Talk:Indie rock/Archives/2015

Entry attempts a 'unified' definition , when not applicable

The term "Indie Rock" means *many* different things.

The biggest difference is between definitions in the US & UK. In the UK it mostly refers to a sound / style of music, and is basically synonymous with "Alternative Rock" in the US. In the US people can argue that it has to do with a sound / style of music or allegiance to independent labels -- in reality it has more to do with a particular subculture of music and fans that spans many different styles. It's ridiculous to argue that ___ was indie rock until 1998, but not after; or that a twee band is indie rock because their record label is an indie, while a death metal band is not -- despite their label being independent either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.74.10 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think that Indie rock should be a subgenre of Alternative.--Degree9 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indie not a genre?

I'll make this brief: to state that Indie does "not" connote a genre in spite of public opinion otherwise (not to mention certain congruence in its adherents) is to go against the grain of pop culture, i.e. something is because it is THOUGHT to be. Music genres aren't empirical, they're cultivations of the public imagination. I suggest this article be reworked to represent differing interpretations of the word "indie", rather than simply dismissing its implications as a genre outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Thought-Fox (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline is terrible

This time line is terrible. It's inaccurate chronologically (Slint formed in 2005?) and musically (Public Image Ltd was an indie band? Liars is the only band worth mentioning since 1995?). I question if such a time line even has a useful purpose in this article. Can we get rid of it? Telor 05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs a complete rework. So many bands are in wrong categories too (I was under the impression that Faust was krautrock for one thing). I'll delete it, it's just embarassing.82.16.78.145 12:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a genre?

With a NPOV in mind, I don't think you can really say that Indie is a genre. All the term really means (or meant in the beginning) was that the album or artist in question used an independent lable to publish their music. So two indie bands might have nothing musical in common, they just happen to both use independent lables. I don't know, that's just something that has confused me a lot, and I hoped Wikipedia would answer the question up front instead of hiding it as a side note somewhere. So if 'indie' actually describes a genre now (which it seems to) could someone write how the word 'indie' came to describe the music that it represents? I think it would inprove the clarity a lot, and make a better article.--72.75.106.169 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a genre. Check out Indie (music) for music distinguished by being on independent labels. WesleyDodds 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 72.75... that it is quite strange to see indie as a genre. Indie just means it is music that is created without commercial backing, being independent of the major record labels. It has become a popular term for a non-descript genre because teenagers who like to state their taste of music as different than that of other people use the term "indie music" or "indie rock", even though most of the bands they consider independent are actually (indirectly) signed to major record labels. CheesePlease NL 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the term "indie" in the beginning, and through the present in the UK, does refer to unsigned band. However, in the US today, "indie rock" colloquially refers to a stylistic genre. I think that the article should reflect the dichotomy between the US and UK meanings, but also reflect that it is a stylistic term here in the US. We need some info to support this though, so I'll work on that. hotdiggitydogs 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It kind of is and kind of isn't. it's really a blanket genre, like Heavy Metal Music where all the sub-genres are true genres, even though the one they all stem from is not. Jman8088 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Indie" and "alternative" and to a lesser extent "lo-fi" all suffer from the phenomenon that contemporary commercial rock music uses what used to be a common lo-fi form among original "indie" bands, which were a fortiori alternative. With the advent of myspace and the likes, every band starts out as an indie band, either genuinely, or because the perception of being "alternative", as opposed to pushed by a major label, is a commercial asset towards the current rock and pop audience. The lo-fi form obviously rapidly vanishes from the artist's sound, but the simple chord structures and the tormented, often high pitched singing, contrasting with the heavy guitars, remain.

With "indie" in its original meaning becoming essentially meaningless, the term now refers to the genre that has popularized the original form. In my opinion this is an outrage, because it feeds a perception rather than presenting a reality. The same goes for "alternative", a term paradoxically used by a majority of today's rock bands, who are actually very commercial in their approach. This being my opinion, I also believe Wikipedia must reflect the reality of a large audience nurturing their belief in adhering to something alternative and independent, and at least partially explain the terms "indie" and "alternative" in their common usage. ~~Knotwilg

Well, alternative and indie have both sort of run into the same problem. It's the problem with revolutions in general. What happens when you're too successful? The alternative becomes the mainstream. Inevitably, they succumb to the same pressures that made the old regime so worthy of revolting against. New boss, same as the old boss. Rather funny that, in the field of music, this has happened twice in the past 20 years.

As for your feeling that this is an outrage, as I said in another comment below below, it's really just the linguistic process of grammarization, whereby once concrete terms acquire newer, more abstract meanings. Shorthand forms (like "indie" from "independent") in particular are susceptible to this sort of process - this is why for instance, "American Movie Classics" decided to switch to just being "AMC" once they decided they no longer just wanted to play old movies. This is not some cosmic injustice, it's just a natural linguistic process. It would've been impossible for language to develop without this. I'd personally just refer to independent artists as "independent" rather than the more ambiguous term "indie".65.0.82.196 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider an analogy: If i convince or force everyone around me to believe the earth is flat, and thus even cause the wikipedia article about the earth to state earth is flat because the majority of people thinks so, would that really make the earth flat? Joost de Kleine (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The analogy's a bad one though - the shape of the Earth is a verifiable fact. Genres are (inherently) subjective concepts, they're only defined by how people use them. It doesn't matter how much you tell people the world is flat, it's still not, but if a large portion of the population start referring to a specific set of bands as being "titanium rock" then (regardless of how meaningless or irrelevant a designation it may be if you analyse only the words) that's a valid genre for those artists, as genres aren't defined by a strictly defined "black and white" set of criteriaHengler (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just like to say that i agree that its difficult to see indie as a genre, especially about what the user above related it to heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.102.21 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing 'indie' means, is 'independent' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_music) Hence a very large part of all music can be called 'indie', because the label the artist is signed to is not a major (and thus independent) label. That includes stuff like metal, hip-hop, etc., not the music usually called 'indie'. Furthermore, much music called 'indie' is not listed to an independent record label at all, but to some huge label, like EMI, Sony BMG, etc. You might as well create a genre called '4', meaning the band consists of 4 people. That would include the vast majority of all bands, but mean absolutely nothing in terms of musical description. Joost de Kleine (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"The only thing 'indie' means, is 'independent'" - I'm sorry, who made you dictator of the English language? Words can have multiple meanings. This isn't somehow wrong or erroneous, it's just how language works.65.0.82.196 (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if you wanted to say indie rock is a genre, you would have to break it down into sub-genres because as a whole it would be just a muddled mess of different styles. I agree with the blanket genre categorization; really, the only way you can define popular usage of the term is to define the kinds of bands falling under it, and in this case the sub-genres where they belong. In any case, anyone who works for an "indie" radio station or record store knows that "indie" encompasses more than just one type of music. Dextoll (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If "Indie" is to mean "independent of the music industry" rather than a genre (these days, it is in practice mostly used as a genre - "indie" R&B, smooth jazz, hiphop, or ambient electronica generally AREN'T called "indie" because they don't have the guitars, vocals, and production characteristic of indie music, even though they're indie in conception from start to finish), then it ought to mean "independent of the music industry" rather than merely "not yet famous and successful". A bunch of the eighties "indie" movement was people with no expectation of the "music industry" ever subsidizing their music making any more than they expected the sex industry to subsidize their sex lives. The bands we recall decades later are the famous successful ones of course, but that's not what it was about when it happens, any more than every local underage music scene is about who will eventually make it to Hollywood. So in that sense I'd reserve "indie" for those who actually are not playing the "pay me money for my music" game.

