Yes, I have decided to go down this slippery slope because this is a concept that means a lot to me, but, because of the way it evolved or it is used, it’s often unclear or incorrect. is it even a genre or is it something more elusive? I think the answer is yes, but it’s more complex than that and we’ll get it into it. It can refer to a music style, to an attitude or to a scene and I can’t promise a universal solution, but I’m just starting off with videos on this channel and often I’m gonna talk about independent artists or labels so it’s important for me to clarify what I mean when I talk about indie music. 

Hello, this is Alvin Row and today I’m gonna explore what the term “independent music” refers to taking in consideration its history, its practical system within the industry and the music itself. I can’t cover it all, these are just some basic info, but if you’d like to dive in, hopefully I can give you some good sources and examples. 

I want to begin with the classification of “popular music genres” according to musicological studies, which is already a big debate because of the criteria that can be used. 

The sound style is an important criterion of classification of genre, but also the target audience and the society around a particular style. But different genres can also be characterised on the basis of subjects of the lyrics and shared ideologies. So, also because of global diffusion through radio, television and online, discourses about music multiplied and, as a consequence, it has created an enormous and complex classification of genres in popular music. 

In 2007, musicologist Holt wrote that “Categories in popular music are particularly messy because they are rooted in vernacular discourse, in diverse social groups, because they depend greatly on oral transmission, and because they are destabilized by shifting fashions and the logic of modern capitalism” (Holt, 2007). 

One of the first, but still most important contributions in this field is the one proposed by Franco Fabbri, who in 1981 tried to set some order by formulating five rules to define popular music genres. These are his five categories. 

-1. Formal and technical rules: refer to forms and stylistic elements; 

-2. Semiotic rules: refer to narrative strategies and extra-musical references 

-3. Behavior rules: refer to musicians’ attitude on stage, frameworks of the concerts and interaction between musicians and audience; 

-4. Social and ideological rules: refer to musician’s ideology and their belonging social groups; 

-5. Economic and juridical rules: refer to production and distribution’s methodology. 

Fabbri's rules offer us a theoretical framework for understanding genres, but Fonarow takes this a step further, specifically focusing on indie music’s evolution and its cultural impact.

“Indie music has been considered by insiders to be: (1) a type of musical production affiliated with small independent record labels with a distinctive mode of independent distribution; (2) a genre of music that has a particular sound and stylistic conventions; (3) music that communicates a particular ethos; (4) a category of critical assessment; and (5) music that can be contrasted with other genres, such as mainstream pop, dance, blues, country, or classical” (Fonarow 2006). 

In different orders, but both scholars mention similar criteria, Fabbri as general rules and Fonarow as a specific case about Indie. From an organizational point of view, it refers to distribution. Records have an independent distribution, despite the size of the label or of the audience, if the label utilizes a distribution network that is not owned by one of the major international corporations. 

In 2013, musicologist Ryan Moore starts getting more specific saying it, when defining Indie Rock he says it “originally referred to music released on independent record labels but has also come to refer to a sonic aesthetic influenced by various forms of post-punk and lo-fi music” (Moore 2013). It becomes clearer that the word was born as a reference to the environment and the way music was released, but then its meaning changed, becoming also an indication of the musical aesthetic. He also elaborates discussing the evolution of the genre by outlining a history of alternative music, between Indie and Mainstream. He says the notion started to develop in the 1980s in punk and hardcore scenes, but then 

“[…] bands like Hüsker Dü, Sonic Youth, and Dinosaur Jr. expanded their music to the point where generic terms like “punk” or “hardcore” were no longer adequate to describe them. […] Indie rock subsisted as a cultural niche throughout the 1980s, but the success of Nirvana, grunge, and the Seattle scene, followed by the commercial breakthrough of Green Day, the Offspring, and other California punk bands, transformed the relationship between independents and the major labels in the following decade. Major labels returned to signing bands away from independents, as they had in earlier periods of rock history, using them as a kind of farm system for talent scouting, while the music that was once “alternative” in its sound began being assimilated into the mainstream as the new standard of rock. The sound typically described as indie rock was developed in the 1990s by performers like Pavement, Guided by Voices, and Elliott Smith” (Moore, 2013). 

