Is Morrissey an "indie" act or is he "for the whole world"?

[Electric]

So apparently Morrissey wasn't too excited about being number 1 in the indie charts, cause as the latest interview with Canal + (thanks oliv) revealed, he does not consider himself to be an alternative or independent act, but rather the "music for the whole world".

What do you think?

[moz'art girl]

I think Morrissey would like to be number 1 in every chart in the world.:) He would like to be as successful as Elvis Presley in his time.:p He want glory...
And I think he implied he didn't want to be seen as "indie", cause indie singers sing badly, according to him.:cool: (That is what I have understood he meant). Contrary to Morrissey, who "can sing very well"!:rolleyes:

[Chartres]

"To quote a friend:
Elvis is the king of Rock 'n' Roll.
Jackson is the king of Pop.
Morrissey is the king of indie."

To the great mass his still pretty unknown and he's not doing "easy" music, he should be gratefull for what he has. He has done more and been more creative than people have done during their entire lives, despite all their efforts. There can only be one Elvis.

PS. If I've understood it correctly, isn't indie British and alternative american? DS.

[Sir Alec]

He is alternative and almost completely unknown in today's generation of Americans. In Britain he has more of a concentrated following.

Indie all that way!!!

[Electric]

And I think he implied he didn't want to be seen as "indie", cause indie singers sing badly, according to him.:cool: (That is what I have understood he meant). Contrary to Morrissey, who "can sing very well"!:rolleyes:

Not only indie acts can't sing properly, they also can't play the instruments well, according to Morrissey. :p It looks like indie and alternative are synonyms to DIY in his mind.

These labels are pretty confusing, everybody seems to have their own interpretation. Like for me it's "indie" versus "mass pop" or something like that, but then again he always speaks about pop music.

Indie or not, I still think you have to have some certain trait in your personality to like Morrissey and "the whole world" just hasn't got it, no matter how good the band can play.

[DeliciousDemon]

As much as Morrissey claims to be "for the whole world" he simply isn't because in order to be one nowadays, you have to be shallow mediocre sh*t with no talent or wit.

I hate the lable "indie" because it's so overused and abused but if I'd have to chose between the two I would go for "indie". Sorry Moz, you're just not everyone's cup of tea but if it makes you feel any better - that's why we love you the most.

[chica]

he's not doing "easy" music

Oh, but he is! His lyrics are still "tough", but the music is pretty mainstream... It scares me sometimes to think this, but when I listen to most of his solo work it comes to my mind "this could be anyone" :confused:

DeliciousDemon, is that Munch? It looks awfully familiar...

[DeliciousDemon]

Yes, it's his "Scream"

I am merely celebrating the fact that it has been retreived - undamaged! God bless.

[Maurice E]

'Indie' has to be the most meaningless genre in the history of music. Nearly all other musical genres can be easily defined or recognised (e.g. funk, blues, soul, funk, jazz, dance etc) but indie means absolutely nothing.
It's really just been a means of marketing 'cool' pop groups since the mid 1980's.

Bands by indie albums are likely to encompass a whole range of musical styles; acoustic folk songs, songs with glam-rock guitars, jangly guitar pop (as pioneered by 1960's bands like the Byrds), a quiet verse/distorted chorus sound (developed by Pixies made popular by Nirvana, Wannadie, Blur's woo-hoo, Feeder etc), a symphony pop song (arranged with violins), songs with a disco drumbeat. Verily, there is no such thing as indie!

It's ridiculous that bands like The Scissors Sisters are considered 'indie'. They are no different to the Bee Gees; they are all over XfM and Virgin yet when did either station last play the Bee Gees? Similarly, The Feeling are, to all intents and purposes a mid-70's easy listening/soft rock band (not necessarily a bad thing), yet they too have been embraced as a modern indie band.

In the 80's, indie was supposed to be a kind of intellectual and reflective alternative to mainstream pop music but then in the 90's along came brainless, bigoted idiots like Liam Gallagher in bands who were bafflingly marketed as indie!

If the Beatles first appeared in 2006, they too would be considered an indie band, yet they have never been called one coz indie wasn't a known term in the 60's.

And that, frankly, is all I have to say on the matter!

[chica]

Oh dear. So it had been stolen. I must stop living under this rock :confused:

[Kewpie]

Morrissey's music is not bland because he intends to be timeless. Majority of pop music often fail to achieve it due to heavy usage of gimmicks.

