@post_liberal If the point is simply that people might have been more likely to call this “college rock” until later in the decade, okay. But I think that’s mistaking the word for the thing (offbeat, no longer exactly punk bands working outside the standard label/promoter/radio structure).
@post_liberal I don’t understand what the example of The Smiths is supposed to prove when the New York Times was writing about REM in perfectly recognizable terms (albeit without using the word “indie”) before the Smiths had formed. https://t.co/VHwL75nLOe
@post_liberal But that’s the whole point. The “indie” tag is pretty widely used and understood in America by the mid 80s, sometimes of bands or sounds that would fit the British use of the term and sometimes not. It’s not incorrect or derivative, it’s just a different trajectory.
@post_liberal These are basically parallel developments that go back to about the same time and draw on common sources in punk. The claim of the piece is that American “indie” is a post Nirvana and maybe post 2000 phenomenon. That’s a really strange argument!
@post_liberal Neither of those things is demonstrated by the article. Not genre because it’s not really a generic category (beyond kinda sorta postpunk). And not term because the road to its adoption in the US comes through Slash Records then SST and Dischord, not through Rough Trade.
@post_liberal Note that Sebadoh released the heavily ironic "Gimme Indie Rock" in 1991: before Nevermind and long before the ostensible US appropriation of the term in the 2000s.