The problem today, is that many one time “indie” artist have now become “mainstream.” They are either signed to major record labels, or their once “indie” label has grown up to become a full fledged “major” label. So even the term “indie” has lost much of it’s original meaning today in 2012.

And that’s part of the problem with labels, because things shift, perception changes as time moves on. Jazz was once “pop”(ular) music, but is now a niche that has been watered down with other terms and categories, like “Latin jazz,” “smooth jazz,” “punk jazz,” etc. Even “classical” music is not what it once was. Can you call Cage/Xenakis/Stockhausen “classical” in the same terms as Bach/Mozart/Beethoven? How about Muhly? This is where labels fail us.

But labels are unfortunately necessary to give people a point of reference. People like things nice, neat, and easily digestible. And if you don’t have some sort of one minute “elevator speech” ready to present to perspective listeners, they will pass you by and move on to the next person who can give them something to relate to. As a musician/composer, I find myself naturally resisting labels and the need to put myself and my music into some box for easy identification. But I also realize that it’s necessary to give potential listeners something to relate to in order to possibly get their interest. “It’s like nothing you’ve ever heard before,” just won’t do. I always hope that labels can be a starting place, and the listener can come to their own terms about the music they experienced. But people will call music what they want, because they relate it to their own experiences. I may protest as to their description, but in the end, what’s important, is that they are listening to the music, no matter what they choose to call it…

Now, I can’t tell you what indie-classical music sounds like, I can tell you is that it is a short cut for the masses.They read an article about an indie-classical musical performance, they’ve had a good experience with that genre before, they’ll likely go again. A code for the masses.
They would not go, however, to hear my Wake Up music (they don’t know what they’re missing!).

But there is one thing I think is essential: it seems that today’s musicians, composers, songwriters, arrangers and producers etc. are (the world over, it seems) more exposed and more interested in a wider swath of more variegated music than ever before, and that this new music that we can’t define seems to have been born out of those exposures and interests. Or maybe that such omnivorous musicians are just finally becoming more popular, and thus encouraged, or something. When I was in high school we framed everything in terms of “indie” (or underground) and “mainstream” and everything else was under one or the other um-br-el-a, like “pop” was mainstream and “punk” was indie and yet a punk band on MTV was mainstream and if you liked Missy Elliott she was cool and an honorary indie and it’s basically kids picking their teams for dodge ball.

I’m not sure I think the problem is necessarily genre; there totally are musical traditions that came about and developed over time, like you can’t pretend that jazz isn’t a distinct thing, regardless of whether or not the word is adequate. It’s more a problem of lazily employing genre, of listening to hallmarks instead of music, and worst of all (related to not listening) is sensationalizing it. Coining a new style might not make you friends with many musicians, but it’ll probably keep your name of the books if the tag sticks, and that’s all most people care about.

P.S. Claire, I’m pretty sure Kerouac was just disappointed because he meant beatific.

However, there is too much of an emphasis on finding that ‘right’ term to describe a new movement that’s happening. I think among critics it’s like a kudos to find the term that catches on. Like Jack Kerouac being heralded for coining the term ‘beat generation’, which, ironically, he disliked, for exactly the reason that one term could never sum up the feelings, thoughts, writings and wanderings of him and his friends.

I think with all the constant tweeting, blogging, printing, talking, airing in this media-driven world we all ascribe to, terms are being coined quickly and spread quicker. Critics want a term to exist because it makes their job to describe easier. Maybe it’s lazy journalism? And weren’t terms such as baroque, classical, etc, made up way after all those responsible for the music were dead and gone, because back then there was no twitter or a kazillion online music journals in need of a catchy phrase? So frustrating as it is to have these terms bandied about at the moment, they’re probably transitory. It’ll only be after we’re all dust that the term to describe the young composers working now will be settled.

I suppose the point Ariel is getting at with the 15 min pitch idea is that people need guiding points to give them an idea of what it is that you (artist, composer, musicians) do. What I find hideous is she makes it so manufactured. I think the idea to pick a few words that sum up to you an overall feeling for your work is fine. Leave it ambiguous, or string it all together to make an nonsensical word (like the Germans. They love stringing words together to make one massive word.). Who cares? Just keep doing what you’re doing, and the main thing is don’t stick to even what you describe yourself as. It’s boring when people always get what they expect anyway. We are ever evolving, and so should our work.

What I also find really interesting is how, the composer, this time Nico, is totally IGNORED when they say “that’s not what my music is, don’t describe it that way”. The same thing happens in art. I went to a talk where an academic was describing paper and 3D collages as ‘paintings’, mainly because they were hanging on the wall. I questioned his use of the word ‘painting’ in context of his discussion, and that some could be called sculptures too, or essentially whatever you bloody wanted, and that perhaps it came down to what the artists intentions were, who in my opinions would actually have the authorative definition? I was told noone ever really knows what the artists intentions were. Which is total bollocks. We’re talking about post-war artists here, most of whom would write manifestos for independent (indie) artists publications. And HERE, we’re talking active talking, tweeting, blogging, discussing composers, protesting the categorisation or description of their work, and it’s like it doesn’t matter. Because ten, a hundred, a thousand people are all saying it is indie-classical, so you know, that’s democracy. There’s only one composer and he’s drowned out by the masses. It almost feels irresponsible.

As to your last point on the word “indie”: I think people have semi-forgotten that it was once a truncation of the word “independent”. It seems to me that it’s come to mean any musician loosely connected with rock music (or maybe not even) who has a fanbase smaller than Lady Gaga’s and a certain degree of artistic integrity.

Yes, but the problem is that if we want to break out beyond our group of friends or even get our friends listening to what we do, we often end up having to do the PR work ourselves before we can hire someone to do it. That’s the sense I gleaned from the Ariel (Pink?) article: we have to properly PR to the PR to get the PR. Ein Teufelskreis, as it were…