"Indie" is sort of a shorthand form of "independent", and such forms are inherently more ambiguous, and thus more easily able to shift in meaning than the longer form (this is why, for instance, "American Movie Classics" decided to become just "AMC" once they decided they no longer wanted to specialize in old movies). I guess that's why the word "independent", with respect to music, has stayed much truer to the original meaning than the word "indie". I think the problem that lead to the word "indie" becoming so divorced from its literal meaning is the fact that, in the field of music, the label tended to be applied to artists rather than works. And titles that are applied to people tend to acquire a certain amount of face value, so that it would be an offense to take them away.

Certain bands, such as Modest Mouse, gained reputation as an "indie" band. So what happens when they joined a major label? Indie culture apparently decided to keep applying the label to them - "indie" but not "independent". Indie culture, which prized Modest Mouse as one of the best "indie" bands, naturally didn't want Modest Mouse to suffer the loss in face which would occur if they were stripped of title. This left the word pretty much divorced of all meanings besides "indie style" music - IE the style of music that tended to be played by indie bands.

In contrast, in the field of indie movies, indie is ascribed to the work. You don't have adored "indie directors" who's fans keep applying the term "indie" to them after they've started working for a major studio. No, you have directors who've perhaps made some indie films, and some major studio films as well. So there's no inherent loss in face. While the term "indie" there does have some connotations of style (the same sort of pretentiousness that you see in music tends to dominate there), you still have cheap "indie" horror films that aren't at arty and pretentious, and no one in their right mind would call a major studio film that just happened to stylistically resemble a lot of indie films "indie". The same is sort of true of the indie game scene.

This is in contrast to the music scene where, again, "indie" stations will play Modest Mouse without blinking, while they would never play a genuinely independent hip-hop or heavy metal bands. In other artistic fields, such as literature, I don't think the "indie" term has any stylistic connotations at all, merely denoting an independently produced book.

For music, trying to strip away the heavy stylistic connotations that the word "indie" has acquired is pretty much a lost cause. I would personally just say that you should simply call bands that are independent of major labels "independent music", rather than referring to them by the more ambiguous term "indie".

And to those who will complain, such as one person above, that "if a majority of people claim the world is flat, would that make it flat?", this is simply the linguistic process of grammarization, where once concrete terms acquire newer, more abstract meanings with time. To give one example, in Shakespeare's time the word "going" always meant that you were literally going to some place, IE "I am going to Adam's house". A few decades after his death, the word acquired more abstract meanings, such as "I am going to do it". Oh yeah?! Where is "do it" on the map, you idiot?! This is not some cosmic injustice, it's just a thing that naturally happens in every language, and you shouldn't get so bent out of shape about it.65.0.82.196 (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

But if you ask any student at the university I'm at what they're listenting to, the vast majority answer "indie" then list a bunch of major-label bands that all have that amateur sound. If that's not genre, what is it? Personally I think it's just that we don't all mean the same thing with our words, nor do we want to. Commercial interests do not WANT there to be a word that means "music that's independent of the music industry" - it's not in their interest that people conceptualize music this way.24.17.178.36 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mess

It is a mess indeed. I don't think Acb's revision of 27 may 2005 is helping a lot in the opening paragraph, either.

What is a lot worse is that the article implies that "alternative" was some sort of bridge between new wave/punk and indie, which is totally wrong. Historically, the term indie was in generel use in the late eighties. Thus, Sonic Youth as of Sister/Daydream Nation was an indie rock band. "Alternative" was used for stuff like 10.000 Maniacs, REM and Green on Red, bands that were all on major labels at the time (late 80'ies). These bands were never seen as a part of the indie thing, but constituted some kind of middle ground. This is why Pearl Jam, obviously an alternative band, certainly don't belong in this article.

I think it would be great and constructive if the congregation here could agree to use Michael Azerrad's "Our band could be your life" as some sort of reference point, at least as far as the US scene is concerned. So instead of everybody contributing with what they "feel" their definition of indie is, we might start to point to actual, real-world sources! What a concept, huh? Then we might be able to turn the article into something a bit more useful. --The User Formerly Known As 83.91.204.14 4 june 2005

It seem fairly obvious to me that an indie rock band is a rock band signed to an independant label.207.157.121.50 09:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

This whole article is a glaringly incomplete, apocryphal mess.

I removed from this article A link to "Fuck (band)". If anyone wants to make a page for this band, then return it to this list. We shouldn't list profanely named bands just for the sake of having the word there. - Mark Ryan

Page is created now, so I've returned the link --Generica 02:38, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Does it make sense to link to "alternative rock", since that just redirects back to here? I don't think so, but at the same time, I don't think the link should simply be removed either. It seems to me that, while related, indie rock and alternative rock aren't exactly the same, and therefore, alternative rock deserves an article of its own. -Chinju

The list seems a bit US-orientated, and also needs trimming of some of the less significant names. The bit about "indie"/"emo" isn't strictly relevant either. -Silver plane

I agree that the bit about emo doesn't belong here:

In some musical communities, "indie" is used to mean the same thing "emo" means to nearly everyone else, due to heavy criticism of "emo" bands.

Because it really contains little info, and I can't quite parse its meaning. The less relevant bands shoud no be removed on general principal, though as the list gets too long, it should be moved to List of indie rock musicians. I'm sure the list is americocentric and needs more indie rock bands from other countries, though the solution is not to remove American bands. Tuf-Kat

I removed the following:

'There is often a unifying esthetic or ethos of defiance or independence, and a powerful community feel that rebels against the homogonies of aesthetic and philosophy that exist in the mainstream, against cliches of production qualities, instrumentation, style and ways of looking at the world; feminism as opposed to sexism, positivity - as opposed to the bling-bling and sexist topics in the mainstream - is found in indie hip-hop, etc. For every "Rage Against the Machine" there is often a more potent and creative "Fugazi" thriving outside the mass media.

There is useful info here, but it is much too biased until someone rewrites it. Tuf-Kat 21:55, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

There are a _lot_ of people adding bands that link to nothing. How about slowing the tide, and actually creating at least stubs for the bands before adding the links here? --Generica 04:48, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Indie or not?

There's a bit of a problem with the list of indie bands. There are several bands on the list who are either on a major label or switched from an indie label to a major label. This kind of hurts the integrity of this list. First of all, any bands who were never on an indie label should be removed. Secondly, it would probably be best to make a second list of bands who were on an indie label but changed to a major one. This would help make this a true list of indie artists, instead of just a list of alternative music artists (which we already have). -- LGagnon 23:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This started being a problem nearly twenty years ago. Since then, the term is frequently applied to bands more or less in that style, rather than necessarily bands on independent labels per se. It was because of this that Australian indie rock now redirects to the much more specific List of Australian independent bands, 1976-1992, which includes a definition of what the term means in context - and that meaning is what it was generally accepted to mean in that time and place.

The problem is complicated by labels that are distributed by indies but owned by majors, e.g. many in the UK in the early 1990s. Then there's labels that go out through different distribution for different records.

