Talk:The Decemberists/indie pop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone has changed indie pop to pop a couple of times. I think indie pop is the best way to describe them. Anyone agree? --Nathan (Talk) 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the changing designation has anything to do with the major label signing. Either way, I think indie pop is a much better way to do so, although I think indie rock is probably a little better understood. --badlydrawnjeff 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it. The Decemberists are a pop band - they've referred to themselves that way in interviews and on their own message board. They used to be on an indie label, so they were an indie-pop band. They aren't anymore, so the "indie" identifier should be dropped. If you want to be more descriptive than just "pop," "lit-pop" "chamber pop" and "baroque pop" are all pretty good. 68.45.237.137

I don't agree with the literal definition of indie. The band have their roots in (literal) indie, and that's good enough to qualify as indie for me. Lots of people say that they "like indie music". How can they like indie music when all it is defined by is which (if any) record label an artist is signed up to? If several others agree with you, then fair enough, but I think it should be left as is. --Nathan (Talk) 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no meaningful definition of "indie" besides the literal one. If The Decemberists had always been on Capitol, they never would've been called indie pop. Indie is not a genre because there are no musical characteristics shared by all indie groups the way there are for rock groups, hip-hop groups, R&B groups, etc. The only common factor among indie bands is the fact that they aren't on a major label. Why not call Coldplay, weezer, and U2 indie bands? The Decemberists started out as an indie band, now they've moved on. The "indie" signifier is inaccurate and should be removed. 24.20.251.212

I still think there is more of an implication in the term indie than the literal definition. But that aside, assuming everyone disagrees and we decide not to put indie in. I think using just the word pop is not appropriate either. It's more alternative than just pop. Pop-rock maybe? I don't know. --Nathan (Talk) 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, indie pop is a better descriptor. They haven't recorded a single song for Capitol yet, the entirety of their fanbase comes via indie circles, and there's nothing to indicate - yet - that sales will show a move away from indie audiences into a more mainstream one. "Indie pop" or "indie rock" is a much better term if we're going to use one. --badlydrawnjeff 15:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, assuming User:24.20.251.242 and User:68.45.237.137 (dynamic IPs) are the same person, that's two votes to one for indie pop. I'm gonna change it back. --Nathan (Talk) 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Indie name should stay. There is more to it than just the literal term. Indie is an extremely broad genre, because alot of the music cannot be categorized. And in MOST cases it is too different to be a part of mainstream music. But if Indie bands did not share a similar sound, then you wouldnt hear so many people say "I like Indie". When i search for similar artists to The Decemberists, i find many bands categorized as INDIE. That means that indie has a sound, it is more than the literal term acknowledges. ShoeShane 03:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments are specious. Indie is not a genre. It doesn't matter if people say "I like indie music." That's like saying "I like German music." It says nothing about the music itself. It doesn't matter that bands that are similar to The Decemberists are indie bands; there are other similar bands that are not indie. The important part is this: there is nothing musical that makes a band an indie band. There are certain broad philosophical ideas that the majority of indie bands can be said to have in common (DIY-proclivities, strangeness), but all of these things can be seen as reasons for or results of their indieness, and there are always indie bands that don't have these qualities. The only thing that makes a band indie (that is, independent) is whether or not they are on a major label. The only valid argument here is that The Decemberists haven't yet released anything on Capitol. It still seems that retaining the "indie" signifier after they've left an indie label is only contributing to the misunderstanding that several of you seem to be working from. Terms like "lit-pop" actually describe the songs and do not present any factual inaccuracies. 24.20.251.212

