Recently a reader called me out for repeatedly throwing around the phrase ‘independent artist’ or ‘indie label’ without explaining my definition (or if I even had one). Fair enough. Let’s discuss: what does independent mean in 2020?
The ‘indie’ tag has meant less and less over the past thirty years. There was a stark difference between indie and major labels until the grunge years of the early ’90s. The success of Nirvana triggered an ‘indie band’ signing spree that saw a lot of independent labels get into bed with the majors, both publicly and covertly. I remember insiders up-in-arms over The Smashing Pumpkins, whose Caroline Records debut was supposedly just an ‘indie cred’ warm-up to their already planned sophomore album on a major label. Caroline, at the time, was a subsidiary of Virgin, after all. Even then, there were debates over whether an act such as this could be considered independent.
Things seem less complicated now, but only at first glance. One can’t get any more independent than self-released, right? And bedroom labels are rampant, a far distance from the three major label behemoths. But the confusion lies in distribution, marketing, and the third party deals a label or artist signs in the guise of ‘label services.’ Is a self-released artist independent while using a distributor that also controls her publishing? While promoting solely through a social media platform that is the gatekeeper to her fanbase? And while relying on Spotify playlist placements for discovery and traction?
We’re likely splitting hairs. Some of the bands we considered the most independent in the ’70s and ’80s relied on corporate record chains to sell their music, or entered into deals with management agencies and live venue networks. But now there is an air of acquiescence that seems different. Is ‘selling out’ even an available option when the biggest corporations in human history are necessary for exposing one’s music?
This circumstance presents a challenge when defining ‘independent music.’ And this challenge is depressing. If we’re in bed with corporations because of the tools we use, then there’s not much hope for the punk rock dream.
Historically, we’ve looked at independence in terms of control. Who’s in the driver’s seat? I think that stands, even if we need to tweak things a little. It’s natural to call a label or artist who controls songs and revenue flow — traditionally through a distributor — an independent. But even that’s debatable, as Cherie Hu pointed out in a recent post:
… according to Billboard and Nielsen, copyrights owned by Universal Music Group account for a 29% share of the recorded-music market — but if you look at [indie label] catalog distributed by Universal, that share increases to 38%. On the flip side, copyrights owned by indie labels account for 35% of the market, but copyrights distributed by indies account for only 16%. This implies that many artists and labels who we categorize as “indie” actually rely on distributors owned by major labels to release their music — a nuance that can be complicated to discuss in the open.
Also, a difference from decades ago is that the current independent artist must also exert control of her fanbase. In other words, the audience interacts through the proprietary website, or an email list, or at live shows rather than solely through the corporate go-between of social media. As I’ve spoken about before, an independent artist uses social media as a mere tool, not a reliance.
Our definition of independent is increasingly subjective. If Taylor Swift managed to gain control of all her recording masters, publishing, and fanbase access, we could call her a sort of independent artist even when Universal distributes her music. Likewise, an emerging artist on a small independently distributed label, but who signed all his recordings and publishing to the label for perpetuity, isn’t exactly independent.
I believe the title of ‘independent’ now leans towards those who understand and control their rights. It used to hinge on the size and scope of the artist’s associated label, which made the definition easier to suss out. But as more and larger artists continue utilizing 21st-century tools to seize their rights, the meaning of ‘independent’ only gets blurrier.
None of the artists you’re mentioning are truly independent. The ONLY way they got big is through label money or big investments – flawed article.
