Indie Vs. Major

[Ryan Imhof]

I recently found this great article (http://www.kweevak.com/rd_art_2002_11_27_labels.htm) explaining the difference between Indie and Major labels.

[Vint]

It's a good read.

[leafsacc]

i wish it gave some examples, but it was just a general article so i guess i can't expect that.

[Get Fucked]

i wish it gave some examples, but it was just a general article so i guess i can't expect that.
Why are you such a big leafs fan lol?

[mr fun]

i wish it gave some examples, but it was just a general article so i guess i can't expect that.

Examples of what? What labels are actually indie and who are distributed my majors?

[Get Fucked]

By the way, who is this Ryan Imhof kid and why was he hired to work here?

[Ryan Imhof]

By the way, who is this Ryan Imhof kid and why was he hired to work here? http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=104495&highlight=hi+my+name+is+ryan

Didn't mean to be arrogant and not post it by typing it out but I have been asked so many times, haha. I think I may put the link in my sig.

[jfb392]

I can't even find your post..
But welcome.

[Get Fucked]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=104495&highlight=hi+my+name+is+ryan

Didn't mean to be arrogant and not post it by typing it out but I have been asked so many times, haha. I think I may put the link in my sig.
I understand now. Also, I sounded like a prick haha.

[ethicka]

A better (opinionated) article is an excerpt from Major Labels: Some of Your Friends Are Already This Fucked (http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html) by steve albini. This is from June 1994 and a lot of shit has changed since then, but essentially has stayed the same. Really interesting.

[heyRomanticA__x]

Like a few other people, I'd like a more deeper read. Maybe with a few
examples and such. I've read the article by Steve Albini, but I still want to know more.

[Dr. Balls]

Indie labels are independent of nothing except success!
- Dr. Balls

[Big_Guy]

wow, the only thing that I can say after reading that is "No Shit"

[NinjaXcore]

I found that a little informative.

[ceelove]

Thanks for that. I too would like to read some more about it, but oh well.

[TimeAsIdeology]

This guy doesn't know too much about the music industry. First off, Sony/BMG is the same label, second, everything he states was more or less common sense. "Major labels have more money." Hey, really? No way!

[rufiocardtime]

what i believe to be the correct and simple explanation behind the hoopla (hopefully this makes more sense than the article):

the article seems to paint the picture that distribution is the real deciding factor between indies and majors. i don't know if that's really true.

majors are owned by a group of investors. that's why they have much more money, manpower, resources, and ruthlessness in their determination to make money. in an investor's eyes you don't get emotionally attached to your product, only your RTI (return on investment). it's then the job of the employees within the company to manage the product (artists and bands) in a way that shows the investors a good RTI, not necessarily in a way that makes the product (real people in bands) happy. that's why you get articles being written like the one from steve albini.

indies are owned outright by an owner or owners (i.e drive thru: richard and stephanie own it 100%). they haven't sold anything to any investors or other labels.

however...as long as the owner(s) keeps at least 51% of the label they can still claim it as an "indie"...even if they sell off the other 49% to investors...which (if i am quoting my facts right) is what victory records is...basically.

as soon as you give up over 50% of your label to another label...(like maverick [the used, story of the year, etc.] or columbia [acceptance, the ataris, etc.), you become a "subsidiary"...(just as maverick is a subsidiary to warner brothers and columbia is a subsidiary to sony).

i think that's pretty much the real difference. so when people talk shit on majors, they don't really understand that the real difference in the way they treat their bands comes from the nature of the way the company (label) is run and who it's run by. investors don't care about bands, they care about their money generated from the product, not the emotions of the product itself.

it would be no different than if you decided you wanted to invest in...oh let's say...tide (the laundry detergent company). well, you don't choose to invest in tide because you happen to like laundry detergent, you invest in it because the company shows that it can give you a good return on your investment. that's why majors don't give a shit about their bands and artists, only how much money is going in their pocket at the end of the day.

so if you want to truly be a "successful" band. you must be on a major label to have that much more money and resources working behind you. and you must realize that you are only aspiring towards being a product. that's all.

music business 101. you can call it an evil industry, but if you really want evil, go check out the health care industry. business is business. the name of the game is making money. we live in a capitalist society, and it's good. if you don't like being an employee or you don't like the way a given business or industry operates, then go start your own business or industry or go move to a country in which socialism or communism prevails.

feel free to correct any misquoted facts. sorry for all the parentheticals. hope that helped a little.

[matt_rawlings]

Good article, thanks for posting it

[cahrishurr]

that, for the most part, was all pretty obvious stuff

[MattyBeatz]

This article was written back in 2002 and is a bit outdated. Sony and BMG have since merged so there are now 4 major labels and not 5.