Bands these days are classed as indie these days based on the bands they cite as influences and the way they dress. There only difference between McFly and the Pigeon Detectives is that McFly are better.
pointless article. seems like an excuse to just name and shame "landfill" indie bands. some of which, incidently, the Independent have given quite a few column inches to in the past, so, you know, they should get out of their glass house.
The whole article seems to be based on a conversation the writer had with Andrew Collins. Hardly a man with his finger on the pulse, as he is best known these days for appearing as a talking head making sarcastic unfunny comments on "I love the eighties" (and that was a few years ago).
other than it doesn't look beyond the mainstream. It conflates the entire indie scene with chart indie acts, but as far as it goes it sounds about right to me.
It's just a mindless rant about how "great the 80's were." No-one is ever going to be able to break through if all people ever talk about is how great bands used to be, and then complain that bands aren't making "original" music.
WELL YOU EVIDENTLY DON'T WANT ORIGINAL MUSIC, YOU WANT EXACTLY THE SAME MUSIC AS TWENTY YEARS AGO BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU EVER TALK ABOUT.
that's indicative the age of current journalists. i'm sure if i was in their position i'd be going on about how great electroclash and no name was in fifteen year's time.
But I'm going to be studying journalism at university starting next year and I'd like to think that if/when I become a proper music journalist like I'd like to be, then I wouldn't be like that.
It can't be THAT hard to keep up to date with modern music, can it?
I think it will be easier for our generation because we can keep a better track of it. We've grown up as the "internet/e-communication" generation and thus we can keep tabs on stuff a lot better and hence why a lot of peoples opinions can be dictated by websites like this and Pitchfork.
The age of most of these journalists just missed that, just that little bit too old and saw a revolution that was aimed at an age group just below them, hence their tired and tried and probably sexless rants that they think is relevant.
but its a classic thing, like in the lollapalooza episode of the simpsons, grandpa's rant about "I used to be with it, then they changed what IT was, now what's IT is out, and what IT is seems wierd and scary to me"
its wholly possible some massive cultural/technological event will happen in the next ten years which will leave us behind and go on about how "no one's as innovative as Radiohead anymore"
there are blatant flaws in this article (like the arctic monkeys and calling blur by blur ''american''), the author does actually have a point. yes it over-emphasised but ''independence'' in music is very limited and theres an influx of bullshit bands atm. sorta like the over-saturated pop market a few years back in this country.
that was probably the whingiest piece of turd I've ever read.
Everyone knows Britian is overblown and bastardised in every aspect, how is this news?
Anyway, surely if he had a clue he could make reference points like how both British Sea Power (a UK INDIE BAND! SHOCK!) and Fleet Foxes (and possibly a few others) both managed to get to the number #11 spot in the UK album charts witch pretty much no mainstream attention or hype.
British music sucks, everyone knows this already, shut up.
Thats article is a load of bollocks! Interesting read though.
Sounds like the writer is just being lazy for the sake of having something to write about. If they could be arsed to look past the charts there's tons on inspirational music being made that i guess you could describe as 'indie'.
Yep. My thought's too. I run a little record label, so do loads of people I know. We do it for fun & are never gonna make any money from it, but the stuff we release we really love. But according to this article we don't even exist, apparently. The simple fact is that this article is aimed at the type of people who buy mainstream chart band 'indie' and are not remotely interested in new music of an alternative kind anyway. Journalism eats itself.
I mean all this new indie=bad, old indie=good is bollocks and he pretty much contradicts himself by listing some of the semi-forgotten rubbish of yesteryear (sleeper et al). Was indie really that much better 10 years ago? Blur, Pulp and Oasis excepted probably not.
The bit about 'firework bands' is spot on though. This happened during Britpop, Grunge and probably countless other scenes too so I guess it's nothing new, indie is just a little bit more mainstream now. The problem is that the scene has relied, since probably the Strokes, on having a new massive band each year to keep the interest going - Libertines, Franz, Kaiser Chiefs, Killers, Arctic Monkeys etc. I might not like all those bands but they are all pretty good pop groups and all big enough to shift their not-quite-as-good second albums. Funny how many of those have been on indie labels. This last couple of years there hasn't been anyone emerge on that scale so the scene is running out of oxygen. The Glasto and T coverage this year has looked really tired and journalists are starting to notice it.
except what he didn't do was bring attention to GOOD current indie bands. Instead, it was all about 'how good it was back in the day'. And indie may have been great in the 80's, but indie is great NOW. Actual indie, and he's failing to recognise that there's always been a whole load of shite bands hogging the charts, people like music that's easy to listen to and it's always going to be that way.
