Why do Indie bands consider themselves pr
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40752
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 14:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why do Indie bands consider themselves pr
Posted By: activetopics
Subject: Why do Indie bands consider themselves pr
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:20
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... |
Replies:
Posted By: activetopics
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:22
| Disclaimer: I am aware of the lack of credibility of Myspace's music section as a source for new music. |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:25
|
Well, indie is not s genre but more of a musical movement that has plenty of great prog in it, such as all post rock is indie and a good chunk of modern art rock, so that's understandable. Dunno about punks and emos though.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:26
|
I believe it's a matter of networking. The more genres you assign to your band's music, the more myspace users you can get in touch with, based on their expressed preferences. Or something like that. (I'm just guessing anyway).
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:27
| Because either they 1) don't know what it means, but think it sounds cool 2) vaguely know what it means and want to be coined with a complex genre 3) know exactly what it means and think a lot of themselves.....or 4) and they generally are progressive, but not wholly...that last is exceedingly rare. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:28
You are limited to 3 genres, and most people do have 3, but the question is why do they chose prog when they could choose something more popular like pop or rock....(though, those could easily be the other 2) |
andu wrote:Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:30
Very close to what I said before my internet messed up.
 Many modern prog bands can slip right in to the indie genre because it's so loosely defined (if at all). Prog bands like dredg, Oceansize, and even The Mars Volta and Porcupine Tree can be considered indie. Anyway, if there is a genre that is most likely to have some influence from progressive rock, it has to be indie. They share a creative and artistic attitude about their music, even if it's much more simple. -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Ty1020
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 21:58
|
Lots of bands on Myspace don't know what they're talking about. That would explain the emo bands, at least. On the other hand, many bands classified as "indie" (I hate using that as a genre name, just for the record) exhibit a LOT of progressive elements and could most definitely be considered at least partially progressive. In addition to the aforementioned Dredg, Oceansize, and The Mars Volta, just take a look at Broken Social Scene (or one of their many offshoots like Apostle of Hustle), The Flaming Lips, The Arcade Fire, Don Caballero, The Decemberists, Neutral Milk Hotel, Sufjan Stevens... the list goes on, but you get the point. Many of those bands are actually included on this site despite the fact that they would generally be classified as "indie" before the word "prog" would ever be mentioned, and the rest could very well fit in here as well. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Ty1020/"> 
|
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 22:02
| I know what you mean...there just bands that suck and just try to be different....plain and simple. |
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 23:05
Indie sucks, the end. 
|
Posted By: reality
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 23:05
Do you care that much about corporate labels? Does a punk band that progresses punk qualify as progressive? If it was in the original purpose of the term very much so. The term has changed though from a description of a movement to an elitist badge of honer that sites one form of "progression" as best and disregaurds the rest. Nobody is realy sure what progressive actualy means as it is tailored to fit the users agenda. What makes it worse is is not a very good term to describe a genre (not to mention it is historically inconsistent with how we traditionally describe genres of music). If you take just the progressive rock era, yes there were a lot of bands that did "progress" rock; yet there were many others (or even the same bands) that "regressed" rock in what others view as more important areas. Some "prog" bands were really emotionaly infintile compared to bands in other genres. Why is not singer/songwriter rock progressive as they progressed lyrical depth and conceptual depth beyond anything in rock before. Like I said though it is a bad term, and very subjective to boot. |
Posted By: unicorn coffee
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 23:21
|
The easy answer is that myspace's given genres dont give you many choices, and the ones they do, nobody uses-- so it's quite difficult to describe a post-rock band for instance, and the band may end up using the term "progressive"
------------- 
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 23:23
But post-rock is progressive, why not.
 ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 00:38
I'm going to have to agree with this man!
 It seems indie is a musical idea made by a bunch of brats to look to calll to have any music label. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 00:44
|
remember that prog-rock = good rock is a FALSE statement... prog-rock is just some... special kind of rock (there are like 1089474899 threads about what prog-rock is so I won't start another one).
