Another one bites the dust.

Now with links.

So, are we assuming that the bigs are going to suck the very life and vitality like the enourmous soul-destryoing entities that they are?

I'm not disagreeing with the premise because I've not yet given it enough thought, but it's not so far removed from the question posed in the "(Some) Commercial Potential" thread. Does leaving your indie roots for a major label have to portend bad things for a band?

Remember, I took most of the 90s off when the indies took over what was best about new music. Which bands has this happened to before?

Now Playing: "Mahgeeta" My Morning Jacket It Still Moves streaming on Seattle's KEXP <-- How ironic, here's a band that seems to have made the jump successfully from the indie Darla to RCA's ATO...well, I liked the album anyway

I think I made this point before, but I always reserve judgment until AFTER the record comes out.

I admit that I have no vested interest...I don't really care for DCFC. But I never begrudge an artist for trying to make a comfortable living, and going major can certainly do that. Big indie bands are often in the best position to negotiate a good deal, and can keep control over their music quite well.

If the next DCFC record is totally different from previous ones, maybe the argument works. But I think there's a certain degree of indie cool that seeps in when an artist jumps to a big label. To assume that it will suck, just because the band has a new label, seems kind of rash.

Maybe history bears it out. But, as LT points out, My Morning Jacket seems to be a good example of a band who jumped from a small indie (Darla) to a major, even if it was a vanity label (Dave Matthews' ATO), and made a pretty good record.

Yea, I never understood why when a band gets a big label deal, people assume they are sell-outs. Like capital gains may take away the band's love for music. There are, of course, exceptions, but most of the time it doesn't change anything. But then again, indie isn't really isn't my genre.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Death Cab and everything and I hope they make the money they deserve. I'm just worried that they might change their sound to appeal to commercial radio. Not to mention I'm dreading that they'll have a Modest Mouse-like impact and all my friends will start listening to them after I've spent all this time trying to get them to listen to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crash:
Not to mention I'm dreading that they'll have a Modest Mouse-like impact and all my friends will start listening to them after I've spent all this time trying to get them to listen to them.

---

That's a pretty solid argument, I have to say.

I always find this one to be convincing, as well: I want my favorite band to make money, but I don't want to have to see them in a big venue, I want to see them in the SAME TINY CLUB I'VE ALWAYS SEEN THEM IN.

It's selfish, but it seems legit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crash:
Not to mention I'm dreading that they'll have a Modest Mouse-like impact and all my friends will start listening to them after I've spent all this time trying to get them to listen to them.

---

This is the kind of counterintuitive, elitist argument I expect from an indie music snob.

Pretty much describes my feelings on the subject as well.

In all seriousness, pE's observation that My Morning Jacket was on a vanity label is a good point. I have no doubt that there will be pressure from the label to change their sound to "move more units." Witness Wilco's experience documented in the documentary I Am Trying To Break Your Heart.

I'm surprised that you don't care for them, though, pE. Transatlanticism is one of the albums that convinced me that I was missing out on a wealth of good, new music these past few years...okay, decade.

Now Playing: "Flash Light" Parliament 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection (Mercury)

quote:

---

Originally posted by LinnTate:

I'm surprised that you don't care for them, though, pE. _Transatlanticism_ is one of the albums that convinced me that I was missing out on a wealth of good, new music these past few years...okay, decade.

---

My distaste for DCFC comes from a terrible live show I saw in the ATL. I need to revisit them on record. I'll start with your recommendation, LT. You've not steered me wrong yet...

pE, you mean as opposed to my bum steers? Don't take it seriously. You are locked in as one of my best friends. YOU could even tell me the God's honest truth about all my shortcomings , and I would accept that it was inspired by the "Truth".

P.S. "Let the Bells Ring" off "Abattoir Blues" is inspiring me to tell you how good it is, again.

hmm, wow i've seen them twice and i dare say they are among the best i've seen, including radiohead, broken social scene and q and not u. but anyway, my thoughts are these:

dcab are fairly progressive. not style wise, but in politics. and that's cool, even if i think their playing for the kerry campaign was, i dunno, just a little off putting. basically, i'm trying to say that when they work for a big establishment like the (relatively kind of progressive) DNC they still sort of seem out of place with their lofty ideals. which would lead me to believe they'd never sign with a giant corporation.

but regardless, they have always come off as too knowledgable to screw themselves over by making a move to a giant corporation. the reasons for not doing so are fairly obvious, though i seriously doubt the oft-cited fear of big labels really messing with the album content from an "indie" style band (radiohead, flaming lips, bjork, built to spill have all been on majors at some point. heck, even the dismemberment plan were on interscope long enough to record an album! these bands have certainly maintained integrity). being alligned with these people means you are making money for them. it kills me that some of my favorite bands are making cash for causes they (and i) loathe.

one major reason for doing it major style: getting your music heard. is anybody seeing that this was a problem for dcab? go to any best buy or borders, and you will find the new cd, and chances are photo album and possibly we have the facts are there too. they have an incredible word of mouth buzz, it seems like everyone at asu (where i attend classes) knows who they are. so this should not be the reason because, seriously, what more could they want?

