Indie v. Mainstream

[krisko]

I notice that people's music tastes on theses boards tend to run twoards lesser known 'indie' bands and there is a general dislike twoards mainstream. What exaclty is it about Indie music that makes it "better" than mainstream? Is it because indie is genuinely more original and creative, or do people just like to act snobbish to feel superior? Is there such a thing as bad indie and quality mainstream?

[MrFruitLord]

You can have bad Indie. You can have quality mainstream.

/thread.

[Lameboy19]

You can have bad Indie. You can have quality mainstream.

/thread.

.

[afterstasis]

for one, independent music is a MUCH larger and far more diverse ocean from which to fish.
you'll not only find styles of music that have had no mainstream success, but also just FAR more of every style the radio has to offer.

i also personally feel that mainstream music typically doesn't speak to me like independent music does, possibly because i'm so engrossed in that scene.
i have no clue what a hollaback girl is, but i could write about almost any mountain goats song all day long if necessary.

and of course there are loads of independent acts i dislike as well as quite a few mainstream artists i love more than most smaller artists...

[Mystlyfe77]

I see two reasons.

First, quantity. There's are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of indie bands active out there. There is less than 1% of as many mainstream acts. Just by quantity, there should be more indie acts that most people like once they explore them.

Secondly, it's because many have more "specialized" taste. Mainstream acts tend to be the "least common denominator" of the musical spectrum in their genre. They are the neutered acts that won't
"offend" anyone's ears. They're easily accessible and radio-friendly. Indie music is not always that way. It can range to the dramatic corners of the musical spectrum.

[Runesmith]

I'm a weirdo and indie music tends to be weirder than mainstream music, so.

[overcookedbacon]

Hmm, now would be a good time to rehash the "passive vs active listening" argument, since it applies to this question.

Basically, there are two sorts of people who listen to music. Those who do so actively, and those who do so passively. The passive listeners just want something fun to listen to, perhaps even just background music while they're driving or working. They enjoy music, but they're not terribly concerned with lyrical depth, originality, influences, etc, etc. They're the sort of people who listen to mainstream music, and they make up the vast majority of music listeners.

Mainstream music appeals to them because it's really easy to listen to. The songs are filled with catchy riffs, lyrics you can sing along to, and no particularly deep concepts or subjects. It's accessible, you don't need to really think about it to enjoy it. Because of this, mainstream music usually ends up being very formulaic. While there are different genres of music, there isn't much variety in those genres, and quite a bit of mainstream music sounds very similar. There's nothing wrong with that, but some people want more.

Active music listeners are those who view listening to music as an activity in and of itself. They're the ones who want to be really involved in their music. They highly value things like lyrical depth, interesting subject matter, complex arrangements, experimental instrumentation, etc, etc. Because these people make up the minority of music listeners, the music they enjoy isn't nearly as popular. And because they all want new and interesting things, the music they enjoy is incredibly diverse with almost none of it sounding the same.

By definition, indie rock isn't compatible with mainstream tastes. Generally speaking, it's not particularly accessible, and often excludes the elements that attract passive listeners to music. A great deal of it is music you really need to think about in order to appreciate, and isn't suitable for listening to in the background while doing other things. It demands your full attention to appreciate things like depth, emotion, complexity and other elements.

Now, the reason most of the people on the History Of Rock forums are active listeners is because passive listeners aren't as passionate about their favorite music. Active listeners want to discuss, share, critique, and experience interesting music, so they're the ones who end up on forums like this one taking part in discussions.

It is possible for active listeners to enjoy mainstream bands (and vice-versa), however it is not the norm. That said, there are certainly "good" mainstream rock groups, and there are most definitely "bad" indie rock groups. The thing is that the definition of "good" and "bad" will vary from person to person depending on personal taste.

There are plenty of people who listen to indie rock for the wrong reasons though. There are those who do it just to be part of the scene, but don't actually enjoy the music. They want to be indie, but they don't really identify with the music (or the "culture"). It's a bit depressing that some people feel the need to do that, but that's just the way it goes. I have much more respect for someone who shamelessly enjoys Coldplay than I do for someone who pretends to enjoy Pavement.

