Re-blog : 10 Things Indie Musicians Do That Make People Hate Indie (from Monitor Down, 2009)

 

This one by Peter Kimmich is too good not to re-blog. It's sad that an article almost two decades old still remains so relevant. Unfortunately, all it takes to ruin the fun for everyone else is a handful of insufferably bad apples, but when it's "the norm", well...that's soul-draining. This might hit close to home for some, but those who see it on the reg can appreciate both the brutal honesty AND the humor (intentional and otherwise). Enjoy!

First of all, I love indie. I love it like a 15-year-old boy loves Megan Fox, sans anything involving posters on ceilings. So before you get up in my face with loud, defensive, aggravated comments about how great it is — I know, I know. Mellow.

But again like our halter-wearing temptress, there are a lot of seemingly reasonable people who HATE indie. And when you start to talk to these people about their hatred (once they get past the asinine jabs about hipster jeans, beards and technical guitar skills, like those even matter), you start to realize they may actually be on to something. Because even though indie is awesome, it’s only really awesome if it’s done right. And sometimes, you just have to take a loved one by the collar and tell them when they’re not doing something right. Right?

Here are some of the things indie musicians do that piss off people who otherwise have good taste in music. (Subtext: if you hate indie because the only style of music you like is speed metal or radio country, then this list, and my entire blog, will probably mean nothing to you.)

1. Whine a lot more than necessary. Most people understand that songwriting is about expressing emotions, so like-minded listeners can identify when their parents get divorced and they’re shuttled back and forth like a fake ID at a sorority house. But those alleged “genuine” emotions shouldn’t cause stool to run soft in the bowel, and those “genuine” lyrics shouldn’t have to become ironic Facebook status updates. Despite the majority of indie songwriters who express their inner ingénue at an appropriate level, a lot of them tend to dwell on the idea of adult male vulnerability, riding it like the bow of the Titanic until people in the crowd are considering dialing a hotline. The result: indie rock that is backed only by overdramatic 14-year-old girls and moms who are just glad their kid isn’t listening to Insane Clown Posse. And the woe in my heart bleeds like yesterday’s undercooked pot roast.

2. Sing like the deaf. Okay, part of being vulnerable and “real” is not having an overtly superior singing style. No one expects to be empathizing with Bono, or relating on a personal level to Axl Rose. (Yikes.) Still, there are a couple of fundamentals that are just part of singing — like pitch control, and not making the audience laugh out loud. So when the biggest Clap Your Hands Say Yeah single sounds like Joe Assface got up on karaoke night and ran a schoolbus over the solfege scale, it’s tough to hold the contempt in check. It’s even worse when it’s a cover of a song people are already familiar with, like Clem Snide’s abhorrent version of Christina Aguilera’s “Beautiful,” or Ben Gibbard’s cringe-inducing take on Bjork’s “All is Full of Love.” I don’t care how cute his own songs are, taking on Bjork’s most well-heard single with his northern-accented po-boy whimper is like climbing Mount St. Helens in a T-shirt and Converse low-tops. When the tone that comes across is “this didn’t sound like it did in my head, but oh well,” something is probably lost.

3. Shamelessly imitate other musicians. How many more indie lead singers are going to try to sound like Ian Curtis before someone devotes a top-10 list to it? Even though the Interpol/Editors/White Lies/Horrors/She Wants Revenge singing style is still cool almost 30 years after the end of Joy Division, indie bands with that sound are about as rare as lice at a Phish concert. At least there’s the rejuvenating presence of the Libertines/Arctic Monkeys/Bloc Party/Larrikin Love/Paddingtons/We Are Scientists “reckless” sound to remind us that anyone can roll out of bed in the morning and record an album between snorting lines and scraping the paint off vintage Telecasters. (And they’re all better than the Panic at the Disco/Fall Out Boy/Paramore/The Academy Is…/MCR pseudo-indie outfits with pop-punk mafia ties. )

