Is Indie Dead?
Given its “by the people, for the people” punk roots, indie’s most relevant definition would seem to come from its fans, its most fervent believers. But take to the Internet — the homeless home of this decade’s most important scene — and you’ll find that any definition set forth has been swiftly and furiously countered.
Paste Magazine posed the question: is indie dead?. A good article that addresses an issue that needed to be explored at length. Rachael Maddux treats the subject well, addressing it from several perspectives.
Her final conclusion (not to spoil it for you; you should read the article to see a fine journalistic specimen regardless) is that yes, indie is dead.
She makes her point in a roundabout way, but abuses the term “dead” in my opinion. Indie is not dead, it’s just become a singularity. Much like the Nietzsche-posed question “is God dead?,” which she addresses, which more states that “God” means too many things to mean anything. Which is exactly what “indie” is: too much to be something any more.
I have friends who say “indie” when they mean independent. They’re usually the ones with a grasp on the recent history of pop culture. But to the rest — generally the less history-aware — it means “quirky” or “authentic” or a hundred other things.
Or they don’t know what indie means at all, so wrapped up in a world of the mainstream that they’re entirely unaware something else exists outside a world of corporate-sponsored entertainment based on market research. They probably don’t even know that market research exists.
Maybe indie is no more dead than any other thing that was never alive in the first place; I suppose the real issue here is deciding what “dead” and “alive” mean.
- March 4th, 2010 at 11:00 am
- Tags: indie, Paste Magazine
- Category: Music, Thoughts
- No Comments »

