that's my point! it has no bearing what label they were on!! There are indie bands on major labels and non-indie bands on Indie labels. The lines are not black and white...

 

 

but what your generation are doing is altering the definition of what 'indie' was... the term had EVERYTHING to do with what label they were on... indie isnt a generic sound, like reggae for eg, and the sound thats called indie today was only 1 of many experimental sounds that original indie had.

 

i wonder what todays 'indie' will be called in 20 years time and where the boundaries and definitions will be... i suspect that many middle aged music fans will be moaning at how that definition has changed yet again :) in other words... you would be arguing with us if you had been around and was part of the generation that created the term :)

uh... how old do you think I am?!

but what your generation are doing is altering the definition of what 'indie' was... the term had EVERYTHING to do with what label they were on... indie isnt a generic sound, like reggae for eg, and the sound thats called indie today was only 1 of many experimental sounds that original indie had.

 

i wonder what todays 'indie' will be called in 20 years time and where the boundaries and definitions will be... i suspect that many middle aged music fans will be moaning at how that definition has changed yet again :) in other words... you would be arguing with us if you had been around and was part of the generation that created the term :)

 

Umm, Rob, to be fair to IndieElectronica, he's probably about the same age as me, maybe a wee bit younger, because we've had discussions about Seattle Grunge bands that we've seen.... :lol:

 

But yeah, I too shudder to think what the hell is gonna be termed 'Indie' in a decade or so's time, the goalposts have already moved considerably just in the past 10 years or so; I imagine the game itself to be entirely different within the next 10 years....

 

 

of course the goal posts change! The music changes!! argh!!

 

You (I should say us as am 30, but I'm disagreeing with you here) old folks need to understand the definitiaon DOES change!! Something as all encompasing as a big genre term like indie, or even alternative has will change every 5-10 years with the music that represent it. Also, When most of the indie labels from the 80's/90's are now owned by majors but still putting out non-mainstream music, it doesn't mean the bands aren't indie anymore!

 

Maybe we just need to call all this 'Non-Mainstream' and stop arguing?! ...just a thought...

 

(dunno why i keep on this subject... time to give I spose! In fact - I'M DONE NOW!).

 

Back to E&tBM - listened to crocodile last night, been ages and really enjoyed it!

Edited September 28, 200618 yr by IndiElectronica

of course the goal posts change! The music changes!! argh!!

 

You (I should say us as am 30, but I'm disagreeing with you here) old folks need to understand the definitiaon DOES change!! Something as all encompasing as a big genre term like indie, or even alternative has will change every 5-10 years with the music that represent it. Also, When most of the indie labels from the 80's/90's are now owned by majors but still putting out non-mainstream music, it doesn't mean the bands aren't indie anymore!

 

 

Of course it does, when an Indie label sells itself to a Corporate paymaster like Sony or EMI, then it's handing over its roster of bands to that Corporate Paymaster as well (well, the ones who decide to stay that is...)... Sorry, you cant have your cake and eat it. You cant have the relative security blanket of being under the wing of a large Multinational Corporation and all the advantages that come with it, AND make some pretence of 'independence'. Which is why describing non-mainstream bands on Major labels or ex-Indie record labels such as Sub Pop (which I would describe as being 'Autonomous') as 'Alternative' is a far better way of doing things, surely someone as intelligent as yourself can see this simple fact....

Back to E&tBM - listened to crocodile last night, been ages and really enjoyed it!

 

Top album to be sure, but I always preferred "Ocean Rain" myself.... :)

 

uh... how old do you think I am?!

 

 

oh my apologies, i was jumping to the conclusion that you were one of these upstarts...lol..

 

 

you say that definitions change, due to music evolving... but i just dont agree that it should change.

 

r n b, garage, boybands, etc are all changing their definition but imho its just wrong as its re-writing music fact.

 

you get people today refering to the beatles as a boyband! ffs! thats catagorising one of the very largest influences and creative geniuses in the same stable as a bunch of talentless puppets! im dead against putting todays values on yesterdays generation. you cant possibly get any idea of how a musical style really took off if you take it out of context, all you get is whats around today... a caberet, karaoke version of a track that is devoid of any soul, any meaning.

 

btw i like todays 'indie' scene as it is my prefered type of pop music, guitar based melodic , male lead songs.

ps.... if definitions are changing along with the music (im not sure 'indie' can be called 'evolved' as its straight out of the early 80's!!!) then why tf cant the label change? are todays youth soooo unimaginative that not only have they continuously raiding the archives for inspiration, but they even pinch the effing labels too!!! lol.

are todays youth soooo unimaginative that not only have they continuously raiding the archives for inspiration, but they even pinch the effing labels too!!! lol.

 

that was rhetorical right?

 

 

oh - and the only reason people say beatles were the first 'boy band' is they were the first group of good looking lads to be in a band (as a band) and be pop stars etc.

 

Anyone with half a brain cell should realize it didn't relate to their music as they wrote and played it - unlike current 'boy bands' who only look good and can dance (note I didn't say sing, as these days most of what you hear is fixed in the studio and rarely live. In some cases they don't even sing the original!)

that was rhetorical right?

 

 

right.

oh - and the only reason people say beatles were the first 'boy band' is they were the first group of good looking lads to be in a band (as a band) and be pop stars etc.

 

Anyone with half a brain cell should realize it didn't relate to their music as they wrote and played it - unlike current 'boy bands' who only look good and can dance (note I didn't say sing, as these days most of what you hear is fixed in the studio and rarely live. In some cases they don't even sing the original!)