[Oscar-Rio]

Is it because indie is genuinely more original and creative

Partially. The rest of it I chalk up to me not enjoying the operational ends of mega corporate labels.

[killer_roach]

There's also a division between "indie" as referring to music coming from independent labels and "indie" as a paradigm for the particular style of music. In the case of the first definition, indie wins hands-down. In the case of the latter, indie can be just as insufferable as the commercialized mainstream stuff (and, occasionally, they overlap...).

[Masterdramon]

Hmm, now would be a good time to rehash the "passive vs active listening" argument, since it applies to this question.

Basically, there are two sorts of people who listen to music. Those who do so actively, and those who do so passively. The passive listeners just want something fun to listen to, perhaps even just background music while they're driving or working. They enjoy music, but they're not terribly concerned with lyrical depth, originality, influences, etc, etc. They're the sort of people who listen to mainstream music, and they make up the vast majority of music listeners.

Mainstream music appeals to them because it's really easy to listen to. The songs are filled with catchy riffs, lyrics you can sing along to, and no particularly deep concepts or subjects. It's accessible, you don't need to really think about it to enjoy it. Because of this, mainstream music usually ends up being very formulaic. While there are different genres of music, there isn't much variety in those genres, and quite a bit of mainstream music sounds very similar. There's nothing wrong with that, but some people want more.

Active music listeners are those who view listening to music as an activity in and of itself. They're the ones who want to be really involved in their music. They highly value things like lyrical depth, interesting subject matter, complex arrangements, experimental instrumentation, etc, etc. Because these people make up the minority of music listeners, the music they enjoy isn't nearly as popular. And because they all want new and interesting things, the music they enjoy is incredibly diverse with almost none of it sounding the same.

By definition, indie rock isn't compatible with mainstream tastes. Generally speaking, it's not particularly accessible, and often excludes the elements that attract passive listeners to music. A great deal of it is music you really need to think about in order to appreciate, and isn't suitable for listening to in the background while doing other things. It demands your full attention to appreciate things like depth, emotion, complexity and other elements.

Now, the reason most of the people on the History Of Rock forums are active listeners is because passive listeners aren't as passionate about their favorite music. Active listeners want to discuss, share, critique, and experience interesting music, so they're the ones who end up on forums like this one taking part in discussions.

It is possible for active listeners to enjoy mainstream bands (and vice-versa), however it is not the norm. That said, there are certainly "good" mainstream rock groups, and there are most definitely "bad" indie rock groups. The thing is that the definition of "good" and "bad" will vary from person to person depending on personal taste.

There are plenty of people who listen to indie rock for the wrong reasons though. There are those who do it just to be part of the scene, but don't actually enjoy the music. They want to be indie, but they don't really identify with the music (or the "culture"). It's a bit depressing that some people feel the need to do that, but that's just the way it goes. I have much more respect for someone who shamelessly enjoys Coldplay than I do for someone who pretends to enjoy Pavement.
This is well-reasoned, though I'd take issue with the idea of dividing listeners into two distinct, mutually exclusive groups of "active" and "passive," since there's a lot of overlap. A good deal of listeners, and I'd count myself among them, fall in the middle of the two extremes you describe here.

Me, I'm a classic rock junkie. I love the oldies to death, and so primarily my "active" listening occurs with bands from the 1960s through the early 1980s. With modern bands, I'm more of a "passive" listener, though not quite in the way that you describe them. I hear bands on the radio or in Rock Band or in YouTube videos or whatever and I like them, so I research some of their more well-known songs and give them a try. I tend not to listen to modern full albums much (or at all, really); rather I go for individual songs recommended to me directly by friends or indirectly via popularity. In this way I am certainly not being "active" in my pursuit of music, but nor am I being "passive" because I am doing research and looking for music for more reasons than just surface catchiness.

