Personally I think the term ‘indie’ stopped being effective around the mid-end of the 90s. Everything else that followed was simply a tack on to a ’sound’ & look rather than an instinct & restriction of market force. Just as, for example, the ‘grunge’ look started appearing in Topshop & the like, independent record labels were bought up & swallowed/neutralised by the subsidaries of majors in order to tap into a burgeoning commercial/financial avenue. It happens in every generation & I’m oft reminded of the Withnail & I quote:

“If you’re hanging on to a rising balloon, you’re presented with a difficult decision – let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question; how long can you keep a grip on the rope? They’re selling hippie wigs in Woolworth’s, man. The greatest decade in the history of mankind is over. And as Presuming Ed here has so consistently pointed out, we have failed to paint it black.”

Amen.

Apart from the time problem I actually think indie might be one of the most narrow-minded genres really. I know that might have a lot to do with the fact that it is – since indie stopped meaning ‘independent’ and a became a looser, more generic term – possibly one of the biggest genre umbrellas around, but indie kids seem to find it harder than most to get out of their indie tunnel.

So, as much as I agree that pigenholing can be dangerous for the expansion of audience penetration/independent discovery & so on I don’t think people are that stuckfast in the types of music they listen to nowadays.

The real issue, I’d say, & as you hi-light yourself, is time. There’s simply just far too much music & too much of an easy availability of said (not that that’s a problem or anyone’s fault) via the interweb & whatnot.

Perhaps we need to introduce some kind of worldwide rationing? Limit it to 10 new bands, worldwide, a month & they’re not allowed to release more than an EP in their first year so the emphasis is on gigging; existing bands are only allowed 1 album per year & maybe two singles; radio/live sessions are limited to 3 per new band per year, one per existing band & cover versions are banned for thrity years. The likes of Girls Aloud & their ilk are restricted to only releasing ONE track on ONE collective compilation ONCE a year (I suggest Now That’s What I’m Wasting My Pocket Money On) & all other compilations (including Best Of’s) are banned indefinitely.

We could have uniforms & everything; patrol gigs & record shops with cattle prods & have ’shower rooms’ fitted in Music Schools/Colleges.

Never thought I’d say this, but I think Fisk might be onto somehing… but did he have to fucking mention the fucking Stone fucking Roses a-fucking-gain?

Isn’t that an oxymoron?

CTel – I don’t think I hate dance music entirely, but I think my genre definitions are a bit loose. I mean, plenty of what I would call indie would probably be called dance by other folk, and it’s all eminently danceable. I just never took to that specific musical movement that Nick Fisk seemed to be aiming at in his show, although I really did try.

There are definitely some records in my collection that could easily be termed dance music, I reckon. Not many though.

Spent the remainder of the night wandering Bristol streets, pub/licensed cafe-crawling, with Red & Planet Earth singing along to his baritone mandolin strumming & gleefully interacting with nonplussed pissed up locals. Glorious isn’t the word.

Afterglow at 100%, still.

Bit like the return of easy listening and ‘chill out’ in the early noughties – the push for laid back, musically interesting and yet not too intrusive music exploded into the dining rooms of the ageing middle classes to the point where there wasn’t enough music to meet the demand and hence the genre collapsed in on itself.

Or something like that.