 

 

they started calling the beatles a 'boyband' in the wake of busted and mcfly, who they simplistically equate to them being 'boys in a band = boyband' which irritates me as although it could be argued that the likes of busted where probably more suited to the term 'boyband' , the term was originally used to discribe the likes of 'new kids on the block' , 'take that', etc..

 

as far as im concerned, busted and mcfly are/were pop groups, which is what guitar based bands of young people playing/performing their own material has been called ever since.... the beatles!!! lol.

are todays youth soooo unimaginative that not only have they continuously raiding the archives for inspiration, but they even pinch the effing labels too!!! lol.

 

It aint the 'youth' that are calling mainstream guitar pop bands such as Kaiser Chiefs, MCR and Razorlight 'Indie' or 'Alternative' though mate, it's the so-called 'music press' - the NME chiefly (which, like 'Indie' itself is a totally pale imitation of its 80s and early 90s incarnation when it was genuinely compulsive reading...) and the record company bosses who want to promote their bands with an 'edgier', more 'street cred' label than 'Guitar Pop' or 'Britpop', so they pilfer "Indie" or "Alternative" instead.... :lol:

 

I broadly agree with you however that these bands should be regarded as something else. "Indie" does have a historical as well as ideological connotations and seeing as how pretty much all the Independent record labels that were the chief movers and shakers in the whole scene have pretty much been swallowed up by the Multinational Corporations, it is somewhat of a bygone term.....

It aint the 'youth' that are calling mainstream guitar pop bands such as Kaiser Chiefs, MCR and Razorlight 'Indie' or 'Alternative' though mate, it's the so-called 'music press' - the NME chiefly (which, like 'Indie' itself is a totally pale imitation of its 80s and early 90s incarnation...) and the record company bosses who want to promote their bands with an 'edgier', more 'street cred' label than 'Guitar Pop' or 'Britpop', so they pilfer "Indie" or "Alternative" instead.... :lol:

 

I broadly agree with you however that these bands should be regarded as something else. "Indie" does have a historical as well as ideological connotations and seeing as how pretty much all the Independent record labels that were the chief movers and shakers in the whole scene have pretty much been swallowed up by the Multinational Corporations, it is somewhat of a bygone term.....

 

 

i thought the nme etc are all 'kids'! ...lol twenty somethings that were being born when waterman started ruining the charts....lol.

Of course it does, when an Indie label sells itself to a Corporate paymaster like Sony or EMI, then it's handing over its roster of bands to that Corporate Paymaster as well (well, the ones who decide to stay that is...)... Sorry, you cant have your cake and eat it. You cant have the relative security blanket of being under the wing of a large Multinational Corporation and all the advantages that come with it, AND make some pretence of 'independence'. Which is why describing non-mainstream bands on Major labels or ex-Indie record labels such as Sub Pop (which I would describe as being 'Autonomous') as 'Alternative' is a far better way of doing things, surely someone as intelligent as yourself can see this simple fact....

 

i think the film world is even worse with its studio films/indie films definitions as well as you end up with people like Warner independent films hogging up the indie chart. :o

 

that reminds me arent we on course for another re-issue of this :lol:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/6990_poster.jpg

 

(hope this doesnt get people onto the subject of tears for fears now and gut :lol: :lol: :puke2: :puke2: )

they started calling the beatles a 'boyband' in the wake of busted and mcfly, who they simplistically equate to them being 'boys in a band = boyband' which irritates me as although it could be argued that the likes of busted where probably more suited to the term 'boyband' , the term was originally used to discribe the likes of 'new kids on the block' , 'take that', etc..

 

as far as im concerned, busted and mcfly are/were pop groups, which is what guitar based bands of young people playing/performing their own material has been called ever since.... the beatles!!! lol.

 

I always saw Busted and McFly as being a 'boyband with guitars' (albeit a more talented boy band than, say Westlife or Take That...) or a 'guitar pop' group .... The Beatles were a Cultural phenomenon, so they kind of transcend simplistic terminology, as do The Rolling Stones..

 

but a boyband with guitars IS a pop group! lol

 

i cant agree to lumping busted and mcfly in the same genre as westlife, as at least they can perform their own material.

The Beatles were a Cultural phenomenon, so they kind of transcend simplistic terminology, as do The Rolling Stones..

 

also i think that psycodelic turn on tune in groovy man time helped swinged the ballence towards musical brilliance.

 

(ps i hate that lucy in the sky with diamonds. try to get popcorn when that comes on before the film at the cinema :lol: :puke: )

 

(hope this doesnt get people onto the subject of tears for fears now and gut :lol: :lol: :puke2: :puke2: )

 

what's wrong with Tears for Fears?! they were my first favorite band (that wasn't one of my parents). Still rate their first album 'The Hurting' very highly as well (yes, that's the one with Mad World on it). But do agree their later releases were pants!

 

 

what's wrong with Tears for Fears?! they were my first favorite band (that wasn't one of my parents). Still rate their first album 'The Hurting' very highly as well (yes, that's the one with Mad World on it). But do agree their later releases were pants!

 

Yep, first TFF album is pretty darned good. Nothing wrong with liking "Mad World", great tune... Later stuff is.....erm....ropey shall we say....? :lol:

 

They went a bit like Simple Minds - early stuff great, later stuff a bit poo....