06-08-2008, 00:23
CMB1888 Wrote:I've had a discussion with a few people I know about what indie is -with pitifully inconsistent results. I think a label which started out referring to the method of record release rather than the type of music played is going to be a 'catch-all' phrase which is so broad as to be nearly pointless.
Please go read my post on page 1: post #7.
As an American I don't associate indie rock with the UK much. At least, not at its beginnings. As usual allmusic.com comes to the rescue:
Quote:...indie rock is free to explore sounds, emotions, and lyrical subjects that don't appeal to large, mainstream audiences...It's very much rooted in the sound and sensibility of American underground and alternative rock of the '80s...indie rock truly separated itself from alternative rock around the time that Nirvana hit the mainstream. ...the general assumption is that it's virtually impossible to make indie rock's varying musical approaches compatible with mainstream tastes... the music may be too whimsical and innocent; too weird; too sensitive and melancholy; too soft and delicate; too dreamy and hypnotic; too personal and intimately revealing in its lyrics; too low-fidelity and low-budget in its production; too angular in its melodies and riffs; too raw, skronky and abrasive; wrapped in too many sheets of Sonic Youth/Dinosaur Jr./Pixies/Jesus & Mary Chain-style guitar noise; too oblique and fractured in its song structures; too influenced by experimental or otherwise unpopular musical styles...