The more stuff I read on this website, the more I despise you anti-mainstream elitist pretentions snobs. Just because something is marketed as rock or alternative by a major label, or is catchy, well produced, heavy and/or popular in the mainstream does not automatically make it suck! Can't you see that in your zeal to be different, you've just ended up as conformists to non-conformity? The backlash against the mainstream has gone too far people!!! Plenty of mainstream music sucks, but just as much indie, obscure music sucks too. I can just imagine you sitting aroung arguing about who is more indie or who has the most obscure album in their record collection.

Oh and to answer your question, it seems like the perfect way for you to assign 0s and 11s to albums would be to just take the opposite of the mainstream. Albums that sell millions of copies and reach #1 on the charts would get a 0 and a recording of some drunk homeless heroin addict puking for a half an hour that no one has ever listened to would be a perfect 11.

Only one record comes to mind -- "There's Nothing Wrong With Love", by Built To Spill. The tracklisting is perfect, there are no ups and downs... just 13 tracks of amazing.

As far as ranking an 11 as soon as it's released... no, I don't think you can. You have to take in to account what time period the record came out, how it affected the music scene, what it did for people, and general "amazing-osity".

However, I do believe that this rating scale does not apply to The Divorce, who releases pure gold. Which, if my calculations are correct, converts to an 11.

Do you have the new Trans Am record? No... not the one that just came out. Oh, you don't? Well I do, it doesn't come out until 2012...

I'm so much Indier than you.

p.s. Who would you rather discuss indie music with? Elliot Smith, or Connor Oberst?

Love as Laughter---Laughter's Fifth

I am not sure if Sam Jayne is a goon or not. He seemed like it when I saw LAL. But this album is magical. Serious.

Uh, who said anything about it being "the indier, the better?" Maybe somebody is reading into stuff too much. There are plenty of major label bands and catchy songs that I think are the bee's knees. Heck, I still love U2's Achtung Baby or Madonna's "Like a Prayer" or even System of a Down's Toxicity and the first Rage Against the Machine album. So before you come in here blustering on about how everyone here is "indier-than-thou" maybe you should just take a deep breath and actually think before typing.

From the very negative review "recommended if you like, well, anything that’s been mass marketed as “rock” or “emo” or “alternative” by a major label in the last five years"

Right there you have a huge insult to hundreds of millions of music fans just because they may have liked some of the mainstream rock music of the last 5 years. You could not be any more closed minded, clueless, predictable and annoying.

I think a perfect 11 doesn't really exist, much like Bigfoot or Mokele Mbebe. However, I think it does take some perspective to really understand an album, which is why gems like Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane, Over the Sea, Built to Spill's Perfect From Now On, Catherine Wheel's Ferment and Modest Mouse's The Lonesome Crowded West took so long to grow on me. There are some albums that I think are genius right off the bat (LCD Soundsystem, the first Bloc Party album, the first Franz Ferdinand, the first Strokes, the Cure's Disintegration) but they're not elevenzies. Heck the only thing I own that might be an eleven is Frank Sinatra's The Capitol Years. Now that's good stuff.

You have to admit, though, a lot of major and indie label stuff marketed as "emo" does suck. Just because one reviewer condemns that stuff doesn't we all follow.

Oh, that is a good album.

I already did admit that. But honestly, I think i'd personally prefer to listen to emo than indie. What is marketed as "indie" sucks worse than anything.

Heck, I'd agree with that most of the time too... Don't even get me started on the folks who think the Fiery Furnaces have musical merit.

A lot of the time... stuff that is marketed as "Indie" is not actually Indie music. Indie is short for Independent, meaning that the last Modest Mouse album, was not actually an Independent record, so you can hate on that all you want, but if you really want to get technical... don't call that indie.

I think you're just as pretentious as the guy who rags on you for liking mainstream music.

I cut myself so I can feel.

This is a hard one... but I have been thinking, and maybe this would just be an '11' on Saundrah's rating system, but I think the Lucksmith's release 'Warmer Corners' is just about perfect. There is not one track on that album that doesn't keep my attention. I simply love them all. My heart goes 'YAY' at each new track change. I sing, heart-warmed along to Marty Donald's fluid poetry and bob my head to the jangle of the guitar. I guess if you just couldn't stand the popness of it, you wouldn't give it a high rating, but what album can transend all differences in musical taste?? They are simply an under-rated band. They deserve much more notice in the world. Perhaps if they weren't sequestered so far away Down Under...

