Indie shouldn't even be a genre. It says literally nothing about the sound of the band.
Neither does the word "Alternative" if we're talking about the literal meanings of the words. Of course, both "Indie" and "Alternative" have taken on certain connotations that DO indicate something about the sound, even if it's not explicitly defined anywhere.
For indie music, I noticed that the production value seems to sound both cruddy and amazing at the same time. Could that be it? Or maybe it's because you can't exactly put it into soft rock or hard rock?
RoundTheBendI miss the comfort in being sadProfile Ground Control
I was kinda thinking about this the other day. I was just looking at rock music. If you take it as just one single whole genre, you'd be grouping Buddy Holley, Bryan Adams, Led Zeppelin, and a bunch of other very different bands together. It just wouldn't make sense if that was the only classification there was. In some cases I feel like having a zillion sub-genres is necessary although after a point it just gets silly.
Some of the artists hate being put under labels of music. For example Salem was super pissed when they were defined as witchhouse. Im sure they feel like it pigeon holes them.
From a listeners standpoint I have no problem with genres. I cant imagine what a mess the record stores would be without them.
With a name like Salem and the music they make how could you not be witch house
genres are marketing labels. Most of today's best music takes pieces of different styles dating back as far as the 50s, if not older. So what do we call it - indie. A label that has more to do with business than style.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
RoundTheBend
Robert Anton Wilson