Terms like lit-pop may have no factual innaccuracies, but does anyone know what lit-pop actually means? The only example I know of lit-pop is The Decemberists, and that's becasue you said so. It sounds to me like lit-pop is a term that has been invented to cover that poppy indie sound without having to use the word indie. If it becomes a widely adopted term, then fair enough, but it's not. There's not even an article on it. Nobody's arguing with your literal definition of indie, but most people use the word indie liberally to describe an overall sound. It's a term readers will be familiar with, and understand what it means. --Nathan (Talk) 02:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reguardless of what you think, The Decemberists will always be a part of the Indie scene, whether they are on capital or anything else. They have than unique sound that indie fans adore. They have no reason to drop the indie label and should always be related with it. And no its not like saying "I like german music". It is exactly what i said. There is a reason that 80% of the tracks on my media player contain the tag "Indie". ShoeShane 09:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Lit-pop is short for "literary pop," and has been used to describe bands like The Decemberists, Belle and Sebastian, and The Smiths. I was going to create an entry for it, but didn't have time. You guys are still wrong. Go check the wikipedia entry on indie music, which agrees with me. Indie is a way of doing business, not a sound. Let me emphasize that, since it doesn't seem to be getting across: indie is not a sound. Stuff like "they have a unique sound that indie fans adore" and "80% of the tracks on my media player contain the tag 'indie'" is completely irrelevant and makes you sound confused. My analogy was fine; German music is from Germany or uses the German language, but it doesn't have to be a certain type of music. Indie music is on an indie label but it doesn't have to be a certain type of music. You're being stubborn in lieu of having any actual arguments. 24.20.251.212 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Our points of view have been presented to you with clear arguments to back them up. You are entitled to your own opinion, but don't accuse us of being stubborn just because you have failed to convince us of your point of view. As for the article on indie, I've been meaning to bring this issue up in the discussion there (the fact that it dismisses the non-literal definition of indie as completely wrong), which I will. There are some instances where the word indie is used literally, but it is fairly obvious from the context that this is not one of them. It seems you are the only one that thinks the word indie should be removed from the article. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight Shoeshane's argument about them being part of the indie scene... this is one example of a very rational and reasonable argument, yet you dismiss it closed-mindedly as otherwise, and accuse us of being stubborn. As for lit-pop, just because you give a definition, this does not make it well known term, and so it shouldn't be used. --Nathan (Talk) 02:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently the only one on this talk page who realizes that you're wrong, but that doesn't mean your point of view is correct or that it's the majority view. You have not presented reasonable arguments. Shane's argument is incoherent and based on a continued misunderstanding of the term indie. The "non-literal" definition of indie isn't just completely wrong, it's completely meaningless. No one has provided a definition for the word indie that has nothing to do with being on an independent label, because it isn't possible to provide one that is meaningful and consistent. Indie doesn't sound like anything. Indie is not a sound. It means being on an independent label. I don't know if you guys are doing this because you think I'm attacking indie music or The Decemberists or something; I'm not, and I'm a big supporter of both. But you're still flatly ignoring the valid substance of what I'm saying. Look at the entry for Radiohead. Does it say they're an indie rock band? No, because they're on Capitol. The "indie" part of "indie pop" was never there because of the way The Decemberists sound; it was there because of their label status. Their label status has changed, so now it needs to go. Lit-pop is a very descriptive term, particularly fitting for a band like The Decemberists. Just because you haven't encountered it doesn't mean it isn't widely used, and not being widely used shouldn't disqualify it from being used where it's accurate and descriptive.24.20.251.212

Radiohead is a poor example. Why? Because Radiohead never released an album on an indie label. They were never "indie." You want a relevant example? How about Death Cab for Cutie, a band who released an album on Atlantic Records this year after a number of indie releases? --badlydrawnjeff 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The point was that indie-ness is determined by label, not sound, which is why a band like Radiohead will never be referred to as indie. You don't call bands "indie" based on what they sound like or how you feel about them; you call them that if they're on an indie label. Death Cab is in the same situation as The Decemberists, so anything I'm saying here could be applied to them as well.24.20.251.212

