To all aspiring artists: Would you rather be an indie artists or go mainstream?

[Woodcs82]

To all aspiring artists: Would you rather be an indie artists or go mainstream?

 

Radiohead is proof that you can make it with or without a record label. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

[sabriel9v]

I'd rather my bills be paid on time and still have money to spend on random {censored}.

[bhutos]

To all aspiring artists: Would you rather be an indie artists or go mainstream? Radiohead is proof that you can make it with or without a record label. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

 

 

First a niggle.. Radiohead aren't proof, they had millions in promotion by a major label to build their fanbase first... That said it's still possible.. you just have to point to guys like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah or The John Butler Trio or whoever instead.

 

Also it depends on what you mean by indie and mainstream.. you talk about being with a label as being mainstream, so i assume you don't mean it in the writing popular mainstream music sense... which can be relative..

 

Anywho.. a. I highly doubt i'll ever even get the chance to sign with a label, and b. I just don't think it would be a good fit. I've run my own business for too long, I couldn't handle someone telling me what to do and nothing they could offer would be enticing enough.. lets face it i'm never going to write a multimillion dollar song so it would be hard to be bribed given I already make far more than I could as a recording artist and it's easy enough to get on tv (here in australia at any rate) without a label so fame isn't really anything that could be over-enticingly dangled... especially when so much of the "fame" is just promotional budget that has to be recouped by albums sales. You may as well buy your own magazine ads and call it even.

 

Although if for some reason something I wrote was good enough that they'd just let you record what you wanted and not force you to tour when you didn't want to or essentially just leave you alone.. well.. that might be a different story. I'm not against the labels or anything, I don't think they're an evil force that needs to be usurped by righteous artists.. it's just when it comes to getting chewed up and spat out because frankly, you're not as good as you think you are, thats something I can do just fine by myself thank you very much! I may revise that statement if by some chance I write my own golden ticket by writing the next "Hey Ya" or whatever song will be launching a million annoying phone calls next year, but I doubt it. (both changing my mind and writing a hit song ) So indie all the way. I already have a business structure it could fit into and I run an online advertising business so it's not a stretch just to release something on my own label if I ever got off my ass long enough to do it.

[soundwave106]

 

To all aspiring artists: Would you rather be an indie artists or go mainstream?

 

 

Assuming I was good enough and dedicated enough to go for the rock star motif, and had some sort of local following, I'd seek out labels at a solid local / indie level first. Rock bands still seem to start at an indie label and, if they want to move up (some don't) and have the fanbase to do so, progress to a major label from there.

 

I don't think "labels" will ever be irrelevant, even if physical product becomes irrelevant. Talent management and marketing are important and not every musician can do all these tasks on their own.

 

 

Radiohead is proof that you can make it with or without a record label.

 

 

Radiohead had built up a fanbase already with a label. If you haven't noticed, the artists ditching labels (this goes for Trent Reznor too) tend to be older artists that are not the next new exciting thing, but still have tons of dedicated fans. The music industry has historically been very poor at supporting these cash cow artists, so I can see why they are leading the "ditch the label" revolution.

[bigdaddydave]

A couple of years ago, Billboard magazine had an interesting article (if anyone can find it I'd appreciate it) addressing that very question, using Death Cab for Cutie (indie) and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs (major label) as examples. The conclusion was basically whether you go with one or the other (if I were only faced with that dillemma) depends on what you want for the band. DCFC were interested in creative control, more flexible structure, personal attention, etc. YYY's wanted a big tour bus, big advance, and fancy videos. Both seemed legit, it just depended on what the respective bands wanted in terms of their "success."

[leftystratman]

A couple of years ago, Billboard magazine had an interesting article (if anyone can find it I'd appreciate it) addressing that very question, using Death Cab for Cutie (indie) and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs (major label) as examples. The conclusion was basically whether you go with one or the other (if I were only faced with that dillemma) depends on what you want for the band. DCFC were interested in creative control, more flexible structure, personal attention, etc. YYY's wanted a big tour bus, big advance, and fancy videos. Both seemed legit, it just depended on what the respective bands wanted in terms of their "success."

 

the best answer so far! and I'm not too sure if YYY's actually made any profit after letting the label spend so much on marketing, tour, etc. I mean the band has to pay back whatever the label spent on them. if you are serious enough, you might as well go to a bank and borrow money from them and keep the creative control.

[sabriel9v]

 

A couple of years ago, Billboard magazine had an interesting article (if anyone can find it I'd appreciate it) addressing that very question, using Death Cab for Cutie (indie) and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs (major label) as examples. The conclusion was basically whether you go with one or the other (if I were only faced with that dillemma) depends on what you want for the band. DCFC were interested in creative control, more flexible structure, personal attention, etc. YYY's wanted a big tour bus, big advance, and fancy videos. Both seemed legit, it just depended on what the respective bands wanted in terms of their "success."