The current "indie" scene is burning out fast, but this has happened with a million other scenes before, and it's going to happen again. It's just that indie happens to have been the genre that became fashionable this time!
Soon everybody will be listening to something else, and the scene will produce some good and a lot of shite bands, and we'll all continue to get on with things.
If we end up with 20 years of Tory government, it'll be The Pigeon Detectives' fault."
basically we were in the same shitfest ten years ago ,when it were all travis/stereophonics crap everywhere.
then the strokes happened,and,to a lesser extent ,electroclash.the bigger question here is could that ever happen again,given that the way we consume music has changed so much this century?
will there ever be another nirvana?
This might be some slightly dodgy recall on my part, but from what I can remember, when Is This It first came out it got a ton of 7/10 "good, but not as good as we had hoped" reviews, and the album only began to get pushed as a modern classic when Room on Fire came out, and the massed 'they' (wink, smiley face ect.) wanted to file their standard 7/10 "good but not as good as the first" reviews. And of course, the critical view on Fire improved when First Impressions came out...
Personally when it comes to The Strokes I'm relatively ambivilant - a few quite nice songs, but never anything that special - but they only seem to have become an official Big Thing to fill an otherwise gaping void (and yes, the music scene at the moment has many fantastic bands - so far, 2008's been an incredible year for debuts and albums in general). I read that article a few hours ago, and while it isn't exactly watertight, it's main thrust seems pretty nail-on-the-head stuff to me, and it's a good sign that even the journos are getting a little bored of all this now...
I read this before, and although it doesn't say anything I haven't thought in the last five to ten years, and neglects to mention any of the decent stuff still lurking under the surface. It still has a point about the sheer ammount of useless landfill/firework indie bands clogging up the world at the moment.Although you could argue that most of them aren't indie as we knew it. We still need a holoucaust of such acts....
- Claiming that in order to be an important band, you need to have some political affiliation - then citing the ever-politcal Arctic Monkeys as the best of a bad bunch
More importantly:
As someone who used to love indie and still has a lot of adoration for some of it, for me it was all about dancing. Indie was essentially music for me to get my groove on to.
The Fall Of Math
Super Fashionista Dance Troupe
Modern Apprentice
Jesus Songs
Who Will Cut Our Hair When We're Gone?
The Difference Between Me And You Is That I'm Not On Fire
etc. etc.
i'd say it was a pretty good year for 'indie' in whatever sphere you look at it. i definitely reckon the Arctic Monkeys album going to number one was a lower point. At least Final Straw and Hopes And Fears weren't heralded as the second coming of Christ.
different to ours. Ie he's talking about commercially successful indie pop acts...I guess that means that either a/his definition is wrong or b/he doesn't listen to much music beyond chart fodder.Either way its depressing, I guess thats why he's now writing for a broadsheet...
"As in every musical era, one style dominates the hearts and minds of our nation's youth; it dictates their fashion sense, their relationship with their parents and, quite possibly, their personal-hygiene regimen. These days, it's indie"
Surely that's emo???
"The Kooks, The Courteeners, The Holloways, The Rascals, The View, The Wombats, The Automatic, The Pigeon Detectives, The Hoosiers. Their turgid, tuneless banalities use all the oxygen between ad breaks on XFM;"
YEP. But as we all know XFM is a GCap station. so what do you expect? cutting edge? nahnahnah.
"These days the term 'indie' is little more than a generic sonic description for any band that plays guitars and probably wears skinny ties, skinny jeans, and skinny cardigans. Collins, a former NME writer and ex-editor of Q, says now: "'Indie' has become a meaningless term. It just covers guitar bands."
Can't argue really.
"There are still indie die-hards out there... Seattle's Sub Pop label just celebrated its 20th birthday by bringing the wonderful Fleet Foxes to these shores"
Hmmmmm. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Sub Pop part-owned by Warners???
"MySpace... has been co-opted by the rest of the industry... it's now just another major label marketing ploy"
And it's also free for every man and his dog to upload their own music to.
"""I recently saw an interview with Conor McNicholas where he was talking about 'growing the brand'," Niven recalls. "The editor of the NME using the expression 'growing the brand'! It's hardly Nick Kent sneaking out of the office to run down Carnaby Street and score smack, is it?" "
Every mag has an editorial profile and readership. that is the brand. and what the fuck is cool about kent's heroin addiction? that said, McNicholas is not a great editor at all.