The ambiguity is in the real-world common usage; we could change it to be strict, but the list would then need a new name not to constitute editorialising on the issue - David Gerard 13:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The thing is the list is approached as a genre heading. Nothing inherently wrong with that instead of a list of bands only on independant labels. The problem with that is he word "indie" (especially in the UK) is generally considered synonymous with Alternative rock in terms of connotation. You say "indie" instead of "alternative". Thus, the List of indie rock artists has bands like Suede and R.E.M. listed. A more limited scope of the usage of indie rock (Sebadoh, Pavement, Liz Phair, Modest Mouse, etc.; basically the post-Nirvana underground rock scene) seems to be what the article is meant to exist for, but it really doesn't address it sufficiently. Maybe it needs a rewrite. WesleyDodds 05:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indie is not pop is not emo

I really don't think Liz Phair or Dashboard Confessional are indie rock bands, and a lot of other stuff on here isn't either. Indie is a genre disparate from emo rock, and pop rock, at least in the U.S. (OK, so it's basically the same as alt rock) Andre 07:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Liz Phair's early work was released on Matador Records and is considered very influential in the indie rock world. Dashboard does, indeed, not belong here.--Tinyfolk 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Im disgusted Mychemical Romance has been used as an example of indy, It is horrible!

The genre Emo, the Real Emo music, is the combination of Hardcore Punk [ Melodic Hardcore, Post Hardcore ] and Indie Rock! Both Indie Rock and Emo bands are in 90's Emo and Real Screamo subgenres (most bands of Real Screamo has few or no characteristics of Indie Rock), not in modern [Fake] Emo (actually Pop punk/Alternative Rock miscalled Emo, motivated by Culture Industry and media) mainstream success.

Fugazi, Sunny Day Real Estate, Cap'n Jazz, Indian Summer, Knapsack, The Gloria Record, Christie Front Drive, The Appleseed Cast, At the Drive-In, Braid, Mineral, Quicksand Slip, American Football, Joan of Arc, Texas Is the Reason, Jimmy Eat World, The Promise Ring, The Get Up Kids, The Juliana Theory, Empire! Empire! (I was a lonely estate) and so much others are examples.

In my point of view, Real Emo is the best musical genre ever, the combination of Punk Rock [derivations] and Indie Rock. Know it. Lguipontes (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rock"

I've noticed that "indie music" is a redirect to "indie rock". Is this appropriate? A lot of indie music doesn't come under the category of rock and roll. (For example, Azure Ray; it would be inaccurate to describe them as a rock band, and yet they fit into the genre of indie music.) I propose restructuring the pages to make "indie music" the umbrella page, with "indie rock", "indie pop" and such as subcategories. Acb 01:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph draws a specific distinction between "indie rock" and "indie pop" -- but the link to "indie pop" redirects back to "indie rock"! 24.59.113.214 6 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Well, it really looks like every band someone just happens to know, was put into the list. Bands like Sigur Ros and Morcheeba are _definitely_ no Indie Rock, as their own articles can tell you, so are lots of other bands. I know it's hard to sort bands by category, but at least be consistent throught the wikipedia. --Trickstar, 6 Jan 2005

Eels (The)

Fixed the link to The Eels to remove the The - the page it links too has the correct name.

Indie: status Or genre?

This paragraph is not entirely true, In Britain there is more to indie than just those particular bands, these bands are indie yet there are so many others that don't fall into the post punk category such as Keane and Thirteen Senses to name two, also Indie was widely used as a label in Britain before 2004.

This line, under 'Indie: Status Or Genre?', seems to have missed at least a decade of indie charts in the UK. I can't find a date that they started, but I remember watching the indie charts as a teenager in the early nineties. I don't know of any time when the indie charts were dropped and then restarted as a different category. At the very least, indie predates The Strokes and Interpol. What about Suede etc.? Therefore, I'm going to replace this with a line about 'indie music charts starting around the early 90s in the UK'.

In Britain, 'indie' is a term recognised by the BBC's Top Of The Pops and used to refer to a new wave of British rock bands who mostly rose to prominence during 2004 in the alternative music charts, following the New York explosion by bands such as The Strokes and Interpol in the first three years of the new millenium.

Jenks 12:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split off list of bands as a separate article?

Should we split off the list of bands as a separate article? This has been done with Alternative music and List of alternative rock bands. -- ericl234 ^talk 18:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Any list with more than a dozen or so entries should be split, I think. Tuf-Kat 21:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- ericl234 ^talk 00:39, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Twee pop and Sub Pop?

What in the world does Sub Pop Records have to do with Twee Pop? Because I can't think of a single thing. K Records would be better, and Sarah Records would be best to link to the twee genre, along with any number of newer labels (magic marker records, elefant, etc.).--Tinyfolk 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Indie rock and Indie (music)

I think there needs to be some rationalisation between these two articles. Indie (music) discusses the broader indie movement/ethos in popular music, which encompasses indie rock, indie pop and other varieties, whereas indie rock refers to a specific subcategory of indie music which a more rock-and-roll focus. (There is indie music which is not indie rock; for example, Belle & Sebastian, Architecture in Helsinki and Saint Etienne are hardly "rock", and yet they are characteristically indie.)

I propose integrating those parts about the broader indie ethos/values which aren't already in indie (music) to there and removing them from the Indie rock article, which should focus specifically on the history and characteristics rock-oriented varieties of indie music.Acb 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is still a very apocryphal, POV, and weasel-word mess. Almost every sentence is a "some say this but some say that"; the back and forth gives me whiplash! Better that one or two central definitions be pulled out and discussed as differing viewpoints on indie. And yes, the music and rock articles need to be made sane with each other. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

far too much importance on flavor of the minute name-checking (an LA Indie Rock scene does not exist, period) and far too little historical information or back story. i'd almost think an RCA Records exec wrote the thing.

if you're going to say that indie rock is different from indie pop (especially in your opening paragraph) DO NOT have a link that redirects one from "indie pop" back to the original article that was being viewed. This needs much fixing. -Emily

Are these even real genres?

Just because I have never heard of them doesn't mean they aren't real genres, that's why I'm asking. But, seriously, does anyone use labels like Freak-folk, New Weird America, Nu-gaze, or Indietronic? "New Weird America" is especially suspect, considering the artists mentioned aren't even significant to indie as a whole. I won't delete this (because I may be wrong), but some clarification would be nice. I hope people aren't making up genres. . .

Also, unrelated, this sentence seems rather superfulous, as if someone is trying to name as many genres as they can. For no productive reason. Does anyone else agree?

"More recently, the term "indie rock" has become so incredibly broad that almost anything from post-punk to alt-country to synth-pop to afrobeat to ambient to noise pop to IDM to psychedelic folk to hundreds of other genres can fall under its umbrella." White Lightning 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohio

For some reason, a lot of Indie rock seems to come out of Ohio. Is that worth mentioning? Wouter Lievens 10:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing at List of bands from Ohio Wouter Lievens 10:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Hey, if you're an editor watching this article, please beware of people adding their own personal music review site to the External links section. I think that the External links section should be limited to websites that have a notable influence in indie rock and a wide readership, and they should not be focused on a particular locality (one that I removed was focused on the Omaha, Nebraska indie rock scene). Thus I think NME and Pitchforkmedia are good links; they are extremely notable. An academic study of indie rock might be a good external link as well - it shouldn't be all review sites!

