What does "indie rock" mean to you?

I’m using this opportunity to recycle a post which I made in a thread about Snoop Dogg and rap. It was at the tail end of an already-dying thread, and was sort of a hijack besides. But I think it should be discussed. Basically, in that thread, I was responding to something that I seem to see a lot, on this board and among people in real life:

“How can you call Modest Mouse/Built to Spill/The Decemberists/etc indie rock? They’re on [major record label]!”

There’s this idea that I run into a lot that the term “indie rock” refers only to whether or not the band is actually on an independent record label. I think maybe there was a time, years ago, when that’s what “indie rock” actually meant, but now the genre has expanded and branched off into so many directions, and had bands sign on to big record labels, that you can’t really say that anymore. I mean, I don’t know anyone who honestly thinks that The Decemberists are not an indie band because they’re on Capital Records. The label “indie” has now come to refer to certain elements in the music of various bands that binds them together, however loosely. These elements include esoteric, poetic or otherwise unique lyrics, unconventional use of instruments, singing voices that differ from those of mainstream vocalists, and an overall aspiration to either create a new style or harken back to an older one.

What do The Decemberists and Destroyer (side project of Daniel Bejar of The New Pornographers) have in common? The nasal singing voice, for one, and the quirky lyrics - the word “carabinieri” (Italian police) is used in Watercolors Into The Ocean. In Your Blood, he sings, “I went for you/in military time/and then I waited well into the 2300s,” in a voice that emulates Bob Dylan. Not something that Britney Spears or even Audioslave or Incubus would do. Those bands are not classified as indie because there’s nothing that’s deliberatly self-conscious or quirky about their lyrics. Audioslave and Incubus are cool - very cool - but Daniel Bejar of Destroyer is hip. There’s a difference - again, it’s damn hard to explain. The interaction between Destroyer and its listener is like a 25 year old grad school student trying to pick up a chick at a party. The interaction between Incubus and its listener is like a 21 year old rocker guy trying to pick up a chick at a party.

What do Built to Spill and The Decemberists have in common? Musically, very little. Lyrically, there’s a connection. When Doug Martsch sings “that brontosaurus must have been a thousand miles high” in Big Dipper, he’s joining Daniel Bejar and Colin Meloy of The Decemberists in the quirky-lyrics club. What does Built to Spill have in common with My Bloody Valentine (a band which formed in the 80s, is never referred to as being “indie,” but is popular with a lot of indie rockers?) Lyrically, nothing, but musically, they share an emphasis on wall-of-sound guitar distortion and reverb. MBV uses enough of it to put off the average radio-listener, who is not accustomed to such a sound, although a Smashing Pumpkins fan would probably like it. My Morning Jacket does the same thing with reverb - their songs are soaked in reverb to the point where the singer’s voice floats away like a ghost. This is not something that will get heavy radio play because most people don’t want to appreciate their music, they want to hear it. But an indie rocker will be more willing to listen to MMJ because he will be - typically - more open to music that deviates from the norm, and he will find MMJ’s songs hauntingly beautiful, and not meandering and boring as an average listener would. Even though MMJ is not strictly defined as an indie band the same way The Decemberists would be, it enjoys popularity among the indie set because it’s so different. So there’s this issue of certain bands being popular in the indie scene even though they might not really be considered part of the genre.

What sets The Blow apart from Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas? The bumpin’ electronic beats are often similar - but the lead singer of The Blow sings, “when you’re holding me, we make a pair of parentheses” and “if something in the deli aisle makes you cry, of course I’ll put my arm around you and I’ll walk you outside.” She’s trying to be quirky with the lyrics instead of treating them as just something to accompany the music.

OK, so all these bands are listened to by a certain type of person. Young, in the 18-25 demographic, often a college student. Frequently former theater and band-geek kids, though not always. Usually artistically inclined - most indie kids I know are also into drawing, painting, or playing music themselves. They dress a certain way - blazers, glasses (it’s not uncool to wear glasses in the indie scene,) interesting shoes, usually vintage clothes often from goodwill or from used-clothing stores that specifically cater to the indie rock crowd (the ones here are cheap, not cynically overpriced.) I’m engaging in a little stereotyping here, sure, but the last big indie rock show I went to, pretty much everyone was dressed in a quirky way. Not necessarily all the same - there was a lot of variation - but they were definitely trying to capture the look. So those are indie kids. I can’t really explain it any further - you’d have to go to a show and look around. And no, you don’t have to dress or act like one of these people to listen to or enjoy music that’s classified as “indie rock.”

This is my conception of indie as a scene, anyway. And this is from my firsthand experience in the indie community itself. I’m sort of conflicted on this conception, because on the one hand, I think that “indie” is kind of a meaningless label due to all the different and widely varying bands that get classified as such. I mean, I’m sort of against the idea of rigid genre classification in general, and think a real music person is going to care more about what the band sounds like and less about trying to define it. On the other hand, I think the Wikipedia entry for indie rock lines up pretty well with my idea of what it is as a very broad genre.

