Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Life on the road: What indie looks like now

GUY DIXON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:45 AM EDT 31/07/07

Can Arcade Fire and others be called 'indie' any more in the alternative, shun-too-much-attention sense? ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: Arcade Fire is more of a Texas/Exeter/Montreal melange than simply a Montreal band, as the band's leader is a Lone Star expat.
    In any event, geographic origins say less about the art and more about regional pride and marketing.
  2. Plain Jane from Toronto, Canada writes: I stopped listening to Arcade Fire and other bands like it when they became marketing machines, floating their "indie"-ness around like cheap perfume. As soon as you see eTalk or ET Canada gushing over a band, you know they're over...it's a media death-knell.
  3. James P from Canada writes: Plain Jane, if a band puts out a good record, buy the record. Hype should be ignored and the product judged. There is nothing wrong with promoting a product. No band is a as hyped as Radiohead, yet they continually exceed the hype. Modest Mouse is covered by American Idol and the Mini-Pops, but the new record is great (especially 'Parting of the Sensory"). Can't blame a band for selling albums.

    It's refreshing to hear that good music is breaking into the masses. I enjoy knowing of bands that others will somehow never discover (Neutral Milk Hotel, Deadly Snakes, Do Make Say Think) but I would prefer that the average joe get to experience great music.

    Yes, I am name-dropping to impress you. Perhaps I'll buy you a Labatt's 50 at the next Maybe Smith show.
  4. Ronald Needmayer from Canada writes: Plain Jane, you obviously never liked them in the first place. Or do you really just care more about appearance than substance? I can't imagine any scenario that would remove Funeral and Neon Bible from my all-time favorites list.
  5. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: It's true that it's nice when your favorite band is small, and unknown, but do you think they don't want to make money??? They have that right. My favorite act is Wilco, and while they've grown, good for them. They've been working hard, deserving of every dollar they earn. Same goes for Arcade Fire. So what if everyone likes them? You either like the stuff they put out or you don't. What are you in, high school??? It's fun to be a music snob, but people don't always appreciate it. Basically, I agree with James and Ronald! :-)
  6. Theodore Street from Canada writes: Which band played or created the most memorable songs?

    Joni Michell, Bon Jovi, Rush, Neil Young, Arcade Fire, Feist, Tragically Hip, Randy Bachman, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison, Bruce Springsteen.

    I was born in 1956 and I say toss Arcade Fire and Feist from the List but put them in some Indy rock shrine. Perhaps add The Monkees and the Partridge Family since after thirty years I still remember Last Train to Clarksville and I Think I Love You.

    Add the Beatles and Harry Nillson too, in case you're not saturated with the sixties.

    Obviously it's a different business then and now -- perhaps Feist has got something going with that One Two Three song, obviously building on One (Is The Loneliest Number).

    Conclusion: I'm only marginally impressed with this new music.
  7. J F from Canada writes: Good music is good music...who cares if it's "indie"...it's nice to see bands and musicians with real talent making interesting progressive music, if they get popular all the better. I'm so sick of trite formula schlock like Nickel Back or Rihanna.

    And to the radio stations...start playing better music already!
  8. Ryan Sadler from London, Canada writes: JF, if you are somehow thinking that feist and arcade fire arent as formulaic as "the back" and rihanna, then you are sadly misguided. The music industry always tries to latch onto what is "cool." right now, its indie rock. Not only that, but it is one of the few genres (yes, genre...see below for details) that is actually still SELLING, because when you support and indie band its viewed as supporting the artist and not a gigantic record company. Its all a part of a cleverly marketed scheme and still part of the ongoing pop-culture cycle. Re-affirming this are the hipsters who will tell you that their favoured brand of music is more "important" b/c it is more organic or less corrupted by corporate influences. When in actuality its all the same of drivel being churned out. "Indie rock" has now been branded a style or GENRE, meaning there is less of, or no connection at all to an independent record label. Go to any chain record store or allmusic.com and they will have an indie section full of bands not on independent labels but rather all produce the same dreamy, whistful, shimmering crap. Compounding this, is that being an indie-kid is whats cool right now for teens and 20 somethings (or have you not noticed the popularity of short-brimmed military hats and wearing blazers accompanied by the band du-jour's t-shirt) Furthermore, trying to justify indie as better just plays to the mindset created by the overall trend. And I'm not really buying it... That being said, it is hard to try and fake to like something, or at least it is for me. So if these bands have created a real fanbase through the internet and blogosphere thats great for them. The DIY ethic (or at least a cleverly created facsimile of DIY) has proven triumphant once again...
  9. S G from Montreal, Canada writes: Here're some facts: Arcade Fire enjoys making music, playing it, and experiencing some new and cool things, plus sharing their music with others. Can this possibly make them a s---load of money? Sure, it has to some extent and will probably continue to do so. Other bands aren't as lucky, and don't connect with as many people. For example, Bruce Springsteen is always and always will be Bruce, and the Boss' songs will resonate in the North American (and probably global) psyche for many years to come. He certainly came off as indie-ish back in 1980 when he was rebellious and challenging the mainstream, with clothes, lyrics, and attitude. He continues to represent a segment of society that stands for change. And millions grew to love him and his music; he connected. That's not necessarily "selling out." That's called "making it." They are actually 2 different things. When it comes to actual songs it's a matter of taste, and not everyone will like the same things. Honestly, Arcade Fire doesn't care if it's called indie, alternative, mainstream, or even hip-hop if someone blows a gasket and decides that someday. The reality is they will just keep making their own music, and they'll promote it because it's their passion and their career. One can't begrudge someone else's success; doing so is a sign of jealousy. I don't care if Britney Spears sells 2 million records: I still won't buy any of them. But good for her and her mindless fans. And I'll get some of this other music (and I note that perhaps the most appealing and possibly most "indie" of all these bands, Montreal's lovely Stars, was left out of this article), because Arcade Fire, the New Pornographers, Stars, etc. are all making music that I like. So are smaller bands, but liking one doesn't preclude liking the other.
  10. Leanne Ohlund from victoria, Canada writes: i found it strange that the captions and subtitle of the indie music article (in the saturday paper version anyway) were all about following the besnard lakes around and yet the subject was mostly about feist and this crazy indie music hotspot location debate! i actually felt bad for the besnard lakes because despite the awesome coverage and all the great photos, there was hardly any information or development of an on the road story. it was a disjointed photo caption piece at best.