He doesn't want to be called indie or alternative, but mainstream scene and his style are totally different. If he wants to achieve world domination, he has to compromise many things which he's always resisting. He doesn't have to be like Madonna, who does anything in order to achieve her goals.

Sadly, majority of pop music fans don't have good taste and intelligence.
Morrissey can challenge them, but it's really tough.
At least his music keep bringing some new fans which he should proud of!;)

[DeliciousDemon]

Oh dear. So it had been stolen. I must stop living under this rock :confused:

Indeed chica you should :D

It was missing for about 2 years (I think?) due to an armed robbery which made world headlines for days. I traveled to Norway and managed to see it slightly before it was stolen and I really lost all hope that I will ever see it again. Luckily, my skepticism isn't running the norwegian police as they managed to find it some weeks ago! If you ever visit Oslo it's a must see.

[chica]

Working out the multi-button ;)

If you ever visit Oslo it's a must see.

Roger that, Ma'am.

'Indie' has to be the most meaningless genre in the history of music. Nearly all other musical genres can be easily defined or recognised (e.g. funk, blues, soul, funk, jazz, dance etc) but indie means absolutely nothing.

According to David Hesmondhalgh (http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/staff/djhesmonhalgh/info.html) (yeah, you can mail him ;) ), it's a mutated version of rock, gone through the experience of punk, known as alternative pop/rock in other countries. If you take it that way it can be easily recognized, only Moz definitely doesn't fit in. The Smiths do.

[joevsw0rld]

as much as i would like to think he is for the whole world, i dont believe it. the way he presents himself, his music (subject matter, the way he sings, etc) it just doesnt appeal to the mass. but for the fraction it does appeal to , its amazing.

[Jon]

So apparently Morrissey wasn't too excited about being number 1 in the indie charts, cause as the latest interview with Canal + (thanks oliv) revealed, he does not consider himself to be an alternative or independent act, but rather the "music for the whole world".

What do you think?

I think you are a c@ck

what a ridiculous poll, i would rather know the size of your c@ck.

[Codreanu]

"Indie rock takes its name from "independent," which describes both the do-it-yourself attitudes of its bands and the small, lower-budget nature of the labels that release the music. The biggest indie labels might strike distribution deals with major corporate labels, but their decision-making processes remain autonomous. As such, indie rock is free to explore sounds, emotions, and lyrical subjects that don't appeal to large, mainstream audiences -- profit isn't as much of a concern as personal taste (though the labels do, after all, want to stay in business). It's very much rooted in the sound and sensibility of American underground and alternative rock of the '80s, albeit with a few differences that account for the changes in underground rock since then. In the sense that the term is most widely used, indie rock truly separated itself from alternative rock around the time that Nirvana hit the mainstream. Mainstream tastes gradually reshaped alternative into a new form of serious-minded hard rock, in the process making it more predictable and testosterone-driven. Indie rock was a reaction against that phenomenon; not all strains of alternative rock crossed over in Nirvana's wake, and not all of them wanted to, either. Yet while indie rock definitely shares the punk community's concerns about commercialism, it isn't as particular about whether bands remain independent or "sell out"; the general assumption is that it's virtually impossible to make indie rock's varying musical approaches compatible with mainstream tastes in the first place. There are almost as many reasons for that incompatibility as there are indie-rock bands, but following are some of the most common: the music may be too whimsical and innocent; too weird; too sensitive and melancholy; too soft and delicate; too dreamy and hypnotic; too personal and intimately revealing in its lyrics; too low-fidelity and low-budget in its production; too angular in its melodies and riffs; too raw, skronky and abrasive; wrapped in too many sheets of Sonic Youth/Dinosaur Jr./Pixies/Jesus & Mary Chain-style guitar noise; too oblique and fractured in its song structures; too influenced by experimental or otherwise unpopular musical styles. Regardless of the specifics, it's rock made by and for outsiders -- much like alternative once was, except that thanks to its crossover, indie rock has a far greater wariness of excess testosterone. It's certainly not that indie rock is never visceral or powerful; it's just rarely -- if ever -- macho about it. As the '90s wore on, indie rock developed quite a few substyles and close cousins (indie pop, dream pop, noise-pop, lo-fi, math rock, post-rock, space rock, sadcore, and emo among them), all of which seemed poised to remain strictly underground phenomena."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2687

[Electric]

Regardless of the specifics, it's rock made by and for outsiders

So, he fits right it. Sorry, Morrissey, but you are "indie".