I also take issue with the assertion that mainstream music concerns itself with "no particularly deep concepts or subjects." Certainly this is true for some mainstream acts, but even as a minority of music the mainstream is still an enormous tent, and there's deep stuff in it. Perhaps I'm just a total sap when I get misty-eyed while listening to "My Immortal," but I like to think that it's because it's a genuinely moving song. The fact that it was nominated for a Grammy doesn't in any way remove its meaning.

I like this topic, BTW. Unlike most others in this forum, I actually find it thought-provoking.

[krisko]

Thankls. I have never really listened to indie before, by the way. I am referring to the indie style of music rather than music put out by independent labels.

[overcookedbacon]

This is well-reasoned, though I'd take issue with the idea of dividing listeners into two distinct, mutually exclusive groups of "active" and "passive," since there's a lot of overlap. A good deal of listeners, and I'd count myself among them, fall in the middle of the two extremes you describe here.

Me, I'm a classic rock junkie. I love the oldies to death, and so primarily my "active" listening occurs with bands from the 1960s through the early 1980s. With modern bands, I'm more of a "passive" listener, though not quite in the way that you describe them. I hear bands on the radio or in Rock Band or in YouTube videos or whatever and I like them, so I research some of their more well-known songs and give them a try. I tend not to listen to modern full albums much (or at all, really); rather I go for individual songs recommended to me directly by friends or indirectly via popularity. In this way I am certainly not being "active" in my pursuit of music, but nor am I being "passive" because I am doing research and looking for music for more reasons than just surface catchiness.

Fair enough. I should have been more clear in my post though. It's not so much what music you enjoy that defines whether or not you are a "passive" or "active" music listener. The real defining aspect of an active listener would be listening to music as its own activity, as opposed to simply having it going while you're doing other things.

Active listeners actually listen to music, while passive listeners only hear music. There is obviously gray area in between, and most people are not entirely active or entirely passive. My observation was that mainstream music typically (not always) lacks things like lyrical depth, creative instrumentation and other aspects of music that active listeners want from their music. Mainstream music usually appeals to passive listeners more than it does to active listeners, but since taste is subjective there is plenty of overlap there.


I also take issue with the assertion that mainstream music concerns itself with "no particularly deep concepts or subjects." Certainly this is true for some mainstream acts, but even as a minority of music the mainstream is still an enormous tent, and there's deep stuff in it. Perhaps I'm just a total sap when I get misty-eyed while listening to "My Immortal," but I like to think that it's because it's a genuinely moving song. The fact that it was nominated for a Grammy doesn't in any way remove its meaning.

I like this topic, BTW. Unlike most others in this forum, I actually find it thought-provoking.

Depth is not absent from all mainstream music, it's just not as essential a quality. And as I said before, since taste is subjective there is plenty of overlap. Though I'd say that most mainstream bands that do have lyrical depth in their music are likely popular due to some other aspect of their music, or even just good marketing.

[Masterdramon]

Depth is not absent from all mainstream music, it's just not as essential a quality. And as I said before, since taste is subjective there is plenty of overlap. Though I'd say that most mainstream bands that do have lyrical depth in their music are likely popular due to some other aspect of their music, or even just good marketing.
I'm not sure I'd go along with that last statement. Because of the "sounds-the-same" syndrome you described that occurs in a certain portion of mainstream music, it makes it all the more noticeable when a mainstream or successful band does something significantly different from what other bands do. System of a Down is a good example; I'd argue that the main reason for their popularity has been that Serj Tankian sounds absolutely nothing like anything else in the mainstream, both vocally and lyrically.

For listeners like me who exist between the "active" and "passive" extremes, it's refreshing to hear something very unique and interesting from a popular, fairly mainstream band, which elevates them in our minds. Given that most of System of a Down's fans are likely not indie fans and likely not Nickelback fans either, their popularity has thrived on the "in the middle" listeners.

