Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bring on the Major Leagues

By Ryan Gillespie, PopMatters. Posted January 31, 2006.


In a world where the mainstream sounds like the underground, and the underground acts like the mainstream, what happens to truly indie music?
Advertisement

The success of the "Garden State" soundtrack and the glut of major label-released "indie" music by bands like Keane, Snow Patrol and the Killers made 2004 the year indie music established itself, proving (finally) that it could be the one thing the marketplace demands: sales.

With the existence of an indie ringtones service, once-indie darlings Death Cab for Cutie's major-label debut landing at No. 4 on the Billboard charts, Bright Eyes having two Top 20 singles, and Fox TV's ever popular "The O.C." driving up music sales, indie music may have reached its pinnacle of popularity.

Or has it? I don't mean to pronounce indie music dead -- writers can be overeager to proclaim the death of emerging genres, as when the British press declared that "punk was dead" concurrent with its birth -- but rather to argue that truly independent music has never really had a day in the sun. Defining bands like Death Cab as "indie" only serves to subjugate truly independent music: albums written, recorded and released without the aid of a record label.

Whether a band is signed to a major like Warner or an "indie" like One Little Indian, whether it's Sony BMG or Sub Pop, really doesn't matter: Neither can be considered truly independent. Though indie rock is still largely perceived as resistant to corporatized methods of production and distribution, and symbolic of anti-establishment sentiments, today's indie music world is becoming impossible to distinguish from the mainstream.

The truth is, many indie record labels are run like any other business: to make money. They pay for hip clothing and fancy press photos, and work like hell to get their bands publicity. The artistic freedom indie labels promise is supposed to distinguish them from the majors, but when was the last time you heard a mainstream rock band complain about its label dictating material?

Now you might be saying, "But what about the great Wilco "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" drama? A major label turned down an artistically adventurous album!" And yes, Reprise, a Warner imprint, dropped Wilco. The band was then picked up by Nonesuch, a diverse label with solid indie cred, who then released the album. So the indie world saved the day? Perhaps -- if you forget that Nonesuch is also a Warner subsidiary.

Another once-defining element of the indie world is amateurish production values meant to convey a DIY aesthetic, a rejection of slick marketability. Though there are many exceptions, the quick glance at indie's biggest and brightest turns up some of the shiniest, glossiest pop material in the marketplace. Is it any surprise that the slickest sounding bands -- Rilo Kiley, Postal Service -- have the most crossover success?

So in a world where the mainstream sounds like the underground and the underground acts like the mainstream, what happens to truly underground music? When major labels buy indie bands by the cart and the indie labels act and operate like major labels, how does a truly independent release get heard?

Pick up any indie-music magazine or look at any indie-music related website and count how many bands are self-releasing their work. You'd be lucky to find two or three in the entire lot. Of course, indie isn't just about self-releasing, and few would argue that Saddle Creek or K, even with dozens of bands on their rosters, are close to a major label. But such labels, which tenaciously preserve their integrity, are the exception to the rule.

For comparison, let's look at the latest installment from the prime purveyor of so-called indie music to the masses, "Music From the O.C. Mix 5." Of the 12 songs on the album, five are by bands (Subways, Rogue Wave, Youth Group, Of Montreal, Stars) who are on so-called indie labels (Wea, Sub Pop, Epitaph, Polyvinyl, Arts and Crafts, respectively). But none of those five made their most recent record independent of any label influence, i.e., label money.


Digg!

Ryan Gillespie writes for Popmatters.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
confusing the idea of indepent music and business models...
Posted by: zing on Jan 31, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and just as obviously written by someone with no experience actually working at an independent label. this will obviously be a newsflash to the author but utilizing method and structure (i.e. a business model) that will get a band's music out to listeners doesn't have anything to do with the whether or not a band is indy, unless you use his definition, which is seriously flawed. most musicians start a band because they have something they want to say and share. the entire point of being in a band is to communicate, which is why most bands look for gigs, organize shows, etc. if it was about playing for kicks in your basement anyone who ever played a musical instrument could claim to be in a band.

