Anyways, my main beef: the label of “indie” genre music. After time, the internet came along and became extremely popular for bands to promote themselves. Blogs and other websites would check these bands out, since most of them were recording at home or small studios and uploading their music to such web pages as Myspace.com. These bands were independent, but started to be eaten up by critics who had stumbled upon them. So long were the days of word of mouth; the internet took the world by storm and sharing ideas, music, and tons of other things became as easy as the click of a button.
Certain bands were received so well that they were picked up and signed by major labels, yet are still considered indie artists. Well here we go. Isn’t the whole idea of an indie artist the fact that they’re producing things independently? A band that is helped by a label isn’t independent, in fact, they’re very dependant. At some point, the term “indie” became less about production and more about genre. Bands labeled “indie” range so far apart in terms of style and production that there shouldn’t really be an umbrella term for them. You can’t group a band that uses synthesizers and growls in the same genre with bands that use lifeless female vocals and tangy guitars. Yet, for some reason, they are.
Arcade Fire, whose popular song “Wake Up” was heard across the country in the ads for Spike Jonze’s “Where the Wild Things Are,” started out as an independent band, releasing their first EP by themselves. Soon enough, they were picked up by Merge Records (Spoon, Conor Oberst) and supported by them. Eventually their music was brought to the ears of David Bowie, who played with them during a televised concert in 2005. Although they’re still considered “indie” music, they aren’t that independent and rely heavily on the label for production costs and distribution.
So, since indie music no longer refers to the way original indie artists produced and distributed their music, is it really that appropriate to refer to such a huge range of artists as “indie,” whether they still are independent or dependent of labels? I mean, I would still consider bands that have done everything themselves as “indie” bands, but it’s hard to see why bands on major labels such as Sony (The Ting Tings) can still be labeled as indie bands. I heard “That’s Not My Name” on radio stations all the time, and saw the video on MTV countless times. Sure, they might have started out as an “indie” band, but they’ve turned into a mainstream pop band, and should be relabeled as such.
Stop labeling things that aren’t independent as “indie” because it just doesn’t make much sense.
Oracular Spectacular was released on Columbia/Sony. This is not an independant record.
Their EP Time to Pretend was an independant release, but this was before they were signed. Once they were signed, for some reason, they were still considered independant, or ‘indie.’
