I spend months to years looking for in vain because indie labels tend to have limited distribution and limited pressings. While some indie releases are rereleased, many you have to find used (which is a very hit-or-miss operation) or you need to shell out $50 on ebay for the album. Or downloading, which isn't an option for those of us without broadband. You can claim that this makes a band "sellouts" but if the band really cares about their music, they'll negotiate for full creative control (look at, for example, the Mars Volta, who produced their sophomore LP themselves without any say from Universal), and plenty of indie labels still have other people produce a band's music for them. There are plenty of bands on major labels with more creative control than bands on indie labels. As for marketing, mostly it's to say "hey, this band has a new album out." No one's saying "oh dude, listening to the new Foo Fighters album is going to make you 10 times more attractive." I only wish that I could be informed about upcoming albums by various independant bands that I enjoy, often that information is buried deep in the news posts of a very spartan website (apparently, for example, Pretty Girls Make Graves are recording a new album, but you wouldn't know this unless you really looked for it). Honestly, I wish that many of my favorite independant bands were on bigger labels; they'd tour more, play more all-ages (not a big deal for me, as I'm an adult, but more an issue for other folks), and their albums would be more accessible. Music should be about the music, and good stuff shouldn't be so damned hard to get ahold of. Good music is not good because it is esoteric, it is good because it is good.
As for genres, I don't have broadband. I don't have other free unlimited access to music. So I sometimes have to shell out $10+ for an album on faith. I would rather spend that knowing that they play a style of music that I tend to enjoy rather than just being told "oh, they're good." There are plenty of bands other people have told me are awesome that I think are talentless trash (Interpol, for example), or are decent, but I want to break the CD because it's boring as shit (Sigor Ros comes to mind). If the band focuses on the technical aspects that I find inspiring and plays a style I enjoy listening to, even if it's subpar, I'll probably get a lot of pleasure out of the CD, guilty pleasure, certainly, but pleasure nonetheless. But if they focus on things I find completely banal and play a style I find completely lame, I will probably not listen to that CD and I will have wasted a bunch of money. Are you beginning to get my point here?
Anyone's going to go into music with certain tastes. There are things I enjoy in music. There are things that I find obnoxious. There are things that I get distracted by and things that I find absolutely inspiring, be it specific instrumentals, style, or lyrics (and by inspiring, I mean that I'm in a band and it opens up new ideas for composition and such for me). There are other forms of music that just do nothing for me. No matter how much I listen to Postal Service, I'm still going to hate it, and I'm going to get nothing out of it. This isn't because I'm narrowing my tastes based on genre, but because I fucking hate that style of music, it makes me want to kick the shit out of someone, and I find it totally bland. So once again, why should I listen to something just like Postal Service if I hate that shit? And why shouldn't I listen to something like BearvsShark if that leaves me feeling happy and excited and I can't wait to get back to my bass because I've seen someone do something new with a style I like a lot, and that makes me want to try new stuff?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version