how much indie is actually major?
 

in another forum i frequent someone brought up the point that many indie labels are funded by major labels....does anyone know which labels are? or the percentage? i did a quick search on google and didnt find much....ive seen a pretty big indie community here so i thought i would ask.

nobody knows?

This is the most up-to-date list you'll find: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

But the real answer is zero percent.

If you can find it thru an online retailer or store front it's not indie. Now, the stuff that makes only limited pressings that you have to go into the city recordstore to buy...thats indie.

as in zero percent is actually indie?

is this true? or just a radical way of thinking? im new to the indie music scene and im very confused lol.

This is not true.

In my mind, we're talking about independent music in this thread, and not some genre called "indie." Even if I were to agree that indie exists as a genre, the fact that something could be bought -- GASP! -- online wouldn't rule it out as belonging to that genre. And there is demonstrably a metric fuck-ton of genuinely independent music that is sold and distributed online.

Anything staked by a major label is, by definition, not independent. It might be "good," it might be "alt," it might be "indie"*, but it's certainly not independent.

*See my previous post.

so is this a list of "indie" labels funded by major labels?

and thanks steve

My record label is certainly indie! www.scam-o-rama.com

No. This list is a list of every label represented by the RIAA. There are small labels on this list that put out indie-style music (e.g., Absolutely Kosher), and there are the majors (Warner Bros, etc.).

I'm just trying to make the point that just because something isn't released on (or distributed by) a major does not mean that it's independent. Some things are, some things aren't. Based on the degree to which major labels tend to run their businesses as if they were the devil, I simply try to give them as little of my money as possible.

Exceptions that I'll gladly support (e.g., Built to Spill, a Warner Bros "product") tend to have decent contracts and relationships with their labels.

I guess I only bought three indie releases last year:

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah (at one of their shows, before they signed the distribution deal).

Two CDs by Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin.

I got some Animal Collective side projects (Panda Bear's Young Prayer) and a few other things that may or may not be independent.

Ya know, I don't even pay attention to labels anymore. Good music is good whether it's on Joe Blow or Big Media Conglom.

Agreed!

Though, there are certain labels with solid reputations and rosters, and I usually find myself picking up albums based soley on their associations with such labels--I pay attention to labels in this respect.

More to the OP's point, though, many "independent" labels have distribution deals with major labels (I believe Matador is an example of this).

Then, there are the subsidiaries and specialty branches of major labels that may function somewhat independently of the majors on an artistic/creative level (e.g. Lost Highway to Universal; Nonesuch to Warner).

Overall, there are so many ways to define what might be "independent" and what might not be, and there are tons of unique cases. If music is your main concern, then classification wouldn't really seem important; but if it's the image of "indie" that you're after, then...

[/QUOTE]If music is your main concern, then classification wouldn't really seem important; but if it's the image of "indie" that you're after, then...[/QUOTE]

all i care about is the music but someone was telling me that the term "indipendant" is a joke since most indie labels are funded by major labels. i just wondered how much truth there was to it...also it seems that although they are funded they still have much more freedom than bands on a major label would.

edit: oops i screwed up the quote.

So releases by Saddle Creek, Merge, etc. aren't indie? Your definition doesn't seem to be based on anything other than 'if it's a pain in the ass to find, it's indie.'

I didn't see Cooking Vinyl (label of Billy Bragg and Richard Thompson) on that list. Utility Records (Bragg's old label) isn't there either.

Correct. But that's just my own very opinionated way of looking at it. Don't get me wrong, most of the music I listen too is the Pitchfork Media type. But for me personally I think that makes it mainstream. I guess my point is that you can find real gems (off the radar music) at those stores. Then again, that is another thread altogether.

RIAA

:)

But if they were owned by a larger conglomerate wouldn't they still be in the RIAA, right?

Isn't Sony? What about BMG?

From http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sony is represented by the RIAA because they produce and sell records in the U.S.

I'm sure there are cases where this list isn't completely up-to-date, but what you'll often find is that a smaller label outside of the U.S. has a distribution-only deal with a major label in the U.S. As far as I know, that fact in and of itself will not get the smaller label on this list.

I think we need to differentiate INDIE and INDEPENDENT music.

By the by, is victory records considered "independent?" I read somewhere that they are still independent, yet they have many, many monster releases.