The point.
A few years ago, a friend was explaining to me 'emo' for the first time - with the cryptic definition "If you hate emo, you're emo." She sent me a few songs by The Promise Ring and The Get Up Kids, and I decided that since the music was good, I must be emo. I had emo glasses for a while because they were trendy (but they didn't go too well with bad skin), and I went to my first indie concert because I heard the band on Emogame (Straylight Run).
I lost that friend after a few times she decided to IM me drunk. But her definition stuck with me for a few years - by hating something, you become it. And so, today, when prompted to take a look at the journal of a sub-famous livejournal ranter, I sort of realized:
That's how it works.
The first time it was 'indie' it was getting into something that none of your friends knew about. You got into it, it was cool because it was unseen. Then, as the backlash came, it was all about embracing what was inherently uncool - If you take a Britney Spears song, n3tsp34k, a cheesy video game, a tacky reality TV show, "skinny boys" who don't fit into the genetic picture of a 'healthy mate'. Guilty Pleasure turned into something you would broadcast openly. Sure, it's dorky, but dorky is in just because it's unique. Being indie, of course, is to make yourself look cooler than your peers. When your peers start to all look the same, well, you've got to diversify.
And then comes the backlash on that.
Suddenly, you're taking what's popular - legitimately popular, and then twice removed for the sake of indie - and you're bashing it again to be unique - but you have to layer it several times over so that you don't just look like you're being stereotypical indie. That takes effort, but it can be done.
The remarkable part of it all is that none of it has to do with genuine like. What it all comes down to is your overall preferences - there's enough media that can fall into either spectrum that you can choose one group of popular things and indie things that you don't like that you bash and one group of popular things and indie things that you like that you can hail. You're not faking what you like (and if you are, I'm very ashamed of you). But it turns into a matter of how you present it.
The problem is the internet.
These cycles wouldn't have been so rapid if not for the internet - but with a vast degree of interconnection, buzz is inevitable. And it's good for business - a band like, oh, I don't know, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! would never be selling out shows if not for the internet. They'd be spreading word of mouth buzz and you could still catch them at street festivals and in small clubs. It's great for business. It doesn't take business away from anyone, it simply gives the little guys a fair shot. More than a fair shot, it can make them huge.
However, the problem is attitude. If you cycle through attitudes like that, you only end up leaving people more and more divided and opinionated. The attitude you have toward something may be based on quality, but it multiplies and solidifies on these attitudes.
Can you hate indie without being indie for it? Well, of course. It all depends on your reasons - and if it's just that you're trying to be unique for not being elitist? You just might be indie anyway.
The optimist in me wants to tell you that the point is to take a few steps back and look at it not from the lens of standing out. It's natural to want to stand out, especially as you're connected to more and more people and see more and more of them remarkable and memorable where you put yourself down - why can't I be remarkable? Why won't people remember me, since they seem to remember so many other people - rather than look upon the vast sea of sameness and say, "well, as long as I'm happy."
The cynic in me wants to say that I'm just trying to stand out, and form my own layer in this architecture who'll then just fall into it, be criticized on the one hand and praised on the other, and just become another cog in this love/hate division.
Or hell, maybe I'm just gonna languish. I don't know, time tells.
I lost that friend after a few times she decided to IM me drunk. But her definition stuck with me for a few years - by hating something, you become it. And so, today, when prompted to take a look at the journal of a sub-famous livejournal ranter, I sort of realized:
That's how it works.
The first time it was 'indie' it was getting into something that none of your friends knew about. You got into it, it was cool because it was unseen. Then, as the backlash came, it was all about embracing what was inherently uncool - If you take a Britney Spears song, n3tsp34k, a cheesy video game, a tacky reality TV show, "skinny boys" who don't fit into the genetic picture of a 'healthy mate'. Guilty Pleasure turned into something you would broadcast openly. Sure, it's dorky, but dorky is in just because it's unique. Being indie, of course, is to make yourself look cooler than your peers. When your peers start to all look the same, well, you've got to diversify.
And then comes the backlash on that.
Suddenly, you're taking what's popular - legitimately popular, and then twice removed for the sake of indie - and you're bashing it again to be unique - but you have to layer it several times over so that you don't just look like you're being stereotypical indie. That takes effort, but it can be done.
The remarkable part of it all is that none of it has to do with genuine like. What it all comes down to is your overall preferences - there's enough media that can fall into either spectrum that you can choose one group of popular things and indie things that you don't like that you bash and one group of popular things and indie things that you like that you can hail. You're not faking what you like (and if you are, I'm very ashamed of you). But it turns into a matter of how you present it.
The problem is the internet.
These cycles wouldn't have been so rapid if not for the internet - but with a vast degree of interconnection, buzz is inevitable. And it's good for business - a band like, oh, I don't know, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! would never be selling out shows if not for the internet. They'd be spreading word of mouth buzz and you could still catch them at street festivals and in small clubs. It's great for business. It doesn't take business away from anyone, it simply gives the little guys a fair shot. More than a fair shot, it can make them huge.
However, the problem is attitude. If you cycle through attitudes like that, you only end up leaving people more and more divided and opinionated. The attitude you have toward something may be based on quality, but it multiplies and solidifies on these attitudes.
Can you hate indie without being indie for it? Well, of course. It all depends on your reasons - and if it's just that you're trying to be unique for not being elitist? You just might be indie anyway.
The optimist in me wants to tell you that the point is to take a few steps back and look at it not from the lens of standing out. It's natural to want to stand out, especially as you're connected to more and more people and see more and more of them remarkable and memorable where you put yourself down - why can't I be remarkable? Why won't people remember me, since they seem to remember so many other people - rather than look upon the vast sea of sameness and say, "well, as long as I'm happy."
The cynic in me wants to say that I'm just trying to stand out, and form my own layer in this architecture who'll then just fall into it, be criticized on the one hand and praised on the other, and just become another cog in this love/hate division.
Or hell, maybe I'm just gonna languish. I don't know, time tells.
posted by jjk at 1:16 AM
0 comments
