see, the press seems to be wanting to market this to indie fans, and indie fans are reacting that it's too obtuse for them to get their head around. that's really rather predictable. "indie rock" is very rarely this intricately constructed for the precise reason that it tends to confuse fans of the genre when it is. rather, it tends to market itself and generally succeed on the exact opposite terms. people tune into it because they know what they're getting. it's not experimental. it's not abstract. it's not "weird". "indie rock" as it's been understood since about 2000 is kind of like gen y's equivalent to tom petty or bruce springsteen - it's just no bullshit rock and roll that you can click into without having to think too hard about it.

see, though, that's why people that normally don't listen to "indie rock" may be more attracted to this than to something like modest mouse or pavement. these songs are just way more developed, which is a bit of a breath of fresh air. there was, of course, a time in the distant past where what was called "indie rock" was expected to be intricately constructed. that was actually the whole point of looking towards independent music, rather than mainstream music.

i understand the comparisons, but it's really drawing attention to the least interesting aspects of the band. i hear a lot of sonic youth and a lot of weezer in this band, and the delivery at time vaguely brings to mind a billy corgan right before he hit his prime. there's a sea-and-cake style chicago influence. i also hear a lot of early animal collective in the vocal melodies.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuP4y0Dfyyk