Is the Indie vs. Mainstream Battle Over?
The Indie vs. Mainstream battle has raged for decades now: there's the indie is good and mainstream is bad side and the never ending 'what is indie' side. If you grow up fighting a particular fight it is sometimes hard to know when the fight is over. I've been pondering it lately and I think that this one is. It is not over because one side or the other won, it is over because indie and mainstream music are not even in the same business anymore. Some time, about 10 years ago the 'music business' came to a fork in the road and indie went one way and mainstream went the other. I think at this point they are far enough apart that they own have their distinct territory without much overlap and I think if you take a hard look at any music it is easy to see which side of the wall it falls on.
mainstream sues people over file sharing, or for playing their CDs at a place of business or ... well anything to keep the lawyers busy really.
indie may not be happy about file sharing, but most on this side also recognize the promotional value of free music (and if they are honest with themselves many if not most on both sides will download a song or two themselves sometimes.) If indie walks into a dentist office or hair salon and hears their album playing they are very happy, they don't ask to be paid for it.
mainstream is primarily about the relationship between labels, wholesalers and retailers.
indie is primarily about the relationship between artists and fans.
mainstream is as much about a performers image and their off stage exploits as it is about what they do on stage or in the studio.
indie is almost exclusively about what happens on stage and in the studio.
mainstream is about pure entertainment value.
indie should be entertaining but it is about the art of music - scantily clad choreographed dancers are a rarity at live concerts - at least on stage.
mainstream hires stylists, image consultants, and makeup artists
indie does not
mainstream is $15-20 at HMV or Wal-Mart
indie is $8 at Zunior or $10 for a physical copy at the merch table ($15 for vinyl).
mainstream is an industry it cranks out music and popular entertainers with all the same level of passion that a soap factory cranks out bars.
indie is an art (that like all art would also like to make a living.)
Finally - unlike the old days mainstream is not out scouting for bands they can sell (ruin) - they manufacture bands now. Between their stylists, fashion consultants, hair and make-up people, image gurus, airbrushing, planting of stories with the paparazzi, song writers, music writers, auto-tune, studio tricks etc., they can take pretty much anyone regardless of description or talent and make them a salable commodity. There is no point in going out and seeking out bands who might have integrity and/or ideas of their own.
That fork in the road I mentioned above was the internet. When it arrived it brought inexpensive music production, marketing and distribution, file sharing and social media. It also brought the million channel universe. In the old world the same companies that owned the mega-labels also owned the radio and television stations, newspapers and magazines. They played and covered largely their own artists. The arrival of podcasts, internet radio and internet tv meant the monopoly of the entertainment conglomerates was broken. Independent artists and small labels saw an opportunity and took it. The big labels, the traditional giants of the music business took it as a threat and lawyered up.
The indie vs. mainstream battle at this point reached a fever pitch. There have been (and still are) attempts by the big labels to control the internet, to limit access to sites they don't approve of etc., (to keep up to date on these efforts just watch Michael Geists blog.) By and large though I think the battle is over.
When I talk to people I don't find alot of overlap between audiences. I find very few people who listen to 50 cent AND Buck 65, none who listen to Britney Spears AND Basia Bulat. There is the occasional crossover like Feist but for the most part they are two different worlds. I don't find many people anymore who think that Feist or Arcade Fire aren't "indie" anymore just because they've become successful. Generally, the people I talk to who are into indie music don't even watch the same television shows, listen to the same radio stations, or read the same publications as the people who are interested in more mainstream fare.
At some point when no one was paying attention the two warring factions simply became different countries. Mainstream music is no longer the enemy of music. The mainstream has almost nothing to do with music, they manufacture a product (like lug nuts, or donuts) and sell that product. Indie, for lack of a better term at the moment, has claimed the mantle. In future books on music history there will be almost no mention of the mainstream 'music industry' except as a footnote. So, having taken over it's time for us to simply turn our backs and walk away from the old music industry and focus on strengthening what's been built.
Indie (or whatever we want to call it) understood the internet as an opportunity, seized it immediately and is more and more successful every year. Mainstream (or the 'music industry that was') is still suing and lobbying governments to try to make the internet go away (the only way they'll ever even slow down file sharing is to shut down the internet entirely.) They took the internet and technology as a threat and still do and every year they get weaker and more remote. The war is over, now it's time to rebuild.
mainstream sues people over file sharing, or for playing their CDs at a place of business or ... well anything to keep the lawyers busy really.
indie may not be happy about file sharing, but most on this side also recognize the promotional value of free music (and if they are honest with themselves many if not most on both sides will download a song or two themselves sometimes.) If indie walks into a dentist office or hair salon and hears their album playing they are very happy, they don't ask to be paid for it.
mainstream is primarily about the relationship between labels, wholesalers and retailers.
indie is primarily about the relationship between artists and fans.
mainstream is as much about a performers image and their off stage exploits as it is about what they do on stage or in the studio.
indie is almost exclusively about what happens on stage and in the studio.
mainstream is about pure entertainment value.
indie should be entertaining but it is about the art of music - scantily clad choreographed dancers are a rarity at live concerts - at least on stage.
mainstream hires stylists, image consultants, and makeup artists
indie does not
mainstream is $15-20 at HMV or Wal-Mart
indie is $8 at Zunior or $10 for a physical copy at the merch table ($15 for vinyl).
mainstream is an industry it cranks out music and popular entertainers with all the same level of passion that a soap factory cranks out bars.
indie is an art (that like all art would also like to make a living.)