[chica]

Mainstream tastes gradually reshaped alternative into a new form of serious-minded hard rock, in the process making it more predictable and testosterone-driven. Indie rock was a reaction against that phenomenon

This is my criterion:

unhappy music= alternative
(Muse, Placebo, Radiohead, Interpol, The Editors)

happy music=indie
(Mando Diao, Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs, The Subways, The Killers, Maximo Park, We Are Scientists, Arctic Monkeys)

And brit pop and indie pop in between :D

[dazzak]

No man who can get in the top 10, is a self-proclaimed pop artist and is on the same label as Elton John and Kiss can really be considered indie (a term which is basically defunct now).

[Electric]

From myspace:

Member Since 12/21/2004
Band Website morrisseymusic.com
Influences Get Morrissey Merchandise:
USA
United Kingdom
Sounds Like Get the new album, Ringleader of the Tormentors, here.
Record Label Sanctuary Records Group
Type of Label Indie

[Jones]

Depends what you mean by indie act.

I think Morrissey means he doesn't want to be associated with the glut of substandard guitar bands who contribute nothing new, have no personality, pay very little attention to songwriting craft, and don't seem to care about their vocals. A few mundane riffs and a cliched catchy chorus and they've got a hit. They also usually work for major record companies and tend to get airplay round the clock.

[nightandday]

I think it's really about him not wanting to be confined into the 'indie' world, which for him probably means being listened to/known by a smaller circle of people. He's always maintained that The Smiths were simply 'pop music' and he's said lots of times that he wanted to be a pop star eversince he was 6.

That's one of the contradictions that are so typical of Morrissey: he wants to be heard and seen by everyone, and if not to be loved by everyone (since he must be aware that's impossible) then to make an impression on everyone. But at the same time - he wants it on his own terms, without a compromise. He says with pride that he it's not in his nature to be agreeable, to try to endear himself to the public. And he constantly challenges everyone as if he wants to see if people will still love him no matter how much he gives them a possible reason to be pi$$ed off at him (example: the Canada situation).

[vivaissy]

definately indie (not meaning diy) i wouldn't want the whole world to have him and certainly not the vacuous pop world.

[davdavon]

I think of Morrissey as a mainstream artist... his songs usually last 3-4 minutes, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, usual instrumentation, quite melodic and catchy. Not very different from Robbie Williams (which isn't a bad thing). Lyrically, well, he writes better than most mainstream artists, but his subject matter is often what you'll find in other regular pop/rock songs - love, loneliness, etc.

I never understood why mainstream radio doesn't play his songs. Though, unlike him, I really don't think being ranked high on the charts means anything. Then again, I guess that for him it means money, so I see why he cares about it.

[nightandday]

I think of Morrissey as a mainstream artist... his songs usually last 3-4 minutes, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, usual instrumentation, quite melodic and catchy. Not very different from Robbie Williams (which isn't a bad thing). Lyrically, well, he writes better than most mainstream artists, but his subject matter is often what you'll find in other regular pop/rock songs - love, loneliness, etc.


That description pretty much fits at least 70-80% of "indie"/"alternative" artists of the 80s, 90s and 00s.

[davdavon]

For example...?

[nightandday]

For example...?
well, let's see:


Husker Du (minus their hardcore punk beginnings)
The Replacements
Violent Femmes
The Cure
The Chameleons
Echo & The Bunnymen
Dinosaur Jr
Screaming Trees
American Music Club
Dream Syndicate
R.E.M.
Nirvana
Hole
P.J.Harvey
Jeff Buckley
Afghan Wigs
Smashing Pumpkins
Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
New Order
James
Pulp
Belle & Sebastian
Tindersticks
Placebo
Interpol
The Libertines and their spinoff bands, The Arctic Monkeys, etc....most of the today's scene promoted by the likes of NME
...

Surely some of these bands have had songs that were longer than 4 minutes or more experimental, but they have also had many more that weren't. It would be easier to name those who don't fit that description. Say...Pixies wrote pop songs, but with some rather unusual themes. Most of Sonic Youth's work has been very removed from pop, but they have recorded pop songs as well. And then there is a certain number of anti-pop artists such as The Residents.

