I am just asking because it is becoming widely applied to almost anything that resembles Jimmy Eat World and Hawthorne Heights. Even when I go and look at myspace they always advertise some band and the genre is ALWAYS "indie/rock" or "indie/pop".

Its kind of frustrating because it seems like its meaning is more defining of a fad or a trend rather than an actual descriptor of music. I think things should always be described by their sub genres instead of just calling it "indie".

Is it an aesthetic?
Or do you have to be on an independent label to qualify?
What about a boy band or dance-popsters on a small independent label, trying to make it big?

These are valid questions you bring up.
I have them too.

This happened to "Alternative Rock" too in the 90's when the Stone Temple Pilots were supposedly alternative.

I know this thread makes an appearance once or twice a year, at least it seems to, but just a few minutes ago I was bothered by yet another band advertised on myspace. It made me more curious than normal.

OPA!, I don't know that I actually know what Alternative Rock is supposed to be either....or at least what it was.

In my opinion, alternative rock began in the late 70s with bands like The Cure and The Smiths. But by the early 90s, bands like Stone Temple Pilots and Live were labeled as alternative.

what would you have categorized them as? Just plain old rock?

I would've categorized them as Hard Rock.

ok. I assume Pearl Jam would have been in that category in those years. What about now? Should they be classified as an indie band now? Plus, there are some musicians now that are on major labels that get described as indie, at least in conversation. Is that people just being ignorant or is it a term that applies to more than what PopTodd asked about independant labels being the only fair qualifier of "indie"?

i'd suppose an "indie" artist is on an indie label.

white belts?

I think Pearl Jam graduated from indie band status ages ago.

A "mainstream" artist is on a major label, has significant amounts of radio play, and big, chain-store level distrobution. the amount of creative control artists have at this level varies, but in SOME way most artists have SOME responsibility/accountability in regards to the accessibility of their music (i.e. there are discussions and decisions based on whether or not the album will sell)

An "indie" artist is on an independent label (not owned by the majors), has a significant amount of college radio airplay, and various degrees of distrobution - some "indie" labels you will only find at mom-and-pop stores, others use the same distro-plan as the majors, just in smaller numbers units-wise. artists at this level have a very, very high level of creative control, if not total.

An "underground" artist has no label or self-releases albums, has little to no airplay at all, and distributes at a very small level or not at all (only sells stuff at a show). artists at this level have complete creative control.

so there you go. keep in mind that these are my general statements about three general areas of the music "order". it's gets to be a sticky wicket when we bring up specific artists like Pearl Jam, Ani Difranco, Modest Mouse etc. who seem to tread the waters inbetween these levels.

nothing

i always classify indie as anything that sounds even vaguely like Pavement. I'm pretty sure that hits the nail right on the head.

Exactly. I don't take it literally anymore. Most people would still consider Sonic Youth's output "indie" even though they've been with Geffen for years.

These days, it's more about a sound than about actually being independent. Though, there are times like with CYHSY that they do manage to exist side-by-side.

yeah i use Indie as a sound.

it appears that you have misunderstood or not really read my post.

I consider any artist who is not on a major label an indie act. It is not a sound to me, it's a status. I like supporting indie artists, but I don't necessarily listen to a lot of music you would label as sounding "indie."

Sounds good to me. This will be my new "indie" qualifier.

That would be a good trick for the Smiths to have pulled, considering they weren't around until '83.

Look up the dictionary definition of alternative... No wait. I'll do it for you: "choice available in place of another, one or two or more possibilities". Alternative was a term created in the early to mid 80s to apply to any music that didn't fit inside the strict confines of different radio formats. So bands as sonically different as, say, Fishbone and the Long Ryders and Scratch Acid were all lumped under the "alternative" banner. In the early '90s, however, the term came to be synonymous with "sounds like Nirvana" - so a new term had to be invented.

In the U.K. in the late '80s the term "indie" had been used concurrently with "alternative" (because most of these bands hadn't yet been signed to majors), and once the latter word got co-opted by radio ditzes everywhere that left the former to take the weight.

And now we're quite a few years into the word "indie" getting abused and warped to mean a certain sound rather than label status.

So to answer your question: yes. The term "indie" is in the process of becoming defined as a single, identifiable sound. It's hard to predict exactly which bands will be looked back upon in 20 years as being quintessentially indie, but the best bet is the sound that bands like the Shins, Arcade Fire, the Wrens, and Modest Mouse all share. And I know that most will vehemently disagree that those 4 bands sound anything alike, but it's the same shift as Nirvana to Pearl Jam (ie: Nirvana and PJ don't sound anything alike either, but then again, the ignorance of history says they do).

With the exception of Modest Mouse, there is a pretty short history in terms of years active with these bands. I do agree with what you said in your post. And, I agree that it may be equally difficult to figure out what bands will in the future be lumped into this category. I guess my next questions are how far back does this go? What labels qualify as "indie"? I know there are obvious exceptions(Atlantic, Virgin, Columbia, etc.), but is Sub-Pop major or indie? It's definitely hovering between the two in my opinion. What about a band like The Red House Painters. I think that they could easily be put into the category with the previously mentioned bands as well, but they have been around for significantly longer. (Keep in mind, I don't know anything about the label 4AD, so maybe they are an obvious major label. I am just unaware of that).

Yup, I remember when we used to say "progressive" and then "alternative" became the word du jour until appropriated by Clear Channel, et. al.

I don't consider "indie" to have a homogenous sound. There are corporate bands out there doing the so-called indie sound. Just like independent film, indie music styles and content range from the ordinary to the bizarre.