4. Fail to grasp playing instruments. Once again, the everyman’s musician doesn’t need to play guitar like Eddie Van Halen. (Or Blake Mills, formerly of Simon Dawes.) It can even be a point of pride to be “self-taught” … but it shouldn’t come into question whether the guitarist is using his hands or his feet. Case in point: Babyshambles frontman Pete Doherty and his zombie-esque guitarist Mick Whitnall are a page out of the “Make Sure You’ll Be Able to Remember the Recording Session” manual. As talented as Doherty is, his band has released possibly the two worst-sounding albums in music, and yes, that crashing sound at the end of Down in Albion is him falling on his wasted ass. But even musicians who are too bombed to employ the musical skills they have are still superior to the ones who are not wasted, and just try to play like they are. Even worse, there’s the whole sub-layer of completely un-musical local musicians who try to get away with “unconventional” techniques, like playing the guitar like a stand-up bass, relying on “tones” or feedback to create music, or literally just holding the guitar throughout a show only to play two strings during the loud part. Just learn a song, butterfingers.

5. Create noise experiments. Lou Reed tried it with Metal Machine Music, an album consisting largely of feedback – and even that was regarded as a joke. Imagine, then, the impact your crappy, untrained garage band will have on the musical landscape when you unleash your new brand of electric-drill-inspired, ultra-distorted noise music for all to appreciate. Will it be “refreshing” when the opening notes of your first performance sound like a large train trying to shove through a small tunnel? Will the squeaky chair hooked up to a loose guitar pickup break anyone out of their sad, close-minded funk? Will they “get it” when you finally chop the head off your guitar with a bolt cutter at the end of your set? Probably not, you ridiculous excuse for a musician – please fuck off, and refer to number 4 above.

6. Selectively hate major labels. Indie musicians take pride in being independent, and in getting their music noticed without the aid of the big, soul-sucking music industry monster. They enjoy picking apart bands they’ve heard of who have “sold out,” changed their sound a little, and started touring with Velvet Revolver and Jane’s Addiction. “Damn, the Frog Bots get one deal and they change completely, and now they’re only playing for meatheads and teeny boppers at $75 a ticket. Way to betray the scene, man.” Unless, of course, it’s a friend of theirs. In that case, “did you hear about the Narwhal Endeavor? They just got the deal of a lifetime, and now they’re touring with Pearl Jam. That’s awesome.” And finally, what happens when a suit comes to knock on their own door? Everyone and their roommate shits a brick, that’s what happens. So much for integrity, I guess.

7. Have obscure-band-offs. Sports guys like to rattle off stats, car guys like to compare engines, and techies like to talk about the latest gear they bought. But somehow, none of it is as infuriating as the veiled contempt in an indie rocker’s voice when he (or she) name-drops an ultra-secret underground band he (or she) is hoping you’ll be stumped by. “Yeah, we (.2) were handing out CDs at the Glimmering Sock Muppets show last night. Killer band.” This is followed by an expectant stare. The only way to respond gracefully is to name-drop the primary influence of the Glimmering Sock Muppets, or at least point out how awesome it is that they poached the lead singer from the Kitten Tossers last week. Though the former is preferable. Of course, if you don’t recognize them, your only hope of staying cool is to actually be in a more noteworthy band — in which case your non-recognition might even cause the questioner to question his own sense of band judgment. Then again, you could always do some research in the used section at Amoeba, you poseur.

8. Go for the “indie look.” Wearing frayed vintage stuff isn’t necessarily the biggest fault of indie musicians — but then there are the ones who try to out-indie everyone by sporting every indie fashion trend at once. They usually end up looking like one of Lou Pearlman’s sadistic boy-band experiments: greasy, deliberately tangled hair; the light stubble that says “I’m not overly focused on my outward appearance;” the prerequisite all-weather scarf; the mod hat no one wears outside of an Urban Outfitters catalog; suspenders; the collage of concert wristbands; the v-neck that almost exposes nipple, for that subtle feminine mystery; the obligatory women’s fur-lined jacket, just to make it clear they don’t care what you think of them. And of course, no indie look would be complete without the nearly constant semblance of posing for something — something such as the inevitable barrage of Myspace photography that comes after the first round of dirty martinis. The only justice here is the notion that, according to historic fashion norms, these guys will be trying to pull off “bohemian vogue” until well after senility has set in. Eff that, ya whipper snapper.

