What Is Indie? Can An Artist Top The Charts Without Help From A Major? - hypebot

« 3 Trends Shaping The Future Of Product Development | Main | Major U.S. ISPs Launch Anti-Piracy System: '6 Strikes And We'll Throttle You' »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Urethane Blog

That's a good article and so true

Chancius

Great stuff!

www.facebook.com/chancius

Pip

Who cares?

Tommy Darker

The question is, should an artist care to top the charts? I don't see the point.

Mojobone.wordpress.com

Well, it should be simple enough to differentiate; if you're discussing the aesthetic, say "indie", when you're talking about Indianapolis, say "Indy" and if you're talking about the the business model, say what you mean: "independent". You could also use "non-aligned" or "unsigned" for artists without any deal at all and DIY for self-published artists.Is nomenclature really that big a problem? :D

Chris_Wilson_A

Why top the charts or even rank on them at all? The real question is, why bother making money from music at all? Getting radio exposure = making more money. If you are cool with just being an "artist" and making music on the side, then sure, don't promote to radio, care about charts, etc.

Nelson

Yes Indie Artists can still chart just look @DawnRichard, her 1st release as an AltaArtists secured her 5 different charts.

#137 Billboard 200>>
#22 R&B/Hip-Hop Albums>>
#10 R&B Albums>>
#2 Heatseekers>>
#21 Independent>>

BTW we're an http://IndependentDistribution.co

Misa

Distribution and the actual label are two totally different things that this author lacks to understand. Taylor Swift LABEL is distributing her material via Universal through Big Machine, but everything from budgets, funding, and promotion comes solely from the label. all the deal with Universal means is that everyone who released with Big Machine records gets their music on iTunes, amazon.com in wal-mart, best buy, target, etc as well as TV licensing OPPORTUNITIES (not guarantees) such as TV shows, movies, etc. but it doesnt mean people will actually buy it.

Any person or company can ink a distribution deal. There are available everywhere because the major labels see it as well if they get popular, they'll find their own way to get their music out. We better step in and get our hands in their pocket so we can still survive. That's why so many labels in 2011-2012, including the big gun Jive Records, folded. Because they arent bringing in the money that they used to with their artist, and they're losing money with promotions. So they opted in to signing independent and self release artists/labels through distribution so they don't have to put all the money into making the artist/music, but they'll still benefit if that artist sells well.

Taylor Swift is so big mainly because of endorsement deals. She gets a lot of facetime and that is all because of PR under Big Machine and that her music is generally appealing. She started with small deals, and worked bigger (Cover Girl, Pepsi). Like Cody Simpson,for example, is an up and coming artist a lot of people are just starting to discover. He's been around and has had endorsement deals/sponsorship since 2010 with Pastry's and PopTarts when he only had about 8,000 followers on twitter. It has nothing to do with Universal or the bigger label. Its all management, PR and how their market their brand/product. Taylor Swift is a viable, and likable brand/product so people use her for co-branding.

Not a cent of her marketing and promotions come from Universal. The same thing goes for the others you listed in respect to their label and their label's distribution deals. I know people who own record labels locally, who have barely even $10,000 project budgets (recording, mixing/mastering, website and graphic work, marketing and promotions, etc) for an artist, and their artist probably have like 2,000 followers on twitter, and they have distribution deals via Universal or Warner Brothers. Why? Because all these deals mean for the bigger labels will put at least digital media and TV/Movie licensing opps for them which cost them virtually nothing, but if they somehow blow up, the will provide physical distribution and the bigger labels get a cut without the big labels having to do nitty gritty work. All the effort and work comes from the independent labels and the artist. So to discredit their work and efforts is pretty insulting.

Misa

Distribution and the actual label are two totally different things that this author lacks to understand. Taylor Swift LABEL is distributing her material via Universal through Big Machine, but everything from budgets, funding, and promotion comes solely from the label. all the deal with Universal means is that everyone who released with Big Machine records gets their music on iTunes, amazon.com in wal-mart, best buy, target, etc as well as TV licensing OPPORTUNITIES (not guarantees) such as TV shows, movies, etc. but it doesnt mean people will actually buy it.

