You can have it three ways: Indie is an ethos, indie is a sound, or indie is defined purely as being music that comes from independent labels.

I believe in the first way…

Indie is an ethos which is to produce music above all other concerns such as fame or wealth. Indie started with self-sufficient bands, typically in urban areas, who may have had a distinct sound and received support from a growing number of small independent labels creating what has been coined as the indie scene. Major labels then moved in to what was a growing market and starting signing the best new bands as they came out of the scene. Radiohead – signed to a major label – are indie because they have kept their indie ethos, of caring about the music above all other matters and choosing their own methods for marketing and touring. And also early dance – self-sufficient artists, in it for the music rather than fame or wealth and also signed to independent labels.

The second way…

I can buy into this too, but it’s just too easy. With this definition, McFly are indie. I’m not having that.

The third way…

I reject this totally. First you have to define what in independent label is. Even the most passionate music lover couldn’t tell you which labels all their favourite bands are signed to, let alone how those labels operate. The music industry is a constantly evolving beast and major labels often own smaller labels. Blur were signed to Food Records who were a small label. Food were a small indie, who later became part of Parlophone. Parlophone is owned by EMI. Frankly, it’s a mess. And independent labels produce a massive range of genres including classical music and opera. So I say no to this too.

So here’s a question: who was the first indie band/artist?