Finally - unlike the old days mainstream is not out scouting for bands they can sell (ruin) - they manufacture bands now. Between their stylists, fashion consultants, hair and make-up people, image gurus, airbrushing, planting of stories with the paparazzi, song writers, music writers, auto-tune, studio tricks etc., they can take pretty much anyone regardless of description or talent and make them a salable commodity. There is no point in going out and seeking out bands who might have integrity and/or ideas of their own.
That fork in the road I mentioned above was the internet. When it arrived it brought inexpensive music production, marketing and distribution, file sharing and social media. It also brought the million channel universe. In the old world the same companies that owned the mega-labels also owned the radio and television stations, newspapers and magazines. They played and covered largely their own artists. The arrival of podcasts, internet radio and internet tv meant the monopoly of the entertainment conglomerates was broken. Independent artists and small labels saw an opportunity and took it. The big labels, the traditional giants of the music business took it as a threat and lawyered up.
The indie vs. mainstream battle at this point reached a fever pitch. There have been (and still are) attempts by the big labels to control the internet, to limit access to sites they don't approve of etc., (to keep up to date on these efforts just watch Michael Geists blog.) By and large though I think the battle is over.
When I talk to people I don't find alot of overlap between audiences. I find very few people who listen to 50 cent AND Buck 65, none who listen to Britney Spears AND Basia Bulat. There is the occasional crossover like Feist but for the most part they are two different worlds. I don't find many people anymore who think that Feist or Arcade Fire aren't "indie" anymore just because they've become successful. Generally, the people I talk to who are into indie music don't even watch the same television shows, listen to the same radio stations, or read the same publications as the people who are interested in more mainstream fare.
At some point when no one was paying attention the two warring factions simply became different countries. Mainstream music is no longer the enemy of music. The mainstream has almost nothing to do with music, they manufacture a product (like lug nuts, or donuts) and sell that product. Indie, for lack of a better term at the moment, has claimed the mantle. In future books on music history there will be almost no mention of the mainstream 'music industry' except as a footnote. So, having taken over it's time for us to simply turn our backs and walk away from the old music industry and focus on strengthening what's been built.
Indie (or whatever we want to call it) understood the internet as an opportunity, seized it immediately and is more and more successful every year. Mainstream (or the 'music industry that was') is still suing and lobbying governments to try to make the internet go away (the only way they'll ever even slow down file sharing is to shut down the internet entirely.) They took the internet and technology as a threat and still do and every year they get weaker and more remote. The war is over, now it's time to rebuild.
Labels: indie, music business
Share on Facebook
Keep in Touch:
4 Comments:
solid, solid article.
You get a gold star good sir. (meant in the best possible way)
I agree with everything except for this point:
"mainstream is $15-20 at HMV or Wal-Mart
indie is $8 at Zunior or $10 for a physical copy at the merch table ($15 for vinyl). "
I think this one is too much of a generalization. Other than that this was an interesting article.
Putting aside the business and suing thing, I'd argue that whereas in the past mainstream and indie operated as enemies, they now use and play off each other. Mainstream uses indie for creativity, cred, and zeitgeist value, and indie uses mainstream for exposure and, well, cash.
I think of it as the internet and mainstream media. You'll have someone like Michael Geist or David Eaves building up a loyal following on their blogs, but they get their big exposure (and, I would guess, big pay days) when they occasionally appear in the Globe and Mail or CBC. In the same sense, you'll have some underground/indie artist like Empire of the Sun building up a loyal following using MySpace, the Hype Machine, and Pitchfork, but I guarantee you that the big pay comes from Luke Steele's guest shot on the Blueprint 3. There's lots of these... circa 2001, pretty much every gigantic song was produced by the Neptunes, yet how many people are aware the Neptunes exist (despite writing hits for Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, No Doubt, and more). The Deadly Snakes and Joel Plaskett have lots of loyal fans, but their most famous (and, I would guess, most profitable) songs broke through via Toyota and Zellers. Mainstream artists maintain cred by piggybacking on the sounds of the underground, and the underground gets paid like that.
I think you're missing a few important points. First of all, Dr. Geist is a law prof. at Ottawa U and a regular columnist for the Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, and the BBC. I think that's likely where he gets his money.
Most importantly I think you missed my point on the media. Obviously 'indie music' gets more play on mainstream media than they used to. Once something becomes popular enough the MSM can't afford to tune it out altogether anymore. The CBC, in particular, is a public broadcaster and has never been beholden to the big labels. As for the rest, as the big labels staggered the rest of the media conglomerate of which they are a part had to make some decisions: Do they want to keep trying to appeal to a wider audience or do they want to remain loyal to another branch of the company and sink with it? They pay more attention to 'indie' because their audience wants it and it's gotten large enough that ignoring it makes them look foolish. Indie music is used more in film and advertising because it is good, because it is increasingly popular and because Joel Plaskett, the Deadly Snakes and Said the Whale don't want as much money as the Jonas Brothers.
That the main stream press is clued in to indie music now does not mean that it has become main stream, or that the artists have 'sold out' or any of that b.s. That kind of thinking also went out with the internet. If people are going to download Feist's music for free, they'll just have to excuse her if she makes a ton of money from an iPod ad.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home