a band can absolutely produce and attempt to distribute their own albums, and good luck getting more than a few hundred copies sold. someone's got to pay for those records and your average joe artist wants to at least break even. i bet the author would think that's okay, but if a label wanted to do likewise a double standard of corporate greed would no doubt be applied, regardless of how they run their label. bands want to get their music/message out. working with those who know how to do that isn't selling our or no longer being independent - it's smart.

furthermore, the vast majority of indy labels are just breaking even and were started/run by musicians who have managed some modicum of success with establishing a fan base and selling records. but even if indy labels were making money hand over fist, so what? most treat their artists fairly and actually pay royalties. glamorizing poverty only reinforces the notion that to be "real" or get "taken seriously" by those who are unwilling to do likewise, artists must be impoverished and always struggling. if, god forbid, they actually manage to make a living (not millions, just a working class income), well, they must have sold out in some form or another, even if they're the same people addressing the same themes/issues as they've ever been. there's NOTHING glamorous about being in a working band. it's an immense amount of work for very little return in the vast majority of cases, which is why most bands/musicians pack it in long before they hit their mid-twenties. those who do stick aren't the strokes or the kills or death cab for cutie; those bands are the very few exceptions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» just look at popmatters Posted by: BKLN
» rubbish? Posted by: BKLN
» RE: rubbish? Posted by: lamar
a fickle business
Posted by: BKLN on Jan 31, 2006 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The indie and avant garde will always exist, and always has. It lives because of the people who make it, and they make it because they are compelled to. They push the boundaries of pop music and will always do so. Their music will be discovered amid the clamor of major and major-owned minors with deep pockets only when people resist being fickle, spoon-fed consumers. It is up to those who love and want to support independent music to cut through label hype to find truly independent music to support. It means going to small clubs and local indie record stores and searching out unsigned bands and their CDs. If you truly want to support independent music, you will shop almost exclusively at indie record stores, and you will listen to and support public and college radio with donations. These are the venues that support and spread independent music. It means searching myspace.com and similar venues for independent musicians and then going to their shows and buying their music. Just realize, that when enough people start to do that, and the band signs to Barsuk or K or SST so they can more effectively get their music out to people, you will no longer consider them "indie."

You define independent music as "albums written, recorded and released without the aid of a record label," so by this definition, any label involvement -- regardless of size -- automatically disqualifies a music from claiming the indie title. That puts the onus on YOU to to be hypermotivated to seek out new music, since your definition denies these artists even "indie" label apparatuses of distribution and publicity (often just an unpaid intern with a phone and a computer). It's a fickle, difficult business, and I've been doing it a long time, but do not fear. There will always be unsigned artists for you to support. It's just that it will be largely up to you to find them and support them. Even in these days of relatively cheap digital recording, it's still means at least a few thousand dollars to put out an independent release. If you don't buy their music and go to their shows, eventually they'll probably stop playing and recording. But then there will be someone else doing it. It's up to you.

By the way, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah is doing much better than Death Cab did when they first started in terms of "buzz." You just never heard of or got to see DCFC when they were just a bunch of kids from Bellingham playing to 20 people in a dinky club.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A success story!?!
Posted by: just john on Jan 31, 2006 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, I don't have a label, but my album "Ayatollah of Understatement" charted in Canada!

(#127 in their college radio album charts)

And you know I'll never sell out, 'cuz nobody is buying!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blah blah blah
Posted by: revgus23 on Jan 31, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Indie" as a term is so passe its become a joke.

Most of the best music I heard last year was downloaded from a website--that's also a good direction to look for your future avant garde.