The start is the hardest part
To step inside and announce a newly broken heart
And Louise, you’re ill at ease
You bite your thumb and tug your skirt below your knees
And it hurts even more than you thought
The words get caught
And sad as you are, you’re glad of the wine you brought

I’ve no idea what you need to hear
My mother used to say “there’s always next year”
But please don’t despair, Louise
Today will end and your heart will mend, if by degrees

And it hurts even more than you thought
And it feels like forever just now
But one day you’ll look back on this
As a hiccup in your happiness

Don't even get me started dude. When this website says "indie" they don't mean "independent". Otherwise, they'd be covering indie-metal, indie-prog, indie-alt, indie-grunge, indie-thrash etc... THEY DON'T. They cover bands, whether independent or not, that make really boring music who can't play their instruments.

Some records that come to mind as potentially perfect in my eyes... erm, I mean, ears:

The Magnetic Fields, 69 Love Songs
The Smiths, The Queen is Dead or Hatful of Hollow
The Stone Roses, s/t
R.E.M., Life's Rich Pageant
The Long Winters, The Worst You Can Do Is Harm
Pretty Girls Make Graves, Good Health
Squeeze, Singles
The Beatles, Revolver
The Postal Service, Give Up
Lyle Lovett, Joshua Judges Ruth
Liz Phair, Exile in Guyville

Though I acknowledge most these are more my personal Trapped on a Desert Island records versus actual critically perfect albums, and that my emotional attachment and associations to each of the records makes me completely non-objective.

THIS WEBSITE SAYS INDIE-POP! That's why they haven't covered some of those genres. You make really boring music with your words... if your comments were an artist... they would be Finger Eleven.

I think your point is apt: it's impossible to be objective when we're talking about something that, for all the prowess and skill involved in playing music, is at a certain level simply a magical, emotional response.

That's why we all get so riled up when we talk about about our favorite bands, right?

And yes, the Lucksmiths are awesome.

My two favorite records (which I guess are safe choices, but still brilliant albums) are *Pet Sounds* and *Exile in Guyville* (which I'm sure I'll somehow get shit for because that happens whenever I say I like something here) - and I think both of those are deserving of 11s.

As for zeros, I'm not sure what would merit such a low score. It seems, though, with the case of Pitchfork's zeros, they have some kind of axe to grind for someone that doesn't exactly fit in to what their vision of indie rock should be or a particular artist deviates from what they previously did. Ssee the reviews of Liz Phair's s/t album and Travis Morrison's *Travistan* - they may not be perfect (although I like, but don't love both), but they are not unlistenable messes, either.

I guess I'd give Prussian Blue a zero if I was ever assigned to review one of its records.

I don't have any desire to ever read a review by someone who likes indie rock slam a bubblegum artist. It just isn't interesting and you don't learn anything from reading that the guy who loves Death Cab thinks Britney sucks.

I concur -- Prussian Blue would be a dead zero for sucking musically and morally. Those girls are an abomination and their parents should be tried for abuse.

Pop means popular. There is popular music from a ton a genres. Pop is not a genre. The music they cover on this site isn't even popular. It's just lame.

Actually, Indie-pop is a genre. And you've already made it abundantly clear that you think it's lame. :)

You are exactly right. No new album deserves an 11. A great album earns its rep through timelessness, and you can't measure that until time has passed. Several albums that sound great now might sound dated in 10 years... That's why it's hard for me to accept quantitative measurements like star ratings. They're extremely malleable over time. Rolling Stone gave Nevermind only three out of five stars when it came out. (And famously gave the last Mick Jagger solo album a perfect five out of five.... ewwwww.)

But people are used to that kind of system, I understand that.

I would actually like to listen as those two guys talk about indie music with each other.

Especially with all the spooky "beyond the grave" powers needed to make it happen. Where is Giles when we need him?

