easycure

In fact, I hadn't considered the singer-songwriter component, but I think it isn't so generalizable... even if Neil Young's influence has undoubtedly been enormous (I'm thinking of Built to Spill); as for the trend towards intimacy, you are absolutely right. However, I'm not sure if this component comes from the singer-songwriter tradition; let's not forget that we are in the '80s, and intimacy in music is a cultural phenomenon of that period, following the English and American new wave. So I think it's more a matter of environment and "historical period," with broader influences in this regard than the singer-songwriters of the '60s and '70s (Sonic Youth, for instance, who have influenced a good part of indie, are children of the New Wave).

Certainly, for its fundamental characteristics, indie has no real boundaries; after all, Grunge is a subgenre with precise geographic/cultural traits and a more specific musical direction, just like Slint, probably the first band definable as post-rock, which I see as nothing more than an indie band. But on the other hand, this is the other side of the same coin: it is precisely because indie is lived as a movement, with characteristics of great expressive freedom, that it has in fact given rise to some of the most creative and revolutionary works of the '80s/'90s, works that are very distanced from each other in themselves.

The fact of belonging to labels that are absolutely outside the mainstream market meant that the bands under these labels had no restrictions on their attitude and that any hack of an instrument (as per punk logic) had the chance to be published. This indeed meant total expressive freedom in approaching a piece, an empathic crossover where any influence can fit if put in service of one's vision... a sparse and elementary patchwork that has made fusion and synthesis its own elastic and loosely defined stylistic features. Sure, Pixies and Yo La Tengo do not sound alike at all, but it would be decidedly heretical to claim that both do not share the same idea of rock, the same musical approach. And it would also be incorrect not to identify specific antecedents and references in this heterogeneous melting pot. Because saint Mother Velvet Underground, through the updating of Sonic Youth (whom I wouldn’t define as Indie anyway), can be found everywhere: Yo La Tengo, Dinosaur Jr., Pixies, Flaming Lips, Eric's Trip, Pussy Galore, Jon Spencer, Pavement, Unrest, and in a more indirect and elaborate manner, Fugazi and everything post-Hardcore. Just as punk remains around the corner, isn’t it true that all the aforementioned bands have an absolutely elementary approach to the piece, with the song format remaining indispensable, with few exceptions always in the name of that great freedom of inspiration? And the intent also remains similar: as it is always music that is evocative in one way or another, which clearly draws from psychedelia (first and foremost the Velvet Underground) its being genetically “music for the soul” and not “for the body.”

The fact that indie simply means belonging to an independent label is, let’s say, the cause. But if this "definition" could be so easily resolved, then indie bands would have no musical difference from punk bands, which were the FIRST true supporters and members of independent labels (at least in the States). There’s no doubt that, from this perspective, some of the great precursors of indie were the Replacements (as well as the previously mentioned Flipper, or Mission of Burma, or MX 80 Sound). But to me, indie makes sense musically also and above all as an attitude. Which is certainly not the same as saying "musical genre," but it is certainly much more, and especially musically, than just saying "I’m under SST or Touch and Go."

Domo, for now the debate is on hold, but it will resume, it always does, and then I'll let you know.. ;-D Festwca, if this has indeed given you the impression of being "typical" indie rock, I don't know how you could change your mind with their other albums, because this one is perhaps their most complete exemplification... I just don't understand how they seem so "usual" to you.. it should be considered that they are probably the ones who have created more than any other band the definition of Indie in musical terms (and not just as a label affiliation), so I can understand your judgment from that perspective (even though in their case I see it more as a merit than a flaw).. but with so much variety, such a wonderful waste of NOT trivial ideas, how can it be defined as "usual indie rock"? (of course, personal taste remains a factor that I won't argue about ;-D)

Thank you all! (Sfascia, I’m not offended and actually thanks a lot! :-D) Kosmo, I'm waiting for glory, please.. as for the title, I honestly don't know which one is the exact one; I used Soulseek and the results showed "Kick your ass," not "beat," but I’m not sure.. if anyone has the original, let me know.

Canada should publicly apologize to the world for Brian Adams (as the South Park movie claims!) :-D good review

Of course. In fact, no wave, punk, a good part of Indie, hard rock, Grunge, a significant portion of Heavy metal, electronics, industrial, and noise are all genres that notoriously cannot disregard the influence of Pink Floyd. But what are you saying? And did I say that Dream Theater are a cover band of Pink Floyd? I mentioned TWO pieces that are SHAMELESSLY taken from some ideas of the Floyd, but not simply from their style or sound—almost literally from some of their scores. Aside from this, as I have always said, DT openly cites various bands from 30 years of rock music. In my opinion, you haven't understood a thing about what I've written.

Right! I always really like consistency! :-D

But dear anonymous, I would never dream of saying "you could have done it," obviously you're not capable of it, otherwise you would have, of course, already done it without flailing about in these useless clarifications eheheh ;-) However, I must point out to you, my rather inattentive friend, that there are actually "few" descriptions of the songs... of the two main sections that make up the rather sparse review, one is dedicated to describing the album in its entirety, as can be clearly seen, the other does not describe, but "mentions" some pieces to rather illustrate, if anything, the interpretative freedom of the album once again in its entirety... oh dear, you haven't quite nailed the criticisms in your evidently hasty and rather inconclusive posts. But then again, how was it? "so much passes the convent it seems" eh eh eh ;-)