right, they weren't acceptable to the masses at the time, yet they still founded a thriving music scene going strong today. indie artists may have felt a little disgruntled at trend whores trying to be cool, but if they were smart at all and wanted their scene to catch on, maybe only for the sake of company, they would support those trend whores, no matter how fucking annoying they can be.
but speaking from the point of a musician who has been asked to label the music he makes, i respectfully disagree. people come up to you and ask you that simple question, "what type of music do you guys play?" looking for an answer in most cases. It is extremely hard to answer. Unless you are actively trying to be a genre, you cannot answer that question with complete certainty. A judgement is passed, and the questioner either goes home thinking, "ah whatevs i dont think i'd like trip-hop, i'll let that one pass" or thinking, "wow, indie sounds really cool and i like other bands that are indie so ima check em out!" My band is trying to be indie, so i can call them indie. My band isn't trying to be anything, so i don't really know what to call them. The second way seems to be the ethical way to go seeing as you aren't limiting yourself, but in order to get music out into the public you have to relate and grab interest. My old band's three genres on myspace were pop, rock, and rap. three most popular search categories. it may be offensive to true blue brittney spears' and hannah montanas to call ourselves pop, but we get ten times more hits that way.
so i dont really see him calling his band indie a problem. more a marketing plan or a "best guess" than anything. I see nothing wrong with trying to become a genre either. i happen to play along with the music i like to listen to. and then i get good at it over time. and then what am i? a true musician isn't limited to just one genre. versatility is key, and it is fun.
