Why do Indie bands consider themselves pr

chamberry wrote: Why can't indie, punk or emo bands be labeled prog? If some jazz rock artists, metal, folk, and electronic artists can be labeled prog, why can't they do the same? I've heard modern bands that sound like those 3 "genres" and still have prog rock qualities in their music. Senseless generalization, that's all I see when reading the first post.

Spot on chamberry! Especially the last sentence!

activetopics wrote: I was browsing Myspace music for  progressive bands and what came up with was frightening; many of the bands were emo, indie, punk, or a combination of the three (as if there were a difference). My question to everybody out there is, how in the Hell do these idiots consider their music to be in the progressive vein at ALL?! It all sounds the same...

First of all, emo, indie and punk are completely different genres with very distinctive qualities that make the different.

Secondly, Indie is a misused term that is often used to associate many artists in a genre that don't actually fit, kind of like your problem of finding non-prog artists when looking for prog. 

Here is a good explanation of the term Indie Rock:

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.

-AMG


Third, I believe a lot of bands mislabel themselves in different genres as a joke because some people get a kick out of the fact that death metal band X labeled themselves as teen pop-folk-jazz.  It happens frequently. 

Philéas wrote: BroSpence wrote: First of all, emo, indie and punk are completely different genres with very distinctive qualities that make the different. Don't fool yourself. Real Emo was a subgenre of Punk. Emo doesn't exist anymore though. Recommended reading No, those MTV-bands are not Emo. They are Pop-Punk or Alternative Rock, sometimes mixed with watered-down Metal-isms. They are massproduced by major labels with the sole purpose of earning said labels more money. That's the complete opposite of what Emo was about. And it never was about slitting your wrists either.

Yes, too right. Emo was a short lived movement during the - what was it? late 80s? - called Emotionally Charged Hardcore-Punk. hardcore-PUNK!

I'm susha smrt 15 yr olde lawl

ShipOfFools wrote: I think it's currently hip to call yourself progressive, for some reason. I've noticed that myself.

It is becoming quite hip, yeah. It could have been a great thing, however the majority of the bands calling themselves progressive are not. Which is a shame, because it makes people ignore similar new bands who actually are progressive.

Shakespeare wrote: I'm susha smrt 15 yr olde lawl

Indeed that seems to be the case.


Edited by Philéas - September 28 2007 at 10:30