Indieness isn't determined by label, though, that's the point. Death Cab IS in the same boat, and people aren't going to start calling Death Cab not indie due to their major label album that sounds just like their prior work. Another interesting group: Nada Surf. They are on an indie label now, but since they had one hit song, you don't see them labeled as an indie group. They were an alt-rock group from the start, and until something in their sound changes them to be more of an "indie" group, that'll stick. --badlydrawnjeff 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I may not use the same logic as you, i have been stating real life examples. Now, i know that im not going to change anything, but im trying to get my point across. If I were to go on the site Last.fm right now, turn on the radio and search for similar bands to the Decemberists, I would find myself listening to all indie bands. Why is that? Why would all of these bands be related? Maybe because they all share something in common. The Indie scene might be extremely broad and contain some different sounds. But it is still unitized and will always be related with the Decemberists. Do you seriously believe that capitol records is going to change that? ShoeShane 08:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Indieness is determined by label, badlydrawnjeff. That is what indie means. Label is the only thing that determines indieness. If indieness is determined by something else, please tell me what that is, since no one has yet been able to. Death Cab isn't indie anymore, and neither are The Decemberists. I have to argue it about it somewhere, and I don't much care about Death Cab, so I'm saying it here. But it's the same situation, and the fact that the Death Cab page or the Nada Surf page is erroneous as well does nothing to prove your point.

And Shane, you haven't changed your argument, and it's still non-sensical. If all indie bands share something in common that bands on major labels don't, please tell me what it is, because all you're doing is posing irrelevant rhetorical questions. The Decemberists don't have any musical features that are exclusive to indie bands. There are no musical features exclusive to indie bands, because indie is not a genre the way "rock," "pop," "R&B," "country," or "hip-hop" are. That's why there's "indie pop" and "indie rock" and "indie hip-hop." The indie part does not contain genre information. The fact that the band's fans tend to listen to other indie music is obviously because The Decemberists were an indie band, so anyone who knew about them knew about independent music. Your last sentence again shows your misunderstanding. I'm not implying that the band is going to sound different or change noticeably because they're on Capitol; I'm implying that being on Capitol means they aren't an indie band becasue being an indie band means not being on a major label. I have no idea what you mean when you say "the indie scene will always be related to The Decemberists," or how you could possibly come to that conclusion. 68.45.237.137

If you guys are going to keep stonewalling my edits, you need to provide a better rationale. I'm fully aware that the term indie can have connotations beyond label status, but that's all secondary, and it only consistently means one thing. Please define indie if it means something other than not being on a major label. If you can't, then I can't understand why you're opposing this correction. The Decemberists aren't on an indie label anymore, ergo they are not an indie band. This isn't difficult to follow or controversial. The wikipedia entry on indie agrees with me, and the billboard and NME indie charts agree with me. 68.45.237.137 07:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the WP definition, indie pop is "the pop music that operates outside of the boundries of conventional pop music. It is often lo-fi, or otherwise unusual." I'm sure you're not considering The Decemberists as your "usual" fare. As it's considered a subset of indie rock, we can go over there and read that it's considered "not strictly a genre of music (given that musical style and independence are not always correlated), but is often used as an umbrella term covering a wide range of artists and styles." The most important part for this debate for you is this:

Typically, indie artists place a premium on maintaining complete control of their music and careers, often releasing albums on their own independent record labels and relying on touring, word-of-mouth, and airplay on independent or college radio stations for promotion. Some of its more popular artists, however, may end up signing to major labels, though often on favourable terms won by their prior independent success.

I'll note that the Decemberists are listed on both pages. It also makes a decent point about the label not being the be-all end-all, as acts like Britney Spears were technically on "independent" labels, although no one would have labeled her an indie act. --badlydrawnjeff 14:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they can safely be described as indie-pop regardless of any current record deals. It's a reference to musical style, not their label. --Kevin 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but feel like you're (jeff and Kevin) coming to your conclusions based on your gut feeling about what the terms here mean rather than basing them on a clear definition. The definition on the indie pop page is very poor, which the author admits to on the talk page, and I'm planning on re-writing it. Indie pop means pop music made by independent musicians. It tends to be unusual, relative to major label pop, but that doesn't mean that unusual music is indie. I could tell you what chord progressions, song structures, and instruments most indie pop songs utilize, but that wouldn't mean that using those chord progressions or instruments would make a band indie. The vast majority of rock songs feature guitar, but using a guitar doesn't mean you're playing rock. Are you with me here? Some things about The Decemberists are unusual for a pop band (lyrics, subject matter), and other things are very typical (chord progressions, melodies, some of the instrumentation). But none of that is relevant, because being unusual is not a sufficient condition for being indie. The only thing that is necessary and sufficient for being indie is being on an indie label. weezer and Radiohead, to name two, have done things that sound unusual, and they have both influenced many indie bands, but they are not indie. They are not indie because they are on major labels. It's pretty clear cut.

