Is "indie music" just a buzzword marketed to people who think they're "too cool" for basic top 40 pop?
It's not supposed to represent good music. The point is that there's no difference in quality between Katy Perry and these 'artists' and that listening to them does not make you better than the average top 40 listener.
Obviously the music you listen to doesn't make you better than anyone, but if you honestly can't tell the difference between someone like Katy Perry and Joanna Newsom then you're a fucking joke.
Now's the part where you go "hurr the difference is Katy actually has a good voice" because you're so funny and clever.
>Neither has any more artistic merit than the other
What makes you say that? I mean the whole idea of what artistic merit even constitutes is shaky at best, but I don't understand how you can possibly say that something like Ys isn't vastly more interesting artistically than anything Katy Perry has touched.
You're a hypocrite if you say any artist on the right is better than the left. Either way, it's all trash produced for kids who think they're "unique"..
Newsom is just "trendy" music for people to show off to their friends.
I don't use/read P4K or any of those type of websites.
Unknown Pleasures, Doolittle, Daydream Nation and Spiderland are very nice. If you disagree, you're essentially a walking video game.
major labels have bought all of the indie labels so it's why we get shit like on left now.
there's no difference between indie and mainstream. indie is dead, only people that still use that term are teenagers
indie is top40 bullshit but worse because other pop artists have vocal talent and good production
indie is like
>male vocals with no range
>basic "lol i hate myself and am awkward but still get out a lot and am circumstancially happy" lyrics
>same few riffs and keys that are likely stolen from somewhere else
>annoying, cheap synths that are simultaneously too high and too low
>"LA LA LA LA LA"
>choppy acoustic guitar with the vocalist straining his groot-like vocal chords
These 'indie' listeners are the ones who think they're superior. My point is that these musicians are no more artistic than the people on Hot 100. They know how to sound pretentious enough to make critics praise them while having no shred of artistic merit whatsoever.
Cardiacs, Captain Beefheart, The Mothers of Invention. At least they aren't obnoxious assholes and act super pretentious like these "indie" bands. Ooh, not smiling and being smarmy in interviews! Great way to make your music seem more artistic. Name one band in my indie chart that doesn't do this.
There's still music being produced outside of majors and their affiliated small labels.
Which is what "indie" is and why it still exists.
The question of wether it points to a specific sound and as such deserves to be included in the description of the music genre is a different matter.
>Captain Beefheart, The Mothers of Invention.
>At least they aren't obnoxious assholes and act super pretentious
Holy shit dude. Either you're a troll or this is fucking hilarious.
But yeah you still haven't explained why she has any less artistic merit. You're a joke.
>At least they aren't obnoxious assholes and act super pretentious like these "indie" bands. Ooh, not smiling and being smarmy in interviews! Great way to make your music seem more artistic.
Very interesting musical criticism
Grunge is shit.
I don't know what you mean by "watching flicks and listening to tunes" but all of the "nice post-dad rock" bands in the picture convey the same amount of artistic merit as the "YouTube bands", which is none.
i'm going to call you an autistic faggot and then cease to reply
What are the specific musical characteristics of indie?
PRO-TIP: "choppy acoustic guitar" was alreday listed, but cannot be since many Indie bands have electric guitar instrumentation. Try again?
Because this board (much like pretty much every other board on 4chan) is just filled with memes and contrarianism. You're better off finding someone (non-pleb) irl and talking to them
Actually Joanna Newsom doesn't come off as pretentious at all in interviews with the same music websites that she receives all the acclaim from. It definitely isn't pretentiousness that got her all the attention she did, it was her music itself.
Also Zappa and Beefheart are the most pretentious artists of all time possibly, so I would stop trying to make that point. Beefheart would beat the shit out of his band after they played 18 hours of music on empty stomachs to maintain complete control of them, so if his attitude about his own superiority as a musician wasn't pretentious then I don't know what is.
is Joanna Newsom a pop artist or what or one of the indie people?
regardless, what I'm saying is it's not uncommon at all to come off as "pretentious" to outsiders. It's a problem some people have, like stuttering or just being autistic
Pretentious af. Saw an interview of him once where he describes how unique and specialized he is because he plays solo's live that he'll never record nor put on wax... so basically improvisation.
>did get really pretentious.
I don't listen to zappa but WHAT THE FUCK does that mean?
Am I the only person on earth who has never, not once, ever thought a song is pretentious?
I unironically believe it is word that should be removed from the english language
Listen to Zappa and you'll understand, really.
There's pretentious music, as there is pretentious literature or paintings, it happens. It's true that it's an overused word, but Zappa is well known for being pretentious.