So if indie bands call themselves prog-rock... well, they're trying to get a name for themselves not only for being unknown but also for being "different" or special.... anyway, that doesn't mean most indie bands do not suck.... indie=bad is also a FALSE statement, but one wonders why so many great bands get so lost in the underground... maybe nobody who ever listened to them thought they were good?
indie=unknown, that's more of a true statement.
some indie bands are prog, some prog bands are good, there's no way to condlude that some indie bands are good.
Now I'm lost....  ------------- 
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 00:46
I read the last line at the exact same time in Inertiatic ESP where he sings the chorus  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 00:49
|
What I don't understand is why a band would want to mislabel themselves. To draw on other audiences? Which audiences are gonna be interested in something they don't care for and were duped into listening to..?
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 00:56
|
I guess lack of identity.... or trying to catch fans from pools that are usually open....
I'd say the lack of a true prog-definition also helps.... as "prog" is such a loose term (so loose that maybe some emo bands will get added here), then it's not much of a problem to a band that plays, say, "weird" music (to use a word) to call themselves "prog".... what's the reference? genesis? Yes? Those are the progressive-rock monsters of old... but today is different.... It would be completely different to try to label your band like a more well-defined ganre... say, to call your power metal band "death metal" when it's very easy to detect the elements of what makes a band death metal.... if Coheed and Cambria were "indie" and in their website they wrote "we play jazz-rock", people would laugh... if they wrote "we play prog", people would buy that.... -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 01:01
|
Easy, Radiohead had huge success among Indie/alternative fans and Progheads (they have elements of both even when IMHO barely Prog), Coldplay (with less arguments) is considered Prog by some people, so why not follow a succesful formula and double your potential audience?
Iván
------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 01:06
|
And we'll help when we add some bands to these website.... as we're so respected in the prog realm, it will be easy for indie bands that sound barely similar to others lited here to say "hey! we sound somewhat like band X, they're in PA, hence we're true prog rockers!" -------------
|
Posted By: Ty1020
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 01:41
Since when were either of those bands considered indie, though? Radiohead is maybe close with their "alternative rock" label, but Coldplay is the very definition of a major label MTV radio-friendly pop-rock band. I think the problem here is that "indie" is far too indescript a label, and is really not a genre. Actually, I'd be interested in hearing specific examples of the bands the original poster was talking about, just so we can all be on the same page here, because obviously many of us seem to have differing ideas of what this music is in the first place. Still, I think most people here have the wrong idea. Many (if not most) of the bands who label themselves "Progressive" on Myspace haven't even heard of Prog Rock before, and in doing so have no intention of associating themselves (or attracting audiences from) a genre they don't even know exists. Rather, based on the genres available to bands on the site, it's a simple way of saying "We play a certain type of music, but we have other influences and try to do something different once in a while, too." Of course, in many cases, the bands STILL don't bring anything original, and the label is just there to make them look smart, but I want to stress that in most of those cases, it has nothing to do with trying to be "prog," per se. On the other hand, I'd be happy to provide a list of "indie" bands who do exhibit progressive tendencies, many of whom could be included on this website, and many others who already are. People tend to be too black-and-white when it comes to genres; a bit of open-mindedness never hurt anybody, and those of you who bring such insight to this thread as "indie sucks" are surely missing out on a diverse range of great bands. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Ty1020/">
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 01:47
1. Do you have to call them "idiots"? 2. If everything sounds the same for you then maybe you're the one who's at fault ... anyway you forgot to mention the names of the bands, so you won't get any meaningful feedback anyway. Every genre as a certain bandwidth of quality, especially such a broad genre as "Indie". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 01:59
Since:
1.-
2.- You can check the net and Coldplay is mentioned as an Indie band.
