Do bands change their sounds when signing to major labels?

[idesofdiamonds]

I'm doing a paper for a music journalism class and I want to focus on how indie bands change when signing to major labels. I'm focusing specifically on Death Cab for Cutie because of their upcoming album, but would also like to incorporate Rilo Kiley, maybe Interpol, and any other bands you fine people would like to bring up in this discussion.

Things you might want to keep in mind when answering:
- Were there any significant differences you noticed between an album a band released on an indie label as opposed to their major label debut? If so, what were these differences?
- Do you think that if a band happens to change their sound when signing to a major is coincidental, or are other things coming into play (for example, Rilo Kiley, a band that always had a fairly consistent sound, suddenly became poppier when signing to a major?)
- What constitutes selling out to you, as both a fan and a consumer?


Just as a forewarning, any comments posted here are subject to being quoted in the paper I'm writing, but I'll send you a PM and let you know ahead of time before I actually hand the paper in. Not that it's a huge deal because it isn't like this is going to get published, but I figure it's courtesy and if I'm pursuing a career in journalism I should actually follow a journalist's creed instead of that of a lazy college student.


Thanks in advance to all that contribute!

[atticus1492]

It has been my experience that bands don't change their sound until after they have signed to a major. Not during the process.

[Until The Bombs]

I fail to see how random users of Absolutepunk hold enough creditability to be quoted in a college paper.

[Regards]

I bet they change pants when signing to a major label.

Sell outs.

[OdeToTheSun]

well drop dead gorgeous definately did when they went form rise to suretone records, but that's not really a "major" label i don't guess.

[reissgoespunk]

To an extent; yes.

[idesofdiamonds]

I fail to see how random users of Absolutepunk hold enough creditability to be quoted in a college paper.

Oh, I don't know, probably because credability has nothing to do with it? I'm not writing a scholarly article here dude. It's a paper for a music journalism class and I'm looking for opinions of fans.

But I mean, sorry I overestimated everyone's intelligence. My bad.

[xvszero]

I don't know if bands change THEIR sounds, but the label will usually make them work with a specific producer and that producer will generally create do whatever sound he/she wants and if the band tries to argue they will be like hey KIDS, I have produced 25 platinum records and you guys are just a bunch of nobodies, I know what I'm doing.

Or something like that.

[Until The Bombs]

Oh, I don't know, probably because credability has nothing to do with it? I'm not writing a scholarly article here dude. It's a paper for a music journalism class and I'm looking for opinions of fans.

But I mean, sorry I overestimated everyone's intelligence. My bad.

So your music journalism class doesn't require your sources to be creditable? Sounds like you're well on your way to writing reviews for Maxim magazine.

[SLoT]

So your music journalism class doesn't require your sources to be creditable? Sounds like you're well on your way to writing reviews for Maxim magazine.
haha nice. at least he'll be getting paid.

note: i dont know whether bands change when they sign or not, they do have a bit of newness to get used to and deal with i suppose. whether they do it on their own or the label rejects songs and sets up producers etc... is anyone's guess/opinion. i dont think there is a good answer for this question.

[IWasaCamera]

As a journalism major, there is no way in hell I could get away with using AP members as sources. Is this only permitted because quotes aren't so much requirements as they are desired on your part to bolster the points you're attempting to convey?

Anyway, if anonymous online sources are valid, just fabricate your own quotes that further the general direction of your piece.

[caelae]

A little less bitching, a little more answering their question...?

"Selling out" is a stupid term. Take a little band- "Band A." People start listening to Band A. They complain, "Band A is SO much better than all the stupid shitty mainstream music! If more people listened to Band A, the world would be a better place!"

Band A becomes popular and a large audience begins listening to it. The same former fans of Band A: "What sellouts! Everybody in the world is listening to Band A! They're playing large venues now, and they don't give a shit about the fans anymore! Their music sucks."

Every band that becomes popular will be labeled a sellout. Therefore, the term is entirely meaningless.

[Regards]

There is probably a noticable difference between production. When you're on a major lable, you're expected to get top notch production and recording. There just seems to be an audible difference when the production and recording is done.

[idesofdiamonds]

So your music journalism class doesn't require your sources to be creditable? Sounds like you're well on your way to writing reviews for Maxim magazine.

