Indie Labels and Big Labels
The first area, of course, is money. Indie labels, like indie bands, will never and have never had a lot of cabbage. This means that they also generally lack clout within the promotional world, so any revenues must be generated solely through the work of the artists and whatever staff the label happens to have.
Another huge difference between an indie label and a big label is the type of music they put out. Now, it may seem like all the major labels are putting out the same type of music, but in fact what you mostly here are the more popular formats. In fact, major labels will have a variety of genres that include many artists, with some falling in importance according to the label’s definition of what is worth marketing at the time.
Indie labels, on the other hand, generally have the same type of artist. Not replicas, of course, but if you listen to a couple of the artists the label produces, then you have an idea of the kind of artist the label works with.
Honestly, anymore, I do not see any difference between a big well known label and the smaller individual made labels. I have seen small labels put out great artists and these are unknown artists as well as a unknown label. And some of the known labels are putting out crap these days. So to me there is no difference other than how the artist does. I think that many independent labels are much better than the big ones and you notice you do not hear as much about them either.
There is a HUGE difference between indie labels and the big guys. The difference is in more than just money and marketing clout. Indie lables make better music… that’s the difference – and here’s how and why:
Indie labels, even though eqiupped with less resources and mainstream support are able to produce a higher quality of music due to the economic imperative. This means that the demands of the economy require capitalists to sell a higher volume of product, thus requiring them to speed up their production process, or to search for more product (musicians) to sell. The higher volume or the faster something is created with the goal of revenue, the poorer the product becomes. This is the plague of the record giant.
The indie label, although not always perfect, is at a decidedly favorable advantage. They have a much lower demand which allows musicians to have complete creative control. The result is a much purer form of the artists original intention. And, without the mainstream demands, indie labels are free to sign musicians with actual talent instead of a pretty face, blonde hair, and a boob job.
The Result: Indie labels by nature of the economy, although not infallable, are able produce a much higher quality product than their larger counterparts. This is not to say there aren’t good musicians on major labels but, it is to say that this species is a rare breed.
Thing is, what happens to an indie label once it reaches a certain zenith of success? Does it not then have a propensity to either (a) become a big label eventually, or, like Frank Sinatra’s Reprise, get bought out by a big conglomerate like Warner Records?
Also, I do agree that there are artists on big labels that are very good. It’s just that the larger outfits are the ones that push Britney Spears and “acts” like hers because that’s easy money for them but but bad musically for us.
I think that all bands no matter what the label is can reach superstar status. It all depends on the band and what they are doing to reach their goals. I am not sure that money issues with labels play bigger parts unless the bands are not willing to promote themselves. If the band is not willing to do something to promote themselves and show people there is a real reason to support them then they may not be out to do what they really want to.
well, an indie label is an independent label is a record label that is not affiliated in any way with a Major Label, and uses independent distributors to get their releases into stores. and a big label is a label that commands a high percentage of the annual sales of records, and has their own distribution system. so i really think there is a big difference. but it still depends on the artist, band and singer on how they make their names. labels are dependent to their artists.
To be honest when I first saw songs tagged as Indie I thought another genre among many others. I realized that it’s widely represented as so and it shouldn’t be. IMO The only difference between indie labels and big labels musical-wise artists under independent labels have more control over how they want their music produced, not catered to the producers’ idea of what the public wants.
yeah, i agree with your last sentence Froix. that is why it is called independent labels because they do not depend on their producers. this is much better because the artists can really make what the public is expecting and what they want. this will good for both the artists and producers.
Froix, you’re absolutely right. “Indie” is often misunderstood and thought of as a musical style – indie rock – rather than what it is, which is a business model that seeks to free artists of any genre from the tyranny of the big studio labels that determine what gets sold, what gets radio air play, and what gets made and what doesn’t.
Incidentally, if I haven’t already mentioned this before, you might be surprised to know that Reprise was one of the first, if not THE first, of the indie labels, and that it was founded by Frank Sinatra, who was having issues with Capitol Records.
yes and big labels have got all this legacy content they need to monetize. But most indie labels do not have a bunch of legacy content; all their content is newer and they want to get exposure for it. Promotion is good. Indie labels are realizing that big labels are not their enemies. Their enemies are corporations who want to make money by performing music and not pay the performers for the privilege.
What happens, though, when an indie label ends up owning a great amount of “legacy content” as time passes? Does it then not start becoming a big label by virtue of its longevity and success? Such are the vagaries of the music business. and sometimes they can be confusing and contradictory.
yes fardreamer, i think so. attagirl, i agree with you. babds and artists can always achieve their goals. it is just up to them how to do that. sometimes having a superstar appeal also is a good thing and of course being talented. the labels are just there to support the bands and artists and help them become recognized by people.
i agree with you lalajean. there is no difference because i think that it still all depends on the bands and artists. people does not really focus on the labels but on the artists and bands itself. and it is true that many big labels have bands and artists who are not that popular and some indie labels have the best artists and bands.