So if you're affiliated with a site, don't insert it into external links yourself - let somebody else decide whether it's good enough to represent all of indie rock for the Internet. If it is, they will. --Grace 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Keyboards

Seems like there's been a minor skirmish over the insertion of keyboards recently. Personally, I think it's a pretty valid addition. They might not be as essential as drums or guitar, but they're quite widespread. Any thoughts? Deleuze 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I for the life of me can't think of a sizable number of indie rock bands that relied heavily on keyboards. I'm reminded of John Peel's reason for not playing the Festive Fifty in 1991, complaining that the chart was dominated by "white boys with guitars" (ie. indie rock). WesleyDodds 10:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Embarrassment, Felt, The Auteurs, The Fall, Feelies, Fire Engines, Magazine, Public Image Ltd., Pulp, Suede, Joy Division, The Sound, The Bats, The Clean, Chameleons, Tuxedomoon, Wire...not to mention all the neo-post-punk and dance-punk bands that copy them. I dunno, that's off the top of my head. This might just be a problem related to how meaningless "indie" is as a descriptive term, though. Deleuze 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of those are post-punk, not indie rock. WesleyDodds 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NO THEY'RE BRITPOP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Current trends

Shouldn't the current trends section be moved to indie music? I can't picture Dntel or Six Organs of Admittance as rock...

Also, is the term "nu-gaze" actually used out in the wild? Mentioning post-rock would be more appropriate. Squeal 08:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's called indie rock doesn't mean it has to "rock". And nu-gaze (haven't heard the term much, but I have heard it) I don't think overlaps with post-rock much. WesleyDodds 03:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so what I'm questioning is precisely the fact that it is called indie rock. Or rock at all, for that matter. Dntel, for example, is undoubtly universally classified as electronic.

Also, I'm not arguing that post-rock overlaps nu-gaze (althought, if the term is applicable to groups such as Sigur Rós or M83, it apparently does to some extent), just that the former is infinitely more popular and leaving it out while mentioning the latter seems improper. And, with 2700 hits on Google, nu-gaze's usage seems almost unexistent and dangerously close to a sampling error (any of the other mentioned genres produces over 100 000 results). Squeal 10:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Freak-folk vs. New Weird America

What is described here as freak folk fits more accurately into the designation of New Wierd America (at least according to Devendra Banhart, it's current Manson/Christ figure, who also has the unfotrunate tendency to refer to it as new age, which I believe is part of a secret power crystal endorsement deal he is using to buy beard combs or whatever the hell he would do with such blood money) and what is described as New Wierd America is more accurately psych-folk, or perhaps avant psych folk.I'm switchin' that shit.

Rock on for AIDS II

we are influence organizer in Bali - Indonesia would like to invite all indies band around the world to celebrate Rock on for AIDS II charity conert " Inspiration of Bali " , saturday 2 december 2006 . this programme will be support by the capacity lighting & sound system 150.000 watt and more than 20.000 people will watch this event.this charity concert is the biggest one in Indonesia.concerning with the programme we as the organizer prepare acommodation likes hotel and transport for 1 week in bali.all indie band songs are going to be on air at 5 radio station in Bali. more over , all indies band are able to sell their records when the concert going on and we wiil give a videos concert.its a honour for us if all indie label bands around the world could join this charity concert.for more information please send your e-mail to influence_org @yahoo.com

Underground?

I wouldn't mind a discussion on the status of Indie rock being considered underground. Indie rock is becoming as ubiquitous as McDonald's and cell phones these days. If you look on the charts, be them Billboard, iTunes, or even last.fm, you can easily see that Indie Rock is one of the most popular genres these days. I believe that the Shins made a song for a McDonald's commercial actually.

Whether you're a fan of the genre or not, there is no denying how marketable it is.

The term underground is used way too loosely in this article. I'd like to remove its usage entirely.

Only a few indie rock bands have had massive success. It's still largely underground, and that's where it by and large emerges from. WesleyDodds 08:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many bands nowadays (anything between Razorlight and Modest Mouse) which may classify themselves as indie to some degree, but are in fact very marketable.--HisSpaceResearch 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But yeah, just in my personal opinion, indie rock sucks hard and it's the reason that I don't listen to newly released music anymore. This article does, however, provide a fair overview of the genres that do exist and I would agree that although many of these bands do come from the underground, it doesn't stop some of these bands that originated there from eventually becoming really big (a la Arcade Fire).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Indie music is far from underground and is ubiquitous especially in the UK where it dominates the music charts and is mostly regarded as popular music. Visit any University in the UK today and find it awash with people submerged in the indie culture who claim to be individualist/alternative and clearly are not. The quote 'largely underground' is absurd, obviously there are underground origins and small elements but any indie band nowadays that relies heavily on the style often compromising substance will be snapped up by a big label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.96.111 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I came here to post this, but I see it's been done! I agree, indie rock is no longer 'underground'. Ed270791 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer indie either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nu-gaze et al

So, once again - nu-gaze is apparently another of NME's failed attempt at creating a new musical genre. Not that the classification does not have its justifications, but actually being used or describing an actual musical scene of interconnected bands and artists are not one of them, which renders it unusable anyway.

I believe that the genre description without the above explanation included constitutes original research. I also believe that removing it entirely (at least for now) from this (and other) article(s) should be considered the best option.

Oh, and I removed DNTEL from the list. Not rock. I'm still wondering on the justification of including folk genres in the article about rock music; I can't see any, but please feel free to correct me. Squeal 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the removal. I don't know if NME is really a reliable source, heh Deleuze 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I second. Alt-country as well is not rock, really, and neither is pop, but I don't know how much they interlap with indie rock Dextoll (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"New rave"?!

I deleted the bit on "New Rave". It's another stupid genre NME decided existed. It's also a relatively new stupid genre. The only one of these "new rave" bands that anyone's paying any significant attention to is the Klaxons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrankenFirke (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Whatever was deleted should probably come back now, new rave has increased in popularity quite a bit in the last two years. It's even gotten a section in the rock music article. Zazaban (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaiser Chiefs

No, Kaiser Chiefs are misplaced here. Kaiser Chiefs is a band that does not deserve to be called "independent", they were* a bad clone of Franz Ferdinand and soon we'll all forget about them.

• they aren't anymore, as the new album doesn't even deserve to be a called a "clone" of the great music Franz do.

Featured artist

as well as cleaning the hole artical up, could we add a featured artist section in, and change it over every so often? anyone agree this would be a good idea? sources could be used to justify why the band should be the featured band, just an idea... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.111.152 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC). Hear hear!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.115.235 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

Got bored one day, and sort of made an Indie Rock userbox:

IRThis user is Indie Rock 'till they drop.

Didn't know really where else to put it so I thought I'd put it here. Use as you see fit. --SteelersFan UK06 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of 'indie' - originally

I accept without question that what has evolved into being referred to as 'indie' is very different to the beginning but I think it is very important to understand where 'indie' came from and that it did not refer to a style of music at all. For instance, the pop reggae band UB40 topped the indie charts in the UK on many occasions and there were many other pop artists, for instance, the PWL outfits eg Kylie Minogue, who also later qualified as indie. You also had goth bands, speed punk bands and then the likes of Virginia Astley and many others who were all indie.

