Nearly all genre names are unhelpful. "Indie" was ALWAYS more weaselly than most. Like "progressive" and "alternative" it was mainly employed as a means of looking down its nose at other genres, which were by contrast "corporate", "retrograde" and "spoon-fed".

I don't go along with the argument that what's wrong with landfill indie is that it doesn't threaten the government. No pop group has ever threatened a government and no pop group ever will.

What offends me about it is that it is characterised by:
* complete lack of rhythmic invention
* weedy vocals
* utter self-absorption
* million of songs about nothing but how *weird* the world is
* having gone on about twenty five years too long

And didn't Andrew Harrison coin the term "landfill indie"? If so, let's invoice!

I'd love to know what the old smoothy's view of The Pigeon Detectives was, but sadly we're only treated to John Niven's in that article...

And to be scrupulously fair to the Indy, on the two occasions that they use the phrase "indie landfill" in the article it is prefaced with the words "Critics have dubbed their sound..." and "this uninspiring, guitar-gelled Polyfilla is now known by some as..." so Mr Harrison would be hard-pressed to sue. :)

Interesting article though.

Only last night, my wife and I were fast forwarding through the BBC's "let's-show-exactly-the-same-bands-playing-exacty-the-same-songs-as-we-did-for-Glastonbury" highlights of T in the Park which gave me the opportunity not only to observe that REM were a damn sight better at Portsmouth Guildhall on the Green tour 20 years ago, but also to note that The Kooks summed up everything that is wrong with the 21st century. My wife gave me her best "Oh do shut up" look, but I feel I was at least partly vindicated by today's article.

...gets 120 results on Google. And do the more indie orientated festivals qualify as indie landfill sites?

"right now we're living through a generation of bands brought up on the tail end of Britpop. If it's a time when you're feeding off Sleeper, Gene and Shed Seven for inspiration, it's not going to yield nourishing results."

I have the theory that the reason a lot of new music is bad is because of the diluted influences that are being used.

Rolling Stones are damn good. They were only one removed from the original blues. That is what they listened to and wanted to play.

Led Zeppelin are very good, but by now they're a bit diluted as they're still listening to the blues, but The Rolling Stones are now an influence.

Five years later and a band like Heart or [INSERT BAND FROM MID 70'S] turn up. They barely know the blues. Instead they're influenced by The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin. So already things are getting more diluted.

Every generation (ie. five to seven years later) lose an earlier "roots" influence.

The Stones are a copy. Led Zep is a copy of a copy. Heart is a copy of a copy of a copy and so on down the line. So a indie band today is a copy of a copy of a copy x5. A band that has Led Zep as an influence has a better chance of being good rather than a band that has Oasis as an influence, yes?

This is a blanket theory with a million loopholes (eg. why are the blues a better influence than Led Zep?), but I think the underlying idea holds enough water. And of course, if a band has ORIGINAL ideas instead of recycling old riffs, then none of this applies.

Good point...

It's now kind of eating itself in the sense that many new bands are looking back to the start of indie, which was around '78/'79 as in post-punk and coming up with something inferior. Elastica already had a go at that didn't they? Then you've got the likes of Coldplay among others combining U2, Radiohead and Oasis - sort of like in-breeding really - they need some new genes from elsewhere. Not sure that going back to the blues is the answer though - just to end up with a different kind of retro. Maybe if they simply try to come up with a good tune and the rest will follow, and listen to better music - a much broader range of music at that. Was indie better in previous decades - yes, definitely. Like any style though it reaches it's high point then declines. Perhaps it's fair to say it was once something different to the mainstream but has now become the mainstream. So where's the new proper indie in that case?

Grunge is not the most popular genre in these parts but at least it was something different at the time and a genuine culture in itself. Kurt Cobain said he strove to combine The Beatles and Black Sabbath, (and to to copy The Pixies too of course (unofficially)) and thereby produce something fresh. Well that's the kind of thinking you need I feel.