<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Seattlest: Capitol of Indierockistan</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/10/10/capitol_of_indi.php</link>
<description>All comments for Capitol of Indierockistan</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 seattle_katelyn</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:00:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>kbhackett@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>kbhackett@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>Kim Ruehl</title>
<link>http://seattlest.com/2007/10/10/capitol_of_indi.php#comment-1216573</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://seattlest.com/2007/10/10/capitol_of_indi.php#comment-1216573</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:18:21 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;well, we do have subpop and KEXP, which makes us a good contender for being an indie rock hub. i&apos;m with john, though, the whole thing about indie rock is that initial find. what made indie cool was that people knew about independent bands that hadn&apos;t been signed to majors yet, were still busting their asses to get the deal. you found out about them before the masses, knowing that becoming the next big thing would inevitably kill their street cred and indie sensibility. 

once they&apos;re not new and unknown anymore (which is what made them cool in the first place), they have to deliver something extra. and, while many of them are really talented, hard-working bands, they lack the ability to deliver a second album that doesn&apos;t try to recreate the magic of the first one. now that indie rock is a far more mainstream genre in itself, the likelihood of a great indie rock band making a fabulous second, third and fourth album is just not very high. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>