Indie pop is not a subset of indie rock at all, any more than any pop is a subset of rock. They're both (fairly similar) styles of modern popular music, but one doesn't encompass the other in any meaningful sense. The segments you quote don't support your argument at all. Yes, indie bands often sign to major labels, at which point they are no longer indie bands, because indie is defined in opposition to major. It sounds like you're assuming from the outset that indie-ness is permanent, when it's clearly not.

Which leads directly to your last point: I don't know anything about Britney Spears' label history, but if she was once on an indie label, then yes, she absolutely was an independent musician. Why is that so difficult to accept? There are indie bands of all different sounds and musical styles, because indie does not refer to a sound. For the umpteenth time, if the term "indie" refers to a specific musical sound or set of characteristics, please lay them out. Inclusion on the indie charts is not determined by how the bands sound, but by which bands aren't on major labels. 68.45.237.137 20:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're saying we should lay out what indie sounds like, and not just what music by indie artists tends to sound like. Well you try to do the same for rock or folk or pop or (almost) any genre. You made an interesting point that most rock music tends to feature a guitar. Whatever rules you lay down, you will realise that they can be disputed and exceptions can be found (anyone here like Ben Folds? "Nobody gives a shit about piano rock anymore"). That's because, however strict you make a definition of a genre, music doesn't have strict rules, and this is how it develops. This is why new words are found for new genres, such as lit-pop, which you suggested as a suitable genre for the Decemberists.

I could also draw the analogy with classical music. I was taught in college that classical music refers to any music written in the Classical music era (c. 1700 - 1850) (a similarly strict literal definition to that of indie). Yet often, any music written in the Renaissance, Baroque or Romantic eras is encompassed in the term, as is music by modern composers such as Arnold Bax (just one of a few who come to mind). --Nathan (Talk) 03:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, you're comparing unlike terms, and assuming your conclusion. Indie is not and never has been a genre. Terms like "blues" and "rock" were invented in order to describe musical practices; blues features call-and-response melodies, dominant seventh chords, specific scales, etc. I could describe the musical features of any genre that way; that's why they're musical genres. They have common musical features. Indie is short for independent, and refers to the way a band does business. It has never held any meaning with regard to the way a band sounds. Don't confuse the things I say about "indie-pop" which is arguably a genre (it's a sub-section of the pop genre which is made by bands on indie labels) with "indie," which is not a genre, but merely a mode of commerce.

Your classical music analogy is inaccurate. Classical music (capital C) refers to the common practice era, while classical music (lower-case c) refers to the art music of any era. Classical music (capital C) had distinguishable musical features. Indie music does not, and never has. Seriously, indie is not a genre. No one disagrees that indie means "independent" which means "independent label," right? But everyone seems to insist it means other things as well, and yet no one is able to define what those other things are. My point is that the term "indie" has come to be associated with other things because they're often presented together; like rock and guitars. But you can play jazz or classical or whatever with a guitar, and indie bands can (and do) sound like mainstream bands, and mainstream bands can (and do) sound like indie bands. You can't tell if a band is indie by listening to it. You can however, tell by listening whether something is Clasical, Romantic, Baroque, Blues, or Jazz. Indie is a way of doing business, not a musical genre. "Lit-pop" has nothing to do with how a band does business; it describes the lyrics (literary) and the music (pop). 68.45.237.137 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I still alone on this, or what? I feel like I've proven my point pretty clearly. 68.45.237.137 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you definitely have a point in that none of us can describe sound chraracteristics for Indie. So in that aspect, you are right, there is no sense in furthering that argument. The Lit-Pop name is fine with me. But I still believe that The Decemberists will continue to be related with the Indie scene, and I suggest a paragraph about their involvemnt with Indie.

