The concept of what’s indie and what’s not is blurry. However, its outstanding characteristic, as stated in its own name, is independence. Whether it be in the form of gigs with hipster-dressed young adolescents, a goth-themed party or local hip hop battles, autonomy is an important factor shared amongst all representations of the indie movement. However, the contemporary music industry has stripped the indie movement out of its core components. In an attempt to industrialize the appeal that indie has to the youth, enterprises have corrupted the “indie aesthetic”, and, consequently, destroyed what made this cultural movement unique. If the 21st century was breathing down Morrisey’s neck in The Smith’s “Frankly Mr Shankly”, then we are being blown out by the imposition of culture that came along the 2000s.

In his seminal 2000 book “No Logo”, Naomi Klein argues that record-breaking sales are not the main objective for big brands anymore, but rather, the creation of culture. Instead of adjusting to cultural standards, multinational brands, in the process of construction of an entrepreneurial empire, multinational companies have started “creating culture”, promoting their ideal body standards and embracing them as if they were the social norm. This is the reason why terms such as a “Victoria Secret body” have become commonplace.

Klein’s idea of culture creation isn’t restricted to the fashion industry. In fact, it has spread throughout all markets, and begun firing on all cylinders. This is not the exception in the music industry. Pop stars do not produce music, but culture. Kanye West’s relationship with Kim Kardashian is a central part of celebrity gossip magazines; Taylor Swift’s most recent breakup will most definitely cause an upheaval of angry fans. This behavior is not out of the ordinary in the pop industry. The problem comes when the desire to appeal to a larger audience interferes with a niche sector of society.

The origin of the indie movement is unclear. Some trace it as far away as the appearance of The Microphones’ “The Glow Pt. 2”, in 1998; some even trace its origins down to Joy Division’s “Unknown Pleasures”, in 1979. However, one thing is clear: indie is not as strong of a culture or a movement as it used to be, at least not the most essential image of indie.

There isn’t an authority that can objectively what is indie and what is not. Art is partially subjective, and consequently, reliable on personal appreciation. Nirvana’s “In Utero” did not advertise itself as indie, and neither did Neutral Milk Hotel’s “In the Aeroplane Over the Sea”. However, they both became seminal indie albums, which would even gain cult status years after their release.

The industry doesn’t seem to be able to grasp this. There is a playlist in the media platform Spotify called “Indiespensables” which adds the best indie songs of the month on a regular basis. There’s no problem on advertising a collection of songs which may appeal to an audience. The label under which it is being advertised, however, is inconsistent. There is not defining factor in what makes an album indie. Just like a book is catalogued as existential or a movie is defined as avant-garde simply based on the context of its release and the influences it may or may not have from similar works, what defines music to be indie cannot be objectively defined.

Likewise, the proliferation of the word “indie” has swayed its original meaning away. An artist or band cannot reinvent it itself, because that would be too risky. “What if its audience doesn’t like the new sound?” Allegations such as this show how blurred of a notion the music industry has of the behavior of the indie scenario. Inovation is an aspect present in all of indie music. The Chromatics’ 2007 “Night Drive” and 2012 “Kill for Love” belong to different genres. In only 5 years, a band accomplished to abandon its roots and hail to reimagine its sound. Under the frame of culture creation, this is not possible. This is the reason why many artists find themselves in a position in which they have to frame themselves into their ideal image. Even if they want to progress into a more elaborated, different persona, the industry forces them to “be themselves”. The most obvious example of this dichotomy between one’s true self and the perception is Kurt Cobain. His story is now part of pop culture. He, however, illustrates the idea that the stereotypification of an artist can (and most definitely will) lead to the destruction of his or her creativity.

Disruptiveness is a phenomena that has become inherent to our society. We have to either adapt or be left behind. However, there is a line that separates benign from harmful disruptiveness, and that line, in the music industry, is the destruction of culture. The word “indie” has lost its value due to its over-usage in the promotion of music. The attempt to appeal to the “indie aesthetic” to promote an album has resulted in the destruction of the “indie aesthetic” itself. The entrepreneurial desire to create culture has interfered with niche markets such as the indie culture, and given the exacerbated ambition of multinational companies, it is not strange to discover that the indie culture has been absorbed by the profit-seeking popular music industry. There is very little that we can do to save the essence of the indie scenery. Perhaps we are facing the dawn of the indie era as a whole. There are more than enough evidences of this: the number of independent bands, record labels and artists is decreasing as a consequence of the centralization of the music industry, which obliges customers to listen to “What’s Hot”, or what’s “On the Rise”. Either way, only time will tell whether the indie movement will be able to escape the crisis under which is it at the moment, and remerge as a source of creativity, change and innovation.