|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
83.95.150.100
In Reply to: How long would it take posted by Frihed89 on December 21, 2005 at 13:31:44:
So much for Death Cab. Either we are a bit short on indie afficianadoes or else everyone lives in Ten Sleep (an actual town in Wyo), where i don't think Death Cab ranks highly among ranchers, cowboys, bankers and artificial insemnators.
Follow Ups:
I must admit that when my band started out, Indie bands were huge, and it took a big effort for us/me to separate ourselves from that classification.I always thought that Indie bands, sounded like Indie bands and I always wanted to sound bigger, more dramatic, more powerful and more commercial. IMO, U2 at one time was as unpopular as an Indie band and actually was a college radio indie band. But U2 never SOUNDED like an Indie band: never wanted to be one.
That's what I'm all about.
Lou Reed created the Indie band sound. Nirvana, no matter how gigantic their record/concert sales, - would always be an Indie band, - and that is a place that I don't enjoy going.
How many scores of folks were upset and angry over the fact that their own personal friends, Nirvana, got so popular, so tied in to merchandizing schemes and were all over the news? This type of hype is the antithesis of the Indie band and their fans. I'm not saying that I dislike Nirvana, but I just don't like the charm of that humble approach and results of that songwriting perspective.
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
I don't get you. To me, 'indie' is 'independent.' I think that my view makes sense since it's based on the definition of the word. If a band signs a recording contract with a major label, then I don't care what they sound like, they're no longer 'indie.' But 'indie' was never about a sound to me. It had to do with people who didn't want to be involved with major labels. So musicians stuck with outfits like SST, Bar/None, Twin/Tone, Rounder, Touch And Go, Alternative Tentacles, Sub Pop, et al.Then--I know you're well aware of this--the majors decided to try to get in on all this 'indie' stuff that was never popular, but garnered underground buzz. That didn't succeed, so they worked out distribution deals with labels like Slash & Sub Pop. I'd say that you couldn't consider Nirvana 'indie' after they went with Geffen, except I think Sub Pop was still in the pipeline somehow, even if it wasn't a case of what became known as a 'majorindie.' It's along the lines of Beck's deal with Geffen vis-a-vis Bong Load. Then there's Universal picking up the distribution for Rounder's labels. A few months ago Madeleine Peyroux was all of a sudden expected to do promo in the UK as Universal's distro had insured that her record had become hugely popular there. It seems she was at the end of a touring cycle & either she didn't want to be bothered, or perhaps she's a bit eccentric. In any case, here were major label people unaccustomed to having artists behave in this manner, unable to get a hold of her for several days as they were losing what they considered to be valuable time to get her music exposed over there.
Perhaps this is just semantics we're discussing, but, as repulsive as the term became, I find that it's easier to talk about a genre's 'sound' by using something like 'alternative,' or, what I knew it as 20 years ago, 'college rock'. How many of these bands are on major labels? If you're on Thrill Jockey, you're indie. If you're on Kill Rock Stars, you're indie. If you're on a WEA label, I don't care how much you sound like a Paul Westerberg solo album. How could you be considered 'indie?' And why would you give Lou Reed sole credit for something that Sterling Morrison & John Cale deserve just as much credit for? That is, if you want to discount how much like the Beatles or the Kinks some of these bands tend to sound like, that is...
Nice post, thanks very much for commenting.....My point was that alternative/indie started to disappear when I was going, and now it's pretty much gone. Wherein you have acts who were either on majors, or close to being on majors, or having majors distribution deals: go backwards and sell their stuff via a website, or a podcast on a website, - check the Tragically Hip. Now, Bruce Springsteen competes head to head with the Slow Poisoners. Everyone is on a major; essentially....
But, - my main point is that there is a cultivated Indie sound. I guess that you can call it alternative. But, - alternative to me implies a more narrow definition. Nirvana, Husker Du, Meat Puppets, Replacements, (Paul Westerberg), X, - were always Indepedent, - Indie bands. Check the Shoutoutlouds, - they're a new indy band, with an indy band sound, - they're not going to go around talking about Ethiopia and having meetings with President Bush. (Not that I think that there's anything wrong with Bono doing what he's doing). People included Jane's Addiction as alternative, - which I never understood. I always understood "alternative" to be anything that is "different" from 70s classic rock that was on US radio. So, a dance band like New Order was called alternative in my town, - huh?
Indy bands are cultivating a sound, and looking for an audience. Yes, it's alternative, but there's this certain something, this small, humble, "F&*K You, this is for us and our 50 friends" kind of attitude. Husker Du was a pretty great band to me. I'm not criticizing them at all, - they stayed true to their small, humble, approach.
Husker Du, Guided by Voices, etc. were not ever going to go out and get a new vocalist who could sing: (or sing in a more likable/commercial manner). These songs were their songs and they were going to sing them. By and large, this was about 3 or 4 people with guitars, aggressively belting and crudely, belting out their songs. No cast of thousands, no horn sections, humble, non-drama, "I don't care much about anything."The Clash, the Jam, New Order, Sex Pistols/Public Image, U2 etc... were talking about being the best band in the world. They wanted fame, stardom, and their music everywhere, and as many fans as they could get, with their drummers screwed up on heroin on late night talk shows...
The Dead Kennedys were different than Nirvana, Husker Du, in that respect too. Jello wanted the world....
Yeah, - I didn't mean to say that Lou created the earth, - the Velvets are part of that, as well at least a few other groups at the time as well....
Cheers J, hope that you're well....
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
I know what you mean. I feel pulled in many directions musically by this phenomenon and i am listening to music in 2005 i would never have dreamed of listening to in 2004, Death Cab for Cutie, being perhaps the best example. On the other hand, i don't feel so constrained by labels, like grunge or punk anymore. I can listen to and realy like, Death Cab, SMOG, Tres Chicas, Dolorean, The Bigger Lovers, Rilo Kiley and on and on and not feel like i have to defend my preferences.What i like least about this phenomenon is the abysmally poor quality of the recordings by some really good groups, the Decembrists being a good example of a bad example.
I think the band's name alone could be giving prospective listeners/buyers a wrong impression. It gives people the impression it's another one of those shallow pop bands targeting a teenage audience. But the music has more depth than the name suggests. I wouldn't put the band at the same level as a Coldplay or Porcupine Tree, but "Plans" is one of the better albums I've listened to that was released in 2005.
You'd think in Europe people would be more familiar with the Bonzo Dog Band.
Book space to Copenhagen. There are still plenty of seats!
Onto Big Vega, which is twice the size. Looks like a repeat of the Bright Eyes experience a year ago.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: