David Emery Online

Indie Schmindie

1 March 2014

I’ve been thinking about the concept of indie record labels all week after an article on the Guardian about everyone’s favourite currency-related rapper 50 Cent signing to “independent distributor Caroline”. Now for those that don’t keep up to speed with the coming and goings of the many, many major imprints Caroline is Universal’s entry into the much burgeoning “Label Services” sector (which it isn’t anything at all like Co-Op was previously so I don’t know why you’re thinking that), and offers a range of services from distribution to marketing to publicity and all the other things that a label does.

They’re a fine bunch of people and I’m sure they’ll do well, but does that sound anything like something you could call independent?

No I thought not.

Now this isn’t really the Guardian’s fault as looking around the same phrase is picked up elsewhere, so I imagine was on a press release. On reading it I was, as I’m sure you are now, apoplectic with rage (insert sarcasm emoji here) but it got me thinking – ok, they’re obviously not indie, but what exactly is the definition?

Wikipedia has a fairly reasonable definition:

An independent record label (or indie record label) is a record label operating without the funding of or outside the organizations of the major record labels. A great number of bands and musical acts begin on independent labels.

(I love the inherent slight on indie labels saying that bands “begin” on independent labels.)

I was originally thinking that the funding side of things might be the differentiator – get money from a major, then you’re not indie. Easy. But these days, it’s actually a bit tricky to know if that’s the case – with a label services deal, who’s to say that Universal have actually stumped up any cash for ol’ fiddy; it could be a straight distribution deal, or distribution and some paid services. And confusingly, you could have some artists on a label that you might define as independent, and some that get funding from a major.

So after further thought just thinking about it in terms of funding seems… Less then ideal. So how about distribution then – that’s always how it used to be defined, right? Oh, but quite a few significant indies go through major distribution.

Hmmm.

Ok then, how about…

Well actually how about we totally forget about the term indie completely?

Why, exactly, does it matter whether a band is putting out music through a “major” or an “indie”? And in the modern industry, with a vast range of different models and contracts what does the differentiation even mean anyway?

It seems like a relic from a bygone era, and worse then that I think it damages people’s perceptions and outlook, both inside the industry and as fans. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being signed to a major, and there’s nothing inherently better about being signed to an indie. It’s a pointless separation of music into two camps.

You are not a hard done by indie label, not getting breaks because you’re somehow not part of the right club.

You’re not sticking it to the man, breaking out of the system.

You’re just putting out music. So is everybody else.

If you want to have sides – and let’s face it, everyone loves to back a team – then we should revise what it means to be indie to better represent the music market in 2014. It’s actually pretty simple:

If the artist retains the rights to their music, then they are independent.

It doesn’t matter who’s releasing it, major, indie, distributer, whoever – they are an independent artist. If they don’t control the rights to their recordings, then how on earth could you were ever say they are independent? Independent of what exactly?

It’s simple, makes sense and, at least to me, feels “right”.

Long live the new indies.