 

 

I think you're right bigdaddydave. And I also believe that whether you take the indie or major route it takes a certain amount of foresight and intutition (did i spell that right?) and you should strive to be a major player whether signed or unsigned. Everything should work as a learning experience to better equip you as an artist and businessperson. For instance, right now I'm still young. I could be naive and say hey I don't mind selling out and letting a label pimp me without thinking twice. I can make up for it later on...but that's not really true. Am I certain that the 30 yr. old me is comfortable with extra debt and financial burden accumulated from a bad label contract? Moreover, would I have made myself a real priority in the industry if I did that? I think you just have to know what fits well in your situation, but always remember to build your resume or track record so if a better opportunity arises you can negotiate like a major player. I think artists are capable of this whether signed or unsigned.

[ari]

I think you're right bigdaddydave. And I also believe that whether you take the indie or major route it takes a certain amount of foresight and intutition (did i spell that right?) and you should strive to be a major player whether signed or unsigned. Everything should work as a learning experience to better equip you as an artist and businessperson. For instance, right now I'm still young. I could be naive and say hey I don't mind selling out and letting a label pimp me without thinking twice. I can make up for it later on...but that's not really true. Am I certain that the 30 yr. old me is comfortable with extra debt and financial burden accumulated from a bad label contract? Moreover, would I have made myself a real priority in the industry if I did that? I think you just have to know what fits well in your situation, but always remember to build your resume or track record so if a better opportunity arises you can negotiate like a major player. I think artists are capable of this whether signed or unsigned.

 

I agree with that. It totally depends on an act's definition of success and vision.

 

To add, it also depends, to some degree, on the music itself, too. For example, U2 has openly said that they were marginal at best in clubs -- their music simply was too big for small spaces. Big gestures don't necessarily mean big success, but some acts that play music suited for bigger venues should brace themselves for the major label path, otherwise they risk not fulfilling their music's potential. Some music -- or vision -- demands the resources of major labels in order to be fulfilled. There's nothing wrong with that, in itself.

 

Which way would I rather be, if I was given an opportunity to choose? That's hard to say -- the decision is not that simple. It really has to depend on what each label is offering me in contract, and how the negotiations go. I don't want to prejudice myself by saying that I'd go indie because they allow more control or more attention or whatever -- indie labels have just as much potential for doing poorly run or unethical business. Let's just say I'd go with people I trust, and I don't trust easily.

 

ari

[sabriel9v]

Ari, you're definitely right about the "resource curse" for acts that need bigger venues and resources to completely fulfill their music's potential and sound. I was just thinking if I wanted to be a classical music composer I would certainly need more than just a couple amps and a crappy bar room to play in. Or on the flip side if I aspire to be the next Kiss or Alice Cooper, a certain level of stage theatrics and equipment is necessary to convey that message to the audience.

[gtrhangar]

... U2 has openly said that they were marginal at best in clubs -- their music simply was too big for small spaces....i

 

Aside from the quote: I think its a personal decision. If you are buisness minded and want to handle the buisness aspect, then go indie. If you would rather someone else take care of it for you, try to catch a label's attention.

 

Regarding the quote: Yeah I could see that...but only to an extent. I think what I'm reading into U2's quote was that it wasn't the *physical size* of the club that was the problem, but the *noise constraint* of the owner. I've been to small clubs in Boston that were CRAZY RIGHTGEOUS loud.

 

(Basement of the Middle East? Paradise Rock Club? Avalon? Anyone? Anyone? )

[soundwave106]

 

the best answer so far! and I'm not too sure if YYY's actually made any profit after letting the label spend so much on marketing, tour, etc.

 

 

One interesting point to this is that Death Cab For Cutie eventually signed for major label Atlantic (though I think all side projects are still on indie labels). I wonder what type of deal they got that allowed them to drop the indie mindset. Hopefully one they won't regret later.

[sabriel9v]

I think this article does an okay job of speaking about the indie/major parallel. I like how Fat Joe sums up the major label deal, "There's more pampering, but it's more of a stickup."

 

http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=10587

[kenjkelly]

Remember the Beatles were released on Vee-Jay and Swan records before Decca and Capital. Indies can be part of the process to get the attention of the biggies, if you want it.

[sabriel9v]

 

Remember the Beatles were released on Vee-Jay and Swan records before Decca and Capital. Indies can be part of the process to get the attention of the biggies, if you want it.

 

 

That's the way I view indies. To me they're almost like the minor league or NCAA and then you graduate to the big leagues once you have widened your fanbase and solidified your reputation.

[terryd5150]

My preferrence: independent.

 

 

It fits the needs of goals with what I want to accomplish from my music.