"If it's a time when you're feeding off Sleeper, Gene and Shed Seven for inspiration, it's not going to yield nourishing results"
WTF's wrong with Sleeper?????
"If we end up with 20 years of Tory government, it'll be The Pigeon Detectives' fault."
Sarcasm that's a mile wide of the mark.
"2004: Snow Patrol's Final Straw and Keane's Hopes and Fears top the album charts. Indie reaches a low point."
In that both records were on majors????
"2006: Arctic Monkeys' Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not becomes the fastest-selling debut album in chart history. The major labels snap up every 17-year-old guikookstar player in the land"
WHAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????
Don't they understand
that most of these chart topping bands like Scouting For Girls are not indie. This article was rubbish.
Yes, but SFG claim to be "indie"
Just look at the listed genres on their myspace:
http://www.myspace.com/scoutingforgirls
That's the thing
Bands these days are classed as indie these days based on the bands they cite as influences and the way they dress. There only difference between McFly and the Pigeon Detectives is that McFly are better.
:)
Excellent post.
amen!
Did you read the article?
"Is it the death knell of a once-vibrant underground scene?"
I think they get it more than you think. Good sunday morning read.
pretty
pointless article. seems like an excuse to just name and shame "landfill" indie bands. some of which, incidently, the Independent have given quite a few column inches to in the past, so, you know, they should get out of their glass house.
the main thing wrong about the article...
is the over-praise of the Arctic Monkeys. They're really not that good.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
That's becasue
Andrew Collins is actually gay for Alex Turner.
Andrew Collins
The whole article seems to be based on a conversation the writer had with Andrew Collins. Hardly a man with his finger on the pulse, as he is best known these days for appearing as a talking head making sarcastic unfunny comments on "I love the eighties" (and that was a few years ago).
Am I reading this right?
So all newspapers constantly just suck up to people in their thirties who think that "stuff was better when they were kids."?
This is why I don't read newspapers.
I've got no problems with that
other than it doesn't look beyond the mainstream. It conflates the entire indie scene with chart indie acts, but as far as it goes it sounds about right to me.
oh, and clearly this guy hasn't actually researched this article
It's just a mindless rant about how "great the 80's were." No-one is ever going to be able to break through if all people ever talk about is how great bands used to be, and then complain that bands aren't making "original" music.
WELL YOU EVIDENTLY DON'T WANT ORIGINAL MUSIC, YOU WANT EXACTLY THE SAME MUSIC AS TWENTY YEARS AGO BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU EVER TALK ABOUT.
unfortunately
that's indicative the age of current journalists. i'm sure if i was in their position i'd be going on about how great electroclash and no name was in fifteen year's time.
I sort of see your point
But I'm going to be studying journalism at university starting next year and I'd like to think that if/when I become a proper music journalist like I'd like to be, then I wouldn't be like that.
It can't be THAT hard to keep up to date with modern music, can it?
I have similar aspirations
Going to stathclyde next month and all,
I think it will be easier for our generation because we can keep a better track of it. We've grown up as the "internet/e-communication" generation and thus we can keep tabs on stuff a lot better and hence why a lot of peoples opinions can be dictated by websites like this and Pitchfork.
The age of most of these journalists just missed that, just that little bit too old and saw a revolution that was aimed at an age group just below them, hence their tired and tried and probably sexless rants that they think is relevant.
but its a classic thing, like in the lollapalooza episode of the simpsons, grandpa's rant about "I used to be with it, then they changed what IT was, now what's IT is out, and what IT is seems wierd and scary to me"
this all said
its wholly possible some massive cultural/technological event will happen in the next ten years which will leave us behind and go on about how "no one's as innovative as Radiohead anymore"
'is now known by some as "landfill indie"'
*is known by Alexis Petridis as "landfill indie".
awwwwww
tbh although
there are blatant flaws in this article (like the arctic monkeys and calling blur by blur ''american''), the author does actually have a point. yes it over-emphasised but ''independence'' in music is very limited and theres an influx of bullshit bands atm. sorta like the over-saturated pop market a few years back in this country.
wow
that was probably the whingiest piece of turd I've ever read.
Everyone knows Britian is overblown and bastardised in every aspect, how is this news?