[citizenCERO]

But then there are people who are really "active" about "passive" music- Nickelback/Hinder/Theory of a Deadman and company have crazy devoted fans who analyze the music and all that jazz.
The gray area's pretty huge.

[Rocket2Russia]

As with any analysis, overcookedbacon's has gray areas. I don't think he's denying that, but I do find his observations to be pretty accurate for a big chunk of the population. In CERO's example, fans are researching one band's music, and bacon seems to be saying that the active listener researches a wide variety of music to learn about based on preference.

Also, in-the-middle was never really present in this discussion, since the analysis was in response to a pretty black and white question, the answer had to generalize and form blacks and whites where they may not have been.

[kingtonyx]

I like "mainstream music" more I guess, and I would definitely consider myself an "active" listener. I've listened to tons of "indie" bands and in most cases I can find a "mainstream" band of the same kind that I prefer. Although most people, probably those described as "passive" listeners would NOT consider many of my favorite bands "mainstream" bands... As a DJ I've had complaints (from owners, not patrons) that I'm not playing enough "mainstream" music... Yet if I were to post the list of songs I played here, I'd hear the opposite complaint.

[overcookedbacon]

I'm not sure I'd go along with that last statement. Because of the "sounds-the-same" syndrome you described that occurs in a certain portion of mainstream music, it makes it all the more noticeable when a mainstream or successful band does something significantly different from what other bands do. System of a Down is a good example; I'd argue that the main reason for their popularity has been that Serj Tankian sounds absolutely nothing like anything else in the mainstream, both vocally and lyrically.

For listeners like me who exist between the "active" and "passive" extremes, it's refreshing to hear something very unique and interesting from a popular, fairly mainstream band, which elevates them in our minds. Given that most of System of a Down's fans are likely not indie fans and likely not Nickelback fans either, their popularity has thrived on the "in the middle" listeners.

System Of A Down falls into a very small group of bands that have one particular unique quality that still appeals to mainstream tastes. In fact, I'd say the reason they became part of the mainstream is because they were different, but still accessible. There are a few other bands that do this as well, but most of them are just exploiting some "gimmick" as a reason you should listen to their music.


But then there are people who are really "active" about "passive" music- Nickelback/Hinder/Theory of a Deadman and company have crazy devoted fans who analyze the music and all that jazz.
The gray area's pretty huge.

I should have mentioned that almost no one occupies either extreme. But again, those devoted fans of Nickelback, Hinder, Theory of a Deadman, etc make up a small minority of that total number of people that listen to those bands.

The whole "passive vs active" thing is a generalization, not a rule. It applies to the majority, but it's certainly not something that can be clearly defined by which bands you listen to, and how obsessed you are with their music. As I've said before, the most literal way to define the two groups would be that active listeners listen to music as a full-fledged activity, while passive listeners only really listen to music while doing other things.

The only thing that connects the two types of listeners to their taste is that the majority of passive listeners prefer accessible mainstream rock, and the majority of active listeners prefer other stuff. There are active listeners who love mainstream rock, and passive listeners who like indie rock, but those groups are the minority.

Active listeners who enjoy mainstream rock are more common on the HoR forums than any kind of passive listener though, because all active listeners are more passionate about their music, regardless of taste. In terms of music listeners in general, passive listeners are much more common than active listeners.

[neckermanncj]

Hmm, now would be a good time to rehash the "passive vs active listening" argument, since it applies to this question.

Basically, there are two sorts of people who listen to music. Those who do so actively, and those who do so passively. The passive listeners just want something fun to listen to, perhaps even just background music while they're driving or working. They enjoy music, but they're not terribly concerned with lyrical depth, originality, influences, etc, etc. They're the sort of people who listen to mainstream music, and they make up the vast majority of music listeners.

Mainstream music appeals to them because it's really easy to listen to. The songs are filled with catchy riffs, lyrics you can sing along to, and no particularly deep concepts or subjects. It's accessible, you don't need to really think about it to enjoy it. Because of this, mainstream music usually ends up being very formulaic. While there are different genres of music, there isn't much variety in those genres, and quite a bit of mainstream music sounds very similar. There's nothing wrong with that, but some people want more.