 

 

So, like someone suggested earlier, I borrowed the money to record/produce/distirbute my own CD.

[BlueStrat]

Indie. I like the idea of 100% of a little rather than 0% of a lot.

[imessiah]

It's all about the promo. That's the hard part being Indie, not much money in the coffers. It's like a full time job getting flash, know what I mean? Radiohead already had a following, so that ain't no example to go by. Plus a whole lot of them cheap ass knuckleheads didn't pay nothin' anyway... Like 60% of them just ran off with the album for free.

[HKSblade1]

All you have to do is go to record departments in stores and FYE type places. Look at all the CD's being replaced with movies.

 

DLM is killing the store media and all you are left with are a few BB top 20 crap artists.

 

Radiohead had the advantage of a provided fan base. They think any other artist can do that? Nobody starting could. Once you PLANT the word FREE or pay what you feel it's worth you may as well just QUIT.

 

People especially young ones, cannot see the forest through the trees!

 

When computer animated athletes take over the sporting events, who would want to be the next football player?

[bigdaddydave]

 

When computer animated athletes take over the sporting events, who would want to be the next football player?

 

 

+1000. And who's gonna want to actually learn to play the guitar when you can be an animated "Guitar Hero?"

[sabriel9v]

 

Indie. I like the idea of 100% of a little rather than 0% of a lot.

 

 

Bluestrat, where have ya been man?

[chetwesley]

 

It's all about the promo. That's the hard part being Indie, not much money in the coffers. It's like a full time job getting flash, know what I mean? Radiohead already had a following, so that ain't no example to go by. Plus a whole lot of them cheap ass knuckleheads didn't pay nothin' anyway... Like 60% of them just ran off with the album for free.

 

 

What a major is really all about for most bands that "make it" is famousness and publicity. Being on a major label does not = wealth. Radiohead is probably making more off of their free download album than they would from a major label giving them the 2% (10%? I don't really know) or whatever from each CD sold.

 

Most bands go into debt from their major label contracts and fizzle out.

 

This has probably been passed around this board hundreds of times by now, but here is an article that pretty much sums it up: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

[BlueStrat]

 

What a major is really all about for most bands that "make it" is famousness and publicity. Being on a major label does not = wealth.

 

 

That's true, though to be accurate, a high number of famous bands that aren't wealthy are broke and in debt because of their stupidity and poor decisions that lead to their inability to repay what they owe. How many bands/musicians have you seen that, after one hit, ran out and got the high dollar cribs, the expensive cars, multi-thousand dollar night club parties, didn't pay the IRS what they owed in taxes, bad management scams, etc etc? You just can't take very many twenty-something kids and throw large sums of money their way and expect all of them to handle it wisely. Too many of them don't hire financial planners.

 

 

Radiohead is probably making more off of their free download album than they would from a major label giving them the 2% (10%? I don't really know) or whatever from each CD sold.

 

 

Maybe so, but bands like them make most of their money off live shows, not records, anyway. And it was the major label promotion and distribution system that put them in the position to do what they are doing now. The sad fact is, most indie/DIY bands will not make the money from all sources in their entire careers that Radiohead will in a year just off of touring.

[chetwesley]

Pretty much agreed 100% about both the debt and about income from touring.

 

I think even if you read that article by Steve Albini, even though it isn't his angle to blame it on the bands, he pretty much explains how a lot of the debt for these bands comes from overstepping their financial bounds and spending all the money they are "advanced" (which is really a LOAN, not a payment). If a band stayed more modest when they first got the contract, they might do ok, but no one explains that to them. There also, however, could be pressure from the label to do things more elaborately, because they want the band to look "big" when they show up to a gig.

 

The contract is pretty much set up so that the label has zero risk and it is up to the band to cover the enormous expenses of making a record and going on an elaborate tour, but the band doesn't realize that in a lot of cases, or if they do, it is too late by that point because they have already made a legal promise to do it.

[BlueStrat]

 

Pretty much agreed 100% about both the debt and about income from touring. I think even if you read that article by Steve Albini, even though it isn't his angle to blame it on the bands, he pretty much explains how a lot of the debt for these bands comes from overstepping their financial bounds and spending all the money they are "advanced" (which is really a LOAN, not a payment). If a band stayed more modest when they first got the contract, they might do ok, but no one explains that to them.

 

 

LOVE that article. It's what kept me from signing (well, to be accurate, interviewing with A&R guys who were interested in signing me) and just going the DIY pay as you go route. I didn't make a lot of profit by industry standards, but what I did make was 100% mine.

[kenlacam]

I think that there is too much emphasis on getting a "record deal", as far as going mainstream. Just because you're signed does not guarantee success at all, as a lot of bands are signed, then for whatever reason, shelved. They end up owing the label money, and you never hear from them again.