I can't be entirely accurate with dates and facts etc as I don't have back issues of the music weeklies here, but in the music papers in the UK, there was an 'independent' chart listed. Again I can't remember the exact definition of 'independent' but it certainly entailed distribution as well as who owned the label. It was in this chart that anyone not distributed or owned by the majors appeared. So Top 40 artists appeared if they were on an independent label.

Around the mid 80s (possibly 85?) various things started happening which began to push indie more into the public view. A trade mag called 'The Catalogue' started to go more for consumer purchase as well as trade, and so appeared in music shops, and within it, it listed everything that was going to be issued on an independent label within the next month. It included features on small labels and so gave much needed exposure to them. Also around this time the phrase 'indie guitar band' started to appear, bolsted in 1986 by NME's 'C86' tape and the Chart Show on UK terrestrial tv (ch 4?) starting to show the 'independent charts' every now and then complete with lo budget videos. Their tv coverage coincided with the likes of Primal Scream, The Wedding Present, Red Lorry Yellow Lorry and other small label bands appearing who focused primarily on lo fi guitar.

Up to around then, I would've cited the classic indie band as New Order who were partly a guitar band but not in what came to be known as indie.

Like I say, I have no problem at all with the subsequent label of indie as a style that evolved and took on a name, but the origins of indie I feel are important and seemingly quite lost nowadays. UB40 were the biggest indie band in the UK at one point. Honey power 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Look at this paragraph for After 2000:

When the new millennium began the world was indecisive about where music would turn. 90's underground cult classic bands became popular, and a far cry variation of emo became popular as well and still new compositions in the style of classic rock continue to thrive, but this decade's most distinctive move in music was Indie rock. Indie rock became the staple of music. When the new millennium began the world was indecisive about where music would turn. 90's underground cult classic bands became popular, and a far cry variation of emo became popular as well and still new compositions in the style of classic rock continue to thrive, but this decade's most distinctive move in music was Indie rock. Indie rock became the staple of music. Mainstream began to get a very bad connotation. Some of the Indie rock bands felt the necessity of using a singing technique called idiot's voice, it has been spread widely. The bands that began to arise resembled Punkabilly bands from the 1970s. Slowly a new type of style became accepted. The appeal of Indie rock is largely the fact that it is 'underground' and can be shared among friends. Also it has become considered cool to just listen to the music that you personally like instead of 'just whats popular'. In general this move has led to artistic and unique movement in music and has begun to blur the lines between rock (such as Franz Ferdinand) and modern alternative (such as Coldplay). Some of the Indie rock bands felt the necessity of using a singing technique called idiot's voice, it has been spread widely. The bands that began to arise resembled Punkabilly bands from the 1970s. Slowly a new type of style became accepted. The appeal of Indie rock is largely the fact that it is 'underground' and can be shared among friends. Also it has become considered cool to just listen to the music that you personally like instead of 'just whats popular'. In general this move has led to artistic and unique movement in music and has begun to blur the lines between rock (such as Franz Ferdinand) and modern alternative (such as Coldplay).

I'm not going to bother listing the factual errors and blatant OR and NPOV violations, such as "Indie rock became the staple of music," but this whole pp. is incoherent nonsense. I'd like to rewrite it when I have time, but for now I think that nothing is better than wh there now, so I'm removing it. --Hemisemidemiquaver 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanity

I don't want to appear to claim ownership of this article, but I do watch this page for changes, and a large number of edits are recently registered or anonymous users adding one or two bands to the "notable bands" section. Naturally in such a vague genre as indie rock, there is bound to be some contention about who is and isn't notable. But usually, the bands that get added only claim to indie rock notability is that they are unsigned or popular in a local scene. 'Notability' is clearly defined on Wikipedia, and many of the bands added are notable enough to have articles, but not enough to be listed among the most influential indie rock artists in the 2000s (the only decade seeing regular edits). I'll assume good faith on the part of the editors listing these bands, but I will continue to police this article. So far no one has reverted any of my deletions, but it's always possible I've made a mistake. Feel free to leave a note here if you'd like to discuss this. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm joining you on this. I've just deleted a few bands from those lists, most of them are definitely notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia but not even almost amongst 'the most influential indie rock artists since 2000'. A large portion of them were way out of the category they were listed under also (Kasabian are dance punk? Occasional synth-use does not a dance-punk band make...).

I've been quite lenient in terms of what I left in, the lists really could still do with more chopping down - as it's supposed to be the 'most influential since 2000' artists who are named, in my opinion there probably should be a maximum of about 5 bands listed for any one genre, 8 years is certainly not enough to have had 17 hugely influential bands in one sub-genre. Especially if that includes calling Kaiser Chiefs and Hard-Fi 'post-punk revival'. Hengler (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one. My concern is that while some of these additions are clearly inserted by fans to inappropriately elevate the status of these bands, and we can use WP:V to justify their removal, anyone could legitimately do the same for anything else on the page, since there's once reference and it's neither inline nor online. So this whole article amounts to a big heap of Original Research. Pitchfork should be good for a reference or two, as should Rolling stone and Paste, but it's not going to be easy to find a source for all these bands that outright says "X is one of the most influential indie bands since 2000." Unless we can make some progress there, the list needs to be eventually deleted, and the article will need extensive purging. I think the article is useful and don't want to see that happen, but it's hard to argue that my perspective on what indie rock is is any more valid than anyone else's. My uni has a subscription to pretty much every online library database, so I'll see what I can do, but I'm not blessed with an abundance of time. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed yet more bands from the lists, and added a comment in the page about this point - now I'm going to make a start on finding cites. Pitchfork will be my first port of call, and DrownedInSound should be good for the bands better known in the UK. If anybody else who wants to help with this or suggest other sources for cites it'd be great :) Hengler (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

edit, something just came up and I can't do it now. But hopefully I should get to this over the next few days. The lists really do add to the article so it would be a shame to have them deleted but they definitely need cites.Hengler (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just added a citation to a Blender Article from December called The 100 Greatest Indie-Rock Albums Ever. I would call that a reliable source on what some of the most influential Indie Rock bands are. I tagged ten bands named in the list, but I think there might be a few more. Cheers. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur Jr - Hardcore Punk?

There was some reference to Dinosaur Jr being a hardcore punk band which I swiftly edited out - ZEROpumpkins ([[User talk:ZEROpumpkins|talk]]) 09:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not put in hardcore punk!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.30.33 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What about The Bravery ?