another reason is money: there is a myth that majors make you more money. i don't know the link, but steve albini has some realistic stats to easily sink that fun idea. certainly, they would get better pr and probably some payola behind their new single, which could relate to a gold record, perhaps, which would then potentially make them more cash. but booku bucks? i would be shocked (and i get the impression albini would be too). not to mention yet again, that this additional sale potential would be created through morally sad acts like payola, which hurts the scen that fostered them. and it would make this major more cash and makes their former indie label no cash, which also hurts the scene that fostered them.

although i rarely buy major cds (the very few exceptions having been previously listed) i will still buy it, because i trust them and i love their music. i believe that dcab and i hold similar ideas on these things and they likely made the smartest deal they could cut and will continue to operate in an integrous manner. and i hope they make more money and i hope they can provide for their futures. and i half hope that they play the next size up venues and more people get touched in some way by their music. but i reserve the right to be somewhat upset by this.

so, if someone feels that i am being selfish (i do only half hope the venue thing, after all) as a fan, then please explain beyond that point. and perhaps i sound like an indie elitist. BUT THERE IS CLEARLY GOOD REASON FOR THAT. majors are hurting music, indies are fertile gardens in which music grows. sounds like one is better than the other, no? so, i call b.s. on anyone labeling such an argument as elitism for elitisms sake. seriously, give me a break.

(this was kinda long, sorry, ask me questions if this don't make sense...)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: not eric,

whahah crash

Don't worry guys, Death Cab for Cutie is already horribly lame

quote:

---

Originally posted by LinnTate:

This is the kind of counterintuitive, elitist argument I expect from an indie music snob.

---

Now, now. I'm not an indie snob.

All right, I am, but not so badly that I refuse to like music if it's popular. It's just that most popular music is terrible.

And as for you, nojax: shut up!

so i'm really interested to hear any ideas or facts that refute my previous argument...if there are any...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crash:

Now, now. I'm not an indie snob.

All right, I am, but not so badly that I refuse to like music if it's popular. It's just that most popular music is terrible.

---

That's not snobbery, that's just quality control. The people that make me mad, however, are the ones who think that anything that is on a major label or that sells more than 2500 copies is terrible. That's snobby.


I don't offer any rebuttal to you, not eric, because you seem to be right on the mark. I think that any DCFC fan needs to give the next record a fair listen, detached from the label change, and then decide what they think of it. If they change their sound or production or general vibe, feel free to hate it. There have been a lot of bands who have swtiched to big labels and have churned out crap. But there have been others who haven't.

I'll be interested to see with what happens with Ted Leo. He's a big enough "buzz" artist right now to warrant some major label sniffing...

Like, pE, not eric. I don't see anything to refute. Your observation that an artist has the potential to make more money as an indpendent than with a major is astute. I seem to recall hard fast numbers cited by Aimee Mann in an interview once.

I also agree that the indies are pretty much the breeding ground for new and interesting artists. What remains to be seen is whether the bigs take notice beyond a few token signings here and there. pE's suggestion of Ted Leo as an artist on the cusp is a good one.

I wonder if a parallel can be drawn to the movie industry? Don's studios scour film festivals hoping to get their hands on and distribute an indie film that has already built a groundswell of interest, delivers a willing audience, returns enormously on a modest investment, and lends them artistic credibility. I wonder why the major labels don't raid the indies to a greater degree? Am I missing something?

Now Playing: NPR's All Things Considered

LinnTate,
Perhaps Aimee Mann's situation was more anomaly than norm? It would be much more difficult for an artist to make money independently without, at one time, having the promotional clout of a major label, than otherwise. Aimee Mann had already established herself by the time she broke from the label, to my knowledge, so she had public recognition which made it easier for her to make that transition.
As it stands the major labels make the smaller ones do the work of sorting the wheat from the chaff for them, and then swooping in with a bigger check to snag artists making the transition to a mainstream appeal. The problem now is that with cheaper techonology the production quality of independent cinema and music increases and makes it more accessible to more people: so basically more wheat and more chaff, and the major labels can't sort through it as effectively as before. At least this is my understanding of the current situation.
Of course, then there is the internet...

edit: major labels-> more exposure -> more concert sales -> much more money for the band.

We have to examine what the role of the artist is in all this.

If the point is to reach as many people as possible, then a major label is essential.

If the point is wealth or fame, then ditto.

If the point is creative and artistic freedom within a secure structured environment, then an artist must first establish credibility.

What the artist does with that credibility, once established, is a source of contention, but it is the artists to do with as they will.

Storm_chaser,
Why not just stick to how the transition to or from a major label effects the quality of the music?
A discussion in the direction that post is point towards would lead to greater difusion, and away from this thread's original intent. But, by all means make a new one. I'd love to discuss the intricacies of being an artist in our society.

Why don't you stick to answering the way you want to, and let me answer the way I want to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by storm_chaser:
Why don't you stick to answering the way you want to, and let me answer the way I want to.

---

I was going for friendly, but I think I may have hit condescending. Sorry.