That’s actually the point of the article. It’s particularly fuzzy and subjective now. Even the Minutemen wouldn’t be an indie artist under your definition as I’m sure SST Records floated some financial support their way, at the very least to front record pressing and distribution costs. Thanks for reading. 👍
Finally, someone gets it and I think it’s a discussion that needs more input. Not only has the “Independent” label are artist gotten blurred but also the days of Executive Producer, Producer and Arranger(s) gotten lost in the mix. The days when there where teams that collaborated appear to be gone forever, but lets not forget that today’s music biz wouldn’t be what it is without what is was. And what so called independent streamers don’t get is if they would read the fine print those very rights that they so yearn to protect are passed on to the Spotify’s, iTunes and other distribution channels they sign with. We so called independent label owners knew that while calling ourselves independents still needed the major due that distribution and marketing was locked down by the big 3 or 4 major players. Our independence was only signing artist we could actually take time to develop and prepare for bigger venues and hopes of striking deals with devil so to speak. And let’s not forget that as we sit in our American bubble there is a big world out there that can’t stream to the car or television and still rely radio, television waves and CD’s that are being reach by “WHOM” you got it the majors. I believe what we are all trying to figure out now is where do we go from here. Streaming aggregators threw the industry a curve ball that we weren’t prepared for and the guy in his basement studio saw an opportunity. He became, Independent label, executive producer, producer and arranger over night. So here we are folks.
Great article. I’m trying to be a legitimately independent artist and my biggest concern is gaining any traction in an industry that ignores small fish.
Thank you!
I hear what you’re saying. It’s frustrating. But the key is to stake your claim and make music only for the die-hards, even if right now that number is small. Focusing on your ideal audience, the ones *really* into what you’re doing, as opposed to making your music with the masses in mind — that will not only help you find your niche, but make your fans even more die-hard. They’ll tell their friends. And it starts from there. It’s a long game but it’s more fun when you’re making art for the people who love you.
The always reliable Seth Godin can explain it better than me → https://seths.blog/2017/07/in-search-of-the-minimum-viable-audience/
Thanks again for reading! I’m planning more articles on this blog aimed at helping out the small fishes. Stay tuned. 🐟
I enjoyed your article Michael, thank you. I am a long time musician and creator. I now have a wonderful wife and son, and a ‘day job’. I have been recently discouraged (and/or chastised) from stepping back into the world of music by several because I have no social media, by choice. It seems overwhelming to enter this art-market-place without such. If I do, I would in some ways be relying on others’ social media presence to spread my name/music/reviews…interesting times for music creation and marketing. Thanks for your time!
Nick
This is something I think about a lot as I am no fan of the social media companies (which you’ll gather if you read through this blog’s posts).
In short, it’s important that you have your own artist website and it needs to be active: consistent updates, your music streaming on the site, all the information a fan could want, and regular surprises. Surprising your fanbase is important.
Then build a mailing list and have way to sign-up on your site. Create a fun incentive for signing up (an MP3 of a fun cover song that can’t be gotten anywhere else is a good one). Make the newsletter regular, fun, and something that your fans look forward to receiving. In other words, don’t just send an email when you want to plug a new release or show. Get creative. Serve your fanbase.
Bandcamp is a great place for people to find you, too. And Bandcamp can help you build your mailing list. You can give away music on Bandcamp in exchange for an email address.
Email networking is key when you’re not using social media. Reach out to bloggers, fellow musicians, radio hosts, etc. that are into your style of music. Send a personal email — no copy-and-paste jobs, and definitely no BCC’ing. Maybe make it a challenge to reach out to someone new every day. With some research you can often find email addresses so you won’t have to contact via social media … but sometimes you might have to.
I would keep one social media channel open that you use, and that you can contact people through (and fans can use to interact with you). People think you need to be active on all of social media but, honestly, it’s better to have nothing than to have pages you’re not updating or that you’re auto-posting to. Pick one. Personally, I use Twitter as my one social platform because it’s good for quick updates and networking.
But, no matter what you use, it’s important that you’re always linking to your website. Your goal is to send people there and get them to sign up to your mailing list. That way they’re *your* audience, not Facebook’s.
Hope this helps!
Michael,
I agree and I am strategizing/planning/researching currently; your response was great, and in line with how I am probably going to move forward…and that was a good feeling, so thank you! Success is a moving target measured by strange means to be sure. It rarely seems like work when I am creating, recording, designing. I hope to build something new and interesting. Thanks again,
Nick
its a tough business….hard not to get discouraged…no money for the creative…everyone wants money to exploit the artist and the writer…pay to play is the order ! cbk