Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Farin

'Good' Indie - 'Bad' Indie?

Recommended Posts

Is an Indie band only a 'real' or 'good' Indie band as long as they stay with a Independent Record label?

Do bands like MGMT or The Decemberists lose their complete credibility when they sign with a major label?

should we boycott bands that have "gone corporate"? ;)

or maybe you don't care about things like that at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of this is just a load of nonsense to me. It should be about their music, not their label... let them do what they want to. If you like a band because they're indie and then decide to boycott them just because they went corporate, you didn't like them because of their music. And that's what counts. This is music, not politics/economy/whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not really indie if they're with a major label. I think they lose some of their charm because a major label wants the music to sell, so naturally the bands have to make slight or major changes to their sound and appearance to boost sales. They have more money so there's more production and post-production and the videos are sleek and professional. That's not really 'indie' (MGMT is a case in point - it doesn't even sound indie to me :( ).

Pavement is really indie... they've been through five labels and none of them corporate. I think they're what indie bands (should) strive to be, but there's only room for that many Pavements. The indie world isn't exactly easy or rewarding. I don't blame them for joining the bigger labels, it would be quite silly not to. But that's not indie anymore imo.

Then again, there are big labels like Domino and Arts and Crafts (Factory and Creation?) that cater exclusively to the indie scene - not to mention a ton of littler ones - so that's promising. A lot of corporate labels create a separate branch for independent music as well. But indie as a genre is pretty non-indie these days. A bit unfortunate because the fun lies in discovering all this hidden underground music nobody's heard of. "Real" indie probably isn't on the so-called indie labels either.

Indie shouldn't be so thought out actually... apart from the label, it should just appear natural. No gimmicks, less hype, genuine we're-about-the-music sorts. y'know?

Wow... so many 'indie's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of this is just a load of nonsense to me. It should be about their music, not their label... let them do what they want to. If you like a band because they're indie and then decide to boycott them just because they went corporate, you didn't like them because of their music. And that's what counts. This is music, not politics/economy/whatever.

I totally agree with you, Seek. Yes, a band might become more "money orientated" when they´re getting high on money, fame and so. But I don´t think their music will really change due to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could... You can often hear the difference in the music made by an indie band compared to a band on a major label. The latter sound a lot more 'polished' to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is an Indie band only a 'real' or 'good' Indie band as long as they stay with a Independent Record label?

Do bands like MGMT or The Decemberists lose their complete credibility when they sign with a major label?

should we boycott bands that have "gone corporate"? ;)

or maybe you don't care about things like that at all?

Both bands lose cred when they begin to suck. In their case, that started at their debut albums :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can often hear the difference in the music made by an indie band compared to a band on a major label. The latter sound a lot more 'polished' to me.

Yes, sure, they have more means. But just as BA said,

...Both bands lose cred when they begin to suck. In their case, that started at their debut albums
This can be applied to any other band. REM were indie when they started, just as so many bands that now are divas. There is an evolution in the sound, I think it depends more on the artist and what he wants to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R.E.M. were indie when they started. And once they were on a major label their sound changed quite drastically. I would be unsurprised if they lost a few original fans from their days of college radio who just didn't like their 'new sound'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could... You can often hear the difference in the music made by an indie band compared to a band on a major label. The latter sound a lot more 'polished' to me.

as you said, a major label has more resources for production and post production, so they can smooth out a lot... which results in a higher audio quality

... of course it's another question wether that's a good or a bad thing ;)

I think my expectations to a band are very different depending on when I know they made everything by themself, or had some big shot company in their back... it's probably the feeling that in the first case they just/mostly care about their music, while in the other case the nagging doubt in the back of my mind that they just want to earn some money, as irrational as that might be sometimes, but on the other hand, often bands sign contracts to put out, say 4 albums in five years, so they HAVE to record, even if they feel totally uninspired, have personal problems or suddenly hate their bandmates

it's not like I wouldn't listen to any band, just because they are at SonyBMG or something, but my expectations to them are different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not that different from a rock band going country in my eyes... they'll lose fans, they'll gain fans because their music changes... it's perfectly normal. There's just such a debate about indie bands going corporate because there's money and mainstream-ness involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, a band/artist ceases to be "independent" when they sign to a major label. By definition, they're not independent; they have a marketing machine doing all the extra promoting for them. They don't lose their cred as a good band/artist IF they keep making music that doesn't suck (that's a double-negative - WHAMMO! :rockon: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care if an indie band signs to a major label, but if they were able to get famous without the help of a label, I don't really see why a band would want to sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's merely the logistics of having other people do the drudgery of promoting while the bandmates can either take more time off or more time to focus on what they really like about the work. I'd think most bands/artists will tell ya that they love the music, they love the womyns, but they hate the promoting part of the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's merely the logistics of having other people do the drudgery of promoting while the bandmates can either take more time off or more time to focus on what they really like about the work. I'd think most bands/artists will tell ya that they love the music, they love the womyns, but they hate the promoting part of the job.

yeah good point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...