[davdavon]

I must admit that I'm not familiar with many of these bands, so I can't comment about them all. However, the ones I'm familiar with certainly don't fit my description of mainstream music. It's not only about songs that are longer than 4 minutes. It's about instrumentation and melodies as well. Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Jeff Buckley, '80s R.E.M, '80s Echo And The Bunnymen (both of these bands started making mainstream music only in the '90s, in my opinion), Nick Cave - a lot of their songs don't have hooks, often have a dissonant sound, strange chord progressions, songs can be very loud, or if they're quite they often very dark and gloomy. I think this applies to the Cure as well but I don't know them very well.

To come back to the ultimate comparison - I can't imagine Robbie Williams sounding like that. Of course, mainstream doesn't have to sound like Robbie, but it has to be catchy, use "pleasant" aesthetics, not be too slow or too fast, being enjoyable even when only half-listening to it while doing other things... I agree that acts like Pulp, New Order or Placebo might fit this description. Maybe Belle & Sebastian too, though there's something too whimsy about them that prevents me from seeing them as mainstream. I'm sorry if I sound a little vague. I'm not sure if I can fully explain to myself why I catalogue certain bands as mainstream and others as indie/alternative/etc. I do feel that there is a difference.

[chica]

"Indie rock is like pornography in a way: most people can't tell you exactly what it is, but they know it when they see it. Er, hear it. It's loud and obnoxious (or quiet and polite), careless and sloppy (or meticulously composed), complex and pretentious (or simple and unassuming), and, to its fans, cooler and more relevant than any other style of music. It's impossible to list all of the bands who have been influential to indie rock -- doing so would require more space than we have here and would undoubtedly start some petulant silent feuds. One thing's for sure: it's cool." ~ http://www.epitonic.com/

[lnathan]

I just think this world needs to let go of this obsessive need to invent more and more labels for practically everything. I mean, indie rock, indie pop, dream pop, noise-pop, lo-fi, math rock, post-rock, space rock, sadcore, emo...who needs these categories?

I love it when Morrissey says "It's just pop music".

[Trouble loves me]

There's a good article in this month's 'The Word' by Andrew Collins, that says, technically, 'the concept of indie is dead', and that it died out with the purchase of independent record labels by large corporations in the late 80's / early 90's. It helped that those record labels usually put out very similar sounding music and the bands all had that similar look / ethos that The Smiths were feted for. I think this is why The Smiths are often thought of as inventing 'indie'; it was guitar pop, it had intelligent lyrics, there was one iconic frontman who was a singer and (musically) nothing else, one exceptional guitarist, a sound amalgamated from a variety of old influences, a punk ethos, and above all it appealed to angst ridden teenagers.
But like punk, effectively, the word has become an elusive entity ... What is indie to some is not indie to others, but, for instance, when i go to a club night that plays The Smiths, The Stone Roses, Pulp, Led Zeppelin, The Libertines, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, The Arcade Fire etc, it's an 'indie night' because it describes a certain sound that embraces post punk, britpop, psychedelia and good old fashioned (credible) rock; all the stuff you rarely hear on the radio (unless it's 60's or 70's) and that was once thought of as anti - establishment; all the stuff you dance a certain way to and copy the style of the bands involved ... in other words guitar based music for different generations of kids that wasn't/isn't prissy pop.
In that sense, yes, Morrissey is indie ... you will only hear him played at an indie night. In another sense, no, he isn't, because he doesn't go for that sound or look any more. I don't share his obsession with lack of airplay, but i sympathise with it; he always wanted to be a pop star on a par with his heroes, he always wanted to be 'for the whole world' because he wanted the whole world to share his love of music and wanted a platform from which to communicate his views to as many people as possible. I would love everyone i encounter to at least know who he is (and some don't) but i'm not sure of my views on whether he should stand alongside The Pussycat Dolls and Justin Trousersnake on the mainstream airwaves ... if other artists of his ilk don't get played, then why should he be different? Also, in my experience, people who listen to radio one, and commercial / regional radio channels, aren't music lovers so much as music listeners; they don't seem to have an over-riding passion for a single artist and this is why they're happy to listen to dance remixes and sampled music (is that what Morrissey really wants to happen to his records?) Although, Virgin Radio, (the only channel i've heard since giving up on radio nearly 10 years ago) ought to play him, because they play other 80's / 90's 'indie'. I'd love more people to see what we see in him, but come on Morrissey, the indie crowd love you now (and we are legion), isn't that enough?