9. Idolize their genre above all others. I’ve met metal guys who are into reggae, and hip-hop guys who are into funk and disco. There’s even an entire segment of punks who get into country. But for indie musicians, the only thing better than indie rock is indie rock and beer. Just take an indie rocker on a long road trip and they’ll have something to say about everything that comes out of your stereo until you start playing Muse, the Smiths, or something that sounds like Muse or the Smiths. I’ll admit that I’m living proof of this, if not to the degree that’s possible when you put someone with musical opinions into one of the most clique-y genres ever created. At least it’s easy to start up a conversation with them at a party: just mention the undeniable production benefits of auto-tune. You’ll start a landslide.

10. Worship Radiohead. Actually, I can’t blame indie guys for this, because Radiohead is awesome. But hey, some people hate them. Makes sense to me.

Original article found here: https://www.monitordown.com/2009/10/28/10-things-indie-musicians-do-that-make-people-hate-indie/

Factory "Aged"/"Relic'd" Guitars : Homage to the Greats, or Just the Ultimate Poseur/Try-hard Trophy Guitars?

 

WHAT THE HELL?

From Jonathan Horsley in Guitarist Magazine in November, 2025:

It doesn't take much to set the guitar-playing public off. But if there is one subject in electric guitar that’s guaranteed to ruin Thanksgiving dinner, it is the idea of relic'ing a guitar.

For some, a pre-worn finish is a crime against humanity, up there with not muting your guitar when tuning up. Others think it looks cool.

Many might argue either way, but isn’t relic'ing just a case of tying a guitar to the back of your car and doing donuts in the carpark?

In a recent interview with Guitarist, Fender’s Chief Product Officer Max Gutnik tries to explain that there is a lot more to it – claiming it has taken their luthiers years to perfect (?) the relic jobs we see on its Custom Shop builds. "Perfect"? Um...no.

“You know, relicing is hard to do. It’s ironic because people think you can just drop it a few times and drag it down the street,” says Gutnik. “But it’s actually a really intensive process that adds a lot of hours to the guitar.”

Me? I'm calling bullshit. I would take the "Pepsi Challenge" with 10 random guitars, and I could pick out the actual vintage ones from the shitty relic'd ones. I've been around vintage instruments for 4 decades now, and there are "tells" you pick up along the way. 

Finish wear is often the most obvious dead giveaway it's a fake. After all, we all play the guitar differently, in terms of technique as well as how we treat our instruments in general. Where one player’s belt buckle might grind down the finish on the back of a guitar might be different to another’s (or not at all). Not all guitars age the same. Look at John Frusciante’s and Mike McCready’s Stratocasters, for instance. But then you have guitarists who are not delicate with their instruments (Angus and Malcolm Young, Neil Young, Billie Joe Armstrong), and the wear on their guitars looks nothing like the aforementioned. 

“Trying to make the relicing not look uniform is really important,” continues Gutnik. “The processes we use have improved so much: you want the feel and the look of a broken-in guitar, but you don’t want anything actually broken! So we just keep improving that process, the lacquer and paint…”

Let's stop right there. First, there was a period where even Fender was using some kind of programmed etching pattern, and there are posts on threads out there to this day that demonstrate 4 or 5 different guitars with almost identical wear---but hey, glad they finally learned that people don't want their fake-old guitar looking like someone else's fake-old guitar. But just as importantly, let's talk about the actual paint work. Today's lacquers are not formulated the same as those used on the Golden Era classic guitars (different plasticizers and mixes thereof), and in cost-cutting measures, they're not even applied the same, so it's never going to be apples-to-apples. I can look at, for example, my Angus Young signature SG and my late-60's EB-0 bass (from the time period the Angus is supposed to replicate), and the EB-0 has minimal shrinking of the lacquer, still retains a mirror-like smoothness, but the AY has the telltale woodgrain pores peeking through that make the surface less smooth. That's just one example, but very, very obvious to me. 

“It’s like getting a pre-washed pair of jeans: they’re broken in so they’re comfortable right out of the store, but they’ll continue to wear and become your own,” says Gutnik. “That’s what’s so great about nitrocellulose lacquer. If you have to wait 25 years to get to that place, I mean, you might not get there! So starting that process and having the guitar feel super comfortable out of the gate is what we’re aiming for.”

