Indie or what

[nofi]

back when rem hit it big the indie/alt bands became the new mainstream imo. why is this term relevant today. just thinkin'...

[gweimer]

I look at Indie bands as bands that aren't signed to major labels, and are probably relying on touring and record sales.  No real media exposure behind them.  That said, a lot of young bands are popping up in TV commercials.  There's a nice demographic for them.

Once they find popularity and radio behind them, they move out of indie.  The label just stays with them.  You'd be hard pressed to call the last years of Led Zeppelin a blues-based band.

[Dave W]

Indie, alt or "modern rock" (as the radio stations sometimes called it) were just terms for rock that wasn't metal-influenced like what was mainstream back then, and wasn't classic rock. Major labels didn't sign a lot of them until the type of music they played became popular.

The term today has no meaning except as a style, and the term doesn't fit the style. To me it's just rock.

[Barklessdog]

I thought it was "Alternative"

[Pilgrim]

We don't need any stinkin' badges!

[Dave W]

[Pilgrim]

Forgive me, but it had to be done...

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

[Dave W]

[uwe]

It's guitarists that don't play riffs but chords.

[Nocturnal]

I remember in the early 80's a lot of the bands that came after New Wave were referred to as "Underground", at least around here. That seemed to stick for a while until the "alternative" label was stamped on everyone. Many of the "underground" bands didn't seem to fit a label like punk, metal, etc. The local stations that played "underground" had quite the variety in their rotation (Plimsouls, Echo & TBM, The Cure, and early REM). It seems like about the time the Pixies started getting attention that the alternative term started to get used.

[gweimer]

It's guitarists that don't play riffs but chords.

Nice!   

[uwe]

It's true! The art of composing hookline riffs died with Nirvana. Or maybe it's as Billy Corgan said: "All goof riffs have already been written. Whenever you think you have come up with something great, you then find it on Made in Japan or something ...".

To be fair, Enter Sandman was a signature riff, but then Metallica were hardly indie.

[Chaser001]

So which would be better for a bassist?  Being able to play along the lines of Les Claypool stuff, or being able to come up with truly original, powerful riffs?  Riffs that people would actually like, that is.  Or is this a false dichotomy?  It gets back to the question of is it better to be creatively brilliant or technically brilliant?  It's a question I find hard to answer.  Sometimes people fall into both categories, but often they seem to be in either one or the other.  At least, this is the way it appears to me based on what I've seen on a personal level.  Chris Wolstenholme addresses this issue to a degree in an article I read recently, but only touches upon it briefly. 

[nofi]

creative brilliance wins every time. ain't that what music is about.

[gweimer]

To be fair, Enter Sandman was a signature riff, but then Metallica were hardly indie.

They were before Master of Puppets.  They were the perfect example of a band that nobody ever expected to hear on mainstream radio.