As far as the rest of the Indie argument, The literal definititon of Indie has flaws. Broader characteristics(sp?)need to be defined. Indie does have alot to do with the making of the music. It is about the artist alone, rather than the record label. You get an example of that as The Decemberists are recording their next album on a 24-track. As well as that, there is a noticable sound difference between modern rock/pop and Indie rock/pop. So i fail to see how the term "indie" only describes the record label. ShoeShane 05:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like where this is going. The term indie is not limited to bands on independent labels, even if that IS where the term originated from, take any of the big indie bands and they all invariably end up on major labels because of their success. It doesn't change the fact that they are indie rock, indie pop, etc bands, the literal definition is essentially a useless piece of information, the implied definition is actually useful because it describes the music, Brendanfox 10:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion misses the important point that any genre name is somewhat vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Why not quibble over the use of the word "pop"? There certainly are at least as many different ways to interpret that word as there are for "indie". I say, leave it at indie-pop or take it out altogether. HasNoClue 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ShoeShane, you've got your cause and effect backwards. Indie artists are more likely than mainstream artists to have certain characteristics, as I've already acknowledged. Indie artists are more likely to be weird. They're more likely to take a DIY approach. They're more likely to interact with their fans personally. But that's all because they're indie. They aren't indie because they do those things. The fact that The Decemberists are going to use a 24 track is completely irrelevant. If there is a noticeable sound difference between indie pop and mainstream pop, please describe it, because no one has been able to.

Brendan, what good does it do to repeat the assertion that "the term indie is not limited to bands on independent labels" if you're not adding anything new to the discussion? That's where the term originated and that's also where it ends in terms of having any useful meaning. If it's impossible to tell the difference between indie music and non-indie music by listening to it, then indie can't be a genre. That would be like saying that music made by black artists is a different genre than music by white artists, even if it sounded the same. If it means something besides being on an indie label, then explain what it means.

The biggest thing that makes indie music sound different from mainstream music is that it's usually made with a lot less money, and so it tends to be less slickly-produced. But mainstream artists can and do appropriate the lo-fi aesthetic, and doing so doesn't make them indie. Likewise, many indie artists these days can and do achieve a level of production that's indiscernable from major label artists (like The Decemberists did on their last two records, for example).

HasNoClue, I don't see your point. Yes, the "pop" genre is broad, but it still has easily definable characteristics; diatonic harmony, mostly triads and seventh chords, emphasis on melody, repetition of riffs and hooks, mostly 4/4, verse/chorus structures, vocals as primary melodic instrument, etc. Can anyone list a similar set of features for the "indie" genre? 158.223.1.117 14:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not willing to get down and dirty on this debate, but while musicologists can make statements like the one above, music genres aren't created by musicologists, and the demands that there be an identifiable (using musical terms) way of describing the music in order to use the word "indie." IMHO, the word "indie" is simply the new code word for what was called "alternative" a decade ago: music that is seen in one way or another as a reaction against or ignoring the trends of the mass media.

Again IMHO both "indie" and "alternative" are poor terms. I'd say that the best definition, and one that's been true for several decades now, is "college rock." I'd say that this music is defined not by its structure but by its audience. If indie doesn't mean anything but "independant" then it's not a word, it's just an abbriviation.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think that simply because Stryper's last album was on a small label they are now "indie rock." I'd say (and I know this isn't helpful) that "indie" is like pornography: maybe you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. And from that perspective, there's no question that the Decemberists are an indie rock band.

I don't follow how "indie" is not a word if it doesn't mean anything but independent. Yes, it's an abbreviation; that's what it's always been. You're ignoring the fact that the origin of indie as "independent" is undisputed, and is a perfectly clear and useful distinction. If you want to argue that "indie" has evolved in meaning from "independent" to something else, you have to define what that something else is, which no one seems to be able to do. My contention is that there is no "something else" and that indie is on its way to becoming a meaningless marketer's term (like "alternative," which you'll find has fallen out of use because of its meaninglessness). Corporations would like to pass things off as "indie" because they know that indie is hot these days; it carries with it the ring of authenticity, and a certain "cool" factor. If the original definition of the word is erased by the new, meaningless definition, anything can be passed off as indie, and there will be no way to signify music that is actually made independently.

