[greedrex]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

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

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 Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by greedrex

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.

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.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by greedrex

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

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.

[Glice]

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.

[greedrex]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

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?

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

[Dead-Air]

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.