In other words, Moore shows how indie music started as a niche repertoire for a niche type of audience, but it gradually turned into mainstream blurring the border between the two. Also, he shows how what is considered Indie is very various musically speaking and how it changes during the years. At first, punk bands were considered independent, but then that kind of sound became assimilated to mainstream Alternative Rock and later another kind of indie rock becomes a standard with musicians as Guided By Voices and Elliott Smith who are still example and inspiration for a big amount of DIY and indie musicians nowadays. 

Talking about the style Ryan Moore adds Indie Rock musicians are less attracted by commercial success and their approach is “more intellectual and ironic” (Moore 2013). Partially related to this aesthetics is what he remarks that “the ideal that music is a creative art and that the commercial bottom line of the major labels restricts musical freedom”, while independent labels created the possibility to develop new sounds and expand existing genres. This contrast between indie and mainstream represents the difference between making art and making a product and is obviously deeply rooted in capitalism and taking a stand against it. So, apparently there is a dynamic in the constitution of the independent environment which allowed, helped or generated an evolution of the music style towards what we now refer as “Indie”. This also connects to the legal ownership of music that varies depending on contracts between artists and labels (Master/License/Distribution Deal).  

I think these are crucial concepts and I also think the 90s were a particularly crucial decade. First of all because he implicitly refers to DIY culture: Pavement, Guided by Voices, Elliott Smith. these are names that are still staples of indie music, in big part for their independent, DIY activity either in the way they were recording music in a home studio, releasing it, for instance printing and distributing their own cassettes, or setting up their own live shows and tours. 

I say the 90s were an important decade because, since many independent artists got huge success, major labels signed many artists who were definitely independent in their mindset and work ethos, but I’m gonna get to this later. And before we get to the last couple of decades, where things actually started to get confusing, I wanna stress a very important point: creative freedom is central when talking about independent music. To me, an independent artist is someone who’s making music as their form of artistic expression. of course they also want success, but their expression comes first and they would not adapt their music to the desire of a label manager, a tv station or even their audience. that’s why I think there is a lot of confusion nowadays, because many people label some music as ‘indie’ because it is derivative of previous independent artists. and many artists claim to be indie, maybe because they’re actually doing everything themselves, but maybe their music just follows some trends, because of the desire to reach a certain amounts of listeners or viewers. 

Also let’s not forget tho, that a looot of independent artists, because they were true to their core, they made some extremely unique art which made them very successful in their own ways. Even without having big record deals, artists like Pavements sold a lot of tickets because they were touring extensively, like working class, and they were selling records without label cuts. Robert Pollard, from Guided by Voices, is a name that is definitely not well known in mainstream culture, but he has an army of fans, he’s extremely productive and he sells his stuff. Elliott Smith also got good deals because his songwriting and way of producing his music were very unique, but making something that sounds like it now, is it indie, is it unique?

Let’s go back to the end of the 90s, because I think that’s where the chaos started. Up until that point, independent labels were small groups of people around specific scenes, sometimes localised in a city, often artists themselves where part of the label, they were basically family businesses. Around the 2000s, with globalisation and internet and with the fact some artists got success. Some independent labels grew into bigger groups, with experienced professionals, they started acquiring other labels and most importantly they knew how to distribute and promote their music on a larger scale. I think this is where “indie” started to be confusing because people started labelling specific sounds as genres. For instance, bands like The Strokes or Arctic Monkeys raised and their music was labeled as ‘indie rock’ to mark a difference in sound from classic rock or 90s alternative rock. The consequence is that many following bands were proud to be independent even though their music sounds nothing like that “indie rock”, while many other bands were taking advantage of that label to reproduce that same kind of music they knew was successful. Thanks to digital distribution and streaming platform, then the same thing happened over and over with indie folk and then indie pop and actually, this happens with every genre, it’s the simple story of subcultures becoming mainstream.

