Unfortunately they're not 'safe' enough, whereas the evolvement in R&B tends to come from already established artists who'll get air/video play whatever...

 

which begs the question. Why do a lot of these indie bands stick to the same formula for their 'safe' second album. They'd gain a lot more respect if they did something a bit different, like the R&B artists do

 

Mistress Mabel and Always Where I Need To Be are like poor imitations of these two bands 2006 singles

It's like anything, really. Every label wants their own Artic Monkeys or Franz Ferdinand or The Hives or The who sodding whatever and then you end up with about 7 million of the twatting bands! Then the bubble bursts and it goes back to square one, and a fresh--faced band will kick start it all over again.

 

I think I hate RnB more though!... So much of it is so horrible and bland.

people used to say that dance would suffer in the download era but just look at the success of Mint Royale...if a track is truly huge, it will be big in whichever format is the dominant one at the time

 

Ha, most dance tracks don't have a 13 million weekend audience. Even with a popular TV advert in 2005 the song only just made the Top 20.

 

which begs the question. Why do a lot of these indie bands stick to the same formula for their 'safe' second album. They'd gain a lot more respect if they did something a bit different, like the R&B artists do

 

Mistress Mabel and Always Where I Need To Be are like poor imitations of these two bands 2006 singles

 

If they change their sound too much though, a lot of their fanbase goes off them. Take Razorlight... great first album and then they kinda sold out for the 2nd album. Now on Razorlight forums this album got SLATED... 90% of fans hated it, yet their 2nd album sold well over a million.

Going back to the first post: it's a misconception that Arctic Monkeys have done well from downloads - they haven't. It's their physical sales which prop them up every time. "Brianstorm"'s performance on downloads was hugely underwhelming considering how massive an act they were/are, going #11-#11 before climbing to #2 upon physical release. Because they were lumped in with the MySpace phenomenon, people mistakenly believe they sell singles on downloads.

 

Indie stuff is underperforming if it's not on the Radio 1 playlist, I agree. They think they're oh-so-cutting-edge playing Kooks, SFG, Hoosiers etc, but this is just pop really - and not very good pop either. Indie acts can get more of a chanceof breaking through now if their album does well - and the only way that's going to happen if Radio 1 haven't taken a shine to them is by getting glowing reviews in NME, Q, Mojo, Uncut etc. If they can chart in the Top 10 with their album then the word-of-mouth effect may well knock through to the singles chart... but this hasn't really happened yet... either that or I can't think of any examples.

 

As usual, if you don't look outside the box for good music then you risk missing out on it. The Radio 1 playlist sucks!

Agreed, Richie, about Mint Royale. I went to You Tube, since I can't see BGT. The record is just plain terrible. So you don't have a valid point about dance topping the top, gooddelta. Sorry.

 

Also, I think you fans of R&B are a bit biased. Tell me what is so groundbreaking about sampling Michael Jackson for Don't Stop The Music. Absolutely nothing special with that track, but I guess people like it to dance to it. Perhaps being more objective than some of you, I see no evolution of R&B over the past 10 years. And please name me some new R&B artists within the last year. I can't think of any.

 

Whereas we are continuously getting new indie bands. Granted bands like One Night Only, Royworld, and Courteeners may not be the best, but they at least write fresh new music. And we have the excellent Vampire Weekend, which is a nice surprise this year.

 

I agree that Always Where I Need To Be is average and Mistress Mabel rubbish, but Always Where I Need To Be was a great comeback. It's a catchy song, spent several weeks in the top 40 and has gotten a ton of airplay on Radio 1 ... but perhaps not on your commercial stations ... sorry I wouldn't know as I don't want to hear Hips Don't Lie, Amy's awful Valerie, and Rihanna every hour.

 

I think most music critics would agree that 2008's two best albums in terms of quality songs, production, and variety would be from The Last Shadow Puppets and Elbow. As stated earlier, you have to respect a band like Elbow that retains their fans over many years and still get new fans (like myself). I also put Delays in this category. Name me two R&B artists with this longevity.