In the context of music criticism, "pop" has certain associations, like "power pop" and "indie pop" -- in those forums, "pop" is not just short for "popular." Sure, System of a Down is popular, but when you get granular about it, do they make "pop" music? Yeah, it's a labelling device, but there's some background to it.

As for the general direction of this discussion, just because someone chooses to focus on a certain segment of music doesn't mean they necessarily promote antipathy towards other music. Your argument isn't logical. Although I agree that there's as much tedium in indie-pop as there is in every other genre known to man (except new age music, which is pretty much 100% tedium).

If there was a strident anti-corporate bias to the Three Imaginary Girls, I don't think they would have a collective name that references The Cure.

Hahaha. I rarely ever transpose real laughter into digital laughter, but that was worth it.

The largest problem with these circular arguments is that genre is dependent upon the artist. When in most cases he/she is basing their genre upon what they listen to, when it may or may not even sound like what most people would consider that genre to be.

Because of that, genres have no fixed boundries. If indie pop is what you review, then you'll be looking for that happy indie sound you love, and giving bad reviews to named indie popper bands that don't fit your idea. I think that's where 'IndieSucks' got lost.

My perfect records are as follows:
The Beatles, Revolver
Radiohead, OK Computer
My Morning Jacket, Z
Modest Mouse, Lonesmoe Crowded West
Genius/GZA, Liquid Swords
Arcade Fire, Funeral
Beach Boys, Pet Sounds (and to think Good Vibrations was supposed to be on this record too!)
Simon and Garfunkel, Bookends
Tool, Lateralus

I don't know if you could say that these are all "11"'s. I can say that I had a better understanding and appreciation for all music after continued exposure to these records. Oh and I'd throw Pantera's Far Beyond Driven on here too for that guy who hates indie rock and yet is on this site all the time.

I think it takes time to say for certain that any record is an "11". Although the reason I buy as many albums as I do is because I'm always hoping to find that record that is istantly identified as an "11".

The Magnetic Fields, 69 Love Songs
If this record had been 22 songs it would have deserved a 12, but as it stands there is far too much filler

The Smiths, The Queen is Dead or Hatful of Hollow
'Hatful of Hollow' doesn't count, it's not a proper album. 'The Queen is Dead' is an 11.

The Stone Roses, s/t
If the Manchester sound had had the lasting influence that say Nirvana did, I might agree, but it didn't.

R.E.M., Life's Rich Pageant
This isn't even R.E.M's best album. Not an 11. Maybe a 10 though?

The Long Winters, The Worst You Can Do Is Harm
Pretty Girls Make Graves, Good Health
Are you kidding me? These bands won't be remembered in Seattle, let alone in the outside world in six years! Their impact on culture and pop music is exactly 0%!

Squeeze, Singles
This doesn't count. It's a compilation.

The Beatles, Revolver
This is an 11.

The Postal Service, Give Up
This is barley a 6.

Lyle Lovett, Joshua Judges Ruth
Maybe a 9?

Liz Phair, Exile in Guyville Are we at Lilith Fair? Did you forget that she tried to become Britney Spears on her last few albums? NO! This does NOT deserve an 11!

IndieSucks - 0
Three Imaginary Superfriends - 1

I debated when to include "Hatful" or "Singles 45 and Under" because of the whole compilation factor. Then I decided - fuck it. Those are the CDs I'd bring on my trip to the end of the earth.

Liz Phair might have grown into a complete tool, but that doesn't negate that Exile in Guyville is a fantastic effing record. It just makes her new work lamentable.

And we're just gonna have to agree to disagree both on the influence of the Stone Roses and the adoration of the Long Winters and Pretty Girls... ;)

Can't say I'm a big fan of Z and I tend to like Aenima better than Laterlus but otherwise good stuff on that list.

Speaking of an album like Liquid Swords, I might add Jay-Z's The Black Album as a pretty darn excellent disc.

I'm going to get so much shit for my perfect records list:

1.) There Will Be Blood Tonight - The Divorce
2.) The Gifted Program - The Divorce
3.) There's Nothing Wrong With Love - Built To Spill
4.) Sparkle and Fade - Everclear
5.) Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots - The Flaming Lips
6.) Los Campesinos! - Hold On Now Youngsters...
7.) Clap Your Hands Say Yeah - Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
8.) Numbers and Mumbles - Say Hi To Your Mom
9.) The Joshua Tree - U2

10-10.5

1.) Set Yourself On Fire - Stars
2.) Come on Feel The Illinois - Sufjan Stevens
3.) The Places That You've Come To Fear The Most - Dashboard Confessional

I can't believe I forgot one album that I think is 10.99: Billy Bragg's Workers' Playtime. Now thats genius songwriting.