[Sister]

I remember him saying: "Lets just pretend that everybody in the world is intelligent - what a difference it would make!"

I this case he might be "for the whole world". Sadly it's not the case and it never will be.

[Paulc]

My understanding of Indie back in the 80s when the term was first used was that the label the band was signed to was independent - i.e. was "small" and not aligned or owned by any large media or publishing organisation and did not have its own retail arm.

This all kinda changed when most of the indie labels got bought up by the big mass market labels or disappeared. Then it seemed to me that the term Indie morphed into something that described a certain type of music.

This is very general but it was something that wasnt pop - e.g. Stock Aitken Waterman trash etc etc that relied on image rather than substance and it was something that wasnt rock - Queen, Guns.., Bon Jovi etc etc that relied on guitars and haircuts!

For me it came to describe a certain British flavour of music that could straddle any description but that had a certain seriousness and integrity.

In the case of Morrissey and The Smiths it could be described as Pop - This Charming Man, Some girls, Ouija Board, Panic, Suedehead, There is a light, Playboys, First of the Gang to Die are all pop songs

or it could be described as Rock - How Soon is Now, What difference, November, That Joke, National front Disco, Life is a Pigsty are all rock songs.

But because the artist has integrity, is serious, writes his (their) own material, is not generally bought by 14 year old girls then they are described as Indie.

it doesnt really matter to me - i reckon none of the genres have definite starts and ends and for me Morrissey is a genre all of his own.

[chica]

But because the artist has integrity, is serious, writes his (their) own material, is not generally bought by 14 year old girls then they are described as Indie.
Or boys :rolleyes:

[wolve]

But because the artist has integrity, is serious, writes his (their) own material, is not generally bought by 14 year old girls then they are described as Indie.

stuff like Panic! At The Disco and Placebo are considered to be Indie as well. And 14 year old girls/boys buy it as well.

I'm really sticking to the idea that you just can't describe Indie. You know it when hear it.

[Dave]

they used to have these things called record stores back when they had records

is that a good start?

anyway, you'd go to these places and they'd have a section called "alternative" and one year alternative was Depeche Mode and the next year it was Nirvana. (Kurt probably was a depeche mode fan, too, and I'll bet he listened to them more than he did The Melvins, but whatever. when Kurt met Aerosmith he was shy and Courtney told them that he loved them growing up, but she probably just hoped they had some good dope or that she could get them to write her a song or something. When Eddie Van Halen came to meet Kurt, Kurt was starstruck, according to Thurston Moore.)

I think this sort of relates to Cod's post about when Indie and Alternative started meaning different things. Punk was an easier term to define and people hated each other based on who was a punk or not, so even that isn't clear-cut. But The Sex Pistols were definitely PUNK and were also hugely popular and Nirvana was Punk, too, whereas things like Blink 182 were less so, even though I have to give it up to them for not being able to play their instruments very well. Maybe we should not speak of this again.

Anyway, I think Indie is short for Independent and it doesn't matter what it sounds like, it's how and why it is made, and when a band "signs with a major" (and that used to be an issue) they aren't "indie" anymore.


read more about it here ;) (http://forums.morrissey-solo.com/showthread.php?p=422429#post422429)

[Kickstand]

People who brand Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains as "indie" need to be shot! If you define Indie you will see that most of the bands sound somewhat similar to each other, whilst you can distinguish "indie" bands from each other, the gulf between bands in the "Grunge - Mainstream alternative" is far greater than anything I've listened! Grunge music is not indie, if anything it borded on along the lines of New wave! Was Adam and The Ants an indie band? No they were not, they were alternative. Indie doesn't not exist, what's Indie? Happy go lucky pop music? Are Blur indie? I always had them down a Brit Pop and Oasis as brit rock, same with Libertines and Babyshambles. Indie does not exist, it's a flash name to group different bands into one catergory. Are The Cure Indie? I always had them down a first wave emocore?! Were The Smiths indie? Nope, not to me they weren't, I'd define them a mixture between alternative and pop music, does this create indie?

To me the popular brands of music today are alternative, Sonic Youth, Pearl Jam whose albums all sound different from the last one, you could place Morrissey there if you really wanted to. Pop music, you're Feeling, you're girls aloud. RnB is another one and emocore. Would you call Greenday punk? Indie? I'd call them a pop band, who about busted are they indie too? I always thought they were pop too, and what about McFly?

