I see no problem with building a REAL fanbase, but most people don’t give a shit about the music. “Play the song we know man! Woo!” A great deal of people at that show CLEARLY didn’t give a shit about Modest Mouse, they wanted to see “that Float On band.” And as soon as another Good Charlotte album comes along, the fad will be over and the people who really like the music will remain.
You say music snob, and maybe that’s true (scratch that, yeah it’s true, but so fucking what?), but I too didn’t get into Modest Mouse until GNFPWLBN. But the clear difference is that I LIKE the band, liked them enough to check out most of their back catalog, payed money to see them and was able to appreciate the songs that I didn’t know because I like the band and respect them as artists.
You give me shit about “oh, I was in a band, I know what its like fighting to build a loyal fanbase!” Well you said it yourself - LOYAL. When your band becomes the latest flavor of the month, loyal fans will be few and far between.
That’s a nice attempt at being condescending, but I’ll have you know that Radiohead is among my favorite bands and for as long as I’ve been into them they have been immensely popular. Kid A, their best album IMHO, debuted at #1 on the Billboard Charts.
Why oh why did they have to get all popular and release that electronica crap? :rolleyes: :wally
Folks like you are why I hardly ever go see live music. I mean, what’s the point in going to see a band live? It’s so you can share in an experience with the crowd. But - as much as I like a lot of indie rock - I just can’t fucking stand indie rock fans. You remind me of the (seemingly countless) people I’ve met who get such a kick out of laughing at other people’s music taste or just generally mocking those who aren’t indie enough.
Given that I can’t stand folks like that one on one, I just can’t bring myself to go see a band and be surrounded by a thousand self-obsessed hipsters. “Oh my God, everyone there was stupid and they didn’t know anything about the band, and many of them weren’t wearing vintage tee shirts!”
And I have to reiterate the point that Modest Mouse sucks.
Thanks so much for the generalizations! I appreciate them. I don’t believe I own any vintage t-shirts, considering that most of the shirts I own came from Kohls and Boscovs. I’m not even sure what vintage t-shirts are.
But I definitely do know the kind of kids you’re talking about. And I must say I’d rather be standing next to one of them than someone who would feel the need to knock me against other people while I’m trying to listen to the show.
Mocking other people’s tastes? Eh, only if they go so far as to say outlandish shit like the artistic merit of a band or person who clearly has none, or someone who makes an entirely uneducated assertion about one of the bands that I like. Aside from that I’m perfectly content to let people like what they like so long as they don’t subject me to it if I don’t like it. And in that same manner I’m very courteous not to subject my friends to the “weird” (their word) music I listen to.
But I do get rather sick of having to defend myself and my tastes from people who tend to…paint with a broad brush.
After reading this thread I’m really confused. What do I now call the artists I love who make great music but are not on a major label (or, in Happy Rhodes’ case, any label at all)? Most of the music I play on my podcast are from artists who aren’t on major labels. What’s the terminology if they’re not “indie” anymore? I’m so out-of-it.
Radiohead wasn’t immensely popular before then; they’d never been in the top 20. Kid A probably owes its popularity to the fact that file sharers were spreading it around the internet months before its official release.
It’s okay to be a little elitist in concertgoing, sort of like it’s okay to go to a formal debate and not want it to degenerate into a Springer riot.
On the other hand, some concertgoers anti-intellectual physiognomy and their lack of knowledge of the band are not valid reasons to complain. I went to my first Dashboard concert only knowing “Screaming Infidelities”: I simply hadn’t been able to pick up any of their stuff. I wonder if people complained that I only reacted to that song.
But I didn’t scream out or push people around at odd times. I think a lot of concertgoers not only don’t know the bands a whole lot but go to the concerts just to cause mayhem and act out. I mean, it’s okay to jump around during say “Ten Minutes to Downtown” by the Get Up Kids, but “Float On”?
To answer to OP: yes, to the extent that there is an African-American culture and a corresponding White-American culture, indie rock is a more pure manifestation of White-American culture than any other popular music today and as such, since whites tend to be more a part of W-AC, will tend to speak more directly to them. I’ve actually thought that thought myself before. But it’s not a thought I dwell too much on since everyone influences everyone these days.
In the UK, “indie” has come to refer to any band that sounds vaguely like The Stone Roses or Oasis (although American indie bands like MM, shoegazing etc. are also covered). Frankly the idea of going to a gig and not having crowd surfers, jumping around like you’re an idiot, dancing and screaming your head off is absurd. Those gigs sound like a real hoot :rolleyes:
Eh. Comes down to different strokes and all that. Good Charlotte and blink 182 could easily go into the nothing innovative spot, but we’ll have to disagree about Greenday. The thing is, imo, this music still lends a voice to white kids (and other people who just like that kind of music.) I’d be willing to bet that the kids who like Float On are often the same ones who like Greenday’s Holiday and a lot of Blink 182’s hits.
Hm. If you say Indie traces to Velvet Underground, then I change my mind about the White Stripes et al. Clear ancestry there. Especially with the Strokes.
(I still think Offspring is technically interesting for their world music influences, mind you.)
I still think, even considering the Underground, that indie tends to have a strong emo tinge to it.
Oh, they’re still indie, even if some of the flock has strayed to major labels. Can you ask twenty people your age what they think of a band and not one of them knows who you’re talking about? The band is probably indie.
I think that’s a bit strong. To pick an extreme example, I can ask twenty folks my age or slightly older what they think of Burzum, and none of them will have heard of it, but I don’t think Varg is indie.
IMO/IME, indie music is pretty much whatever the hipsters listen to, alternative music is whatever the punks/goths/skaters listen to, and underground music is whatever they both haven’t heard of.
The stuff I play, I can ask twenty people of any age and not one of them knows who I’m talking about. Ok, maybe one or two will have heard of one or two, but generally, they’re unknown. Yet, I consider most of the music very radio-friendly. Yet, regular radio wouldn’t play them because they’re too “alternative”, and “alternative” radio wouldn’t play them because they’re too “mainstream.” It’s all very bizarre to me.
That’s the way it is with LOTS of indie music I listen to. Hell, almost any New Pornographers song would make an amazing radio single, and yet…nothing. The songs are so addictive and undeniably catchy, it baffles me that radio stations would turn down a sure thing.
Oh yeah; the labels simply don’t know how to market “indie” - probably the clearest indication that there is no set definition to brand and market.
Hell, listen to the Redwalls - classic early Beatles rave-up rock with fresh new songwriting (I started a thread on them that went nowhere). They’re young kids on an indie label and have gotten no airplay, yet their stuff is as commercial-ready as Twist and Shout was back in the day…
As I understand it, the major labels have deals with the radio stations that exclude minor label bands from getting airtime. It’s got nothing to do with marketing know-how.
