|
|
The Independent Artist Identity Crisisby George Ziemann -- January 20, 2009 The IRS understands what an independent artist is. For the 2008 tax year, business class 711510 is "Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers." The audience thinks it's a genre of some sort. I'm kind of conflicted about the audience right now, anyway. Not necessarily my audience, but the overall million or so adults in the United States that listen to music. THE audience, as it were. They think that music is Indie because it sounds similar to the Arctic Monkeys or White Stripes or something. I'm really not sure. I think the record labels are also trying to brand some of their new bands as "Indie Rock," despite the obvious hypocrisy. In the last few years, the labels have cut their rosters repeatedly and many artists have declined to renew their contracts. Reportedly as much as 2/3 of 2003's signed artists are now independent by definition. I don't think that the public really has a grasp on how many "famous" acts will be using class 711510 this year. They don't sound anything like each other at all. Does it matter what the audience thinks "independent" means? Not terribly much, but they have taken what should be a highly useful designation and turned it into a meaningless one. For years and years, we heard the stories about how the record labels ripped off artists and the artists had no real recourse because they signed bad, one-sided contracts. If you didn't like the terms, then see ya later. Can your lawyer look at it? If you walk out of the room without signing the contract, then there will be no contract to show your lawyer. Think you deserve a higher royalty rate? No problem. We'll double it. Does that work for you? Alright then, see you later... Let's see, zero times two is... still zero. Everyone knew the labels were a bad deal, but they were the only deal. Musicians needed them to waste millions of dollars making them famous, which the record labels did, which is why there was never any profit left to pay the band. Of course, this is just one of numerous accounting tricks the labels are famous for. But they were the only ones who could make records, or it certainly seemed that way by the time stereo was introduced to the radio. And once you had records, if you wanted to get on the radio, well, get your checkbook out for that one, too. The amount of time since musicians have been able to produce and distribute on their own is the blink of an eye compared to the length of time it was relatively impossible. When recording studios became more common, a band could spend anywhere from $3,000 to $12,000 to get an album recorded at a budget local studio, leaving you with exactly one copy. When digital and the recording tools came along, it enabled a lot of talented artists to get their music out without signing away the next 7 years of their life. As time has passed, we've seen it become the vehicle of choice for a growing number of artists who had a contract when the lawsuits started, it's done now and they don't want another one. Does Franz Ferdinand's audience give a shit whether he has a contract with EMI or not? I doubt it. How about Paul McCartney's fans? Hell, no. Does it give the Eagles or Garth Brooks more credibility? Or less? I'd guess no to both (or is it all four) questions. Metallica narc'ed out all of their fans and the fans still love them. In spite of the Rubinization of their last album, the fans still love them. If they become indie when their contract ends, no one is going to suddenly defect from the Metallica camp because their market share moves from column A to column E. The public can't control the change that's taking place under the radar, yet out in the open, where everyone retains control of their work. It's the smart thing to do, especially if you're already famous. That's what the artists are choosing. The audience still thinks it's a genre. That's kind of sad. The only thing to do is to find a new name for "not attached to the RIAA". I'm not real fond of "unsigned artist," either, because it somehow seems to imply that "signed" is the desired state. While this is certainly true in many cases, the list at right shows just a small sampling of the many artists who have determined that being signed isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. Later... Okay, I've got it -- No Trans Fat. That's not going to make sense for a couple of days because you have to think about it -- and you will think about it. No Trans Fat. 100% Compatible! |
Indie is Not a GenreIt means contracturally independent from the four major record labels. It doesn't mean that the music falls into a particular category. To the best of my knowledge, the following acts are (or were) all accurately classified as independent:
|