This article doesn't speak about The Bravery, who is a chartsful electro-indie band. Why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.79.157 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• You could start with the fact that The Bravery are signed to a major label. Thus, in the loose sense of the word, they're not an indie band at all. The band's sound considered, they certainly fit in with the "indie" sound, but me personally, while they've charted respectably and have sold loads of albums, I don't think they've made much of an impact influence-wise to really warrant more than a passing mention in this article. TheLetterM (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, I mean Death Cab for Cutie has been refered to as an indie rock despite the fact they're now on a major label, ditto Rilo Kiley. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fair, but DCFC and Rilo Kiley also spent years on important indie labels (Death Cab with Barsuk Records, Rilo Kiley with Barsuk and Saddle Creek Records). The Bravery weren't on an indie for very long. TheLetterM (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Strokes are here, I'd say they are even more popular than The Bravery..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.166.32 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section could be expanded a great deal, with regards to early influences and bands with a "DIY" ideal. Minor Threat, Fugazi, Black Flag, The Minutemen, Jane's Addiction, The Melvins, The Meat Puppets, The Dead Kennedy's, just to name a few influences on many of the indie and alternative bands that would come later. Many of these bands were every bit as influential to the scene as the Pixies were. Mother Love Bone, Mudhoney and Temple of the Dog are also worth noting as part of the grunge movement. Actually I think the whole article needs to be expanded. One paragraph for the 90's? Not even one complete sentence for after 2000? Surely we can find more information about indie rock. Deepfryer99 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See a few topics up for what used to be the contents of the 'post 2000' section. It was not salvageable. I had planned to rewrite, but I'd rather leave it to more capable hands, as I'm no music historian. If you have any reliable sources, you know what to do. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

I don't think Indie Rock is really a genre? Indie is independent i thought? Indie rock just seems like another NME created stupid thing. There are no references, or external links, nor any real prof that it exists as a genre, i think the article should be deleted unless anyone can find any hard evidence of its existence. (86.154.241.119 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

If it's not a genre, it's at least a radio format in Los Angeles [1] - Authalic (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "indie rock" is used to refer to a genre fairly frequently. Some people object to this for idealistic reasons, but people also objected to "alternative rock" being used in reference to a genre. The objects are nothing new, and it's not our job to decide if using "indie rock" as a term is wrong. I would argue that this article should primarily used to discuss the term as it applies to genres, and to point users to independent music for information about indie labels and such. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

the term "indie rock" is NOTHING NEW. the media was using it 10 years ago when i was young. back then it was a radio format [that included mainstream acts] too. what IS new is how pissing annoying indie rockers are. afaicr indie kids [from travis to the underground] were fairly anonymous as music lovers; now they're all "Oh I'm so indie :-D Look at my scarves and SkINNY JeaNS aren't I indie :-D Indie :-D". Really odd that this has happened.

Indie is not a genre. You may play space rock or experimental pop, but as long as you're not singed to Universal or Sony, you will be indie. And that's stupid. One of the most stupid things ever actually. Try it: if you reckon something similar about Muse, Arctic Monkeys and Porter is they have a drummer. And it seems the three of them are "indie".--Fluence (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what exactly is your point? Fugazi, Silkworm, and Big Black are all considered by many music journalists to be "indie", and don't sound similar at all. I don't have a problem with this whereas you do. However, I chose these three bands as examples for a reason: although they didn't embody a singular "indie" sound (and it would be impossible to find a band that did), they certainly embodied an ethic shared by many indie rock bands. Fugazi was on its own label Dischord Records, booked their own shows and ignored the majors, and ended up very famous. Silkworm weren't even the target of major label interest, and yet despite their cool popularity, still forged on and released nine albums within twelve years on various indie labels, and frequently toured. The highly confrontational Big Black (mostly its frontman Steve Albini) booked all their shows, struck deals with indie labels, paved the way for other bands of their time (Sonic Youth being one) to tour Europe, and told the major labels to fuck off.

There's about a good ton of good bands that have run their business this way, but I suggest the book Our Band Could Be Your Life as a primer on different 80s US indie rock bands that did. If you do take a look at the bands in that book, you'll notice that none of them sound similar at all. The reality of the matter is that while indie rock is a very broad, "umbrella" term for a grouping of bands of differing sound and quality (same as Rock music and Punk rock, really), they are very similar in that they choose to make their music outside of the mainstream music world. TheLetterM (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Death Cab for Cutie

shouldn't death cab for cutie be on the list of Main indie rock genres after 2000? (Letuce? (talk) 05:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

IMO Death Cab, Modest Mouse, The Shins, Bright Eyes, Rilo Kiley, The Postal Service, The Decemberists and so on should all have a category together on the page as a "main genre after 2000" - rst20xx (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this be merged?

I think that this article's size should be compared to the size of other related articles/sections. If this one is significantly larger, i think it should be shortened and merged into "Indie Music". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robo56 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. "Indie rock" is about a genre, while "indie music" is about an approach to making an releasing music. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not, Independent music refers to wether or not something is on a major label, while Indie rock refers to a specific style of music. Zazaban (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Madchester / Britpop confusion

This section is a bit confused:

Artists who either signed for a major record label in the early 1990s, or who were effectively 'sold' to one, include The Stone Roses, James, New Order, Happy Mondays and Oasis. It is worth noting that all of them come from Greater Manchester, as did The Smiths. Many of these bands, particularly Oasis, came to represent mainstream British pop music. These formerly-indie bands were collectively referred to in various ways by the music press. Newspapers and journalists referred to 'the Madchester scene'. The terms Britpop and 'major-label indie' were later applied to these bands, alongside bands from other parts of the UK, as this music entered the mainstream.

This is just a random list of Manchester bands. The Stone Roses and Happy Mondays (and to a lesser extent James) were part of the so-called 'Madchester' scene circa 89-91 (along with the Inspiral Carpets and a few others). Oasis were part of what became called 'Britpop' (along with groups like Blur and Pulp, and arguably Suede) circa 94-96. New Order have nothing to do with either scene. There's no overlap at all: nobody would ever have described the Mondays as Britpop or Oasis as Madchester. 217.43.100.15 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. And New Order were on their own independent label for most of their career and were never on any major label (i'm obviously excluding America). Madchester definitely influenced Britpop, and it should be mentioned about Manchester's music scene as an influence on the Britpop/British Indie Rock scene. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Grunge

Can't be grunge listed in 90's main Indie genres?. The proper grunge concept is largely Indie, despite being mainstream during early 90's. Why is not grunge listed there?. Garage kid. (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Grunge generally predates what is now thought of as indie rock. Also, it is a list of gain genres in the 2000s. Zazaban (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mission of Burma

Any history of so-called indie rock that doesn't credit Mission of Burma with having laid the groundwork for the genre is a farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.1.1 (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much original research and rubbish

Apologies to those that have built this article up, but it's a mess. The "Main indie rock genres of the 1990s" is full of WP:OR as is the "Main indie rock genres after 2000" section, both of which seem to be describing a vague notion of "alternative music" rather than "indie rock". The largely dubious lists of bands should go, and some of the genres are in no way "indie rock genres". Indie pop, Lo-fi, Math rock, Post-hardcore, Alt-country, etc. are not subgenres of indie rock. Dance-punk has been around since the late 1970s/early 1980s, pre-dating indie rock by several years. These lists add nothing to the article that should be about a genre and are just an invitation for editors to add their favourite bands and their own POV. Why are Radiohead even mentioned? They've never been "indie rock". The idea that Fleet Foxes are an indie-rock band is laughable. I propose that these lists are removed. Objections?--Michig (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs serious trimming. It is currently too full of lists of sub-genres and bands. There should be more text on the history and development of indie rock as both a DIY method of making records and the type of music that eventually became most associated with this system. Rather than endlessly arguing about which bands are "indie rock" and how many subgenres can be listed, I think it would be better to focus on describing the (endless) debate over such issues. For example, commonly argued issues like "can major label bands be considered indie rock if they sound a certain way" should be addressed with arguments presented from both sides. Amazinglarry (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I started to address some of this by rewording the introduction and merging the lists of genres into a smaller section near the top of the article. In the process I removed the lists of bands from each genre, which were mostly unsourced, debatable, unnecessary, unencyclopedic, etc. If you feel it is necessary to add them back, please try to incorporate links into the text of the article so it does not become a giant list again. I will continue to work on refs and wording for this article as I have time. Amazinglarry (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did some more work on it. There is a lot missing (could use many more references) but it's a start. The section on the 2000s could use a lot more work (i.e. major musical trends, references for the influence of the internet). I remember reading an interview with the Arcade Fire where they talked about the huge influence their positive pitchfork review had, this would be a good reference to add. Anyone remember this or have a link? Amazinglarry (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Indie Rock Cafe seems like a legit external link to me