    i agree with most commenters that people should listen to music they like based on musical merit, and not on how mainstream it is. just because you can download a pirated advance copy of most albumns these days doesn't mean it is cool to claim to be sick of the music by the time the official release comes. and i still think that buying records and other merch at shows is the best way to support the bands you love.
  11. catherine north from The Mighty Hammer, writes: You forgot a major point - Feist has been on Polygram in Europe and Interscope in the US for her last two albums. These are MAJOR labels. Indie schmindie ! It's just another way to tag the music. This article should have been written a year ago to have any relevance.
  12. catherine north from The Mighty Hammer, writes: Theodore Street - Don't worry, your too old to be listening to new music, as you've pointed out, stick to those golden oldies!
  13. Pieter Funnekotter from (currently in England but from ...), Canada writes: I'm happy that 'indie' has gone mainstream. Nothing wrong with good music being listened to by the masses. It really annoys me when people complain about people jumping on a band's bandwagon. If I like a certain band's music, then I want them to go big. For their sake! I don't want them to continue to struggle and suffer. I saw Arcade Fire years and years ago opening a festival on Toronto Island. I think I was one of about 15 people there actually watching them and really started to appreciate their music from there on out. I'm thrilled that I can now hear them on the radio here in England (moved here two years ago). What a success story. Now if only my other favourites of a few years ago - James McKenty and the Spades would do the same I'd be in heaven.

    Basically I'm agreeing with what James P said a few posts ago - except with his slight on Labatt 50. That's one fine beer no matter how many men with mullets drink it.
  14. Dan Vallee from Canada writes: Lagwagon said it best in their song "Know it ALL"... this is for you..Plain Jane

    The bands are good 'til they make enough cash
    To eat food and get a pad
    Then they're sold out and their music is cliché
    Because talent's exclusive to bands without pay

    Know it all, know it all - Did you really listen to that song?
    Could you ever write what you call wrong?
    Know it all
  15. Randy McClure from Canada writes: The early value of these bands is in the cachet of their being known by the "in" crowd. The exclusivity. Knowing all about obscure bands gives certain individuals social power. As soon as a band starts to become mass market, the cool folks have to move on to the next obscure band. It has nothing to do with music.

    The same pattern persists in all other areas of consumerism ... cars, jeans, books, neighbourhoods, etc. An old warehouse district full of artists and junkies is cool until the developers come in and start cleaning up the area and opening up a starbucks. Then the cool folks have to move somewhere else because their area is no longer exclusive in the way that gives them social power over their peers.

    I mean really ... can you actually hum any of the tunes these indie bands are cranking out? Does anybody care? Somehow I doubt it. Isn't interest in these bands really about finding new ways to seduce someone?
  16. Ryan Sadler from London, Canada writes: Randy McClure has hit in on the head. Unfortunately James P and and Pieter are still somewhat disillusioned. Name dropping indie bands kind of defeats your eliteist pusose does it not? But kudos for liking what you like I guess. Just don't fake interest in these bands-of-the-moment like most indie kids.

    "you feel like unappreciated scholars"
  17. James P from Canada writes: Ryan Sadler, please don't accuse me of faining interest in these bands (although the bands in the article don't necessarily break my top 10 - i guess they're not obscure enough). I'm just interested in spreading the good word. I'm only name dropping because few are spreading the word. But don't listen to me, I'm one of those freaks that buys everything on vinyl. Man, I am better than everyone else.

    You know what's great about "indie" music? The bands come to your town, play for $10 and have drinks with you after the show. maybe these bands won't be around in 10 years, but they will play some great original music for less than the Ticketmaster convenience charge on your Nickleback ticket.

    Arcade Fire formulaic? Each album may have a certain sound of sorts, but they sound like nothing else. You may not like the sound, but they are making unique music.

    Anyway, I only listen to music by bands with names you can't pronounce without a linguistics degree.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top