From: earle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-site Software Supearle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-site Software Supearle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-site Software Supearle@poseur.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle - Sun JPL on-)
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative,alt.rave
Subject: Re: Indie (music and the wank of British music weeklies) in a nutshell
Date: 9 Aug 92 18:26:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.music.alternative,alt.rave
Organization: Sun Microsystems - JPL on-site Software Support
Old-Message-ID: <1992Aug9.182634.29349@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>

In article <1992Aug9.110941.27657@corax.udac.uu.se> chris@Minsk.DoCS.UU.SE (Christian Bartholdsson) writes:
>>>The NME piece was actually quite thought-provoking; no History of Indie
>>>Rock, but a discussion on what "indie" is, if it's possible to tell the
>>>difference to "major", and whether that matters at all. I liked it. No Indie
>>>Rock Manifesto, though.
>>
>>I suspect this is more of an issue in Britain (and maybe Europe?) than
>>elsewhere.  For a variety of reasons, it's still possible for an indie
>>record company to have an honest-to-god hit record in the UK, whereas
>>that is not the case in the US.  Unless you're a major label (or have
>>access to major-label-style money), it simply isn't possible to generate
>>a hit record here.
>
>One thing NME discussed was the fact that there's no guitar music in the
>"real" indie charts these days.  All the independent dance records outsell
>"records with the true indie sound" by far.  The indie charts in NME and MM
>give a completely distorted picture of what records are the best independent
>sellers.  

Which, of course, is simply pretentious crybaby wank.  (I didn't consider it
"thought-provoking" in the slightest; then again, I'm of the "No it doesn't"
camp when it comes to "whether that matters at all".

"Indie" has always (historically) stood for a chart of music produced and
distributed independantly of the major record labels.  It hasn't stood for any
particular type or style of music.  I'd love to ship all the Usenet "What is
Alternative?" flame wars to the editors of NME and Melody Maker, as it simply
proved that their attempt to similarly pigeonhole "Indie" as a particular
style of music is equally stupid.

The basic premise of the NME "Indie" article and the MM "Great Techno Debate"
article was, in essence, "Ohmygod, there are finally records out that people
mostly dance to but can be valid listening on their own, and they're produced
on the cheap using the same mechanisms as traditional `Indie' labels, and thus
they're taking over the `Indie' charts from our dear, beloved guitar bands".

In other words, the Techno revolution has brought dance oriented music out of
the little pigeonhole ghetto where jangly guitar-pop media like NME and MM
fervently wish it would stay buried, and they're so worried that they've decided
that the charts need to be re-invented so that their beloved jangle-pop can
reclaim its rightful place on the throne.  They're running scared, quite
frankly.  It's humourous to see the column-inches of wank that have emerged in
the wake of it.

Personally, I see things like The Future Sound of London's "Accelerator" album
(to use just one example) as being just as valid as any other record that sits
in their stupid Indie ghetto chart, just as I do things like Church of Extacy
or Messiah living in the Indie singles chart.  Suck up to it, NME and MM.  The
world has changed and it's about time they realized it has, like it or not.
(Funny that they have articles like that in the same issues where they feature
a report from the big outdoor festival Rave in Berlin a few weeks ago, and a
feature on Future Sound of London.  Feh.)
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative