View Single Post
Old 07-01-2014, 13:34
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,878
You seem to be dismissing a hell of a lot of influential albums just because they were lucky enough to be spotted by a major label.
well it might seem like that to you, but i don't know why. i'm certainly not dismissing them. all i'm saying is if they aren't released on an indie label they shouldn't be considered an indie album. it doesn't matter the music any better or worse or the music any more or less influential.

Just because the definition started one way, it doesn't mean things don't evolve. Pop was originally short for popular music, however there is now a sub genre of indie called indie pop, yet it is not particularly popular.
but you are talking about genres of music. indie music has no genre. you get dance, rock, pop and hip hop music as indie releases, and all of those genres are also released on major labels too

Here is a question for you.

The first album by the Presidents of the USA was released by PopLama records, an indie record label yet they are a rock band.

To further complicate matters the album was then re-released by Columbia records.

How would you describe this album?

Things arn't as black and white as you like to think
i presume you mean their second album, which was their second independant release, as their first album froggystyle which was an independant release hasn't been reissued on a major label. if an album is released on an indie label it's an indie album, even if it's subsequently reissued or distributed by a major label. it's the original release that counts. pretty simple in black and white really. it's just like singles that have the original release on an indie label and get picked up for distribution on a major label, such as commonly happened with dance music. dj's buy the import 12" and it gets popular in clubs and labels like sony would license it for release in the uk
unique is offline   Reply With Quote