As for Stryper, you're confusing your terms. "Indie rock" is a genre. "Indie" is not a genre. There are observable stylistic trends in the work of independent bands who play music that falls into the "rock" category. Just like "British rock" could be considered a genre if there are stylistic trends in the work of British bands who play rock music; but even though we might call British rock a genre, would we describe an American band as part of it? Stryper's music may not fit with the trends in indie rock, and so it would be incongruous to lump them in with those bands. Regardless, that doesn't mean that they aren't an "indie" band. There are no stylistic trends among independent musicians in general. I think that part of the problem is people using "indie" as shorthand for "indie rock." The word indie in isolation signifies nothing more than independence from major labels.

I think the fact that this debate has gone on this long and still no one can give a clear and useful definition for "indie" besides "independent" proves my point. You're taking a term that had a clear and precise meaning and making it vague and useless. It sounds like everyone trying to work out an answer that fits their vague preconceptions, and not any kind of meaningful distinction. 158.223.1.117 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm only responding to the "request for comment," so I haven't been in on this debate from the beginning, but I've read the (incredibly lengthy) conversation, so here goes. First, I don't think pop on its own is an apt description. I think we need to consider the connotation pop have with most people, and when I hear a group described as pop I generally think along the lines of 'N Sync, Kelly Clarkson, or whoever it is eighth grade girls are listening to now. As for the term indie, in my opinion it has become more than simply a signifier of what type of label a band is on. "Indie rock" and "Indie pop are genres now. Modest Mouse comes to mind as a band which has signed with a major label but still plays indie style music. Just my opinion. --djrobgordon 09:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply for the purpose of building consensus, I would like to second Djrobgordon's comment. - Jersyko talk 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'N Sync and Kelly Clarkson are pop acts, just like The Decemberists. They fit the definition of pop that I described above (musically simple, standard song structures, hook-based, melody-based, vocal-based), just like The Decemberists. However, they differ in the specifics, which is why they're "Top 40 pop," "bubblegum pop," or what have you, while the Decemberists are "lit pop," "chamber pop," "baroque pop," "quirk-pop," etc. None of that has anything to do with who's indepdendent and who isn't. I don't see the point of building consensus if no one has more than a vague grasp of the terms they're using and no one addresses any of the arguments here. I mean, I can think of several cogent responses to the arguments I've put forth, but rather than making them, everyone is just repeating the same vague appeals to common sense. This argument has gone on way too long without actually going anywhere. I don't see anything particularly complex about this issue, it just seems like people refuse to actually engage it. 158.223.1.117 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"diatonic harmony, mostly triads and seventh chords, emphasis on melody, repetition of riffs and hooks, mostly 4/4, verse/chorus structures, vocals as primary melodic instrument" -- isn't that just about the blues and motown and a lot of R&B too? --ChrisLott 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Those genres have distinguishing features of their own. 158.223.25.217 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why fret over the one to two edjectives which precede 'rock' or 'pop'? Why not just include in the article that they used to be on an indie label... and now... they're not. Everyone here seems to agree about this. We're not going to get a consensus here about the essence of what is indie simply by discussing this very gray area in the context of one, relatively new band. Let the facts (indie label... now major label) speak for itself and let readers draw from that what they will.--Hraefen 02:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean removing "indie pop" from the top of the page, or not? Because that's what I started this whole mess by doing. I mean, I think I agree with you in principle, I'm just not sure what you're proposing in practical terms. And also, despite the heading of this discussion, I don't think that "pop" in isolation is the best descriptor, as I mentioned somewhere above; I think "lit-pop" or "chamber pop" would be better, as they describe a specific approach to pop music and don't make reference to indie-ness. 158.223.25.217 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I can't tell if ther'es full consensus or not from reading the above statements, but it seems as though most people agree that it is some kind of pop. If you fail to get consensus in that, then I would suggest dealing in the bare minimun at the beginning adn then writing the next few lines in a way that allows for a plurality of views. Something like: "The Decemberists is a band from Portland, Oregon. Their sound has been variously described as indiepop, lit-pop, chamber pop and indie rock." If anyone can scrounge up cites for any one of these descriptors, then all the better. I'm a big music fan too and I think Wikipedia should strive for accuracy in describing the genre of all bands, but in a case where that attempt becomes very contentious, I think the best compromise is to do just that ... compromise. Let the readers be aware of the differing opinions and decide for themselves. Whatever happens, I would suggest leaving a very prominent point to this converstion on the talk page so that newcomers are aware that the wording they see in the article is the result of a compromise and should not be altered without discussion.--Hraefen 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that some variation of "blank-pop" is the best way to describe the band. They've been known to describe themselves as a pop band. However, we can and should be more descriptive than just pop. The question is whether or not it's appropriate to continue calling them an indie-pop band now that they're no longer on an indie label. I think it's not, and to do so would be misleading and only serve to further muddle the definition of indie. Other people seem to disagree, but no one has offered anything that really makes me re-consider my position. As I see it, you're only an indie band if you're on an indie label, and you can't be an indie pop band if you aren't indie. I think that lit pop is an apt descriptor because it describes the bands literary approach and musical style without reference to indie-ness. I also think it's meaning is fairly obvious; moreso than indie-pop. Indie-pop is an indirect description, in that it assumes that the reader knows what kind of pop music is typically played by indie bands. Lit-pop is more immediate and direct. A google search for "decemberists, lit pop" returns a bunch of examples of this usage, although some use the term "lit-rock." Chamber pop and baroque pop are terms which connote layered, orchestrated music, which applies to The Decemberists in some cases, but not in others. I don't think the meanings of those terms are as obvious as lit pop, but they may be more widely used in general. 158.223.1.117 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think whatever is decided upon must fit whatever the average population things of when it sees those words. The emotional connection to "indie pop/rock" must fit the band's rise to popularity. I'd put my vote in for "indie rock" because, as djrobgordon stated above, pop emotionally fits into a Billboard/ClearChannel/Top40 place that, while being countered by calling it "indie," doesn't make it Daft Punk in popularity. "Indie" feels like its not part of something new and not well known. "Rock" makes it part of something older and harder to define. Together they create a feeling that is open ended enough that someone who's never heard of the Decemberists can come in get an idea, regardless of them ever having contact with the indie culture or Pitchfork or whatever is connected to the word indie. I personally feel the Decemberists fit well into the whole lit-rock/folk category, but I don't think it fits for a brief description of their social relevance. Thomas Exciting 09:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with anyone who claims that "indie pop", "indie rock", or "indie (genre here)" can be anything other than what they are, genres that describe the style of music as they are related to a label (in this case an independent label).