Edited June 4, 200817 yr by Paul JH

I don't think that it has anything to do with the downloads being added to the charts. To put it simply, the recent spate of indie bands just do not compare in the slightest to some of the past (and still going) indie bands. I believe that Oasis, Pulp, Blur, Suede, etc would be just as big in the new download era as they were when they first broke onto the music scene. I just don't get that excited anymore about some of the newer indie bands, but I could just be showing my age.

 

 

I think most music critics would agree that 2008's two best albums in terms of quality songs, production, and variety would be from The Last Shadow Puppets and Elbow. As stated earlier, you have to respect a band like Elbow that retains their fans over many years and still get new fans (like myself). I also put Delays in this category. Name me two R&B artists with this longevity.

 

Except that they wouldn't, for the most part. On Metacritic, a site that compiles ratings from various critics sites (very all encompassing), The Last Shadow Puppets have a 77 and Elbow have an 82. While both respectable scores, at the the top is Bon Iver with an 89, and then Fleet Foxes, Hercules and Love Affair, Robyn (US release), and Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds with an 87.

 

As for two R&B artists with longevity? India.Arie released her same debut album in the year Elbow did, and Erykah Badu has been releasing critically acclaimed music since 1997. I could go on.

 

This is what I hate about people in general; they find it very necessary to divide themselves by genre. You hardly find anyone who listens to much outside one specific genre whether it be pop, r&b, indie, rock. Those who will listen to nothing but male British indie acts are just as guilty. My favorite album of the year, thus far, is a Bon Iver's album For Emma, Forever Ago, a very folky Iron & Wine-like album, but just underneath it is the disco-influenced Hercules and Love Affair album. One can simply not dismiss an entire genre as c**p when there is always good music to be found if one keeps an open mind.

 

As for dealing with the question, I don't think 2008 has been a c**p year for indie at all. You have stunning albums by Fleet Foxes, The Kills, The Hold Steady, Frightened Rabbit, The Dodos, Los Campesinos!, Vampire Weekend, Brendan Canning, Foals, and Cut Copy yet 2008 is a c**p year for indie? But, of course, most people here define success/talent by sales.

 

Why aren't many 'indie' acts topping the charts this year? Because the formula used for mainstream indie acts in 05/06/07 is wearing thin. Eventually something else will come along.

 

If there's been anything that's been dissapointing this year, it's mainstream music in general. When you compare the best number ones of last year (With Every Heartbeat, Give It 2 Me, Umbrella, Stronger) to the best number ones of this year (either American Boy or That's Not My Name), well...the difference is just astounding.

so then vidcapper, if that's the case, indie will never be popular again...do you think this will happen :o I'm sure if good indie

songs came along that caught the public's attention, they'd have no problem being huge download hits

 

people used to say that dance would suffer in the download era but just look at the success of Mint Royale...if a track is truly

huge, it will be big in whichever format is the dominant one at the time

 

A good enough indie sing *will* sell on download, but you only have to look at the download T40 to see that the major distributors totally dominate - until that balance is redressed, indie as a genre is likely have great problems competing.

 

As for dance, I don't think Mint Royale is a good example - it is selling *only* because of 'Britain's Got Talent' - it will lack chart longevity. I don't expect to see it still in the T5 a week Sunday, and not in the T20 two weeks later.

Edited June 5, 200817 yr by vidcapper

But the indie bands being talked about hardly fit that description, they've all had huge albums and massive singles

whose chartuns have been highly prolonged by downloads!

 

I think we may have different understandings of 'indie' then...

Edited June 5, 200817 yr by vidcapper

This is what I hate about people in general; they find it very necessary to divide themselves by genre. You hardly find anyone who listens to much outside one specific genre whether it be pop, r&b, indie, rock. Those who will listen to nothing but male British indie acts are just as guilty. My favorite album of the year, thus far, is a Bon Iver's album For Emma, Forever Ago, a very folky Iron & Wine-like album, but just underneath it is the disco-influenced Hercules and Love Affair album. One can simply not dismiss an entire genre as c**p when there is always good music to be found if one keeps an open mind.

