Sunday, April 20, 2008

Is There any Such Thing as Indie Anymore?

The tagline for publicbroadcasting.ca is "to strengthen and preserve the independent and emerging Canadian voice" which I think I'll stick to. It may be time though for "indie" as a label applied to music to come to an end. We all seem to know what we mean when we say "indie". I wouldn't, for example, want to see CBC Radio 3 start playing Nickleback and Avril Lavigne. But, what exactly is indie anymore?

Personally, I tend to think of it as relating to the integrity of the artist - whether or not they maintain creative independence. But is that really a genre of music? Are the Woodhands, Laura Barrett, the Dears, the Tom Fun Orchestra, Kate Maki, the Blood Lines, Black Mountain and Arcade Fire all part of the same musical genre?

Natalia Yanchek (keys for the Dears) actually brought this subject up on her blog recently.
Being part of a band that has been plunked into the “indie rock” category, I often struggle with the genre and what, exactly, it means. What is indie? I believe it is a dead identity: like how the title “alternative” was borne from grunge in the 90’s, and has since come to define bands like Nickelback. It’s outgrown its meaning: Death Cab is indie, but on a major label. So WTF?
The term “indie” essentially used to mean “not major label” and oftentimes “not on any label.” But now the new “indie” had been commodified and major label bands can be indie rock.
I'd add that it's difficult to even define what constitutes a major label these days. To me Warner Bros, BMG, etc., are the 'major labels.' They are the ones identified with continuous attacks on the internet, frivolous law suits, screwing artists and fans at every opportunity etc. But what if we set aside the battles of the last decade? Arts and Crafts have come to, almost, define 'indie' but can a label that represents Feist and Broken Social Scene still be considered a 'small label'?

There is an entire film on the subject of what indie is, appropriately titled What Is Indie?
It is clear though that 'Indie' has become fairly useless as a definition. It is entirely subjective. To some the Arcade Fire and Feist are still indie, to others they are not and virtually every new band, no matter how well funded, considers itself 'indie'. I would even go so far as to say that all genres have lost their reason for being. As the world becomes smaller and the number of influences people are exposed to grows and becomes more multicultural the lines will blur still further. Unless you work in a record store and need to figure out where to put things - it may be time to simply divide things between what you like and what you don't. It would certainly make radio better and more interesting if there were no labels, no genres to decide what should and shouldn't be played and the playlist was simply made up of good music.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
suburban myth said...

hear! hear!
when surfing myspace i'm finding all sorts of bands that have added "indie" as one of their tag descriptions and in my opinion probably a quarter of them really AREN'T!! as in fashion, a certain style has been adopted by the general populace and it's no longer a genre, it's just plain old 'mainstream'. i'm more & more at a loss to describe the music i love to people that haven't heard it when 'indie' covers such diverse styles of music, in fact, it's really no description at all. i like using words like 'gypsy', 'artsyfartsy', 'thinking-man's-bluegrass' etc....
"Indie is Dead! Long live Music!!"

Dwight Williams said...

In comic books as in music, I'm convinced.