i never understood indie music’s rejection of popular culture.
mainstream music is popular simply because the majority of people connect with it. being the mainstream doesnt necessarily mean being “bad”, it simply means being more popular. that said, there ARE some really horrid mainstream junk that gets churned out like clockwork, devoid of soul and artistic integrity. but with every flock, there’re bound to be a few black sheep, its normal. it would be unfair, however, to diss the whole flock as “bad”.
this entry’s inspired by a lil exchange between a friend and i on facebook:
FRIEND (to a friend he bumped into at the Brandon Flowers concert): seems like ur growing out of ur top 40 taste in music lol
BUSYBODY ME: b-b-but.. brandon flowers IS top40……….
FRIEND (on a seemingly defensive mode): i like to think that b.flowers still has some indie in him, despite the killers instant stardom (thanks to the strokes). still wouldn’t put him nxt to someone like lady blabla.
aiiight…. i beg to ask:
01. what defines “indie”?
02. why did i take away the vibe that in order for an artiste to be cool, they’d need to have “some indie” in them?
03. what has lady gaga ever done to offend other than being uber talented, deservingly rich and being basically the most influential music artiste on the planet?
okaaaay… DISCLAIMER: this entry is NOT intended as a personal attack towards any one individual (ive been wanting to write this piece for a few years now so please dont feel offended, young padawan). rather, its a product born out of my long-time bubbling-under resentment towards musical bigotry in general. er.. you could call it a general attack i reckon? 
okay so for the definition of “indie”, i turned to the all-knowing (albeit totally editable by any tomdickharry) web-encyclopaedia… and according to Wikipedia, independent music, often shortened to indie music or “indie”, is a term used to describe “independence from major commercial record labels and an autonomous, DIY approach to recording and publishing“. what a noble ideal! i approve! cuz if there’s anything i believe in, its freedom… of expression. and usually, breaking away from the stranglehold of a major record label gives artistes the freedom to be 100% creative. that said however, i somehow feel that that’s not what my friend was getting at when he mentioned “indie”….
honestly, whatever that thing is that defines a certain type of music as “indie” has become somewhat of a joke to me. based on keen observation and at times hasty stereotyping (it saves time), it seems to me that the modern day “indie” movement is made up of an army of kids (termed “indie kids” im guessing?) who get off on listening to music that nobody’s heard of. and often, its random stuff they found on myspace… the more obscure the artiste, the better:
INDIE KID #1: im so indie, my favourite band has 20 plays on myspace.
INDIE KID #2: im so indie that im the only one who knows of my favourite band on myspace.
so what defines music/band as “indie”? answer: the non-conformist ideal, apparently. i found this pretty hilarious post on urbandictionary.com…
Indie Band: we’re indie because we hate how music is commercial, and we don’t want to sell out, because we don’t want tons of money.
What They Really Mean: We suck so hard, no-one would give us a label in a million years. we’d sell out if anyone actually liked us, and we only say we don’t care about money because we couldn’t sell our tripe to a bunch of deaf idiots.
those indie bands have fans who are also most likely to insult popular music but have no valid reasons as to why it’s bad. omg. no need for insults surely? my stand on music is that, like religion, it’s subjective and personal: “to each his/her own”, “whatever rocks your world and makes you happy” etc. therefore, there cant ever be “bad” or “sell-out” music. instead, only two categories can exist: the “successful” and the “not so successful”.
lets talk about a coupla obvious success cases: Justin Bieber, virtually unknown “indie” youtube talent turned overnight teen-pop sensation after being discovered and signed by Usher. Lady Gaga, uber talented musician, who “slaved” many years as a song-writer before her current world domination. both artistes rose from the ashes of obscurity and were thrusted into the nirvana of success. does that mean they’ve lost the precious “indie” in them? and if so, does that mean they’re now producing sell-out crap? i think not. and i believe that their combined army of over 10 million fans will agree.
dont get me wrong, i really dont mind indie music at all. i do appreciate the occasional dose of morrissey, metric, casablancas and other bands whose band names tend to start with the word “the”. to me, its NEVER about the music genre. my gripe is about people who drew the proverbial elitist circle around themselves to keep apart from the mainstream music riffraff they deem as “uncool”. come down from your moral high ground already hunny! LOL!
just cuz i cant get into the music of Interpol or Beck, doesnt mean they’re crap – it just means that they’re acquired tastes that i have failed to acquire. and if that makes me “uncool” then so be it. excuse me while i go wallow in uncoolness to the sounds of Van Halen’s (commercial but) fantastical guitar riffs…
all music is art. art is culture. culture brings people together. some form bigger groups while others make do with more intimate gatherings. regardless of size, music unites humanity. why would anyone in their right mind want to be judgemental about something that does that?
RYAN LEE