 

Isn't 'hate' a rather strong term to use in this context?

 

As for the matter in question, of genre preferences - rap is the only one I simply will not listen to at all.

 

I prefer dance/trance, pop & easy-listening. Of other genres, I decide on a song-by-song basis.

I think we may have different understandings of 'indie' then...

In what way? The original post was questioning bands like the Kooks, Fratellis and Zutons. Are these indie? Because if they are, then your description is wrong because all of these have generally relied on downloads for high chart positions. The likes of 'Chelsea Dagger', 'She Moves In Her Own Way' and 'Valerie' have all spent ages in the chart entirely because they were being purchased on the internet and not the high street!

 

I do think you're right that proper indie won't ever chart highly, but not for the reason gave, it's generally because it has limited appeal and it needs to be something special to take it high. Personally I don't really see these bands like Kooks and Fratellis as being indie, the reason why they're making music that appeals to so many people and was constantly played on mainstream radio is because they're making pop songs. Someone used the likes of Suede, Oasis, Blur, Pulp etc earlier saying they'd still have the same success now, and I think they would, but again they're not exactly 'indie' are they. The genre they were in was called Britpop for a reason, they were making very good pop songs! They were just a bit different to the c**p like Kylie, Boyzone or Take That were releasing as they wrote and performed all of it themselves! It's effectively what's happening again now, the likes of Franz Ferdinand to Kaiser Chiefs and Razorlight to Fratellis and Kooks are just a second wave of Britpop, but it's lasted a bit longer this time, from 'Take Me Out' at the beginning of 2004 and it's only really started to wane now...

Edited June 5, 200817 yr by RabbitFurCoat

just to expand on my points in my chart commentary this week, it seems to me that indie music is not the dominant force

it was in the UK now compared to three or four years ago...highly anticipated comeback singles from The Zutons and The

Fratellis have flopped while The Kooks, Last Shadow Puppets and The Pigeon Detectives have seen their songs peak high

and then plummet. When downloads were first included in the chart, people were worried that this would be the death of indie,

but in 2005 and 2006 this theory was proved wrong with the success of Arctic Monkeys and others I've already mentioned...

obviously there are exceptions to the rule, like Coldplay, but they are now superstars so the 'indie' rule doesn't really

apply anymore

 

is this merely the end of another cycle, like 1998 spelled the death of Britpop and the boom of pop/dance/r&b, or are there

other things going on accounting for this newfound failure of the genre...for example, why do indie/rock concerts sell out almost

instantly yet nobody wants to buy the singles and albums of these acts anymore...is illegal downloading actually killing the indie

genre quicker than other genres? I know for one, my sister is a rock and indie fan, yet watches the videos on YouTube, downloads

illegal MP3's and goes to countless concerts, yet hasn't bought a single or album all year...

 

obviously, Britpop singles and early 00's indie singles were famed for entering and plummeting quickly but why is it that they are

now the only genre that still sees this chart activity? the indie singles that are consistently popular now are so clearly pop music masquerading as indie, e.g. Hoosiers, Scouting For Girls, The Ting Tings...is this the sign of a pop comeback, or are people once

again tired of indie music as record companies manufacture acts to be 'cool'?

 

 

thats it in a nutshell m8..... trend have NEVER lasted more then a few years, from the beat boom in the early/mid 60's (merseybeat), psychedelia, glam, punk, new wave, ska, new romantic... etc etc etc.

 

its lost its steam, its old hat, its yesterdays thing, it happened in the past and it will happen in the future. the new ideas have been used up, now everyone is sounding like everyone else.

Music has changed alot since Indie was big in the 90s and Indie acts may struggle to get airplay, which in turn affects

download and physical sales.

Radio 1 play "semi-indie" bands, but kinda poppy.

 

Well first off I think illegal downloads has REALLY hurt indie music chart wise, moreso than every other genre, but this could

also be considered a good thing too, as it reaches their music to a wider audience.

 

Yes definately. Heavy, Death Metal, Crunk, Rap have been hurt also by it also.