Couldnt we have had a more interesting music article dealing with overzealous copyright law or something? Something that actually matters?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blah blah blah Posted by: BKLN
Annoying
Posted by: pfaith22 on Jan 31, 2006 6:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Often times “indie” labels are really nothing more than the minor leagues of the recording industry, unfortunately, many of those working in so called independent music refuse to acknowledge this fact because they know they can draw the non-conformist, anti-mainstream crowd, providing their “indie” label with “credibility,” if not financial support. The real problem with the whole “indie” vs. major label debate is that "indie" has become yet another genre label and in today's society genre labels inevitably leads to what has become know as elitism. Many of the people whining about the "death" of independent music are just that, elitist. Far too many think they can intelligently comment on the integrity of artists they don't know personally, simply by looking at the name of the label that distributes their albums. In my opinion, the whole "indie" equals better, pure, more "honest" music is crap. I've never met a member of a struggling band that doesn't want to "make it” or to call it by its real name, break into the MAINSTREAM, in terms of being known and able to live comfortably off of their efforts. You don't have to be poor, make albums in someone’s basement, cut those albums for a "indie" label and play little whole in the wall clubs (a.k.a someone generic definition of paying your dues) to have musical integrity. If the artist makes the music they want to make and are happy with the end product, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY ARE SIGNED TO AN SO CALLED INDIE OR MAJOR LABEL. Perhaps if more so called “indie” labels stopped worrying about being titled “indie” and more about getting their artists heard this whole debate would be over.

What was said in the article is true; "indie" record labels DO want to make a profit AND put out good music. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive; one can and in most cases must do both to be successful. “Progressive” music does not just happen on so called independent labels and furthermore, the only way to really inpact the current music scene is to get artists with different sounds out to the public. This includes distribution by major labels. "Indie" labels are often only considered “indie” because they lack the finances to distribute albums in the major markets, not because they are SO dedicated to making "progressive" music, whatever that means. If they could make the money of the major labels they would. Nobody signs to any label to be a struggling artist forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Annoying
Posted by: pfaith22 on Jan 31, 2006 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many “indie” labels are really nothing more than the minor leagues of the recording industry, unfortunately, many in so called independent music refuse to acknowledge this fact because they know they can draw the non-conformist, anti-mainstream crowd, providing their “indie” label with “credibility,” if not financial support. The real problem with the whole “indie” vs. major label debate is that "indie" has become yet another genre label and in today's society genre labels inevitably leads to what has become know as elitism. Many of the people whining about the "death" of independent music are just that, elitist. Far too many people think they can intelligently comment on the integrity of artists they don't know personally, simply by looking at who distributes their albums. The whole "indie" equals better, pure, more "honest" music is crap. I've never met a member of a struggling band that doesn't want to "make it” or to call it by its real name, break into the MAINSTREAM, in terms of being known and being able to live comfortably off of their efforts. You don't have to be poor, make albums in someone’s basement, cut those albums for a "indie" label and play little whole in the wall clubs (a.k.a someone generic definition of paying your dues) to have musical integrity. If the artist makes the music they want to make and are happy with the end product, it doesn't matter if they are signed to a so called "indie" OR major label. Perhaps if more so called “indie” labels stopped worrying about being titled “indie” and more about getting their artists heard this whole debate would be over.

What was said in the article is true; "indie" record labels DO want to make a profit AND put out good music. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive; one can and in most cases must do both to be successful. “Progressive” music does not just happen on so called independent labels and furthermore, the only way to really inpact the current music scene is to get artists with different sounds out to the public. This includes distribution by major labels. "Indie" labels are often only considered “indie” because they lack the finances to distribute albums in the major markets, not because they are SO dedicated to making "progressive" music. If they could make the money of the major labels they would. Thats why they often become subsidiaries of major labels. Nobody really signs to any label to be a struggling artist forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

astroturf campaigns for majors?
Posted by: zackfu on Jan 31, 2006 9:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
generally, i don't have a huge problem with this article, but i take specific issue with the comment made with respect to my chemical romance. why? because the last band i was in put out our cd on Eyeball records, which is the label that this author accuses of merely putting out my chemical romance's record in order to push them onto a major. the folks who run eyeball do so out of the third floor of a house in new jersey and the reason they put out the my chemical romance record was because the people in the band were all friends with alex and marc, who run the label. Eyeball did not sign the band in order to make an investment on a possible success story, because predicting such things is impossible. granted, in punk rock terms, my chemical romance did not put in their dues, but they just got lucky and they ended up being rock stars. despite their fame, the band still extended various offers to my no-name band in order to open shows for them on the east coast. but aside from my feelings about the band, you shouldn't sh-t talk indie labels based upon the perceived credibility of a band that since left their label. the folks at eyeball treat everyone like family and it's been that way since they started. they put out bands that they like and the diversity of their acts is proof of their willingness to support bands regardless of their ability to be marketable.