I see someone removed the link to the Indie Rock Cafe citing WP:ELNO. I read through that again and didn't see a good reason for removing the link. I have no affiliation with that site, but I find it an excellent resource on Indie Rock. It claims to have a very high readership and it seems to me to be one of the best sources of new information on the topic. It is not a commercial site nor does it seem to have a particular agenda other then sharing music and info around this genre. Personally I think it is the best source I've found. Compared to the other external links in there right now - some of which seem to be commercial in nature, I think this is more like the type of link that should be here. Please take a careful look at the site and consider adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.234 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed this site and went through WP:ELNO line by line and agree with the suggestion. Added link Rls ny (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been back and forth external link battles primarily between two people: Amazinglarry and Barbara2009C. There are quite strict rules about external links but I'd suggest that if you think a link passes the tests in WP:ELNO you explain it here as was done for Indie Rock Cafe. Then if you make a good case it should stay. The two debated links seem to be: indiebands.ws - which appears to be a relatively small scale blog and I'd argue it doesn't meet the criteria - and AllMusic Indie Rock which is all over the reference section already so I guess it may be ok, but seems a bit redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.117.213 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps using sockpuppet accounts (Barbara2009C, Campwww, Mel99 to add the indiebands.ws link and delete other links in the process. I've been reverting it when someone else doesn't beat me to it. If anyone else has more relevant links or sources that I could use to add cited content to this article, please share them. As I started working on this article, I was surprised at how hard it was to find good reliable sources to cite besides allmusic. Amazinglarry (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ska

Ska was a big influence on Indie rock almost as much as punk and alternative. --Degree9 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the rise of 3rd wave ska and ska-punk was related to the commercialization of alternative rock, but I think it would be a stretch to say that ska was a major influence on indie rock. My interpretation is that early punk influenced both ska and indie rock, which then diverged. If you want to add something about ska into this article, maybe a mention of how it shares common roots with indie rock would be the best way to do it. Or, do you have any references that make the connection more directly? Amazinglarry (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Punk is not under the stylistic origins of Ska. Nor would it be a stretch to say ska influenced India. Simply listen to The Arctic Monkeys, The Coral, the majority of Indie bands. That 'jumping' fast paced reggae-ish beat you're hearing in their music is the sound of ska's influence in the genre. --Degree9 (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Indie and Alternative

I am sure that there is a rationale for having separate Indie and Alternative rock articles, and I notice several long term editors have contributed to both articles, so it must have occurred to someone that they cover the same ground, but could someone please just explain outline the reasons. I couldn't find any discussion of this in the talk page or archives of either article, but perhaps I missed it. A look at major sources indicates the two terms are used pretty interchangeably and the Alternative rock article seems to imply that indie is both a sub-genre of Alt and a synonym. Most notably most of the same bands appear in both articles, which say much the same thing. If there is no rationale supported by sources then it is worth considering a merger. If there is a rationale, perhaps it should be in both articles. Help anyone?--SabreBD (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the terms were more or less synonymous in the early days (the 1980s and leading into the early 1990s), but once "alternative" music became mainstream around 1992, the terms diverged. "Alternative" began to refer to the popular bands on major labels and on the radio; "indie" bands were those that remained underground. The terms have two distinct meanings - nobody would call Fugazi an "alternative rock" band just like nobody would refer to Stone Temple Pilots as "indie rock" despite the fact the roots of both bands can be traced back to 1980's post-hardcore/alternative. So basically I think that both articles should stay, but some clarification is needed. I'll try to work on it if I have a chance. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty clear. Perhaps you can do something sourced along those lines. I think it will sort out the problem. However, we will need to put something on Alternative rock to that effect. Thanks for giving it your time.--SabreBD (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Grunge pop, baroque core, paisley mainstream, hip grind, krautcore

Isn't it correct that certain (minority) aesthetics have been discriminated against, that less mainstream and more multicultural genres have been attacked in Anglo-American discourse (to subordinate the Other to Enlightenment/Modernist Western civilization). Now, since we have established the legitimacy of the Other in public (and critical/racist) discourse, doesn't it at least deserve credit on a Wikipedia article page? So, let us at least give some credit where credit is due. In this case, we must admit that the Other finally can speak, that the Other can signify, and that those who have been persecuted can finally establish themselves in discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian indie

This does not mention the burgeonung Australian indie scene with bands like Yves Klein Blue and Ball Park Music and similar bands or the New Zealand scene with Cut Off Your Hands, who are all beginning to do quite well for themselves. Jbhf1 (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonconstructive edits and endless silly indie rock genre debate

The controversy over whether indie rock is a genre of music or a classification based on means of production is described in the introduction to this article. If you are working on the article, please do not cut out large swaths of it to bias it in favor of one side of this argument. Any internet search shows that journalists over the years have used the phrase "indie rock" to refer to both. The article needs to reflect this, not take a side. Please keep this in mind and try to be constructive and respectful with your edits! Addition of sources and expansion of existing sections would be much more appreciated than random chopping w/o explanation or discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Amazinglarry (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the Smiths / Morrissey?

Morrissey's wikipedia pages goes on and on and on about how much he influenced indie rock music.. it is even quoted that he "patented the template for modern indie rock".. yet there is not a single reference to him or the smiths in this article.. why is that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.237.202 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a fair point and an odd omission. I will see if I can borrow a reference from the Smiths/Morrissey articles for the time being.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a mention of the Smiths in the article a while back (just saw it in an April 2010 version of the article), but it looks like somebody deleted it. It definitely belongs there, glad to see it back. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

I am working on a clean-up of the article, sorting format problems, supplying citations and trying to organise things a bit better. If there are any suggestions for major improvements now would be a good time to make them.--SabreBD (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This now done. I also expanded the very limited 2000s section. A few points were removed because they couldn't be sourced, but basically the old article is in here with additional information and citations.--SabreBD (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, thanks for all your work SabreBD! I have been meaning to expand this article for a while now but never found the time to make a serious go at it. I will see if I can streamline some of the stuff you wrote and add a little bit here and there. Amazinglarry (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The sourcing is great. I may try to find a few books to add. They always look better then websites --Guerillero | My Talk 04:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of those sets of edits would be good. No doubt there is still a bit of tweaking, sourcing and tidying up that can be done. It might also be worthwile for editors to consider the issue of subheadings now the article is expanded. Would it be better to have more than just decades? - for example "1980s emergence", "1990s diversification" or "sub-genres" and "2000s mainstream success" (not committed to these suggestions they are just for illustration). In the last section do we have so much that a further level of subheadings might help break up the article (e.g. "Garage rock/post punk revival", "Emo", "'Indie landfill' and continued success" and "Indie electronic")? They tend to make it easier to navigate, but might make things a bit fragmented. Opinions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing a merger of the material from Indie landfill. Apart from the issues of that article as it stands, the main argument is under WP:MERGE #3: it is "very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time".--SabreBD (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree---Violarulez (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too Tomcrocker (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Thank you, --Patriot8790 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC): I agree