So what’s your view on this? Is this how you see “indie rock?” Or do you have a different idea of what it means?

To me, “indie rock” occupies that territory that used to be called “college rock” or “alternative” in the 80s, back when “alternative” did not mean “mainstream.”

That’s about as far as I’d be willing to define it. It’s a very broad classification.

That works for me, too, I guess.

I’m about to run out, but I’ll be back with my piece. Esp. since I diverge from you, Argent, and I was the guy behind the original quote. Good OP!

Yup, that and art snobs. Not saying thats bad, but art snobs love the stuff. I like it too, but too many people think that listening to it gives them the right to be art snobs, because they think they know better.

I don’t think an “indie rock band” need be on an independent label. Plenty of “indie” artists are now on major labels. They still come from indie rock roots, though. But I also would lump artists like The White Stripes into the indie rock pot, which I believe you (Argent Towers) didn’t in the other thread.

Indie rock is music that would’ve been called alternative rock ten years ago, and college rock ten years before that. Who knows what it’ll be called ten years from now?

I would generally categorize Indie rock into two camps:
Soft-ass melancholy bands like The Shins, Modest Mouse, Built to Spill, Death Cab for Cutie, The New Pornographers, etc

Garage rock revival bands like The White Stripes, Franz Ferdinand, The Strokes, The Killers, The Raconteurs, etc

Have you actually listened to these bands?

The interaction between an indie band and its listener is like a 25 year old grad school student trying to pick up a chick at a party. The interaction between Incubus or any other nu-metal band and its listener is like some dude beating the crap out of the first guy while the girl goes off with Fall Out Boy guy.

I’m sorry if I sounded like a jerk there. I wouldn’t really feel very strongly if you had simply said that your impression of indie rock as a whole was “soft-ass and melancholy.” But your inclusion of some of those bands in your list is puzzling to me.

You would honestly categorize Bury Me With It, Dancehall, Summer, The Fruit That Ate Itself, The Ocean Breathes Salty, or the new song Dashboard by Modest Mouse, and Sidewalk, Big Dipper, Carry The Zero, The Plan, or Time Trap by Built To Spill as being soft and melancholy? Built To Spill in particular is known for its upbeat songs and heavy guitar distortion. But I’m particularly curious about why you added The New Pornographers. Nothing about any of that band’s major songs fits the description you’ve given. Mass Romantic, Jackie, Mystery Hours, The Body Says No, Ballad of the Comeback Kid, Letter from an Occupant, and The Electric Version - all their best known songs - are about as far from soft or melancholy as you could get.

With the exception of Modest Mouse, yes. I don’t mean they have a soft sound like John Mayer or Jack Johnson. I mean they are soft in a way that Linkin Park isn’t.

Well, yeah, you’re right about that.

Modest Mouse has a lot of soft, sad songs, but they’ve also got a lot of manic, crazy, screaming songs. I distinctly remember once being jolted awake in terror by the jarring opening chords of Bury Me With It after inadvertently putting it on a sleep playlist.

I would agree with you for the most part. A lot of indie rock is a conscious rebellion against macho, testosterone-driven rock.

Largely due to the dilution described in the OP, the term has become almost entirely meaningless.

I think the term as a music genre is meaningless. But the term as a scene still means something. Just go to a few shows on a college campus if you don’t believe me. It’s true that it’s almost entirely meaningless - but almost is the key word there. It still ties together a lot of different bands in a very broad sense of being popular with the people in the indie scene.

I used to work for KEXP; I’ve been to dozens of such shows.

The term remains meaningless.

Then what do you call the kids I talked about?

Who are all these people I’ve been interacting with? All the girls in dresses with artistic tattoos and guys with tight dark pants and vintage t-shirts and blazers and black framed glasses who ride road bikes and carry messenger bags? There’s a scene here, where I am, made up of these people. Everyone identifies them as being “indie rockers,” including the kids themselves. It’s a scene, whatever you want to call it. And in my experience, it’s called indie. So I can’t see how it’s totally meaningless. Could you elaborate please?

You’re making things up without actually listening to bands? You’re out of the club. I know hardcore, I know emo, I listen to the music that Linkin Park pretends to be. Modest Mouse might never have released anything hard like these bands, but their early stuff is anything but soft.

Indie rock is what I view as the bland, bread and butter of the indie world. Death Cab for Cutie or whatever. “Indie pop” - cuddle core, C86ers, twee pop - are mid-80’s bands like the Pastels. “Indie” is a bunch of bands that were on small, non-major records that may or may not have made it to major label status.

Punk and emo are not indie, to me. Post punk is not indie. Yet, both of these existed solely because the mainstream didn’t want them. They pressed their own records, made it their own way, whatever.

If they were found by a major label, they are not indie. That’s about it.

If I hear that something is “indie rock” I suddenly have no interest in hearing it. I assume that all bands of that genre are as exciting as mashed potatoes and resemble Coldplay. Oh, and the people who are into them are little shits who think they are cool because they can name off 500 obscure bands with stupid names.