I apologize; what I said came out wrong because I got defensive. To be honest with you, there are credible sources that I plan on using. AP users obviously aren't credible, but if you take a book like Andy Greenwald's Nothing Feels Good, most of the people interviewed are plain kids who just like the music. There's an entire chapter where he talks to like three or four teenage boys and then goes with them to see Dashboard perform. I'm looking for quotes from all sides here, and I don't want everything I use to be from someone who could probably be getting paid or being manipulated into saying something he/she might not necessarily mean. Which happens all the time in music journalism.

As a journalism major, there is no way in hell I could get away with using AP members as sources. Is this only permitted because quotes aren't so much requirements as they are desired on your part to bolster the points you're attempting to convey?

Anyway, if anonymous online sources are valid, just fabricate your own quotes that further the general direction of your piece.


I have my stance on the change of sound in a band that goes from indie to major, but I'm not looking for quotes to further it. I'm interested in what other people, the actual people who listen to music because they WANT to, have to say about it.

And the sources aren't anonymous. If I opted to use any of the quotes I'd get name, age, and location. Probably follow up information as well. I'm not writing this paper just to get an A, I'm doing it because I'm interested in the subject matter and interested in what other people think. If I just wanted an easy A, SURE I would make the quotes up. I don't want to do that.

[Justin_stacy]

I think its more the perspection of the listener that changes, rather then the actual band. Signing to a major amounts to selling out for some, so to justify that perspection the music is more harshly critiqued then it would otherwise be.

[idesofdiamonds]

Rilo Kiley weren't consistant in sound. The got poppier every album prior the Blacklight.


Poppier yeah, but was the change between albums as drastic as it was between Portions for Foxes and Under the Blacklight? I'd just like to see what you think.

[IWasaCamera]

I have my stance on the change of sound in a band that goes from indie to major, but I'm not looking for quotes to further it. I'm interested in what other people, the actual people who listen to music because they WANT to, have to say about it..
I'll chime in with my two cents if that helps at all. The most discernible difference from my listening experience is greater production value. This occasionally dovetails with increased accessibility but I wouldn't claim with any certainty that this is exclusively the result of major label affiliation. Take bands like The Decemberists or Death Cab For Cutie who have both signed to majors in recent years. Both have exponentially grown in prominence following pushes from Capitol and Atlantic Records respectively. I'd argue that the two acts also released far glossier albums once signed to majors. Is the change conscious? Perhaps. Maybe with all the money buttressing their efforts, The Decemberists took the time to craft the finest work possible and The Crane Wife just so happened to be more polished than previous material.

On the other hand, I don't think this applies to Death Cab. Gibbard and company's music has always been laced with a pop sensibility so it'd be silly to claim they drastically altered their direction after being recruited by Atlantic. At the very most, they refined their sound, trimming the fat and retaining what works. Personally, I don't care for Plans. This however has little to do with the band having changed its sound. It has to do with having grown past the age of 18. Those who believe the discrepancies between Trans and Plans are truly glaring are entirely wrong in my opinion. This position can likely be attributed to the latter having simply known a greater measure of success. If it's popular, it must be because it's way poppier than past efforts right? I Will Follow You Into The Dark was on MTV, they sold out! Oh wait, A Lack Of Color is just as catchy. Hmm...

Many elements come into play here. Greater production, lofty rock star aspirations, musical maturity, artistic integrity, label desires, etc. The only conclusion I can draw from this is the simple sentiment Ben expressed earlier. Some bands do, some don't.
And the sources aren't anonymous. If I opted to use any of the quotes I'd get name, age, and location. Probably follow up information as well. I'm not writing this paper just to get an A, I'm doing it because I'm interested in the subject matter and interested in what other people think. If I just wanted an easy A, SURE I would make the quotes up. I don't want to do that.
Ah, then this is different from the other threads I've seen of the sort. You actually plan to have information on your sources. My mistake.

[big mondo]

A little less bitching, a little more answering their question...?

"Selling out" is a stupid term. Take a little band- "Band A." People start listening to Band A. They complain, "Band A is SO much better than all the stupid shitty mainstream music! If more people listened to Band A, the world would be a better place!"

Band A becomes popular and a large audience begins listening to it. The same former fans of Band A: "What sellouts! Everybody in the world is listening to Band A! They're playing large venues now, and they don't give a shit about the fans anymore! Their music sucks."