Any person or company can ink a distribution deal. There are available everywhere because the major labels see it as well if they get popular, they'll find their own way to get their music out. We better step in and get our hands in their pocket so we can still survive. That's why so many labels in 2011-2012, including the big gun Jive Records, folded. Because they arent bringing in the money that they used to with their artist, and they're losing money with promotions. So they opted in to signing independent and self release artists/labels through distribution so they don't have to put all the money into making the artist/music, but they'll still benefit if that artist sells well.

Taylor Swift is so big mainly because of endorsement deals. She gets a lot of facetime and that is all because of PR under Big Machine and that her music is generally appealing. She started with small deals, and worked bigger (Cover Girl, Pepsi). Like Cody Simpson,for example, is an up and coming artist a lot of people are just starting to discover. He's been around and has had endorsement deals/sponsorship since 2010 with Pastry's and PopTarts when he only had about 8,000 followers on twitter. It has nothing to do with Universal or the bigger label. Its all management, PR and how their market their brand/product. Taylor Swift is a viable, and likable brand/product so people use her for co-branding.

Not a cent of her marketing and promotions come from Universal. The same thing goes for the others you listed in respect to their label and their label's distribution deals. I know people who own record labels locally, who have barely even $10,000 project budgets (recording, mixing/mastering, website and graphic work, marketing and promotions, etc) for an artist, and their artist probably have like 2,000 followers on twitter, and they have distribution deals via Universal or Warner Brothers. Why? Because all these deals mean for the bigger labels will put at least digital media and TV/Movie licensing opps for them which cost them virtually nothing, but if they somehow blow up, the will provide physical distribution and the bigger labels get a cut without the big labels having to do nitty gritty work. All the effort and work comes from the independent labels and the artist. So to discredit their work and efforts is pretty insulting.

Thundy

Very well said, Misa, virtually every line of your story is true. Indies always have to struggle to get a little bit of attention to their music and very often they produce it at their own cost and efforts which takes in some cases about half a year or even a year to produce an audio content for an album. People don't know about the cost a one man labor in a private studio, an arduous, "prison camp work" as I usually put it. If an artist comes up with his or her own video ( not every artist can afford having his or her own half decent video) that still is not enough to deliver their art into the heart of their target audience. And promotion on a radio and TV takes the funds that can be only affordable by big time labels. Of course the content has to be likable and viable, that's the must for starters. But on the other hand indies are free to write and produce whatever they think they should, whereas labels dictate the "trends" and direction in moods and contents. For instance that latest scandalous video of Miley Cirus ("wrecking ball") was a typical case of a rigid dictatorship of a trend to get the needed popularity. Miley got quite a few bucketfuls of dirt on her poor head on youtube, but I can almost see how she hated the idea of this video to go public and how much she resisted it deep down in her heart, and perhaps that was the reason why she expressed her bitterness in tears so naturally in that video.

Indies have their full freedom but they don't have an exposure. However they get in a return a chance to be themselves, genuine and sincere.

Labeled artist would appear to me as a product of an "unnatural selection" everything wise, including audio and video content (although the technical quality of them are in most cases awesome without a doubt, the high level of label based technologies have their last say). Whereas indies stay there as a pure result of a quite natural selection I would say.

I don't know what it is to be wallowing in the oceans of light and attention. I believe it's a drug as they say, but the drug substitutes the internal functional gears of the system, shutting down the latter, and not everyone is able to pass the testing with the fame drug with at least a C+.

Thundy

BTW, I am also an indie and I was writing on behalf of my own life experience. Thundy (September, 2013 release of "Blue Skies", country folk genre, on iTunes, eMusic, Amazon and others)

The comments to this entry are closed.





SEARCH HYPEBOT

Musician & Music Industry Resources