Active music listeners are those who view listening to music as an activity in and of itself. They're the ones who want to be really involved in their music. They highly value things like lyrical depth, interesting subject matter, complex arrangements, experimental instrumentation, etc, etc. Because these people make up the minority of music listeners, the music they enjoy isn't nearly as popular. And because they all want new and interesting things, the music they enjoy is incredibly diverse with almost none of it sounding the same.

By definition, indie rock isn't compatible with mainstream tastes. Generally speaking, it's not particularly accessible, and often excludes the elements that attract passive listeners to music. A great deal of it is music you really need to think about in order to appreciate, and isn't suitable for listening to in the background while doing other things. It demands your full attention to appreciate things like depth, emotion, complexity and other elements.

Now, the reason most of the people on the History Of Rock forums are active listeners is because passive listeners aren't as passionate about their favorite music. Active listeners want to discuss, share, critique, and experience interesting music, so they're the ones who end up on forums like this one taking part in discussions.

It is possible for active listeners to enjoy mainstream bands (and vice-versa), however it is not the norm. That said, there are certainly "good" mainstream rock groups, and there are most definitely "bad" indie rock groups. The thing is that the definition of "good" and "bad" will vary from person to person depending on personal taste.

There are plenty of people who listen to indie rock for the wrong reasons though. There are those who do it just to be part of the scene, but don't actually enjoy the music. They want to be indie, but they don't really identify with the music (or the "culture"). It's a bit depressing that some people feel the need to do that, but that's just the way it goes. I have much more respect for someone who shamelessly enjoys Coldplay than I do for someone who pretends to enjoy Pavement.
i don't even need to read all this to know what you are saying, and most likely correct with your argument

Fair enough. I should have been more clear in my post though. It's not so much what music you enjoy that defines whether or not you are a "passive" or "active" music listener. The real defining aspect of an active listener would be listening to music as its own activity, as opposed to simply having it going while you're doing other things.

Active listeners actually listen to music, while passive listeners only hear music. There is obviously gray area in between, and most people are not entirely active or entirely passive. My observation was that mainstream music typically (not always) lacks things like lyrical depth, creative instrumentation and other aspects of music that active listeners want from their music. Mainstream music usually appeals to passive listeners more than it does to active listeners, but since taste is subjective there is plenty of overlap there.



Depth is not absent from all mainstream music, it's just not as essential a quality. And as I said before, since taste is subjective there is plenty of overlap. Though I'd say that most mainstream bands that do have lyrical depth in their music are likely popular due to some other aspect of their music, or even just good marketing.


System Of A Down falls into a very small group of bands that have one particular unique quality that still appeals to mainstream tastes. In fact, I'd say the reason they became part of the mainstream is because they were different, but still accessible. There are a few other bands that do this as well, but most of them are just exploiting some "gimmick" as a reason you should listen to their music.



I should have mentioned that almost no one occupies either extreme. But again, those devoted fans of Nickelback, Hinder, Theory of a Deadman, etc make up a small minority of that total number of people that listen to those bands.

The whole "passive vs active" thing is a generalization, not a rule. It applies to the majority, but it's certainly not something that can be clearly defined by which bands you listen to, and how obsessed you are with their music. As I've said before, the most literal way to define the two groups would be that active listeners listen to music as a full-fledged activity, while passive listeners only really listen to music while doing other things.

The only thing that connects the two types of listeners to their taste is that the majority of passive listeners prefer accessible mainstream rock, and the majority of active listeners prefer other stuff. There are active listeners who love mainstream rock, and passive listeners who like indie rock, but those groups are the minority.

Active listeners who enjoy mainstream rock are more common on the HoR forums than any kind of passive listener though, because all active listeners are more passionate about their music, regardless of taste. In terms of music listeners in general, passive listeners are much more common than active listeners.


don't you get tired of arguing this all the time?