INDIE ROCK more questions

(1) Hibbett discusses the DIY ethic as a demystification of the record-making process for those who identified themselves as existing apart from mainstream popular music, e.g. major label pop. (Hibbett, 62) However, many indie artists were willing to “compromise” in order to reach larger audiences by signing to a major label or using a “top” producer. Within the indie rock culture, this type of move was often criticized as too “slick” or “too pop” or “selling out.” Is it “closer to the truth” to be less professionalized in the production of rock music in order to fit the definition of “indie?” When something “sounds indie” what does that mean? Could Nirvana have had such wide-reaching success (even if on DGC) if that album had been produced with a more DIY, lo-fi production, e.g. Bleach? Is it a necessary part of being considered “indie,” to be identified as “popular” only within a subculture that praises an “unfinished” sound? Why would its cultural value be lost once it became part of a larger commercial effort?

(2) Hibbett remarks that, often, definitions of “indie rock” are determined by “particular understandings of an artistic genre shaped by the conditions of one’s own experience.” (Hibbett, 59) In my personal experience, as with Hibbett’s, to define “indie rock culture” can depend greatly on ones relationship to a specific regional scene. Where one resides can greatly color the experiences relating to accessibility and awareness of certain record stores, clubs, bands, etc., and therefore defining“indie rock” would be in terms that are specific to a region. For example, I was a musician and observer/participant in the independent rock scene in Boston/Cambridge, MA in the early 1990’s. The local media (WFNX, college radio, and the Boston Phoenix – the alternative newsweekly) played an integral part in building the “scene” and shaping perceptions by defining who the major “players” were - (top DJs, journalists, local indie rock band “royalty”), often setting the parameters for what belonged in the category/genre of “indie rock” – at least in Boston during that specific time. During that era, I also visited Seattle, and found that the Northwest "scene" had a very unique and different indie rock culture, with a hierarchical structure of clubs/papers/bands that had a defined “indie” differently, even though the culture functioned similarly. Indie rockers in Seattle were unaware (and fairly uninterested) in many bands that were seen as “crucial” at the time within the Boston scene. How could regional identity play into the idea of what defines indie rock?


(3) In Bannister’s article, he points out the White, geeky, nerdy male as a center point of indie rock canonism, and calls indie guitar rock a “tightly bounded space/genre.” (Bannister, 91) This is an interesting diversion from the norm of what one usually thinks with regard to the relationship between rock music and masculinity, in that sexuality was not the focal point. Rather, Bannister brings to the forefront the “asexuality” of indie guitar rock, saying that it’s a reaction to 1980’s “hypersexualized mainstream” but also that, perhaps, it was reacting to feminist claims that popular music was sexist. (Bannister, 92) Specifically, with young, White males as the indie guitar rock creators and "scenesters," where is this lack of sexuality in their live performances and musical output coming from? What is it a reaction to, if anything? Does indie guitar rock, as a genre, speak to class or gender issues in any specific way?