losers (because i'm cool and say so!)
Someone, please assist me with this current dilemma of mine: the nature of "indy rock." or is it "indie"?
I assume that the "indy" moniker signifies "independent," but I ask, independent of what? does an independent record label house these bands? Do they have independent thought? Are they independent from corporate rock? well, from what i have gathered, really none of these hold true, which i believe to be problematic when examining the lives of those classified as staunch afficionados of the music or simply "indy rock kids." (bonners 2003).
Part of me does understand why an individual would want to listen to music that exists outside of the corporate arena (stylized music, 'artisits' based on image not music, personal desire not to invest any capital in the system which said individual feels oppressed by, etc.), but I find a lot of the reasonings behind this overtly conscious decision to be invalid. For instance, i firmly believe that the indy rock bands are just as devoted to image as corporate rockers. the majority of these bands dress in a similiar fashion to the typical new york hipster: shaggy hair, those evil trucker hats/army surplus caps, tight jeans (often black), and of course, the 'vintage' t-shirt.
*Because I am not a fan of these bands, I am completely open to correction.*
The followers of this music eat up the image too. I went to see Chicks on Speed last year, and the entire audience dressed in the fashion stated above. I refuse to believe that image has nothing to do with their following. Is it simply a coincidence that they all dress alike, or do they all dress alike because they are in fact like-minded people, which i suppose would negate the idea that image still holds key for the indy rockers. In regards to the stylization of music/independent thought contained within the music, i believe indy rock to adhere to the former and lack the latter. Every band that I have heard that one would claim to be "indy rock" utilizes the same poppy drum beats and repetitive rhythms. But oh! look out! they have a voice distortion box! i might just have a heart attack from the ridiculous amounts of innovation.
speaking of innovation, a band like Radiohead, whom I do not listen to but respect, would be considered a mainstream rock band. they are not based on image. they do not have stylized music. they release albums through a corporate label. so, would they not be considered "indy rock"? Why? If I recall, the Strokes used to be labeled indy rock, but now that they're on MTV and the cover of spin, they have fallen into the corporate group. again i ask, why? I actually know people who discontinued listening to the Strokes for this reason, yet continue to listen to radiohead. And what happens when wall street types (roommate de bonners) begin listening to music still considered "indy rock"? Does that complicate the avid fan's understanding of the music, or does it just embitter him towards the wall street type.
Here's how I see these devotees to this alleged "indy" rock. Actually, first, I believe I should clarify who exactly falls into this "devotee" category: anyone who uses the label "indy rock" when describing their music preferences and often listens to music of this genre alone.
The indy rock kids make a conscious decision to purchase albums of this given persuasion in order to possess the character traits assumed to be inherent within all purchasers of these albums. They exist under the notion that they are, in effect, establishing themselves as "others" by doing so, despite the rampant trendiness of this pseudo-otherness. They claim to be followers simply because of the music, which, of course, is false. Most of these people are followers of both an aesthetic and a music. they find it impossible to divorce image from music. the music has become a status symbol; something to discuss with other indy rock kids at indy rock kid venues. in essence, the majority of them are hypocrites, with only a select few who have the capacity for self-reflection that accept their role in this giant hypocrisy.
excuse the poor articulation of my thoughts....i'm kind of rushed to get to an advisor meeting.
tra la. tra la.
I assume that the "indy" moniker signifies "independent," but I ask, independent of what? does an independent record label house these bands? Do they have independent thought? Are they independent from corporate rock? well, from what i have gathered, really none of these hold true, which i believe to be problematic when examining the lives of those classified as staunch afficionados of the music or simply "indy rock kids." (bonners 2003).
Part of me does understand why an individual would want to listen to music that exists outside of the corporate arena (stylized music, 'artisits' based on image not music, personal desire not to invest any capital in the system which said individual feels oppressed by, etc.), but I find a lot of the reasonings behind this overtly conscious decision to be invalid. For instance, i firmly believe that the indy rock bands are just as devoted to image as corporate rockers. the majority of these bands dress in a similiar fashion to the typical new york hipster: shaggy hair, those evil trucker hats/army surplus caps, tight jeans (often black), and of course, the 'vintage' t-shirt.
*Because I am not a fan of these bands, I am completely open to correction.*
The followers of this music eat up the image too. I went to see Chicks on Speed last year, and the entire audience dressed in the fashion stated above. I refuse to believe that image has nothing to do with their following. Is it simply a coincidence that they all dress alike, or do they all dress alike because they are in fact like-minded people, which i suppose would negate the idea that image still holds key for the indy rockers. In regards to the stylization of music/independent thought contained within the music, i believe indy rock to adhere to the former and lack the latter. Every band that I have heard that one would claim to be "indy rock" utilizes the same poppy drum beats and repetitive rhythms. But oh! look out! they have a voice distortion box! i might just have a heart attack from the ridiculous amounts of innovation.
speaking of innovation, a band like Radiohead, whom I do not listen to but respect, would be considered a mainstream rock band. they are not based on image. they do not have stylized music. they release albums through a corporate label. so, would they not be considered "indy rock"? Why? If I recall, the Strokes used to be labeled indy rock, but now that they're on MTV and the cover of spin, they have fallen into the corporate group. again i ask, why? I actually know people who discontinued listening to the Strokes for this reason, yet continue to listen to radiohead. And what happens when wall street types (roommate de bonners) begin listening to music still considered "indy rock"? Does that complicate the avid fan's understanding of the music, or does it just embitter him towards the wall street type.
Here's how I see these devotees to this alleged "indy" rock. Actually, first, I believe I should clarify who exactly falls into this "devotee" category: anyone who uses the label "indy rock" when describing their music preferences and often listens to music of this genre alone.
The indy rock kids make a conscious decision to purchase albums of this given persuasion in order to possess the character traits assumed to be inherent within all purchasers of these albums. They exist under the notion that they are, in effect, establishing themselves as "others" by doing so, despite the rampant trendiness of this pseudo-otherness. They claim to be followers simply because of the music, which, of course, is false. Most of these people are followers of both an aesthetic and a music. they find it impossible to divorce image from music. the music has become a status symbol; something to discuss with other indy rock kids at indy rock kid venues. in essence, the majority of them are hypocrites, with only a select few who have the capacity for self-reflection that accept their role in this giant hypocrisy.
excuse the poor articulation of my thoughts....i'm kind of rushed to get to an advisor meeting.
tra la. tra la.