The state of indie-rock: weird for the sake of boring?

Every once in a while, someone sounds off about the state of indie rock.

Kelefa Sanneh did it in The New York Times in 2004 with this screed about rockism and its pernicious effects on anything that doesn't meet rockist criteria.

Sasha Frere-Jones took a different tack two years ago in The New Yorker, lamenting the lack of blues influences in much of modern indie-rock.

They were useful starting points for music-nerd debates, but this guy offers the most compelling perspective I've seen so far.
So much of what's critically acclaimed in indie circles is boring or boringly contrived, he writes, mentioning bands like Animal Collective. And he's right.

Weird and different can be assets -- the Flaming Lips have built a career on those traits. But the Lips, at least, seem to be following a muse instead of being weird at the expense of listenable songs.

Arty contrivance in the service of inscrutable experimentation usually just isn't that much fun to listen to -- and on a certain level, listening to music is about having an enjoyable experience.