The no-named fellow who argued that "indie" basically can't be a genre of music is correct. The term "indie" defines, specifically, the band's involvement with Labels.

The terms need to change. "Indie pop" is not suitable for a pop band that isn't really "indie", unless someone can define the stylistic similarities between all indie bands musically (in other words, getting "down and dirty", as one person said earlier). It is rediculous that this argument lasted so long with no useful discussion actually taking place.

What needs to happen:
1. Change the band's genres so as NOT to include the terms "indie".
2. Discuss the musical qualities of the band and its similarites with other bands and styles of music.
3. When the components of the band's music have been determined, we then need to change the band's genres to reflect these stylistic choices.

A separate discussion of the stylistic similarities between all "indie" bands needs to be held elsewhere. No band should be labeled as "indie" unless they confine to the current definition of the term/word (it is in fact a word).

The current definition of "Indie" as defined by:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2006. http://www.merriam-webster.com (29 Oct. 2006).

Pronunciation: 'in-dE
Function: noun
Etymology: by shortening & alteration from independent
1 : one that is independent; especially : an unaffiliated record or motion-picture production company
2 : something (as a record or film) produced by an indie
- indie adjective

--Aaripper 17:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I got rid of the Level 2 headline. It's misleading and makes no sense, as it's only your contribution to the discussion and not a separate aspect of the discussion at all. I say it should be changed to Folk-rock. That's what the band was first described to me as, and when I heard them, I realized that that had been confirmed. They fit the genre, really. they use folk instruments, such as violin, accordion, acoustic guitar, heavily, also use folk-like melodies and themes, combined with a pop/rock influence. Seems very appropriate to me. Also, "indie" does have musical connotations, however, people disagree as to what exactly they are and the term is misleading. Kame2000 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)