But here's the thing: the comparison is not even in the same ballpark, as some of us cannot fathom paying a premium for "new" jeans that already had the worn-out knees or tears, and even if they were more affordable, would we REALLY have bought a new pair of pants with half the wearable life of a fully new pair? I just simply cannot get on board with "relic'd" or "factory aged" guitars, and I doubt I ever will be able to. But then again, I wouldn't buy a car that's beat to hell (unless it's as an intended restoration project), and if I want a "used" guitar, I'll just buy a "used" guitar, save myself the added premium for the "custom shop aging" and be done with it. Hell, I've seen original vintage examples of certain guitars for literally only a few hundred more dollars than a badly "aged" replica, and if I want that particular model with "age" on it, I'd rather just pay a little extra for the real thing and not a counterfeit.

Out of the dozens, or probably hundreds, of guitars have seen that have had this kind of process performed on them, I can literally count three that actually looked legitimate (except on one of the guitars, supposed to be a reissue of a '64 Gibson SG, it was before they started doing the horn tip shaping properly, so that ruined the façade instantly for anyone who knows SG's, and while the aging wasn't the worst I'd ever seen, the slabby upper horn tip told me it wasn't a vintage SG). The rest were either overdone, worn in bizarre places that you never find certain types of wear on an instrument, or just otherwise too clean looking to pass. It's almost like guitar satire or something, where you're just exaggerating this preconceived thing and it's not really to be taken seriously. I know I'm pissing off a lot of well-to-do's with disposable income and weekend warriors who saved up for months or years to buy their fake-aged Strat or Les Paul by saying this, but it's corny as hell. Stop it, please.

I bought my prized Custom Shop '64 reissue Gibson SG Standard last year to replace my original near-mint '64-'65 one that I had to sell 8 years ago after being laid-off at work (since my then-wife certainly wasn't going to help with the household expenses or Christmas for our child). In mid-2023 the Gibson Custom Shop FINALLY (after 23 years) started shaping/tapering the horn tips on them properly, and I knew I would finally be able to get a suitable stand-in for my lost Holy Grail SG. Not being a fan of the overly-faded "cherry" they use on their stock models (I prefer an "as-new" unfaded finish), I ordered mine in "Wine Red" (GLOSS), which looks more like the as-new "Cherry" finish back then, and no, I did NOT opt for either the "VOS" nonsense OR the "Murphy Lab" crap. I wanted a brand new instrument that carries on the spirit of my old one, for me to "age" (or not) on my own via natural playing. And even as a custom "Made 2 Measure" one-off, it still was cheaper than a production-line Murphy Lab guitar.

Personally, I think these custom shops that produce these pre-aged instruments should be replaced by a player-centric program that allows players to purchase brand new Custom Shop instruments for a deep discount, or do an "abusive leasing program", where you get a brand new shiny vintage reissue guitar, and literally your job is to gig it, play it around the house nonstop, take it to rehearsals, play the crappy, smoky dive bars with it, really just don't give a crap about it and treat it like some regular player's guitar or a beater, even stuff like leaving it out in the trunk of your car in freezing temperatures or subjecting it to environmental changes quickly, like bringing it out of the cold from that freezing car into a warm house and cracking open the case to influence weather checking and stuff. You know, never wash your hands before playing it, don't be careful when it comes to eating or drinking around it, let the schmutz really build up on the hardware and stuff. In other words, methods that cause NATURAL wear and "aging". Yes, it would pretty much require one to put all their focus on banging around that one guitar during the process, but that's the point then, innit? Once you have achieved the level of play wear desired,  you box it up, ship it back to the manufacturer for a once-over, some adjustments or restringing (maybe a fret-job of some sort if you did a really, really good job with it), and then you get a new guitar in the mail to repeat the process over and over again. That would at least be more legitimate, and the wear on the guitars would be more honest. Because paying a premium that sometimes adds anywhere from 25 to 75% extra cost to have a badly faked vintage guitar just seems laughable to me.

No matter how much you want to convince me (or yourself) that your Murphy Lab Gibson or your Journeyman Relic Fender is "art" or "passable" as a vintage guitar, let me go ahead and be brutally honest with you and say, "no, it isn't". It will fool your country club buddies or maybe some dude in the audience at the local bar who "knows just a little about guitars" (insofar as he can tell the difference between a Les Paul, Strat, Tele and so forth), but you're not fooling anyone who's had their hands on actual vintage instruments. So again, I say: stop it, please.