Anyway, surely if he had a clue he could make reference points like how both British Sea Power (a UK INDIE BAND! SHOCK!) and Fleet Foxes (and possibly a few others) both managed to get to the number #11 spot in the UK album charts witch pretty much no mainstream attention or hype.
British music sucks, everyone knows this already, shut up.
Yep
Thats article is a load of bollocks! Interesting read though.
Sounds like the writer is just being lazy for the sake of having something to write about. If they could be arsed to look past the charts there's tons on inspirational music being made that i guess you could describe as 'indie'.
^
Yep. My thought's too. I run a little record label, so do loads of people I know. We do it for fun & are never gonna make any money from it, but the stuff we release we really love. But according to this article we don't even exist, apparently. The simple fact is that this article is aimed at the type of people who buy mainstream chart band 'indie' and are not remotely interested in new music of an alternative kind anyway. Journalism eats itself.
I quite like this article
and a lot of what is said is similar to views often expressed on this forum.
"but also, arguably, worse. At least Keane have an ear for a tune."
END.
Great Article
I mostly agree with it. I can't get very excited about some of the bands he enthuses about but thats by the by.
but always remember 99.9% of any art form is shite, you got to through all that to get to the good stuff.
Also Indie is a catch all term for guitar orientated music (this is not an invitation to list indie bands without guitars, you knwo what I mean)
^ Nicely summed up
aye but
its insulting to everyone who already knows all of this ie; everyone here
Earn 1000 indier-than-thou points
but the article was in the Independent, not here.
The only thing vaguely insulting were the headings, which would have been written by a sub specifically to pull in readers.
Why would anyone have a problem with the current crop of mainstream indie bands clogging up the charts being described as shite?
because its already well established
anyone who still needs to be told that are people who are probably still willingly listening to those bands
Somehow I don't think Lamb Of God are indie...
He has a point
I mean all this new indie=bad, old indie=good is bollocks and he pretty much contradicts himself by listing some of the semi-forgotten rubbish of yesteryear (sleeper et al). Was indie really that much better 10 years ago? Blur, Pulp and Oasis excepted probably not.
The bit about 'firework bands' is spot on though. This happened during Britpop, Grunge and probably countless other scenes too so I guess it's nothing new, indie is just a little bit more mainstream now. The problem is that the scene has relied, since probably the Strokes, on having a new massive band each year to keep the interest going - Libertines, Franz, Kaiser Chiefs, Killers, Arctic Monkeys etc. I might not like all those bands but they are all pretty good pop groups and all big enough to shift their not-quite-as-good second albums. Funny how many of those have been on indie labels. This last couple of years there hasn't been anyone emerge on that scale so the scene is running out of oxygen. The Glasto and T coverage this year has looked really tired and journalists are starting to notice it.
worth reading for this alone...
"Scouting for Girls are like the sound of Satan's scrotum emptying. They're abysmal."
I kind of liked this article
except what he didn't do was bring attention to GOOD current indie bands. Instead, it was all about 'how good it was back in the day'. And indie may have been great in the 80's, but indie is great NOW. Actual indie, and he's failing to recognise that there's always been a whole load of shite bands hogging the charts, people like music that's easy to listen to and it's always going to be that way.
The current "indie" scene is burning out fast, but this has happened with a million other scenes before, and it's going to happen again. It's just that indie happens to have been the genre that became fashionable this time!
Soon everybody will be listening to something else, and the scene will produce some good and a lot of shite bands, and we'll all continue to get on with things.
quote!!
If we end up with 20 years of Tory government, it'll be The Pigeon Detectives' fault."
basically we were in the same shitfest ten years ago ,when it were all travis/stereophonics crap everywhere.
then the strokes happened,and,to a lesser extent ,electroclash.the bigger question here is could that ever happen again,given that the way we consume music has changed so much this century?
will there ever be another nirvana?
R.E.: "then the strokes happened"
This might be some slightly dodgy recall on my part, but from what I can remember, when Is This It first came out it got a ton of 7/10 "good, but not as good as we had hoped" reviews, and the album only began to get pushed as a modern classic when Room on Fire came out, and the massed 'they' (wink, smiley face ect.) wanted to file their standard 7/10 "good but not as good as the first" reviews. And of course, the critical view on Fire improved when First Impressions came out...