do your homework next time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blandrock
Posted by: NIKUZAI on Feb 1, 2006 2:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, bands like Keane, The Killers, Coldplay are the standard bearers of what could be called 'blandrock' that is prevalent in both the US and the UK. Magazines like the NME are no doubt at this moment proclaiming these bands, and others, as leading a 'heading a new wave of indie' or 'leading a revival in alternative rock' - is it me, or are the terms 'alternative' or 'rock' becoming completely meaningless when they are applied to bands (by a publication that is desperate for the mainstream success of a genre of music that is now a watered down version of what was actually good a few years ago) that are less than original.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By any other name...
Posted by: connorhalo on Feb 1, 2006 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New Wave, Grunge, Alternative, Garage Rock. Sound familiar? Well, if you were around for the heyday of all of these fad names you know that the above author is actually writing on two different topics. He's writing about unsigned acts versus signed, but also about labels for genres of music.

I DJ a weekly indie rock night in L.A. and I call it that because it easily identifies what kind of music I play for the sake of potential customers. In this case, it describes a style. Just as in the case of 'alternative' music, 'indie' music stopped being 'indie' awhile back. That doesn't make it bad. It doesn't make it good either.

I challenge any of you who have ever seen a live unsigned band to admit that you haven't, at least once, walked out of a show thinking 'My God those guys sucked'. And what about artists like Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen or Johnny Cash? Why don't they get labled as mainstream sell outs? I think we can agree that being on a big label doesn't mean you have given up artistic integrity.

The problem is simply one of identification and differentiation. A new style of music needs to separate itself from its predecessor, pure and simple. It might help if we stopped trying so hard to determine who has 'cred' or 'who's a sellout' and worry more about who are quality artists and who aren't getting as much recognition as they deserve.

By the same token, nothing pisses me off more when some hipster tells me he stopped listening to his favorite band of last month because he heard them on the radio this month.

Names are just that. Names. New Wave is still New Wave twenty years later. Mudhoney was still grunge last time I checked. Ten years from now The Bravery will still be called Indie.

There will always be superstars, unknowns, and bands that 'break out'.

Get over it. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: By any other name... Posted by: BKLN
a response
Posted by: Ryan G on Feb 4, 2006 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My suggestion in this article was that while it is great for a given individual band to move up in their means of production and distribution, the overall effect for indie music might actually be a negative one in the progressive battle for access and an equal playing field.

The point of the article was not that “indie” has died or that indie bands graduating to majors are “sellouts” (the word never appears in the article – and in fact I praise the fact that this notion is dead in the 21st century) or to make a large succession of quality judgments about mainstream or underground music.

Yes, indie has become a cultural signifier, and/or polysemic and/or possibly vacuous. This was not a Semiotics 101 article.

Yes, (almost) everyone involved with art at any level needs to make money to be sustained in our society. There are a variety of ways to be sustained and to make money at your art, but this was not an exploration of how to change artistic content to be more or less successful or an industry business model article.

I am sorry if all you got out of this article was whining about indie bands selling out. I hate that rationale and I’d like to think that if you had read this article more carefully you would have seen that I was merely exploring the overarching effect of indies going mainstream, that in the bigger picture, means of production constitute access and speech and that a band’s continual upgrading process has many pros (the middle part of the article) but, perhaps, more cons in the long run.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

asdasd
Posted by: corpse on Aug 4, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Replica Watch
Anadrol
Bontril
Dianabol
Dianobol
Didrex
Reductil
Sustanon
Tamiflu
Winstrol
Carisoprodol

http://rolex.zikforum.com |
http://anadrol.zikforum.com |
http://bontril.zikforum.com |
http://dianabol2.zikforum.com |
http://dianobol.zikforum.com |
http://didrex.zikforum.com |
http://reductil.bb-fr.com |
http://sustanon.zikforum.com |
http://tamiflu.zikforum.com |
http://winstrol.zikforum.com |
http://carisoprodol4u.zikforum.com |

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

asdasdasd
Posted by: seogirl on Aug 8, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]