I understand, I mean, it does take a basic level of music appreciation, tonality and intelligence to comprehend most indie rock...
Just because they're unsigned doesn't mean they suck...everyone had to start somewhere. Are there particular artists you just don't get, or was it a blanket statement? Just curious.
Hmm, this post reeks of someone either bored or trying to amuse themselves with a silly, meaningless flame-war.
That being said, anyone who champions or dismisses music because of its independence is merely a fool--just like anyone who dismisses all rap or all country because of their distaste for the genre.
There is a ton of crappy indie-rock out there. I hear it every week! On a percentage basis it's no higher than what is offered by the majors.
That's my job: to sift through the crap to find the true gems so you don't have to. Not always on target, but we try.
I agree with Jeff on every point listed above. One thing to mention also, is that many of the "indie" bands ARE signed (even if their contract was written on a napkin or the back of someone's hand), even if it's just by an independent label. And unless it is a boy band or some group that is created by a label almost ALL bands start off independent (Radiohead, Metallica, whatever), most likely playing music in someone's basement or garage until they are finally "discovered".
AMEN... all of us start somewhere. Being with a major label involves being in the right place, lots of luck, and at least 1 SONG they can push. Music is an art, and like all art, it is very personal. That is why the music industry contradicts itself so badly. Most bands want to be signed by a major or major indie, but getting the opportunity is the tough part.
So saying indies suck would be to say that Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Nickelback, etc all suck. Maybe people think they do. But then that would be silly. Maybe everyone might think randydaytona sucks at poker (one of his interests) because he is not on WSOP on late night cable. But I wouldn't because I don't know him or his passion for poker. (just an example)
what "indie" music do you not get? death cab for cutie? iron and wine? margot?
for some Artists, the term Indie means nothing more than not having major label support for their releases. there are bands considered indie that have just that. please, for the sake of karma, answer this question; do you mean wilco or sleater-kinney or nickelback or do you just not like the music in juno?
Actually fewer and fewer bands want to sign their lives away to profit driven labels. Screw the corporate money worshippers. Make music your way and garner fans without resorting to the worn out tools of tools.
And, as previous posts mentioned, tons of signed bands are horrible and are even just used to capitalize on trends.
Then don't listen to it, and go enjoy your extensive "Hansen" collection.
I understand, I mean, it does take a basic level of music appreciation, tonality and intelligence to comprehend most indie rock...
Just because they're unsigned doesn't mean they suck...everyone had to start somewhere. Are there particular artists you just don't get, or was it a blanket statement? Just curious.
Hmm, this post reeks of someone either bored or trying to amuse themselves with a silly, meaningless flame-war.
That being said, anyone who champions or dismisses music because of its independence is merely a fool--just like anyone who dismisses all rap or all country because of their distaste for the genre.
There is a ton of crappy indie-rock out there. I hear it every week! On a percentage basis it's no higher than what is offered by the majors.
That's my job: to sift through the crap to find the true gems so you don't have to. Not always on target, but we try.
I find it ironic that "signed" artists are the ones that ultimately suck. Especially major label artists.
I agree with Jeff on every point listed above. One thing to mention also, is that many of the "indie" bands ARE signed (even if their contract was written on a napkin or the back of someone's hand), even if it's just by an independent label. And unless it is a boy band or some group that is created by a label almost ALL bands start off independent (Radiohead, Metallica, whatever), most likely playing music in someone's basement or garage until they are finally "discovered".
AMEN... all of us start somewhere. Being with a major label involves being in the right place, lots of luck, and at least 1 SONG they can push. Music is an art, and like all art, it is very personal. That is why the music industry contradicts itself so badly. Most bands want to be signed by a major or major indie, but getting the opportunity is the tough part.
So saying indies suck would be to say that Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Nickelback, etc all suck. Maybe people think they do. But then that would be silly. Maybe everyone might think randydaytona sucks at poker (one of his interests) because he is not on WSOP on late night cable. But I wouldn't because I don't know him or his passion for poker. (just an example)
I just made this to get responses and in return karma, thanks. Haha, I really don't get indie music though.
what "indie" music do you not get? death cab for cutie? iron and wine? margot?
for some Artists, the term Indie means nothing more than not having major label support for their releases. there are bands considered indie that have just that. please, for the sake of karma, answer this question; do you mean wilco or sleater-kinney or nickelback or do you just not like the music in juno?
hahaha! well played randydaytona, well played.
I think Nickelback sucks. Sorry, but they do.
I think Nickelback sucks. Sorry, but they do.
Indeed...Donkeys!
Actually fewer and fewer bands want to sign their lives away to profit driven labels. Screw the corporate money worshippers. Make music your way and garner fans without resorting to the worn out tools of tools.
And, as previous posts mentioned, tons of signed bands are horrible and are even just used to capitalize on trends.