I haven't say they are Indie (Radiohead has elements though), but Coldplay is Britpop, the problem is that some people consider them INDIE and others Prog.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Ty1020
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 02:11
I agree, but I'll expand that to say that the main problem is the existance of such labels in general. Good music is good music, and if the responses of half the people in this thread are any indication, classifying music the way that we do just creates barriers and nurtures closed-minded attitudes. Besides, like you said, bands fit into different genres depending on who you talk to - it's nothing concrete, and it seems like people just like to lump bands they like into their genre of choice (like, hmm, prog). In fact, when I was introduced to a number of the bands on this site - Porcupine Tree, Oceansize, and Do Make Say Think for example, among many others - my friends lent me their CD's and referred to them as indie bands, never once using the term "prog". Does that mean they're not progressive? Of course not, it just depends on what background you come from and what kind of music you typically like. It's probably worth noting, in response to the original post and the general topic of this thread, that many of our favourite "prog" bands deny the prog-rock label. It's kind of the opposite of what the original poster was talking about, and it's just further evidence that getting so concerned about genre labels is totally pointless. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Ty1020/">
|
Posted By: KeleCableII
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 04:32
| I don't know. Whenever I hear a band that is considered indie, it seems to have a very irritating simplicity and sound that I just can't see being called prog at all. The Arcade Fire, for example. When the same chords are being played throughout the whole song with no change... yeah. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 05:00
That's exactly the point ... there are bands which are considered "Indie" or "Alternative Rock" and don't have this "irritating simplicity" as you put it. Have a look at these charts from my website: http://ratingfreak.com/home/charts.xhtml?chart.tag.1=alternative&chart.prog_status=related_and_prog&block=0 - Albums tagged Prog/Prog-Related + Alternative http://ratingfreak.com/home/charts.xhtml?chart.tag.1=*all&chart.prog_status=related_and_prog&chart.genre=independent&block=0 - Albums tagged Prog/Prog-Related + Independent ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 10:13
|
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: KeleCableII
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 10:14
| The charts section isn't working, I don't think. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 10:16
That's mean. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 14:00
We already have Indie bands here. Fans of the genre will claim Sigur Ros and The Decemberists as their own. Indie is a vague genre with sort of the same Prog/progressive distinction that we have in ours. There's bands who are Indie in the sense of the sound and bands who are indie in the sense of being independent. Most progressive bands tend to be independent also and here's were the confusion comes in. Plus many Post-Rock bands draw influence from Sonic Youth which are gods amoung Indie fans creating further dispute.
We haven't added any Indie bands to the archives except arguably The Decemberists, but they certainly have their full blown prog songs so I don't think there's many worries. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 14:19
I can see them right now on the indie archives saying well Sigur Ros is independant in their way of think but their not indie, like modest mouse, so I dont think that they merit an inclusion into the site.
the other guy says, who cares if they are "indie" or not the important part is the independant nature of the band.  ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 15:23
Well... I said that indie=suck is not a rule... but when you mention The Icelandic Ros....
 The Decemberists indie? Come on! Thay may HAVE BEEN indie, but since when is an band released by EMI/CAPITOL "indie"?
INDIE is NOT a genre.... it's just INDEPENDENT music, hence, unknown, unsigned music... The music industry tries to sell you the idea of "indie" music as a genre.. it's not genre, it has no specific format, musical elements, etc... It's indie because at some point it was underground and the music industry moguls want the people to associate that band with that time in the band's career to create an specific market, the "indie" market... But they've managed to create a music genre based more on economics and indutry reasons than on musical ones.....INDIE is just independent... If you take the bait and start categorizing music as "indie" as if it was a musical genre, OK, but it's not... it's more of an "attitude-releated movement by music bands" than a musical genre....
Man how do people destroy music when they create genres just based on popularity and being signed to a big record label....  -------------
|
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 15:40
You are my hero.
