In looking through a lot of our videos lately, it’s struck me how quickly people are to point fingers and shout, loudly, “NOT INDIE!” or “BLASPHEMY!” when an indie artist changes something. If you play Guitar Hero, depending on the interview, that’ awesome and totally indie rock, or horrible and ruining music. If you shop at Walmart, you’re destroying the fabric of our society and screwing over indie business, or, you’re doing what thousands of poor indie musicians do every day on the road. If you become popular, suddenly your music sucks, because it is more accessible. If you make money at your art, you’re a sellout. Obviously indie means something different to everyone, but I am going to start a little point/counterpoint of indie truths.
First up: Major Labels Censor the Indie Artist
Of course this has come up before, particularly when Clear Channel buys someone really awesome. And many of the UI artists have strong opinions. But I think Mike Doughty has a really interesting take on it:
In this view, it isn’t the evil megacorp, it’s the artist who takes the responsibility. Artists aren’t censored, they just won’t make money or get major airplay. While many an indie fan has dropped a band after they became too popular, most of us villainize the faceless corporation rather than our beloved rockers. What do you think–who is at most fault when an artist signs with a major label? The corporation giving them an offer they can’t refuse, or the artist trying to cash in and find more fans? Is it the responsibility of a corporation looking to make money to give the artist free reign? Or is it the artist’s domain to make sure he never stifles his art by getting into a major label contract?










TOPICS: triumphantlyjenny