What does the word "indie" mean anymore?

I wanted to bring up something that has bothered me for some time now. And that is, the use of the word "indie" when used to describe a genre or part of a genre, ie: "indie-folk". It had always been my understanding that an "indie" artist was someone that was independently making their way in the music business, on their own. Then as independent record labels started popping up, artists on these labels started calling themselves "indie" because technically they were on an independent label, so it was still okay to use that term. Now, "indie" has become part of certain genre's, as to say "this music is more hip, or sophisticated because it's "indie". Seems like it's just a cool word to use. So my question is, is there a certain element, a certain sound that makes a genre of music "indie"? I listen to some music labeled indie-folk or simply just "indie", and it doesn't really sound any different than say, a song by a top forty artist like Sheryl Crow. It seems like the word "indie" can mean anything, much like "singer-songwriter."
On the other side of this are the ex-major label artists, like for instance Counting Crows or Wilco. They have taken control of their own careers, thus making them true independent artists, and I have yet to see them labeling themselves "indie".
So what does this mean? What does the word "indie" stand for?

Tags: business, genre, indie, labels, music, record

Views: 521

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kim Ruehl on January 4, 2012 at 7:31am

I totally agree that "indie" should be used only to refer to independent artists making their way without the support of a label. However, "indie" has come to imply some kind of edginess to the sound, probably a result of cheaper recording or something. I'm just guessing. I know teenagers use "indie" to refer to a style of music which is probably not heard on Clear Channel radio stations (which will play Sheryl Crow but probably not Wilco). It's sort of like how we used to call certain bands "alternative," which became a catch-all for music not played on the radio. Of course "alternative" was probably more accurate than "indie" since even a lot of the bands described as "indie" anymore may or may not have label support.

Permalink Reply by L A Johnson on January 7, 2012 at 4:11am

Indie - music that's undiscovered or hasn't been because it's crap.

Permalink Reply by Joe Gorfinkle on January 12, 2012 at 2:05pm

I agree Kim,  it has become a catchphrase and that often "Alternative" would be a better description. Sadly, accuracy in laguage and exactitude are not 21st Century values. While it's frustrating for those of us at the lower end of the spectrum, the music hopefully does reach those it needs to.

Permalink Reply by Tom Weber on January 10, 2012 at 5:25am

Same thing is happening in film, where "independent" used to mean it was done without support from a major studio or distributor (and usually with unknown actors). Richard Linklater's "Slacker" or Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi" are good examples. It's clearer with movies, where the major studios still have a stranglehold on mainstream theatrical distribution (i.e. the megaplexes or mall cinemas).

In both film and music, I consider it "indie" if it is self-produced. If a band produces a record and licenses it to a label for distribution, it's "indie". If the label's money pays for the record, it's not.

Permalink Reply by Joshua Sanders on January 10, 2012 at 6:40am

It stands for nothing!! I think if you asked 10 people who use the term what it means, you will get 10 different answers.

Permalink Reply by Gil on January 12, 2012 at 1:05pm

It's a good question but I don't think there is any good answer. I myself am and independent non-commercial musician. For me I make music for the Love of it. Trying to market it and sell it is not the goal (I give away my music Free). So does that make me "Indie"? I don't think so.   I have yet to find any method for getting my music in front of listeners. I have a small following but every site that claims to promote "Indie" artists it is just more of the same promoting music and artists for commercial purposes.  The way it is in a profit driven market economy. Another question is the difference between an artist and an entertainer.  Entertainer are all about fame and fortune but true artists could care less about that.

Permalink Reply by Kurt Fortmeyer on January 17, 2012 at 5:43pm

I think the statement "Entertainer are all about fame and fortune but true artists could care less about that." is not totally true. Some people live to entertain people. That is their art. Some of them are very good at it. A lot of great entertainers never seek (or gain) fame. They work small venues and/or circuits. It's enough to sustain them.

In my opinion, anyone who uses communicative media as an artform, and claims to be an "artist" because they don't care if they communicate with an audience or not, is either seriously deluded or not being truthful.

Permalink Reply by RP N10 on January 13, 2012 at 12:14pm

Just used the word in another post so consulted Mr H Dumpty Professor of Semantics at Wonderland University.

Here's what he said:

    “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

What he didn't say was whether this was a mainstream, alt- or indie answer.

My working definition of indie is whether or not the performers wear hoops.

Permalink Reply by Kurt Fortmeyer on January 17, 2012 at 5:35pm

"My working definition of indie is whether or not the performers wear hoops."

Or whether or not they jump through them.

Permalink Reply by Kurt Fortmeyer on January 17, 2012 at 5:48pm

It's kind of like when "punk" became a look and a sound, as opposed to being "no rules". "Indie" doesn't mean what it used to.

I'm amazed at how many radio station claim to play independent artists, but only if the artists submit their music through Airplay Direct or SonicBids or some other such company...or Americana stations that will only play songs that are on the Americana charts. That's not really being "independent".

Permalink Reply by Joe Gorfinkle on January 17, 2012 at 6:18pm

I agree with Kurt about the 'Entertainers'/'Artists" thing. It really is about perspective. For me, I love to entertain people and enjoy interacting with an audience and am an 'Entertainer'. When I write a song or record it, I am the 'Artist'. When I or others try to promote my music, it is a 'Product'. Do I want to make money?  Yes Do I want to entertain people? Yes. Do I want to have total'Artistic' freedom? Yes. Everyone has a different mix. To Clear Channel, everyone who is not on a Major Label is 'indie'. As a one man record label,band, management and promotion person it's a little different. if I decide to use a platform like SonicBids.com, bandcamp.com or Pledgemusic.com to advance my music or am I no longer 'indie'?  I'm doing a campaign on Pledgemusic.com as we speak, they offer me tools to use, but I'm still the one creating the content, planning and execuiting the pitch and producing the product. On the flip side , there are a lot of people I consider mainstream like ZZ Top who don't currently have a record deal, or those like Steve Lukather who is associated with a relatively unknown label...I guess it all depends on who you're looking at and where from

Permalink Reply by Independent Music Promotions on January 18, 2012 at 4:46pm

'Indie' serves as a code word for 'hip', in my experience. It technically has no real relevance or meaning. However, music bloggers and industry folks who have limited their own musical tastes to this term called 'indie' usually mean that they want to hear acts like Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes - it doesn't really matter the band as long as there is a perception that other people are into it, and if they wear hats with animal ears, that's even better. It can be very cult-esque, really.

I find that if there is any aspect of your music that even borrows from 'indie rock', you will get much better results using the term 'indie' as part of your pitch when approaching music press. It's silly, but it's true, and it will probably be like that for at least 2-3 more years until we're on to some more interesting things.

I do think "singer-songwriter" has a lot more relevance...at least it tells you that the person writes their own music and sings to it! haha

RSS

Sponsors


If you enjoy this site please consider helping us with a small donation!

Don't like PayPal? Mail a check to: No Depression, PO Box 31332, Seattle, WA 98103

Notes

FAQ

Created by No Depression Feb 17, 2009 at 9:06pm. Last updated by No Depression Apr 9.