Talk:Indie (culture)

Whoever wrote this article is an idiot

Uh, none of the bands mentioned in the article are, in fact, indie bands. (The Strokes? The Libertines? The Kinks? Pixies? LOL no) They're all with major labels. Hell, indie is not even a genre. So please, if you're going to write about it, make sure you know what you're writing about.

Indie is a genre now. When you can describe what an indie band "should sound like", and record companies label music as indie, then indie is a genre. The movement that was once about rejection of genres has become one itself. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Is there a single verifiable fact in this article?

I can't tell that this entire article isn't original research. Do we have any reliable sources describing the "Indie culture" that we could cite? That list of external links at the bottom does basically nothing towards verifiability - see reliable sources again. Surely someone's documented "Indie" from a sociological perspective and published their work. If not, we don't get to do so here first. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, its as real a culture as any other. (if anyone could do better in explaining it, which I'm very certain can be done, go for it) John 02:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above comments, I added information around August and sourced it with references to blogs and catalogs (as there are no sociological documents available yet, to my knowledge). There were re-formatted during some heavy editing and subsequently later deleted, but I've just re-added them in the right formats. I'm still keeping an eye out for articles from mainstream media. -Lhall 07:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

I motion we delete this article -John 11:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree. If anything, the article Indie (music) is supposed to address half of this topic. WesleyDodds 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there's a difference between Indie culture and indie music, even if the former is the decendant of the latter--Anklepants 06:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Indie (music) article isn't about a genre. It's about the concept of "indie" in music. What most people consider indie music is better known as some form of alternative rock such as indie rock. WesleyDodds 10:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the premise of the Indie (music) article being about the concept of "indie" in music, and I had figured that this article, being called Indie (culture), was about that same concept, but applied to youth culture, so as to include things such as social behaviour, beliefs, fashion, etc. Thats something that the Indie (music) article doesnt cover, as its about the music --Anklepants 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problme is the two main "indie" concepts listed here, music and film, aren't really related. It would be presumptuous to say the same type of person is interested in both. WesleyDodds 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article doesnt state that indie music and indie film are concepts, they are two meduims that the "indie" concept are applied to, just as it does to fashion and behaviour. Secondly, they are very closely related, as both indie music and indie film are two forms that follow the indie concept of distributing without the funding from the "Big Four" record labels/ "Big Six" film companies, and thus purposely distributing through independent companies--Anklepants 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "indie culture" need some sort of parameters? No one has yet to define the term indie. I think we need a separate page purely describing the term "indie". Because Obviously, a dictionary definition is not enough. Right now, as it looks to me, describing "indie" culture would be like describing "white" culture. No one seems to agree that "indie" means just the dictionary definition, but no one has come up with any meaningful way of describing the "indie", outside of, "You can just feel it." Is there some way we can have a discussion on what "indie" really means, so we can settle this once and for all?

The most important thing here, is describing what "indie" is. How else are we going to figure out what the "indie" culture really is? --Aaripper 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the IRONY!

It should probably be mentioned on this article that the term and the culture itself of INDIE has become mainstream, and is rampant in mainstream/media vocabularly for "cool" or "different". Indie as far as I know from a popular culture sense is the equivalent to what Punk is today. Piecraft 01:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Indie is in no way independent; indie kids in the UK have become synonymous with "trendies". "Indie" music is flavour-of-the-minute guitar-based pop groups. This is a trend which has existed ever since the NME abandonded industrial and punk in favour of grunge and britpop. It now enjoys an infuriatingly self-aware readership of arrogant ironists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.3.99 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More criticisms

Whoever wrote the section on British Indie is rather ignorant, ignoring the Smiths(!) and including the Decemberists and the Shins, both from the Pacific States!

Almost none of the films listed are independent.

Merging Indie Kids here

I agree with the editor who put a merge message on the Indie kids article. Most of the content in that article was not up to Wikipedia standard, for facts and writing style. After deleting all the substandard content, the article became just a stub. It should be merged into Indie (culture).Spylab 14:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Spylab[reply]

Section for Criticism?

Is it worth putting a section for criticisms of indie at the bottom, seeing as this has been done for similar subcultures (ie. emo)? The point often made is that indie is a manufactured culture with no real substance, because the bands that lead it like Bloc Party and Razorlight are signed to major record labels. Also the idea of an indie stereotype is sort of contradictory etc. Surely this kind of thing should be represented? I don't know - i'm just thinking aloud, here. Leowatkins 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is worth noting in the article that the fact that the indie culture is not really independent of corporations any more, and that there are many companies that now cater to indie tastes, treating the "indie" culture with the same advertising techniques and consumerist capitalism that all of the other subcultures recieve. The article should say somewhere that "indie" has become a sort of misnomer. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Books?

I noticed the lack of reference to written materials of the indie scene. Such as independently owned and operated bookstores, independent newspapers, etc. You know, real culture. 66.57.225.77 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is ludicrous

it's really hilarious, but quite clear that this article http://www.houseofemo.com/fashion-guide/emo-fashion-whores-check-out-these-bitchin-shoes.html certainly supports no claim about the individuality about indie -- it is either a piece of irony or demonstrates the massive conformity of this culture (no, i'm not going to do the necessary investigation to find out which) so either way it is quite clear that it should not be used in this manner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.172.163 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Indie music discpription is not in face a discprition of the Indie Music Scene/cultrue at all!

To whom ever has wrote this article. You need to be put in your place on this topic.

Indie music is the sole purpose of being "indiependent" or "underground" so to speak. Bands in the early 80's and 90's started out the indie music scene such i.e built to spill For a real short lesson in Indie Music.

For the comment below me, you are correct, indie is not a genre. Its a label for indipendent record compaines that sign on bands starting from nothing and making their way through creativity, skill, smarts, good music in a higher sense.

Bands such as The Kooks/Artic Monkeys/The Shins are not "indie" at all. Because on I-tunes or MTV whatever stupid mainstream shit you look up to find new and good bands on, say their "indie" THEY ARE NOT.

You don't desereve to know anything more about this subject becuase you have already shown you are a complete idiot who knows nothing about this subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Follie (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

it is so funny that you are so upset about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.243.52 (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also..... The shins are currently, by your definition 'indie'. They are on subpop which, along with merge & matador, are independent labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.103 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've hit a snag

There's two opinions here... one of the 'indie purists' who believe that 'indie' is pure independent, where everything is self published and self made, and the other where 'indie' actually is a genre of music.

The point is, that INDIE is short for independent, and that ANY books, music or films independently published ARE (like it or not) technically 'indie'.

The snag we've hit, is that mainstream culture HAS labelled the Arctic Monkeys, Strokes, Libertines, Kaiserchiefs, Bloc Party (and the rest of that music) as 'indie music', in effect CREATING the genre of music we call 'indie'. Face it, those bands aren't 'rock' are they? They all conform to that 'indie' sound, even if half of them are on major labels. What IS this music?

It's not the rest of Wikipedia we're arguing against, it's the rest of the world, in regards to labelling these bands and what 'indie' as a subculture actually means. ◄Ultre► (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]