Are Modern "Indie" Bands Just The Modern Equlivants Of Manafactured Boy Bands?

Started by Alpha Centauri4 pages

It is lazier, though. It's not more specific than screamo, but they're both shit.

-AC

Just because its a simple term doesnt mean its lazy. Id prefer to hear a band called post hardcore than any of the millions of over-indulgent, fabricated genre labels out there right now.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
Just because its a simple term doesnt mean its lazy. Id prefer to hear a band called post hardcore than any of the millions of over-indulgent, fabricated genre labels out there right now.

It is actually a lazy term in this case, though.

-AC

How so? Obviously it doesnt literally mean "every musical act after hardcore." The wording may be lazy in that sense, but the actual definition isnt.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
How so? Obviously it doesnt literally mean "every musical act after hardcore." The wording may be lazy in that sense, but the actual definition isnt.

When people say post-hardcore, it implies everything after hardcore. Then people try to turn it around and say it was more of a reactionary movement than an all-encompassing genre of everything...well...post-hardcore, but it's still a lazy label, and so is the definition.

Rather than defining it what it is, "Eh, it came after/was a reaction to hardcore. So we'll just say post-hardcore.".

It's a lazy term.

-AC

Originally posted by manorastroman
yeah, modern boy-bands are definitely of the screamo/post hardcore ilk. red jumpsuit apparatus et al. man, those bands ****ing suck.

Definitely.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When people say post-hardcore, it implies everything after hardcore. Then people try to turn it around and say it was more of a reactionary movement than an all-encompassing genre of everything...well...post-hardcore, but it's still a lazy label, and so is the definition.

Rather than defining it what it is, "Eh, it came after/was a reaction to hardcore. So we'll just say post-hardcore.".

It's a lazy term.

-AC


Fair enough, Im not gonna waste any more time defending a term I never use

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Indie Rock is considered to be anti-pop...underground from what is popular in the mainstream...so I get how Spoony is saying there are bands that are being marketed as such...(although really aren't indie).

But, I think a better modern-day example of manufactured Boy Bands was with bands like Good Charlote and Simple Plan when they were at the height of thier popularity...(and how they were marketed).

But when you say "manufactured", neither of those bands really fall in that category. They had their looks and sound overhauled, yeah, but Joel and Benji (GC) are brothers, the rest of the band is comprised of friends, and they made music before they got the record deal.

With BSB and N'Sync, Lou Pearlman held auditions and literally handcrafted the acts. They gave each member an "identity", just like they did with NKOTB and dressed them up in matching outfits like they used to do with New Edition.

Yeah I know what you mean...I don't think any of these bands we're mentioning are manufactured in that sense...I thought its more obvious we've been referring to the look/image, sound and marketing of the bands.

I don't think Spoony actually thinks these bands we're disussing were hand-picked like boy bands...but that other parts of their marketing is manufactured.

Interesting.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Interesting.

Ok stalker...let's hear what's so interesting then.

...oh wait a sec, you're just trying to start stuff with your smart remarks again. Cool.

C'mon, tell everyone what's so interesting (or are you right now trying to think of something?)...or maybe you just said it 'cause you thought it was interesting...yeah....really sounds like you.

Actually I said it because I thought you were quite on point, that is exactly what the discussion is about.

Not so much straight equals, but modern day similarities or similar phenomena.

PS: Tick tock, tick tock.

-AC

I don't care what you think...you made the comment "interesting" after my post to be vague...and if I challenged you on it, you could say whataver...but would've achieved your goal at getting a rise out of me. Good stuff.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
PS: Tick tock, tick tock.
It's coming...today.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah I know what you mean...I don't think any of these bands we're mentioning are manufactured in that sense...I thought its more obvious we've been referring to the look/image, sound and marketing of the bands.

Manufactured can't mean anything else, to be honest. It's probably more logical to suggest that bands like that are what they are. Popular. Pop music reflects popular culture and people emulate pop music scenes. Avril Lavigne's a good example of an actual manufactured pop music artist. It can be contested that she's a pop culture Frankenstein, considering she was a bleach blonde, bob haired country-western singer before her "sk8er boi" days in the punk metropolis that is Canada.

Good Charlotte on the other hands didn't just go out and get tattoo sleeves and piercings to fit the pop punk persona. Besides, punk isn't mainstream. So people that like the punk look and the pop appeal automatically latch onto them. They make basic music with straight forward lyrics, which I think they write themselves.

When it comes to indie bands, the industry is full of them because they sell. Not everyone wants to be known as a bandwagon fan, so there's always that Modest Mouse or Bright Eyes knockoff to latch onto and praise for the sake of not wanting to be trendy, and eventually those bands come around to, almost all of which eventually fall to the wayside.

It's just the way of the pop culture beast. Conform to make those ends. But like I said, there are bands that get bad wraps because their music, unaltered, appeals to a younger fanbase.

There's no real "fault" in something being appealing if the musician really stands behind it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah I know what you mean...I don't think any of these bands we're mentioning are manufactured in that sense...I thought its more obvious we've been referring to the look/image, sound and marketing of the bands.

I don't think Spoony actually thinks these bands we're disussing were hand-picked like boy bands...but that other parts of their marketing is manufactured.


Exactly... I also agree with your post on the page before.

what's with the aversion to the prefix "post"? when i say hardcore, do you think husker du or hawthorne heights? when i say post-hardcore, do you think husker du or hawthorne heights?

Originally posted by manorastroman
what's with the aversion to the prefix "post"? when i say hardcore, do you think husker du or hawthorne heights? when i say post-hardcore, do you think husker du or hawthorne heights?

The fact that it's shit and lazy. You described it, previously, not to mean everything after, but just a reaction to, like post-modernism or what have you. It's still lazy, and I personally do not ackowledge it.

I think of rock when I think of Husker Du. I think of rock when I think of Hawthorne Heights.

Just entirely different parts of the genre. The Cure are a rock band, Led Zeppelin were a rock band, as were Pixies.

-AC

to tell you the truth, describing all of those bands as simply "rock" is a lot lazier than saying "post" anything.

It's better to be general and correct, by using a term that is applicable, since most bands can factually fit correctly into the rock genre, than it is to say "These bands were a reaction to...".

You tell me, right now, why Hawthorne Heights are considered to be the product of a reaction to bands like Black Flag.

Go.

-AC