Quote:
|
Originally Posted by This Is Not Here
This has been a really interesting thread for me. Thanks to everyone who gave me sensible informed answers. What I find facinating is, whilst the widely accepted definition of 'indie' is of course independence, judging by what you're saying, indie labels aren't actually independant at all -- they're DEPENDANT on out-sourcing their distribution to other distributor companies.
Meanwhile, the major labels have their own distribition channels, making them, sorta... independant, right? Moreover, you could argue for this reason that a tiny, home-run "basement" label which produces and sells it's product itself either through direct mail-order and/or the internet, by this definition, is actually doing the same thing as a major label.
|
It's nice to see someone asking this question. Personally, I found out the answer (or my answer) a while ago, but the ideology attached to alternative music is very personal, and it's important to make your own decision about how you feel about the music you're buying and its relationship to the wider world. You could go so far as to look at the resources that make up your wax or CD if you like.
Ultimately, there's a distinction between an independant company and a 'major' that has less to do with aesthetics and more to do with the financial jurisdiction. Steps were Britain's largest indie band for a long time - and thanks to PWL investments, they had a more 'indie' distro network.
My personal answer was 'you know what? Fuck it'. If someone else comes up with a more radical answer that they follow through with, more power.