Discussion in 'Other Music' started by SuperDude526, Jan 8, 2011.
There is no bigger picture. It's just how things were done in the past, so people kept doing it.
So, I'm kind of ignorant to the argument that's going on here because I was too lazy to read the whole thing after the first few posts, but here's my two cents...
The internet has done a lot of weird stuff to music. In one hand, you have an instant gateway to any type of music that you could possibly imagine. In the other hand, there are so many sub-genres and half-assed bands that it's pretty hard to focus on any one type of music for long enough to get really into it. I hate that you can record and release a record overnight. At one point, something like that would have actually been a huge musical accomplishment, but now it just seems like this lazy thing that people are doing out of impatience.
I still find bands through word of mouth. The way I see it, if something is worthy of being listened to, somebody is probably going to tell me about it. I go to a lot of shows whether or not I know the bands that are playing, mostly just as a social experience, and sometimes I see some really good and unexpected shit. I also still buy vinyl because I'm really sentimental and I like the artwork. Plus, nothing really matches the sound quality of vinyl. I'm not saying it's better or worse than digital. I just personally prefer the light touches of grime rather than the pure and clean tones of digital recording. It's like the difference between taking photos on a film camera or using a digital camera. Apples and oranges.
I don't know what it's like in other cities, but the DIY scene in Boston is experiencing a huge vinyl/analog comeback. Everyone is releasing records and tapes again. It's been really nice.
As far as the actual music goes, rather than the format, I'd say that the state of music is on a slow decline. Every generation has a musical epiphany, or a "revolution" of some sort. I'm really bummed out that all my generation really made was emo songs and numetal. I'm also pretty annoyed about the fact that when I turn on the radio, all I hear is auto tune and pre-fabricated songs written to a really specific catchy formula. I'm not bashing those genres or anything, but I'm more into the whole folk and classic punk scene so it's kind of crappy from my point of view that I'm still mostly listening to the stuff that came out before I was born. The local scene is thriving, though. A lot of really good punk bands are coming out of Boston these days. I haven't really been around the other cities so much lately, but I hope that's happening elsewhere too.
Yeah, I think that's all I got for now.
To that last paragraph, I'd say it's interesting you'd respond in that way to my question (p.s. word up fellow Bostonian ). In the 2000s I think there were actually two "revolutions," both of which failed for diametrically opposed and yet very similar reasons. The first were the new punks that rallied around pop punkers like Green Day and Rise Against, or around political funk metal like RATM. Their problem was that even though the message propagated a pretty clear political message against the status quo, the explosion in popularity for these bands made it hard for anyone to consider being a part of this revolution as being truly counterculture. It was like that paradoxical non-conformist problem: even if you came to the decision to be non-conformist on your own, if everyone's doing it then it's not really non-conformist. In other words, the political pop punk revolution didn't take because it was "too popular."
Now the other one might be a little harder to back up with solid evidence, especially since I came across it so late, but there was an indie explosion too, I'd say starting around mid- to late 2007. In terms of image, the public would probably most associate them with environmentalist types, the Mac explosion, and (unfortunately) hipsters, and I came upon them because unfortunately I almost became one of them.
Anyway, musically this crowd would have been the Death Cab for Cutie type, but also would have encompassed the more obscure end of Fueled by Ramen (i.e. "a bunch of bands you never heard of"): Forgive Durden, The Hush Sound, The Dear Hunter, the list goes on. Their problem was almost the opposite, although people do criticize the hipsters of the same sort of non-comformist conformity: they were too obscure (at the time, anyway) to become massively popular and significant. Because the music was so off the beaten path, that most people didn't notice it was there, and so it was difficult for the counterculture to grow into something recognizable in the wider mainstream scene. It's hard for me to fully explain the reasons for its failure, but basically think of it as the story of the hippie counterculture if it had not been picked up by massively popular groups like the Beatles, or if early 1970s punk had somehow never left NYC. It is a truly elusive thing.
I was living in Allston during the whole "indie" explosion, so you don't have to try to convince me that it exists. If you're from Boston, you know that Allston is hipster central. Try going to the Model on a Saturday night and not hearing the DJ blasting obscure indie rock between bouts of The Smiths and The Misfits.
Just wanted to pine in about the indie explosion and say that it was really around 2003/2004 with the debut albums of artists like Arcade Fire and Sufjan Stevens that propelled the indie scene.
Yep! It was pretty much the entire decade.
Sufjan's debut album was in 2000. But, I get what you're trying to say. I guess. I don't think Sufjan had anything to do with indie music becoming popular. Arcade Fire kind of kicked it into everyone's ear holes, though.
Is Indie honestly NOT just a continuation of 90s "Alternative" - bands like Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel, Pixies?
Who knows. I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, witch-house means. Sub-genres are so stupid.
I see your point, but no one would mistake the pioneering or especially current wave of indie bands o have much in common in terms of sound wih the 90s alt bands.
And Casey, you're right in saying that it wasn't his debut, but Michigan in 2003 was a really monumental album to indie.
I've always hated the fact that we use the word "indie" to describe something other than independently produced music. A lot of these "indie" bands aren't on independent labels at all. Last I checked, Modest Mouse was signed to Epic, and Death Cab For Cutie was on Atlantic.
Honestly, I hate the mislabeling of any type of music. I'm not going to sit here and say that we shouldn't be labeling things at all, but it would be nice if we did a better job at it.
My pet peeve: The bands that people are calling "punk" these days.
As I see it, indie can be used as a blanket term for an approach, or a certain aesthetic, towards music, but it doesn't excuse us from differentiating between dream pop and post-punk--both of them being genre of bands considered 'indie'.
But we probably shouldn't get into the ever-obscuring definition of what 'indie' means. There are many sides to it and in the end, it's just two equally valid opinions clashing in vain.
One thing that I've noticed is that a lot of people have started using the term "DIY" to describe independent music lately.
I can't wait until "DIY" becomes a completely unrelated to "do it yourself" genre of its own...
I don't think a lot of people confuse post-punk with indie...or at least I hope not. And I think the generalization of the term's meaning comes more from "indie music" developing into the style that was most popular among independent artists (don't know the specific genres, sorry). I mean look at grunge: Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden have very little, if anything, in common. The only thing that they definitely have in common is they're from Seattle and their peak was the early 90s, yet people chose to call them and many other rock bands grunge because it was the "it" genre.
Welcome to 2002.
When I was younger, all I ever listened to was 80's hardcore and 70's punk bands. I don't mean to sound this corny, but it really is a huge part of who I am. The whole early 2000's pop punk explosion really bummed me out. Don't get me wrong - I love a lot of the bands that came out of it. I mean, I don't think I know anybody who would deny that The Ataris were the soundtrack to the summer of 2003. Still, though, no punk band would cover Don Henley. I do, however, love that cover...
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I'm really stubborn and have a hard time accepting what "punk" means to some people because it means so much to me as something else.
I'm in a hipster clothing store with my girlfriend. I read this book there about hipster fashion do's and don'ts, and they tried to equate themselves with such major countercultures as hippies and the early punks.
Separate names with a comma.