There is no such thing as indie, there never has been and there never will be. The closet music that comes to indie is Seattle Grunge and that's called Alternative! Indie is a shite name to describe that form of music! I call it alternative and bands like The Feeling, Feeder are not what I'd call alternative or as some call it Indie!

I'd call bands like Faith no more and Pearl Jam "Alternative"! I hate the phrase indie, most of the "indie" music out today has it's origins from bands of yesteryear! There is nothing original about it, therefore it's not alternative and the indie name is meaningless!

[Kickstand]

Well after not knowing what I'm talking about, I couldn't careless what genre an artist I like is in, it doesn't matter, if the lyrics have relevance and the music is good, I'll listen to it, like it and buy it. I brand my music taste as alternative, because my taste is diverse! Most artists nowadays cannot be defined in just one catergory, they can be placed into several, so is there any point of a discussion of music genres? There doesn't seem to be that much of an emphasis on it these days!

[wolve]

Well, music genres are still necessary. If you want to recommend a band to someone, and they say "what's it like" you could do some namedropping or just say "a bit of tweepop" ;)

Anyway, Kickstand, I don't understand why you were complaining about people calling grunge indie? I never heard that one before...
I always thought indie was alternative - alternative because it didn't get played on radio/tv and it wasn't accepted by the masses. Yes, lots of bands are still alternative in that way. But then I began to doubt the word "indie" since they began to play Death Cab For Cutie on the telly and it was becoming cool to dress indie and wear shirts of "indie" bands without knowing them...:rolleyes:

[Kickstand]

When someone mentions indie to me, I get an image of shite bands who are trying to be different and to compare that nonsense of Pearl Jam just vile!

[robertzombie]

Nowadays indie means so many things when it comes to bands.
Originally it was used when you had a band that's genre was unclassifiable so they would be "alternative" or "independent/indie." But somehow Oasis came along and fucked everything up and now everyone thinks that any band that's a little bit different is "indie" :confused:

The following bands have been classified as "indie" by people I know:
Placebo, Editors, Scissor Sisters, Killers, Kooks, Razorlight, The Feeling, Panic!
One girl tried to convince me once that The Cure were indie just because they sounded different to everyone else :eek:

They are all quite different, but because they are "different" they've been lumped into the indie/alternative category which consists of a mish-mash of unclassifiable bands.
You even get "indie-kids" now, which is basically a cross between an "emo" a "grunger" and a "skater." :confused: ... they are quite a sight!

The only reason people think Morrissey is "indie/alternative" is because he's making music that sounds like nothing else. But at the end of the day, most modern rock bands try to sound different just so that they can be labelled as "indie" because it's the in-thing. (i'm not saying Morrissey is trying to do this).

It makes me angry when people lump Morrissey (and The Cure) in the same category as crap bands like the kooks!

Yes, you will have a hard time trying to classify Morrissey's music, he probably doesn't even know himself, but if you look at the majority bands that have been hurled into the indie-mixing-pot, then you'll see that he is nothing like them.
My band make music that is totally unclassifiable - someone said we were "darkwave" ... I laughed in their face - but it doesn't mean we're "indie/alternative," in fact, I'd rather people think we were "darkwave" (which we aren't) than bloody indie.


Type of Label Indie
This means he is on an Independent record label, not that his genre is "indie."

[wolve]

When someone mentions indie to me, I get an image of shite bands who are trying to be different and to compare that nonsense of Pearl Jam just vile!


robertzombie said it right:
The following bands have been classified as "indie" by people I know:
Placebo, Editors, Scissor Sisters, Killers, Kooks, Razorlight, The Feeling, Panic!

and:

You even get "indie-kids" now, which is basically a cross between an "emo" a "grunger" and a "skater."

Teehee, good discription :)
(and you have to wear a lot of striped shirts and take mugshots with your hair in front of your eyes)

Conclusion: there still are indie bands, but overall, it's being abused.

[Kickstand]

Well I'm sorry how do the Kooks sound or look any different from Razorlight and other shite bands like that? Curly hair and leather jackets! I will not have shite like that compared to Pearl Jam! It's a disgrace, Eddie Vedder has more talent in his thumb than The Kooks have put together! I don't mind the Kooks but how anyone can put them in the same catergory as bands like Pearl Jam is oh so vile!

I thought Panic at The Disco was emocore? Hence Emos?

