quote:

I've got friends who refuse to buy anything on a major label. I've got others who shy away from indie label releases.

I try not to buy albums from major labels, because I don't want to support them. Smaller labels care about the artistic merit; bigger ones only care about money. I've simply made a decision not to support the major labels. Also, big labels sell more than they should because of all the publicity they shove in our faces.

Understand, I'm not saying that there is no good music on majors, just that there are a lot of great artists out there that need my support more than major label artists. We all have a limited amount of time to listen to music. We can't hear everything, and there's more than enough good stuff on the indie labels to slake my hunger for music. (Of course, there are some band that I became attached to before I started listening exclusively to indie label stuff. I sometimes buy their stuff.)

First of all, as is usual, pE is absolutely correct. His last two posts say what I was trying to say, but coherently. Hopefully I'll figure out how to say what I mean someday.

The idea that indie folks aren't spoon-fed is so strange. Do people think it is just coincidence that all those of us who listen to indie music come up with practically the same favorite records every year? I think there has to be a certain amount of spoon-feeding at this point, just because there is so much product out there that it would be impossible to sort out the truly terrible stuff without some kind of filter (internet and zine reviews for indie, mtv and rolling stone for more mainstream).

I am just so tired of the elitism in indie rock. I don't know if I've just become more aware of it in the last 2-3 years or it has actually gotten worse, but the snobishness is so bad, I have trouble keeping up with worthwhile releases in the indie world because I can't stand the ranting in the magazines or on the review websites.

and that's the end of my rant...on a review website.

Well, I can think of two reasons indie favorites here are generally the same.

1) We buy the same ones because we base part of our decision on the metacritic score..

2) Maybe the ones we like actually are the better ones...

Indie fans I know who don't use resources like metacritic tend to have widely varied tastes. They all like Arcade Fire, and they all like Death Cab For Cutie, and other than that none of them have heard of the same bands.

Bobthespirit Quote:

"The big labels choose what to spoonfeed to us solely based on maximization of profit, whereas the hipsters and snobs at least won't spoonfeed us something they don't legitimately draw enjoyment from."

I totally agree Bobthespirit. That's why I don't think of reading reviews, searching websites, and downloading different types of music as being "spoonfed" while I know many people who just listen to whatever is on TRL or Top 40 radio.

I would much rather be a snob than a hack who just buys whatever Carson's selling. Of course not everything mainstream is bad...I just don't like being told what to listen to by big labels and media conglomerates. If something mainstream is good, I will figure it out for myself.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

I try not to buy albums from major labels, because I don't want to support them. Smaller labels care about the artistic merit; bigger ones only care about money. I've simply made a decision not to support the major labels. Also, big labels sell more than they should because of all the publicity they shove in our faces.

So, do you avoid releases from the "boutique" labels distributed by majors? Nonesuch, for instance, which releases Wilco's albums (among many others), is not an indie. Is there a justifiable difference between Nonesuch and some other arm of Warners?
What about SubPop, which partners up regularly with majors to release records?

To claim that smaller labels don't care at all about money (which I don't think you were trying to do, but could be implied from your quote) is just silly. No label wants to LOSE money. I was involved (as a part-owner) in a tiny indie, and most of the decisions we made were strongly influenced by money. Unless you're loaded, and can pour money into the things you like regardless of whether or not they sell, you've got to consider whether or not an album is gonna have a chance of making your money back. There were lots of good bands we WANTED to record and release but we couldn't afford to. The bands we chose to release were often chosen because we thought that their existing fanbase (in terms of the audience that would regularly attend their shows) was large enough to potentially buy copies of the record.

I wasn't implying that small labels don't care about money, just that there are other factors that come into the equation, such as artistic merit. Of course they have to stay in business, so some decisions have to be based on money.

quote:

So, do you avoid releases from the "boutique" labels distributed by majors? Nonesuch, for instance, which releases Wilco's albums (among many others), is not an indie. Is there a justifiable difference between Nonesuch and some other arm of Warners?
What about SubPop, which partners up regularly with majors to release records?

I usually just use the RIAA Radar website to determine if a label has an affiliation with one of the majors. Also, I try to avoid even buying from places like Sub Pop simply because they're doing well enough without my support. I'll just download it if I want a Sub Pop album. I have limited funds, so I pick and choose which labels and artists are most worthy of my support.

So, I assume from your response that you do try to avoid anything connected with major labels, based on the RIAA radar?

Your M.O. seems to be that you only buy music to support a label and/or and artist, which is interesting. I'm not sure if that means you can only like things on certain labels, or if you just feel conflicted when you buy something from a label that's doing OK.

Do you feel that downloading (illegally) from major labels is OK, but you wouldn't do it to the indies that you support? What about used CDs?

I certainly don't make an effort not to enjoy music from majors. I love Radiohead, Grandaddy, Eels, and others. If I had enough money I would buy all their CD's, but I'm in college and I've had thousands of dollars in medical bills the last few years. I think you should buy what you can afford and download the rest of what you want to listen to. I realize this requires more honestly with oneself than most people have, but I'm pretty objective about those sort of things (I'm the guy who's always pointing out that the refs really didn't screw our favorite team or that maybe my brother doesn't deserve that much playing time on the basketball team). If you follow those guidelines you're not stealing from anybody, even if the law says you are.

