I have issues with people who like to collectively label certain music as "indie crap."

Well, I'll admit that there bands out there such that if I had to create a genre called "indie crap," I would lump them in that (considering how much indie I apparently I do listen to). I do sometimes get the sense of dull repetition and "whininess" when I hear those bands. But to characterize every indie band out there as a load of bull owing simply to the fact that their name isn't mainstream is another thing altogether.

Especially if you diss Yo La Tengo. ESPECIALLY From a Motel 6 Yo La Tengo. That song is anything but typical indie crap.

Of course, what makes music enjoyable to a person is largely subjective based on that person's tastes, but I do believe in the existence of objectively "good" and "bad" quality music like others do. However, I also tend to disagree with the way some of these people identify music as "good" or "bad."

Good quality music is more than just lyrics, a chorus, melodies, etc. By that measure, you could also analyze a song for its lyrical or melodic complexity and interactions, or the musician/singer's prowess and execution at carrying the song through, but that's not entirely the kind of good or bad scale that I'm getting at right away, considering that there are songs out there that can still come across well without being that "complex;" how enjoyable a song is also plays a major factor into this scale. A lot of mainstream music is like that: it's fun to listen to because it's simple or conventional, catchy, pleasing to the ear, or inspires a feeling in you. That's why I don't really mind it when other people play their music, or at least usually; I can see why they like it. I might like it myself.

And then of course there's other, obscure music that's... not so pleasing to the ear. (Noise rock! Screamo! etc. etc.) Or, so to speak, others that would come across as unconventional to your average listener. This doesn't make them bad by any means; they might just be innovating a certain aspect of their music in a way to achieve a different result. And sometimes it just takes a shift in perspective to realize what exactly this result means; I've had times when I've listened to a song once and disliked it, only to randomly hear it again (or a couple more times for that matter) and suddenly have something click in my mind, and all of a sudden it seems like God's next best gift to mankind (seriously). Repeated over time, this builds up to the point where music taste changes or expands as one comes to experience a wider variety of tastes; it's how I've managed to move on to liking groups in genres such as hip hop (well, knowing the kind of person I am) and some avant garde bands that I guess some would call "noise."

It may seem unfathomable how a song with a lack of a "catchy" tune or other conventional musical elements could ever be "good" music, but trust me, it's possible. Mainly because it's here that the subjective factor comes in: what kind of music a person is likely to enjoy is largely dependent on how susceptible they are to this "realization" or change, or to put in better terms, how open they are to new experiences. And I say, the more open a person is in his or her music taste, the more likely they are to be able to recognize the other factors in unconventional music that still makes it enjoyable.

Of course, this doesn't mean that they have to like every single random song that is thrown at them. It just means that they are more likely to be able to recognize good quality songs regardless of how obscure those songs are... songs that can still inspire something in a person without needing to rely on trite techniques or cheap conventionalities like a lot of the so called "bad music" out there. (which is why they call bad music "soulless.") And quite honestly, I find unconventional "inspiring" music more impressive than conventional ones because it usually takes extra skill to pull that off; hence the contribution of factors such as what I refer to as musical or lyrical "complexity." Good lo-fi music isn't good simply because it's lo-fi; it's good because of what else it does to inspire its listeners without turning them off by its low audio quality. And conversely, it takes an open listener to get around the fact that the music is atypical and realize its true capability; an ignorant person would simply walk away assume the worst from a cursory glance (or listen). This leads to what I call music mislabeling. Of course, these people fail to understand why other people can enjoy the same music; some of them even like to rant about it.

Then again, some people can try to listen a thousand times to a song and never like it once regardless of how open they try to be. That's where REAL personal taste comes in. I have no problem with that. And others by nature just aren't that open in general; maybe they just like feeling comfortable with what they have. I'm fine with that too. It's when people in either category go a step further and try to make overbearing generalizations about the music they don't understand (hence, "all this pretentious indie crap; music nowadays is soulless") that I have issues. Or even worse, they make these generalizations about the people who like them. Yes, I have listened to Joanna Newsom's Is; more than 10 times, in fact (considering how long each song is). Yes, I actually do like her (her songs are calming to me; they're like beautiful majestic lullabies) and I don't mind her singing voice. Got a problem with that?

Typically, I only find music totally unlistenable when it either:

a: literally tries to scratch your eardrums out. for good medical reasons.
b: is overplayed too many times that I get sick of it.
c: comes across as overdone or repetitive, pointless, or "soulless" - true bad music

I think most people would tend to follow the same or similar rules for themselves. That last point is the real matter of contention in this case, but I believe that how much that changes depends on how willing a person is to listen to music objectively. They should look at the reasons why other people do like it first and try not to let the exotic nature of the music or their initial impressions affect their overall absolute judgment. Then they might have a better understanding of how it is possible to have good music out of so called "pretentious indie crap;" or otherwise recognize what really is good and bad music.

And don't even bring recognition into this debate. A lack of interest is okay, but bashing on a whole genre of music just because you've never heard more than half of its artists before is just being ignorant AND offensive to other people.

Indie rock is soulless? Give me a fucking break.

---

And on a better note, Euphoria - Oneday (album mix) is pretty awesome.