Every band that becomes popular will be labeled a sellout. Therefore, the term is entirely meaningless.

i wouldn't call it a meaningless term, but it is one that gets used in many situations where it is called for. you have to take into account that a lot of times band a will not have the same sound they did before. a good one is alkaline trio. good mourning sounded nothing like goddamnit. and some people obviously played the sell out card, which i think it was uncalled for because many of those people who didn't like good mourning did like from here to the infirmary, which was put out on the same label. it wasn't selling out, it was a change they wanted to take and i happened to like it. crimson i thought was a stumble, but bands are like people and aren't perfect and not all their releases can be gold. except the slackers. they don't know how to make a bad album :P

now lets look at less than jake. they openly admitted their major label called a lot of shots and wouldn't let them make the music they wanted to, which is why they dropped it. the mighty mighty bosstones said that they were told by their major label to stop making ska, they obviously told the label it wasn't going to happen. some bands will cater to the labels demands and others won't those that decide to do everything the label tells them for fear of endangering their contract, those are sellouts. i do believe some bands have sold out and will continue to do so.

that is just my two cents on it.

[theguy77]

not necessarily. for some its the only option to get on a record label, but the definition of "sellout" is to consciously change your sound into soemthing more marketable in order for better business opportunities. if those opportunities dont come naturally by the stuff you naturally write, then that's a compromise of artistic integrity. however, just because a band's sound changed does not mean they sold out -- its just as likely they WANTED their music to sound that way anyway and the major label opportunity is just a big lucky bonus. there's a lot of grey area and really unless you were part of the band's writing process there is no way to say with 100% certainty that they "sold out" and changed their music for a business reason.

okay im going to turn this post into a big lecture on my take of "selling out", most of which has been said before but i dont care im bored haha.

really how it works is this. a major record label couldn't give a fuck about how your music sounds. if it sells well, they want it. however, if you have no precedent of selling very well, a major label is not going to sign you unless you posess a very poppified formula thats been proven previously to be marketable. in order for any band to get signed with music that is unconventional even in the slightest, they had to have been on indie labels a long time and sold a lot of records, to prove to major labels taht their unconventional sound sells well.

however many times this doesnt work and a lot of bands -- id go so far to say most bands -- who have been on indie labels for awhile and make the switch to major, get dropped from the major after merely one album that didnt sell as well as it had been projected to. so in order to make music into a stable well-paying career, some bands feel pressured to "sell out" and change their sound to what the major label is looking for, in order to better secure themselves financially. its understandable to an extent because a non-major label musician's salary is typically barely enough to get by and sustain themselves if that, but never enough for financial security over time or improved living standards. still when a band "sells out" it stops being about the music and it starts being about the business. and its not commendable when you feel nothing for the music you make anymore and you start using your albums like credit cards. it really cheapens the artistic value of what music is to society.

[shit stroll]

ask against me!.

[Until The Bombs]

I apologize; what I said came out wrong because I got defensive. To be honest with you, there are credible sources that I plan on using. AP users obviously aren't credible, but if you take a book like Andy Greenwald's Nothing Feels Good, most of the people interviewed are plain kids who just like the music. There's an entire chapter where he talks to like three or four teenage boys and then goes with them to see Dashboard perform. I'm looking for quotes from all sides here, and I don't want everything I use to be from someone who could probably be getting paid or being manipulated into saying something he/she might not necessarily mean. Which happens all the time in music journalism.

All right, that's cool then.


I have my stance on the change of sound in a band that goes from indie to major, but I'm not looking for quotes to further it. I'm interested in what other people, the actual people who listen to music because they WANT to, have to say about it.

And the sources aren't anonymous. If I opted to use any of the quotes I'd get name, age, and location. Probably follow up information as well. I'm not writing this paper just to get an A, I'm doing it because I'm interested in the subject matter and interested in what other people think. If I just wanted an easy A, SURE I would make the quotes up. I don't want to do that.

I'm curious to whether you are referring to indie as a sound or indie as in tiny label/no label.

[idesofdiamonds]

I'm curious to whether you are referring to indie as a sound or indie as in tiny label/no label.

I guess that brings us to the question of what constitutes an indie band; label or sound? But I'm specifically referring to label.