I do think that of you have a choice you should buy more independent music and download the major stuff for a few reasons:

---Major label work is in it exclusively for the money and will turn out crap if it brings in the dollar. Indie labels will produce music that pushes boundaries and leads to a greater variety of music, even if there is a limited audience at the time for such material.

---More of the money you spend on independent releases will go to the artists and less to middlemen and obscenely rich executives.

---Small independent labels depend on your purchase for their existence, where large labels will simply see slightly less profit at the end of the year.


EDIT: I've thought a lot about used CD's, and I see nothing particularly wrong with it. You may not be contributing directly to the artist, but people will buy more CD's of they know that they can resell them if they don't like it. Therefore, you may not be contributing to the exact artist whose used CD you bought, you are contributing to some artist somewhere.

Here's how I would characterize major labels, compared to indie labels.

Major labels say: "Do this, it will make the most money."

Indie labels say: "Do what you want, and we'll try to make as much money as possible with it."

Well put, Bob.

Personally, I don't really have a very good sense of what are "indie" labels and what are majors. The recording industry is so complicated and incestuous, and my sense is that half the labels I would regard as indie are actually just little boutique offshoots of Universal or something and so they are not really that independent. I haven't a clue whether, in fact, Merge or Matador or Secretly Canadian or Thrill Jockey, to take a few examples, are independent companies in their own right or are owned by Disney.

The RIAA Radar will tell you which labels are subsidiaries of majors. For the record, the ones you mentioned are not.

Thx. I honestly don't care that much whether a band is on a major label or not. I think the majority of bands I like are probably not on major labels, but I would never buy something just because it was on a label I liked or not buy something because it was on a major. That just strikes me as a completely silly approach.

I remember there were people who automatically bought anything on 4AD as if somehow everything on that label was magical. Well, not everything on 4AD is the Pixies. A lot of turgid, over-produced, doom-laden, gloopy stuff is put out on that label.

Read reviews, talk to friends, listen to good radio stations, surf the web -- that's the best way to find out what to buy.

I agree with you there PeeWee.
But not everything on every label is favourable by any one person. I guess you know what type of sound or personality you will get from each label though. 4AD has that certain production quality/sound. Same as Ninja Tune, Warp, Matador, etc. You won't like everything on the label, but you know the indie labels you latch onto and wait to explore further. Hey, i'll grab something from the majors occasionally (last was U2's new one, which I rarely listen to)but each person will have a few fav labels that they keep their eyes on for new artists/sounds.

4AD is a great example though. Lots of mediocre bands with a few gems. Pixies, The Amps, His Name is Alive, Hope BLister, Cocteau twins, to name a few.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jayman,

Why does everyone keep using Death Cab for Cutie and Radiohead for something "indie". I agree that SOME indie rock music sounds different than most mainstream rock, but there is also things that sound similar to the screamy rockers...like interpol...bloodbrothers... which is the reason why I prefer indie rock music in the first place because I really hate the screaming.. I prefer calmer music. And most of the people that I know of that listens to indie rock hate Death Cab, Strokes, Radiohead, Modest Mouse, White Stripes... mainly for the reason their music sounds different. Maybe it's because the OC helped to make Death Cab semi....erm small... popular and it looses its taste. And i'll admit it, i do like indie music because no one knows of it, but that's just my personality in general. I dress in ways people don't dress and I like my hair to look different from everyone else... I do not dress "indie" though... all indie kids look like clones to me... the same short hair...the same clothes... it's boring.

P.S Sorry for typos, I refuse to re-read anything

quote:

I prefer calmer music. And most of the people that I know of that listens to indie rock hate Death Cab, Strokes, Radiohead, Modest Mouse, White Stripes... mainly for the reason their music sounds different.

You mean different from the mainstream? To me, one of the main characteristics of the indie rock community (if it makes sense to speak of such a thing) is that it embraces things that sound different from the mainstream.

Some indie rock people may have become soured on Death Cab and White Stripes, but I don't think many hate Radiohead, the Strokes, or Modest Mouse. Mind you, I'm just going by what I read in indie publications; I don't actually know any people who listen to indie music. Maybe where you're at indie people really do abandon something the moment it becomes popular.

I dress in ways that I feel like dressing, and if it happens to be different than everyone else, so be it.

It's the same thing with music, I think. I actually *want* the music I like to become popular, but I listen to stuff that sounds good, not stuff that's popular, or stuff that's unpopular.

As for wanting 'calmer' music. Well, that's a matter of personal preference, no? I like Modest Mouse but I can certainly see how a lot of people wouldn't like them. And White Stripes...I would even go as far to say that they're pure 'audiophile music', along with Radiohead. I push White Stripes on all my music-listening friends, but I wouldn't recommend them at all to casual listeners (Unless I know they like things superficially similar to them). And Get Behind Me Satan? I wouldn't recommend to any casual listener at all.

Indie is independent record label thats it

Thing is, if indie just means 'independent label', then we need some *other* word to describe the sort of low-production music that focuses on melodies and emotion that most of us like so much.

well thats the purpose of sub-genres isnt it