Their music gives off a bratty, immature "we don't give a fuck" attitude. They just got worse and worse as they got Jim O'Rourke on board and acted like they were avant-garde kings.
Indie Music is a warped term. All it is is music that is released independently. That's it. Nothing more. If it's not on a major label, it's indie. It has literally nothing to do with the quality of the music or the sound.
stuff like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JGBNkLM9_8 (the way the tracks plays with the harmonies to change the feeling of the song)
It's true that they give this feeling of being a bit pretentious too, and they look like horrible people that i wouldn't want to have around, but their music is decent.
>Their music gives off a bratty, immature "we don't give a fuck" attitude.
How does it do this, exactly? Can you give specific examples?
Also, how does this affect the quality of their compositions?
Hahaha sorry, i should have expressed myself better. Do you know what's the definition of pretentiousness? there's not much to understand really. If you're familiar with Zappa's work you end up accepting it, him being pretentious doesn't mean he's bad.
Your opinions are your opinions.
I'm not trying to discredit them.
But assumptions about my music consumption aren't opinions, just unnecessary misrepresentations, as if the quality of music had anything to do where it was found.
So you mean it's not the music that's pretentious but rather guy behind it?
I googled and started listening to this
I got a few minutes in. Not really feeling the pretentiousness 2bh. Not my thing, but it is what it is. Pretty colorful.
I can and will.
"He's running on a tuff gnarl in his head
He's got a fatal erection home in bed
He's really smart and he's really fast
He's got a hard tit killer fuck in his past"
"Fuck you! Are you for sale?
Does 'Fuck you' sound simple enough?
This was the only part that turned me on"
"Boys go to jupiter to get more stupider
Girls go to mars, become rock stars"
Real mature. This sounds like shit a 15-year-old would write on the inside of his desk.
it's pretentious because he made pop music but pretended like he didnt make pop music
it comes off really contrived when someone cant admit to themselves they make pop music and not some intellectual 2deep4u art music
this is why he was never as acclaimed as the beatles, the beatles were true to themselves and their art
legit seems like a nice guy
right I see
so you would say he has listeners that are aware of his pretentiousness, but don't just care then? likely either because they don't care about such stuff and/or because it doesn't affect the music
>"He's running on a tuff gnarl in his head
>He's got a fatal erection home in bed
>He's really smart and he's really fast
>He's got a hard tit killer fuck in his past"
I don't see what's so bad about these lyrics. They obviously aren't great but they aren't exactly cringeworthy either.
I don't really know what he's talking about, though. I assume it's some obscure PKD reference I don't get.
>"Fuck you! Are you for sale?
>Does 'Fuck you' sound simple enough?
>This was the only part that turned me on"
From what I've read, the spoken word segment at the start of that song was influenced by a walk through NYC where Kim Gordon wrote down what she heard as she walked past a bunch of prostitutes in the street. It's meant to evoke imagery of New York's seedy underbelly. I think it does the job quite effectively.
>"Boys go to jupiter to get more stupider
>Girls go to mars, become rock stars"
I don't recognise these lyrics so I'm guessing they're from one of their post-DDN albums, which I don't particularly care for. Regardless, they're most likely tongue-in-cheek.
I think dismissing an entire band's musical output based on the tone of a small portion of their lyrics is far more immature than any of these extracts, but that's just me. Lee Ranaldo was the superior lyricist in the band, anyway.
>Shots ring out from the center of an empty field
>Joni's in the tall grass
>She's a beautiful mental jukebox
>A sailboat explosion
>A snap of electric whipcrack
>She's not thinking about the future
>She's not spinning her wheels
>She doesn't think at all about the past
>She's thinking long and hard
>About that high wild sound
>And wondering will it last?
I was talking about the SY members there. I don't think Zappa was a bad man, he used to say pretentious things and unnecesary stuff about other musicians, that's all. Once he got older he got less grumbler.
he asked for examples of MUSIC that made them appear bratty
lyrics arent music
if people dig his music they'll listen to it. i don't think it was bad or anything, he was very good, just a bit pretentious
as i said earlier, it takes away from ones art when it's not true to itself
zappa wrote pop tunes, but deluded himself into thinking his pop tunes were better than everyones elses (like when he shits on the beatles) because he was such a special snowflake.
"when i play something live, ill never play that again. people dont understand that, but thats what its about for me. i dont record a solo. I play it differently every time" or something like that when improvisation had been a thing for decades - this is pretentiousness
if he thought pop was so disgusting maybe he should have made art music, then there wouldn't have been such a rub
Yes, through check out both pitchfork/fantano core and classic indie as there well respected.
Okay maybe not Grimes but i digged her latest album so go for it if you want some fun actually interesting pop.