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 10 2007 at 15:55
Well said!  I'm no expert on indie or anything, but I have to wonder at people who start threads calling bands idiots, or bandy about the word 'suck' with such ease. If I don't like a particular type of music, I just don't listen to it - I don't get a kick out of insulting those responsible for producing it. As to why indie bands might want to call themselves prog, there might be lots of explanations. At the end of the day, though, if you consider how unfashionable prog is ordinarily thought to be, it could be almost seen as a compliment, even if the bands are not what we would consider prog. And then, don't forget that many people don't distinguish between 'progressive' and 'prog' as we tend to do here. Therefore, they may think that, if their music contains elements that don't belong to the mainstream, they can be automatically called 'progressive'. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 11 2007 at 06:26
|
Indeed , in a few years progressive has stopped being a dirty word and almost becoming a quality and is even being used by groups who wants to distnguish them from the masses of other by saying they're more worthy by going deeper!
But Arcade Fire, Decemberists and most of these groups are simply not "prog" and not really progressive either, since indeed they're trying to simply sound different while remaining in the core of listeners! To me Muse only made prog-related album (absolution) and the rest is just average/good/excellent altrenative rock
Mike, I understand where you're coming from saying that the problem might be with the listener being the problem not telling those bands apart, but indeed, nowadays it is relatively hard to tell a band from another in a given genre. It is easy to confuseMusewith Arcade Fire and Decemberists for those unitiated to it. You musthave already a solid experience. There are simply sooooo many bands trying to break through that they can all sound the same. This started to happen inthe 80's and is areal problem nowadays. This is also happening for those new groups inside "Prog", too! This problem didn't exist before the 80's, (as in 60's and 70's) because there was enough space for every band to have its own sound.
I am about to demote Decemberist to prog-related, BTW!! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 11 2007 at 21:13
Thank you, I tried a number of different wordings and different vocabulary styles, execution dynamics, et cetera, and it took me a long time to perfect it, but there you are. |
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: August 12 2007 at 10:52
Yeah, I use experimental/ambient/progressive to describe a post-rock band on myspace. ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: August 12 2007 at 11:58
|
"Indie" just means "Independent (of the music businnes)"; there are a lot of indie bands which are prog. Embryo, for example, were an indie band for a while when their albums appeared on "Schneeball", a German independent label. "Indie" only stands for the marketing and distribution of the band, not for the musical content at all. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 12 2007 at 12:12
I've seen many homepages of those kind of bands and they usually rather call themselves "experimental" than "progressive" ... not even Coheed and Cambria try to "claim" their prog status.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 12 2007 at 22:49
Very similar to what I said... It's very curious and ironic how, in the end, that supposed "genre" called indie is really created by the record labels to promote bands that USED to be indie but are nothing like it now... they try to reach the audience that thinks that everything that isn't commercial is good..... but "indie" has just as big a musical meaning as "ketchup".... -------------
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 13 2007 at 09:56
Spot on chamberry! Especially the last sentence! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: September 26 2007 at 22:11
| i guess emo's think theyhave progressed from punk ?>??? HAHAHA |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 16:35
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:
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. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 17:25
Don't fool yourself. Real Emo was a subgenre of Punk. Emo doesn't exist anymore though. http://www.quiki.net/wiki/Emo - 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. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 17:36
Yes, too right. Emo was a short lived movement during the - what was it? late 80s? - called Emotionally Charged Hardcore-Punk. hardcore-PUNK! |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 17:40
It continued during the 90's, but was dead at the end of the decade. Mid 80's to mid 90's, kind of. It's definitely dead these days. It's good to see someone enlightened though! |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: September 27 2007 at 17:47
| I'm susha smrt 15 yr olde lawl |
Posted By: ShipOfFools
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 01:48
|
I think it's currently hip to call yourself progressive, for some reason. I've noticed that myself. ------------- 
"Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace" - Buddha |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 28 2007 at 10:26
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.
Indeed that seems to be the case. |