As much as I'm not a fan of U2's current work, I might slip The Joshua Tree or The Unforgettable Fire onto my list as well...

Oh right cuz wikipedia is the ultimate judge of validity. Not! Here's what I think:

Indie is not a genre
Pop is not a genre
Generes suck
TIG's taste in music sucks

GZA performing all of Liquid Swords at the Pitchfork Festival almost makes me want to go. When you get down to Lateralus vs. Aenima it's a tough call, but that crazy shit about Lateralus being in a fibonacci sequence pushes it over the top.

I'm still trying to digest that you're saying there's no bigfoot. Next thing you're going to tell me is that there's no Loch Ness Monster either.

I'm pretty sure "Chinese Democracy" will be an 11 the day it hits the stores.

I think that the conclusion here, again, is that everything is subjective in the world of art and creativity, and you're just as unlikely of convincing TIG readers that quote-unquote "INDIE" (an admittedly ambiguous word which we will use for lack of another) sucks as we are of convincing you that it doesn't, because obviously everybody has their own emotional response to music, as I believe Dana stated. However, your extreme emotional reaction against TIG seems like a grain of sand in your desert of rage, leading readers of these rants to hypothesize that perhaps your "indie" girlfriend just dumped you or your band was dissed by TIG or you hate rich people.

I just dislike what the Seattle music scene has become, and am frustrated at the lack of local music press coverage of bands I actually enjoy listening to. I moved to Seattle in part because of my expectations of what the music scene would be like and have watched those dreams slowly die over the years. There are great local bands here, but it's difficult to find out about them through the local press. Local music press, including TIG, is just too damn artsy fartsy.

This kind of thing's come up recently in my discussions with some other people. When I lived in Olympia, I noticed -- pretty much down the line -- that the people who became most hostile to the place were the ones that had certain expectations of it. That there was some sort of automatic mechanism in town that would accept them and their art and turn them into local demigods. For many people this notion replaced the strategy of actual work. And when their bids for acceptance failed, naturally they turned against what might have been perceived as the local indie contingent. Mayhem ensued.

I AM NOT SAYING YOU'RE LIKE THAT, 'cause I don't know you at all. But my experience in music, and scenes, or whatever, is that it's best to divorce your expectations if you're going to pursue the field. The best way I know how to do this is just to keep plugging away at it.

My experience with both Olympia and Seattle was that most people only really cared if the music was good, and that those who were overtly trying to be indie snobs eventually got exposed. Other people said they had different experiences, and obviously you have, but that was mine.

I like you, Paul!

(Sniff... sniff) I feel just like Sally Field!

Thanks. I like you all too.

Speaking of "Chinese Democracy" when is the Zack de la Rocha solo disc going to come out? I've heard about since, oh, 1998.

For what it's worth...

First, given the somewhat personal nature of the comments made with regard to writers/readers here at imaginarycentral, you make a lot of assumptions about the reviewers, and listeners in general, based on the reviews on this site. And you know what they say about what happens when you assume... it makes "u" look... well, not good.

That being said, I, like you, can't stand a lot of what I imagine you have in mind when you expectorate the word "indie;" at the same time, I find the Finger Elevens of the world even more execrable. It has nothing to do with conformity or non-conformity, and you're exhibiting your own shortcomings as an informed listener when you assume it does. It has only to do with my taste and the quality of the music.

As to my taste, I'll give anything a shot. I am a genuinely diverse listener, and I imagine given previous comments on your part, we would find common ground on a number of artists. I'm also more than confident we would disagree on a number of things. That's down to taste. There really are no right or wrong answers. (Well, Finger Eleven is just plain wrong...)

