seriously, fuck it. the painfully cliched sincerity bit is getting so old, and there is nothing interesting about what they're playing. this isn't applicable to all indie rock, but a good deal of it. discuss.
How would you describe 'indie rock'? I have no idea what sort of bands apply for being 'indie rock'. Is is made in India, or by native Americans or something?
indie rock is a pseudo-genre made up to satisfy all the hip kids whose musical taste is almost entirely dependent on how obscure the bands they reference are, and how unlikely they are to ever achieve commercial success. it also helps if the music is so atonal and pointless that no one "understands their genius", or some bullshit like that. here are some example bands; sonic youth U2 was one of the forebearers of this genre...now they're just pop-rock super furry animals new order joy division the whole grunge movement was the end of alternative rock as an unpopular genre, and consequently indie was born it's also used to reference all these new-wave influenced bands like franz ferdinand (not bad) and modest mouse (...meh) bright eyes is the most notable current band, with connor oberst even being called the "king of indie rock". i do like the faint, but bright eyes is shit. fugazi is shit as is q and not u
mmm, indie rock is not that bad....i agree it gets tiring after a while, but there are some fine music out there...personally i'd rather listen to indie rock thats played on mtv than RnB and hip hop thats played on mtv. I dont watch mtv though but given the chance.....besides, if you're an aspiring musician, most indie rock is very easy to play, so its not that bad.
Indie predated "aleternarock' and was simply a term for bands on independant labels. U2 was not indie rock. Its also pretty stupid to say its easy to play when it contains such a wide variety of bands doing it. Besides, i remember pissing you off by dissing Eric Clapton, so I hardly think your opinion means much.
indie stands for independant rock...that is bands that are signed by independant record companies....i'm not an expert so here's a link (though this one explains it in a rather ironic way) http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/indierock/indierock.html
generally, it isn't very technically difficult music, that isn't an unreasonable statement on her part. indie as a genre did NOT predate alternative rock, certainly independent labels have existed for some time, but the term as it is used now denotes something completely different. none of our opinions mean anything, because they're opinions. but generally mine make sense, and yours seem to be more along the lines of "clapton is teh suxx0r." child.
quote: but the term as it is used now denotes something completely different. Half those bands you mentioned started around 1980 or before, so why don't you enlighten us? What does it mean now, and how do bands from the late 70's still go under that heading when it came after "alternarock." FIll me in. I've only been going to shows since the 1980's, I'm sure you are more familiar with indie and underground rock than I am
Um, I use the term black metal for that... a lot of bands purposefully stay within the underground, don't bring out their albums in a greater number than 500 copies (or 666 if they REALLY mean it), have a tacky production, are as little inventive as possible, and play extreme, monotonous music to begin with. Except that listening black metal isn't really 'hip'.
quote: and how unlikely they are to ever achieve commercial success Here is another massive flaw in your rant, almost all the bands you've named HAVE achieved commercial success at some point.....and that being said, do good bands get to the top of the charts these days, unless you count Dave Mathews or Coldplay ( I don't), there really haven't been any rock bands getting mass appeal in these last years....except maybe the Strokes, Modest Mouse, and Franz Ferdinand..