For someone who has little attention to the way art is created tho, I think it’s really not that difficult to distinguish between ‘indie’ or ‘mainstream’, ‘authentic’ and ‘commercial’. especially if you consider what I mentioned earlier about artists from the 90s. I’m thinking about Bjork, PJ Harvey, Radiohead these are artists who started their careers in the 90s and they were always signed with a major label, but I also believe (apart for their very beginnings) they always maintained creative freedom. They sold their soul to corporations, but, in the end, who didn’t. And sure you could argue that artists like Billie Eilish or Charli XCX also have creative freedom and are unique artists, but still their songwriting, their production, their sound conforms to some of the rules of commercial radiophonic music. Nothing bad about it, it’s just not something I would classify as indie music, because of some technical aspects. I’m not saying indie music is bounded to DIY or LoFi production, I just think that often independent artists find ways to make a production sound good or have ways to make songwriting catchy by adding elements that just depend on their personal style, rather than replicating a hook or a beat that already exists. This could also mean, avoiding virtuosic riffs and melodies as mere embellishments that could result baroque and not necessary to convey a message, or even creating the opposite effect. 

Looking back at one more scholar from the past, I think it would be interesting to mention that sharp and annoying dude called Theodore W. Adorno who addressed Popular Music as something XX despicable because of the standardization of the structure, its commercialization and the need of the listener to feel on a safe ground. This was written in 1941, in contrast with contemporary/avantgarde music of post-modern composers. Adorno’s words are a bit harsh, but he does have a point which I think still applies to a lot of commercial/mainstream music and I guess “indie” started as a way to make popular music, that can be accessible and but also escaping from that system, that standardises music in different ways. I think this also explains why many experimental or avantgarde artists would never use the term “indie”connected to their music, even maybe they are in facts fully independent. Actually, an interesting text to learn more about this topic is about the case of the “Indie Classical” label New Amsterdam. 

So in conclusion, it is not that deep, when I talk about indie music, I’m talking about singular vision, something that is artistic expression and not mere entertainment; and I think it’s important to mention this, because I think in the long run, it’s mostly this kind of music that makes history and it’s important to support the people behind that, to generate an environment that is sustainable for them to grow and stay true to themselves and for the future generations of artists to exist (it’s just like buying a product from a local producer, rather than from a big brand. 

I could definitely classify “indie” as a genre according to Fabbri’s five categories, but to me what’s most important is the attitude, the intention to create music that is personal, unique and distinctive. Then finding a way for people to connect with it in a way that reflects your beliefs and ethic. All this to say, that yes “indie” or independent is a term that means something to me and I could easily say that I love “independent music” and everything around it, but I also believe it’s important to be more descriptive and attentive when talking about art. because it’s too easy to say ‘indie’ out of lazyness, but if we’re specifically talking about the music itself, about its sound and composition, yeah ‘indie’ means nothing. 

Let me know what you think, thanks so much for reading. bye bye 

The quotes are from:

- “Empire of Dirt: The Aesthetics and Rituals of British Indie Music “ by Wendy Fonarow

- “A Theory of Musical Genres” by Franco Fabbri

- “Genre in Popular Music” by Fabian Holt

- "Indie rock" (from Grove Music Online) by Ryan Moore

Some other related readings could be:

- “Against Health and Efficiency: Independent Music in the 1980s” by Simon Reynolds

- “K-Punk” by Mark Fisher (or actually anything by Fisher or from his blog K-Punk)

- “The Rise and Fall of ‘Indie Classical’: Tracing a Controversial Term in Twenty-First Century New Music” by William Robin

- “On Popular Music.” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science by Theodor W. Adorno