landfill doesn't deserve a page at all - no merger - just delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.216.152 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The current mention in this article doesn't provide context - it seems to have been used first in the UK, to refer to British bands, not the American bands mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Peter E. James (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the merger, or just saying we need to improve what is here when we do it?--SabreBD (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just that additional information to provide the context is needed whether the articles are merged or not. I objected to the delete proposal on the Indie landfill page, because of the merge discussion and because the article was recreated (with different capitalisation and possibly different content) after a previous deletion, so discussion would be required. I wouldn't oppose a merger, and it seems likely that there would be consensus for it. Peter E. James (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The page Indie landfill shouldn't exist. It's almost as if the article is just a definition only fit for Urban Dictionary. Maybe it can be mentioned in Indie rock somewhere, but this page needs to go, deleted, merged, killed or whatever. It is pointless and is not fit for an encyclopedia. NYSMtalk page 23:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be not much more than a definition and examples, but I'm not sure why you have mentioned Urban Dictionary when there are reliable sources for use of the phrase. Peter E. James (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

To point out, half of the links are dead, and, regardless, Wikipedia should not have articles that are just definitions, Wiktionary is meant for that, and I don't even think Landfill indie is even suitable for either. Thousands of slang "phrases" exist in the English language, but they do not have articles on this encyclopedia. NYSMtalk page 00:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

At least put a redirect to "Indie Rock", and provide a link to "Wiktionary". We can't just simply delete the information. I have been wondering for years what the clapping, whistling, acoustic guitar, ukulele, which is generally low quality and is heard in numerous commercials. This genre exists. It is not merely occasional slang. It is a headache, and a sharp decline in music. In-Correct (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is wrong in so many ways

Sorry, but this is just so wrong. Firstly, the "College rock" section is totally US-centric. Only the US had 'college rock'. It states that bands like REM (first release 1981) and The Smiths (first release 1983) inspired bands like the dB's (who had already released several records by 1981). The Indie pop section gives 'Aztec Camera, Josef K and Orange Juice' as examples of major indie pop artists - Josef K were a post-punk band who had split up before anyone had thought of the term 'indie pop', Orange Juice were an influence but hardly an example of indie pop, and Aztec Camera were a mainstream major-label pop band by the time indie pop was around. The influence of C86 is overstated. Its name later (and inappropriately if anyone should actually bother to listen to it) became synonymous with a type of indie pop, but it documented a scene that was already at its peak when it was released - the jangly bits of the tape were probably more of an influence on the later indie pop bands from about 1988 onwards, when most of the original indie pop bands had gone major, split up, or jumped on the dance/rock bandwagons. Slowdive, Ride and Lush didn't dominate the music press at the end of the 1980s because they hadn't even released any records by then (Slowdive hadn't even formed!). The 1990s section talks about space rock in that decade and Spacemen 3, calling them 'minimalist' (???) - they split up in early 1990 and virtually all of their music was recorded in the 80s. So, 'sofixit' and all that, before anyone jumps in with that one, but there's a lot that needs fixing here.--Michig (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition to sofixit a lot of what you mention is reliably sourced, although sometimes unintended conclusions and implications can be drawn from sources. I am not sure what you want here. Do you plan to fix it or do you want someone else to fix it?--SabreBD (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix what I can (thanks for the obvious reply), but more scrutiny of what people write here on an ongoing basis would be good, and any efforts by others to get things right would help. Some of it is synthesis rather than directly sourced. The article also needs to be broadened to recognize that indie rock was not solely a US/UK thing - Australia and New Zealand for instance had important scenes/bands/labels right from the start (The Go-Betweens pre-dated REM and the dB's for instance, and Flying Nun was as important as most if not all of the labels listed here). --Michig (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it best you go for it, particularly the need for going beyond the UK and US and I will chip in when I can. The problem with college rock is that it was really only a US phenomenon, but the bands played were sometimes from the UK and elsewhere. I don't know where you are seeing synthesis as I went to some pains to avoid that when I provided sources, but we can deal with it when it is raised.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the 'C86' problem is that both articles cited use it to refer both to the NME tape and the scene that some named after it. It wasn't C86 the tape that did a lot of the things claimed in that section, it was 'C86' the genre/scene. I don't see the source citing Josef K, Orange Juice and Aztec Camera as major indie pop artists - the Pitchfork article that is cited merely identifies Josef K as a link between punk and indie pop. There's no source for Lush, Slowdive, and Ride dominating the music press in the late 1980s - I propose to move those into the next section as they were only really written about in the early 1990s. The Allmusic source about space rock (correctly) mentions Spacemen 3, but it needs to be clear they weren't around in the 90s. I'll change these but just shout if you disagree with any of this.--Michig (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that so far.--SabreBD (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not having a major label makes you sound different?

76.120.17.197 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Placebo

It says here that Placebo 'gained international recognition' in the mid 2000s - since they were having chart topping hits in their hey-day in the early 1990s (as documented in their Wikipedia page) this is clearly nonsense. Someone change, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.171 (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Indie stop becoming a tangible term around about 1995

After that point shouldn't music tagged under the Indie banner either come under retro / revival or fusion (any new forms of music with little connection with 'original' indie sounds shouldn't come under Indie at all).Indie has seemed to have been redefined so much these days nobody has a clue what it is any more.If I had my way I'd ban the use of the tag outright except for music produced before 1995 :S Scratchy7929 23:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

Hasn't Indie become a Neologism - 'In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning' Scratchy7929 00:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps it's sub-genres have become Retronym's 'a new name for an object or concept to differentiate its original form or version from a more recent form or version' Scratchy7929 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

Indiana?

When did "indie" stop meaning "from Indianapolis"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Indie Rock's relationship with Alt.

Am I the only one that realizes that indie rock is no longer a genre of alt. Sure, it might have been in the 80's but it's become it's own thing now. It's much more of a "Mother" - "Daughter" type of relationship, where the daughter grew up and went it's own way. Sure, on the surface they're similar but when you go deeper you realize how different they really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinnyWeirdGuy (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Overhaul/Indie is a genre

This article needs a complete overhaul. Indie is considered a genre by almost everyone. Even if it wasn't, big music companies like Spotify, Play Music, iTunes, etc. say that Indie is a genre, so, I'm pretty sure that makes it a genre. Whether you feel like it isn't, it is and you're wrong. Probably living in the past. Indie, a majority of the time, no longer means "independent" when referring to music. It has a general sound that is similar to alternative and can be used in placed of alt but isn't alt. Anybody that listens to alt/indie can tell the difference between an alt song and an indie song.

That being said, we need to start making it clear that it IS a genre. Whether you agree or disagree, the culture says it's a genre. Therefore, it is. Also, indie has nothing to do with emo. That's like saying rap and rock are the same genre.

I think it should be labeled as "Indie Music" with indie rock/indie pop being sub-genres. Indie rock is where it started but to say that indie pop is a sub-genre of indie rock is absurd. That would imply that indie rock is the umbrella genre and that indie pop would have something to do with rock rather than being a sub-genre of indie music, itself. Basically, indie a genre, indie rock/indie pop being it's main sub-genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinnyWeirdGuy (talk • contribs) 09:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)