Logo
DiS Needs You: Save our site »
  • Logo_home2
  • Records
  • In Depth
  • In Photos
  • Blog
  • Podcast
  • Search
  • Community
  • Records
  • In Depth
  • Blog
  • Community

THIS SITE HAS BEEN ARCHIVED AND CLOSED.

Please join the conversation over on our new forums »

If you really want to read this, try using The Internet Archive.

Boards

Music Social More…

What does 'indie' mean?

mroc [Edit] [Delete] 00:04, 7 December '15

It seems to be a catch all term for any guitar music that isn't trying (and failing) to be Led Zeppelin.

This question is inspired by the fact that Arcade Fire released their last album under Universal and EMI. Something that I found disappointing given there previous alliance to Merge Records (and Rough Trade here in the UK). Basically what I am saying is that there was no uproar over such a move. No one calling them sell outs or anything, and they are still seen as 'Indie' music darlings despite being signed to the biggest music cooperation the world has ever seen.

Even bands such as Bastille, that are under Virgin Records, get labelled 'indie'. Never mind bands such as The Kooks and Razorlight that were unashamedly pushed by there record labels, and never had the pretentions of being anything but commercial music.

I don't live under a rock, I know that its just a label for a certain style, but I'm sure so many bands in the past would be labelled indie if they came out today. The late 60s Kinks albums maybe, Donovan would probably be seen as some indie pop genius, even much of The Beach Boys catalogue shares a lot more in common with Indie Rock then the music that gets away without putting the Indie signifier in front.

Basically I think its a pretty useless tag that cause more confusion then anything else. Its no longer used to describe an artists independent from major labels and it doesn't really describe a particular sound. I mean it includes anything from a garage rock Pixies influenced sound, to a really poppy twee sound.

It seems to be used by 'Kerrang!' a lot to claim that the music they support have more in common with the Rock heritage then these 'indie' bands coming out, and it was touted and used by NME to make it seem like something more interesting was happening then actually was in the 2000s. This being said I still use the term.

Any thought? Am I talking shit? Would be interested to hear your responses. Even if its just to have a conversation away from these "list bands that you like" threads.


Drowned in Sound
  • DROWNED IN SOUND
  • HOME
  • SITE MAP
  • NEWS
  • IN DEPTH
  • IN PHOTOS
  • RECORDS
  • RECOMMENDED RECORDS
  • ALBUMS OF THE YEAR
  • FESTIVAL COVERAGE
  • COMMUNITY
  • MUSIC FORUM
  • SOCIAL BOARD
  • REPORT ERRORS
  • CONTACT US
  • JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • FOLLOW DiS
  • GOOGLE+
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • SHUFFLER
  • TUMBLR
  • YOUTUBE
  • RSS FEED
  • RSS EMAIL SUBSCRIBE
  • MISC
  • TERM OF USE
  • PRIVACY
  • ADVERTISING
  • OUR WIKIPEDIA
© 2000-2025 DROWNED IN SOUND