What is the actual DEFINITION of an indie label?
 

An independant label, I understand as much. But what I'm asking in this thread is at what point does a label go from being independant to not independant? What exactly makes Matador an indie label and Geffen not? What exactly defines indenpendance and therefore defines what is an indie label and band? I eagerly await your answers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_record_label

End of thread.

it's all predicated on the amount and quality of the drugs that the A&R guys have.

struggling.

I don't think that fully explains what I'm asking here.

Real independant labels are the ones where a band can shit on a mic and release it. Mainly all these little noise labels who don't give a fuck. I dunno. There's big labels, independant labels (like the aforementioned Matador, who have had help distributing their stuff from larger labels), and then there are just pure basement labels, which to me represents the truest definition of independence; no compromises, no music video contracts, etc.

a major label owns its own distribution channel

some small labels distribution is done through a major, these labels may be small but aren't independent

an independent label doesn't distribute it's records through a major

you can be owned by a major, but if you don't distribute through them you are still considered independent

non-existent.

Great explanation, thankyou.

But (and I'm going to be annoying now) how can a 'distribution channel' be defined?

Can I ask why you're interested in this question?

It's fairly subjective and open to interpretation, isn't it? I guess I kind of "know" those labels that are big-name corporate labels, and "know" those that are not. But it does get fuzzy at a certain point.

I don't know. And I guess I'm wondering why anybody really cares?

Well to be quite honest, why does anyone care about knowing anything? I'm just curious basically. And moreso I want to be able to expose those fools who pledge total allegiance to exclusively indie labels as ignorant douchbags when I ask them this question :).

When I was music director at KAOS in Olympia, we had this long standing 80% independent music policy. I was never too into it, because I maintained that Brian Eno makes better music than NOFX, and no label cred was going to change that.

However, the way that station, which at least at the time was often consider the voice of what indie was, defined indie was that a label could not have any support whatsoever from the big three (which has actually expanded slightly to Sony BMG, WEA (Warner/Elektra/Atlantic), EMI, and the Universal Music Group since).

If a cd or record was major we put red electrical tape on the spine. If it was indie, we put green on it. When Sub Pop sold 50% of it's shares to WEA, it went red tape even though it was started by Bruce Pavitt as a radio show on KAOS. Matador was owned by Atlantic at the time, so it got red tape too, but since then that relationship ended and Matador is considered all the way indie again.

The people who get the CDs from the factory to the shops

thats where indie labels fall down isn't it? (and why SY went to geffen) Its all very well having 100% artistic integrity and wear brown cord trousers with green sneakers, but if no one can buy your cd's in their local store no one's gonna know you exist innit

(and thats where the internet comes in)

Until the internet is completely controlled by major corporations.

no.

what i mean is, that can happen, but it's kinda different now. for example, KUNAKI: my band is out there, you can buy our latest cd online from an independent channel of distribution. if you'll buy there, a good share of the money will end in my pockets.

interesting, do you know the dudettes form Sleater Kinney? They're from Olympia, aren't they?

this sums it all up pretty well. The link between the label itself and the distribution channel defines what an indie label is.

An indie label has its records distributed by another company : the distributor.
If yr company is both A + R, label and distributor, then you're a fookin' major. I have to add major labels often run touring / booking operators as well.

More and more bigger indie labels tend to TRY to turn their mailorder into real distribution network ( see Secretly Canadian for instance), thus enrolling small labels with them etc...

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.

Never really spoke to them, though I saw them play at parties and my old band That Stupid Club played a NYE gig at the Capitol Theater that they were upwards on the bill at.

I was always significantly more into their old bands (Excuse 17 and Heavens to Betsy) though I only liked those groups. I always felt like Sleater-Kinney became famous because the media showed up in Oly looking for the biggest "riot grrl" band they could find and Bikini Kill had just broken up. I've never hated a note they played, but never been particularly excited by it either.

I took money from Corin Tucker at the Kinko's I worked at in 1993 (which was coincidentally located on Pacific Ave and Sleater-Kinney...) and that's about the extent of any personal interaction I ever had with any of them.

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.

yes that's correct, in a way; paradoxical.

I really don't understand the whole "not controlling their own distribution channels" thing.

A lot of traditional indies have done their own distribution by doing mail order and calling stores themselves to get their stuff stocked. Some of them have gotten so good at it that they've become distributors for other indie labels. Dischord, K, and SST have never been majors, but they have always called their own shots when it came to distribution and also helped other labels by listing them in their catalogs.

I think the real definition of an indie is not anything to do with whether you distribute your own music or not, but whether or not you are owned in whole or in part or controlled by one of the big four: Sony BMG, Warner, EMI, and the Universal Music Group.