 

I wish bands would stick around longer. I'd like to see a list of bands and artists who have survived this decade all the way through with 3 or more albums that didn't flop. Britney, Madonna, Kylie, Rihanna, Coldplay and probably about 4 or 5 more on that level. A lot of the rest have just dissapeared.

I just don't see people ever getting bored of r&b/hip-hop as it does seem to constantly evolve

 

 

Yeah now you've said that i've realised how strong R&B is. It is constantly changing. Now we have a slower tempo and a bit more of a dance influence, very recently eg. Chris Brown- Forever. Last year R&B wasn't so dominant and was a lot more poppy (Gwen Stefani- The Sweet Escape, Kelis- Lil Star, JoJo- Too Little Too Late. In 2006 it was more urban- P Diddy- Come To Me and Tell Me, Cassie- Me And U. 2005 was a bit harder to distinguish. But if it carries on changing it can go on forever, and once inspiration has run out then it can still go round in circles, no-one will care :P .

I think a few people summed it up, people are just getting tired of hearing the same old thing being regurgitated. It's sounding exceedingly uninspired now, recent releases from The Kooks, The Zutons and The Fratellis highlight this perfectly.

Yeah now you've said that i've realised how strong R&B is. It is constantly changing. Now we have a slower tempo and a bit more of a dance influence, very recently eg. Chris Brown- Forever. Last year R&B wasn't so dominant and was a lot more poppy (Gwen Stefani- The Sweet Escape, Kelis- Lil Star, JoJo- Too Little Too Late. In 2006 it was more urban- P Diddy- Come To Me and Tell Me, Cassie- Me And U. 2005 was a bit harder to distinguish. But if it carries on changing it can go on forever, and once inspiration has run out then it can still go round in circles, no-one will care :P .

I think there's high innovation and strength in all genres. It just seems that the people doing it in r&b are the biggest names, whereas the bigger indie and dance bands are currently producing absolute $h!te and the majority of the great stuff is left underground and outside the charts...

here's my opinions on many of the points raised

 

a.Where as it just gets boring listening to the same stuff that bands release over and over again, my opinion is If it aint broke don't fix it, this is due to the following examples

1.The Feeling - where as Join With Us had a very dancey/pop vibe it still had the accoustic strum soft rock you'd find on Twelve stops and home yet it spent one week on number one then out of the top 10

 

2.Ashlee Simpson - her first two albums definitely had their hilights (e.g. pieces of me, autobiography, Lala) and her third album tinged more down to poppy RnB that the pop rock of Cover and Autobiography. This album did not even make the top 40 and the single didn't make top 20

 

3.Madonna - one of the leading women in music as far as i'm concerned and Hard Candy , her most Urban influenced album yet is attrocious. Give it 2 me is about the only song i would ever be able to listen too twice and even that's a bit too much. I feel she definitely hit her peak in the late 80's with Like a Prayer and Papa Don't preach,now i find it disgusting to see a woman of her age acting like she does. Kylie (who I believe is far superior) would probably not dare to do half the stuff that she has done in terms of photoshoots and she's ten years younger than her

 

b. I think indie is likely too make a comeback come autumn time witch looks set to be one of the most busy seasons in music with Aerosmith, Queen, U2, Oasis, Anastasia, SEB, Lilly Allen, Franz Ferdinand, Razorlight, Dido, Morrissey, Killers, Britney, Whitney Huston and Arctic Monkeys all looking likely to release material around this time

 

( i know nnot all of them are indie but it gives you a chance to see how frantic it would be)

 

I don;t think indie ever died i just think it got worse after indie legends like Oasis, Blur, Charlatans ect hit their peak in the 1990's

 

( i am slightly favouring oasis as i was born the year definitely maybe came out)

 

c. I went to a gig with my sister the other night at southampton guildhall ( my second so far with first being KT Tunstall) and it was simply astounding

 

the bands i saw were Guillemots with Royworld as the support. neither of these bands have ever had a single peak higher than 20, this is clear that success is no garuntee of quality

 

 

if i seem a bit ranty i appologise