Personally when it comes to The Strokes I'm relatively ambivilant - a few quite nice songs, but never anything that special - but they only seem to have become an official Big Thing to fill an otherwise gaping void (and yes, the music scene at the moment has many fantastic bands - so far, 2008's been an incredible year for debuts and albums in general). I read that article a few hours ago, and while it isn't exactly watertight, it's main thrust seems pretty nail-on-the-head stuff to me, and it's a good sign that even the journos are getting a little bored of all this now...
kinda
But they were lauded as the greatest white hopes of a generation in 2001. It was an exciting time.
hmmm
I read this before, and although it doesn't say anything I haven't thought in the last five to ten years, and neglects to mention any of the decent stuff still lurking under the surface. It still has a point about the sheer ammount of useless landfill/firework indie bands clogging up the world at the moment.Although you could argue that most of them aren't indie as we knew it. We still need a holoucaust of such acts....
holocaust?
Bit extreme, non?
Nope
Not if you've heard The Metros it isn't/
I've heard The Metros
Holocaust is still extreme :-) Maybe a plague...
Bad things about that article:
- Claiming that in order to be an important band, you need to have some political affiliation - then citing the ever-politcal Arctic Monkeys as the best of a bad bunch
More importantly:
As someone who used to love indie and still has a lot of adoration for some of it, for me it was all about dancing. Indie was essentially music for me to get my groove on to.
auch:
2004: Snow Patrol's Final Straw and Keane's Hopes and Fears top the album charts. Indie reaches a low point
2004-bestyearforindiethisdecade
yes
things that came out in 2004:
The Fall Of Math
Super Fashionista Dance Troupe
Modern Apprentice
Jesus Songs
Who Will Cut Our Hair When We're Gone?
The Difference Between Me And You Is That I'm Not On Fire
etc. etc.
i'd say it was a pretty good year for 'indie' in whatever sphere you look at it. i definitely reckon the Arctic Monkeys album going to number one was a lower point. At least Final Straw and Hopes And Fears weren't heralded as the second coming of Christ.
Well his definition of indie is probably
different to ours. Ie he's talking about commercially successful indie pop acts...I guess that means that either a/his definition is wrong or b/he doesn't listen to much music beyond chart fodder.Either way its depressing, I guess thats why he's now writing for a broadsheet...
'2008: Scouting For Girls' debut album reaches Number One. Indie eats itself.
they might've well have just cut out all the text of that article and put that one line there, it seems to be the entire gist of it.
my 2 pence worth
"As in every musical era, one style dominates the hearts and minds of our nation's youth; it dictates their fashion sense, their relationship with their parents and, quite possibly, their personal-hygiene regimen. These days, it's indie"
Surely that's emo???
"The Kooks, The Courteeners, The Holloways, The Rascals, The View, The Wombats, The Automatic, The Pigeon Detectives, The Hoosiers. Their turgid, tuneless banalities use all the oxygen between ad breaks on XFM;"
YEP. But as we all know XFM is a GCap station. so what do you expect? cutting edge? nahnahnah.
"These days the term 'indie' is little more than a generic sonic description for any band that plays guitars and probably wears skinny ties, skinny jeans, and skinny cardigans. Collins, a former NME writer and ex-editor of Q, says now: "'Indie' has become a meaningless term. It just covers guitar bands."
Can't argue really.
"There are still indie die-hards out there... Seattle's Sub Pop label just celebrated its 20th birthday by bringing the wonderful Fleet Foxes to these shores"
Hmmmmm. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Sub Pop part-owned by Warners???
"MySpace... has been co-opted by the rest of the industry... it's now just another major label marketing ploy"
And it's also free for every man and his dog to upload their own music to.
"""I recently saw an interview with Conor McNicholas where he was talking about 'growing the brand'," Niven recalls. "The editor of the NME using the expression 'growing the brand'! It's hardly Nick Kent sneaking out of the office to run down Carnaby Street and score smack, is it?" "
Every mag has an editorial profile and readership. that is the brand. and what the fuck is cool about kent's heroin addiction? that said, McNicholas is not a great editor at all.
"If it's a time when you're feeding off Sleeper, Gene and Shed Seven for inspiration, it's not going to yield nourishing results"
WTF's wrong with Sleeper?????
"If we end up with 20 years of Tory government, it'll be The Pigeon Detectives' fault."
Sarcasm that's a mile wide of the mark.
"2004: Snow Patrol's Final Straw and Keane's Hopes and Fears top the album charts. Indie reaches a low point."
In that both records were on majors????
"2006: Arctic Monkeys' Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not becomes the fastest-selling debut album in chart history. The major labels snap up every 17-year-old guikookstar player in the land"
WHAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????