[robertzombie]

I'm just writing stuff that applies to the people I know and where I live. Obviously it's different all over the country/world.

[wolve]

No, robertzombie, it's the same here, I totally recognized it!

Kickstand: I have never ever heard anyone compare the Kooks to PJ. Should I read more the Kooks-fanmagazines or something?
And Panic! isn't emocore, it's not even real emo. True emo-fans hate it when they call bands like that emobands. Emo has become more of a "pose" than music..but that's another discussion.

[Kickstand]

No that's not what I'm saying, PJ are alternative right? Well if the Kooks are branded altenative as well, it puts them in the same catergory does it not? This means it's open to comparisons?

[robertzombie]

It's exactly the same point that I was making with Morrissey and The Cure :)

[imogen11]

[QUOTE=chica;358096]Oh, but he is! His lyrics are still "tough", but the music is pretty mainstream... It scares me sometimes to think this, but when I listen to most of his solo work it comes to my mind "this could be anyone" :confused: QUOTE]

I agree, his solo music (as in, the actual musical arrangements - not the lyrics) is completely mainstream. Very contemporary. Um, sometimes very bland. It scares me to think it too!

As much as I love him, it's my major gripe with his solo stuff. I think he is still just as talented as he's always been, but the musical arrangements aren't anything on The Smiths :(

I really don't think I'd classify him as Indie & he doesn't seem to really fit into mainstream. That's probably just the way Morrissey likes it. ;)

And before you all have me drawn and quartered, I'm not saying I feel this way about all of his solo music, and I'm not criticising him, per se, moreso those with whom he collaborates.

[Danny]

The Smiths music was mainstream too. I don't hear anything off the wall in their sound. Morrissey has always been interested in making pop music and communication.

[Christine]

Oh Moz just likes to complain, so this is his choice for this year. As long as he's at the to[ of some charts I don't mind :)

[imogen11]

The Smiths music was mainstream too. I don't hear anything off the wall in their sound. Morrissey has always been interested in making pop music and communication.

Hmm..to me, the Smiths sound - musically - was a bit more unique, not quite as safe, and contemporary and unimaginative as a lot of his solo stuff.

[Danny]

Hmm..to me, the Smiths sound - musically - was a bit more unique, not quite as safe, and contemporary and unimaginative as a lot of his solo stuff.

Really? I find the Smiths to be much more pop than Morrissey is. Morrissey's music at times to be deliberately not pop, and deliberately more obscure at times. I think both Southpaw Grammar and ROTT fit into that musically. I can't imagine The Smiths doing something like "Teachers", "Maudlin Street" or "This is not Your Country" for example. It's just not immediate enough and a bit too demanding for a mainstream audience.

[imogen11]

Really? I find the Smiths to be much more pop than Morrissey is. Morrissey's music at times to be deliberately not pop, and deliberately more obscure at times. I think both Southpaw Grammar and ROTT fit into that musically. I can't imagine The Smiths doing something like "Teachers", "Maudlin Street" or "This is not Your Country" for example. It's just not immediate enough and a bit too demanding for a mainstream audience.

Yeah, really. I find Smiths more imaginative musically. Like I said, I'm not saying I feel all of his solo work is bland musically - as you just noted, Maudlin Street is a very, very fine example (love it!).
I'm also not saying Smiths aren't pop, I'm just saying I feel Johnny Marr's musical contributions have been far, far more superior than anyone Morrissey has ever collaborated since. Most of his solo music (and I'm referring to the musical arrangements here, not the lyrics) is kind of..umm..safe, regular, mainstream sounding. If you took away his brilliant lyrics well, it could really be anyone.


One has to also put the Smiths into the context of 1982-87: their sound - (along with their lyrics and overall image) was much more unique for the times than Morrissey's solo stuff is now.

I would definately classify the Smiths as Indie. Without a doubt. Morrissey's solo stuff, I'm not so sure.

Of course, I'm not trying to say I am right and you are wrong, it's just my personal opinion :)

[nightandday]

The Smiths music was mainstream too. I don't hear anything off the wall in their sound. Morrissey has always been interested in making pop music and communication.
The Smiths were definitely NOT mainstream. Pop and mainstream is not the same thing. Being mainstream means being a part of the culture that is accepted by the masses, that fits into the main stream of thought, that is promoted by most influential media, etc.