As to quality, the word does not, and should not, refer exclusively to ability to play instruments. There are virtuoso-level players who "simplify" what they do in favor of mass acceptance, or sometimes they simplify what they do because it better serves the song or the vibe. Similarly, there are players who are not nearly so skillful as studio trickery allows them to appear (you should hear some of the stories I've picked up from engineers that worked on old Metallica records with regard to how much "editing" it took to make Lars sound as perfect as everyone thought he was... and is, and he actually is quite good).

This point about simplification may be better illustrated by considering a different art form, like painting. My favorite painter is an abstract expressionist named Jackson Pollack; he is also generally considered one of the more notable and/or important painters of the 20th century. He's one of those guys that creates paintings which elicit comments like, "A five-year old could do that" or perhaps more simply, "that's not art." Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion, but what he committed to canvas had nothing to do with a lack of skill. Essentially, in his most famous and most influential work he simply splashed paint on large canvases, sometimes with a brush, but perhaps more importantly with his hands. In doing this, he removed all barriers between artist and canvas and created vibrant works which, in spite of the static nature of painting, contain a remarkable feeling of motion and energy. Yet all he "really" did was splash paint around a canvas. He possessed much more traditionally recognized skill than was superficially on display, but "simplified" to capture a particular feeling, a particular idea.
At the same time, stop by a Thomas Kinkade gallery and tell me what you think of the "art" on display there. Certainly skilled , but, um, the less I say, the better. I think calling it "art," in the deepest sense, is a stretch. Important? No. Interesting? Not really. Saleable? Certainly.

That addresses the intentional, it's also worth noting that one of the weaknesses of big-budget recordings (i.e. the Finger Elevens of the world) is, in some ways, their perfection. Every bum note is repaired, every vocal pitch-shifted to perfection, then all of it compressed to extreme volumes (stylusmagazine.com did a great article about this a few months ago... google it if you're interested). Sometimes these things in moderation can be a help, but more often in the process, all of the life, soul and space of classic recordings has been wiped out. With the continually falling prices in recording technology, even small budget recordings with big budget aspirations can fall victim to these same "industry standard" methods. And if you've ever been through the recording process, you'll find it's hard to convince an engineer/producer to do it any other way.

(It goes without saying that tremendously skillful playing is more often than not a great thing. I think of old Motown records being the ultimate example to illustrate the point. So many of those songs were simplicity defined, concise, often based on few or very basic changes and scales, but the players and singers on those records were prodigies to a man/woman. The fluid bass lines and tight rhythm work, the vocal arrangements and spot on performances make these songs stone cold classics. They have all of the chops, as well as the feeling.)

This has been a bit rambling, but there are several salient points above. I think If I could sum the whole thing up though, I would say the premise of the argument, roughly "indie" sucks vs. "corporate" sucks is faulty. They both suck an awful lot of the time. If you don't dig what is printed here, please feel free to go elsewhere. I don't dig reading about drapes and doilies and ways to get that nasty stain out, so I don't read Ladies Home Journal; if you don't like indie-pop you should probably avoid sites that have "indie-pop" right in the sub-heading. At this point there is a site for every genre and subgenre you can imagine, you just have to look. Or, as someone suggested the other day, start your own site. Be passionate and say what's on your mind (should be pretty easy for you). There's probably a good sized audience out there that would be interested.

I also often feel like not just the local press, but regional and national press fail to cover the things in which I have the most interest. But I find what I want pretty easily, it can just take a little extra effort. Good luck.

It sounds like you should start your own local e-zine. I took the liberty of checking and IndieSucks.net is available.

Sufjan Stevens, Illinois
Death Cab for Cutie, We Have the Facts & We're Voting Yes
the Beatles, Rubber Soul
Franz Ferdinand, Franz Ferdinand
The Dismemberment Plan, Emergency & I
Wilco, A Ghost Is Born
The Strokes, Is This It
Andrew Bird, Andrew Bird & The Mysterious Production of Eggs

I'm iffy about whether A Ghost Is Born is better than Yankee Hotel Foxtrot... but they have both been amazing for me

Maybe Is This It doesn't deserve an 11 but say a 10.5? hrm...

Yeah, the lucksmiths are just amazing. Especially on Warmer Corners. The lyricism finally matures on this record and the sound is a whole lot tighter than it's ever been before. Shouldve included it myself... somehow slipped my mind

tho, right on, yea