A new screed against contemporary indie rock has come in a prominent feature of a major British publication—aptly named The Independent. It points to the increasing commodification and blandness of current indie rock, which is especially offensive considering that the movement started in order to oppose exactly that kind of music:

"I was in Gap a few weeks ago and there was some sort of generic indie music playing," he says. "I was with a friend who's a promoter and a bit younger than me. After about three or four tracks I asked him: 'Whose LP is this?' And he said, 'No, it's a compilation.' Every track sounded identical. The guitars, the production; all these bands sound like they're made in the same studio with the same producer. It's such a ball-less, soulless, generic whitewashed indie sound. You could probably take a member from each band and throw them together in a new group and no one would be able to tell the difference. They're completely interchangeable. Scouting for Girls are like the sound of Satan's scrotum emptying. They're abysmal." 

The main problem, which we've heard before, is when indie rock began to refer to a genre as opposed to a method of releasing albums outside of major labels. Are Franz Ferdinand and Interpol, who are signed to Sony and Capitol, respectively, indie bands just because they sound like Gang of Four and Joy Division?

Likewise, is it inevitable that indie rock has become corporate, or can it return to its roots? Between Band of Horses and Of Montreal's screeds against being called sell-outs, and the lack of political rock even in a politically turbulent time, do we need a new indie rock, in the same way the Ramones were a new rock and roll? Certainly anyone who's listened to the O.C. soundtrack can make a case for it.