What you seem to be talking here is "pop" as a genre of music. But mainstream is defined in terms of society. For instance, in Serbia of the 90s and 00s, bands who play guitar pop that is far cathier and 'poppier' than The Smiths are definitely underground, while genres such as "turbo-folk" (a weird hybrid of Serbian folk, Oriental music, techno, dance...) and "dance" (similar thing, only less connected to folk) are mainstream.

[nightandday]

Well, music genres are still necessary. If you want to recommend a band to someone, and they say "what's it like" you could do some namedropping or just say "a bit of tweepop" ;)

Anyway, Kickstand, I don't understand why you were complaining about people calling grunge indie? I never heard that one before...
I always thought indie was alternative - alternative because it didn't get played on radio/tv and it wasn't accepted by the masses. Yes, lots of bands are still alternative in that way. But then I began to doubt the word "indie" since they began to play Death Cab For Cutie on the telly and it was becoming cool to dress indie and wear shirts of "indie" bands without knowing them...:rolleyes:
What's the difference between 'indie' and 'alternative' anyway? All I can think of is that 'alternative' was used a lot in the early 90s, and 'indie' seems used a lot now and promoted magazines such as NME.

People are now even talking of 'mainstream indie'... what a funny oxymoron.

And what bands are supposed to be 'indie'? The word has an importance for me only because I go to 'indie' nights in clubs... but the bands played there are not at all similar. It's everything from punk to Brit pop to Goth to Americana to Madchester to bands like Franz Ferdinand. Depeche Mode and The Cure ARE quite regularly played on those indie nights I go to, but Led Zeppelin are usually NOT played, because they're regarded as classic rock/hard rock (but some DJs might even play them or Beatles or Dylan or Elvis...you never know, it all depends on the person).

Some terms are useful, though... I'm glad I know the term "tweepop", it helps me name the music that I hate (it ruins every indie night for me) :eek:

[scottishlass]

Smiths were indie in the 80's of course. 20 years later, indie is the new mainstream. I'm not quite sure where that positions Morrissey in 2006.

[Danny]

The Smiths were definitely NOT mainstream. Pop and mainstream is not the same thing. Being mainstream means being a part of the culture that is accepted by the masses, that fits into the main stream of thought, that is promoted by most influential media, etc.

What you seem to be talking here is "pop" as a genre of music. But mainstream is defined in terms of society. For instance, in Serbia of the 90s and 00s, bands who play guitar pop that is far cathier and 'poppier' than The Smiths are definitely underground, while genres such as "turbo-folk" (a weird hybrid of Serbian folk, Oriental music, techno, dance...) and "dance" (similar thing, only less connected to folk) are mainstream.

The Smiths were not mainstream for reasons other than their musical sound. Their musical sound was mainstream pop. That's what we were talking about, their music, not what category they fell into as a whole.

[nightandday]

The Smiths were not mainstream for reasons other than their musical sound. Their musical sound was mainstream pop. That's what we were talking about, their music, not what category they fell into as a whole.
I thought 80s mainstream pop was Madonna, Michael Jackson, Wham, Duran Duran...? The Smiths hardly sounded like any of them.

Some Smiths songs (Boy With the Thorn In His Side, Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others, This Charming Man...) sounded 'poppy, but I really don't think that, for instance, Barbarism Begins at Home, Last Night I Dreamt That Somebody Loved Me, You've Got Everything Now, I Know It's Over, Death Of A Disco Dancer, Never Had No One Ever, Sweet and Tender Hooligan, Meat Is Murder, not to mention Miserable Lie, were anywhere near sounding like mainstream pop.

[nightandday]

What's the difference between 'indie' and 'alternative' anyway? All I can think of is that 'alternative' was used a lot in the early 90s, and 'indie' seems used a lot now and promoted magazines such as NME.

People are now even talking of 'mainstream indie'... what a funny oxymoron.

And what bands are supposed to be 'indie'? The word has an importance for me only because I go to 'indie' nights in clubs... but the bands played there are not at all similar. It's everything from punk to Brit pop to Goth to Americana to Madchester to bands like Franz Ferdinand. Depeche Mode and The Cure ARE quite regularly played on those indie nights I go to, but Led Zeppelin are usually NOT played, because they're regarded as classic rock/hard rock (but some DJs might even play them or Beatles or Dylan or Elvis...you never know, it all depends on the person).

I was at an 'indie' night on New Year, Scissor Sisters were played twice. But Scissor Sisters sound just like Bee Gees. :confused: