|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:43 am
*cough* Indiepop can't exist.
Indie - Indiependent. Means simply that the band is NOT signed on a major label. Not even a proper genre.
Pop - Popular. Probably on a major label, because it is very popular. Not a genre..
Indie and Pop are opposites. None of them can be called a genre. So it is just not possible to create something awful like "Indiepop".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:01 pm
DistortedSolar *cough* Indiepop can't exist. Indie - Indiependent. Means simply that the band is NOT signed on a major label. Not even a proper genre. Pop - Popular. Probably on a major label, because it is very popular. Not a genre.. Indie and Pop are opposites. None of them can be called a genre. So it is just not possible to create something awful like "Indiepop". Wrong. Pop - Generally pleasing sound the masses could enjoy. It's very easy for an Independent band to create music that the masses can enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:50 am
What about a band, like Rancid who kind of whores themselves. They're punk, then they go sell themselves to Dreamworks like AFI. Or some band like that anyways. I think Rancid is still on Epitaph, if not Hellcat. (They replaced the drummer with the one from the Used... wow. Downhill since like.. uh.. the start. ha). Basically I'm curious what they are considered if they are on both a major and an independent label at the same time, or from one to the other and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:09 pm
The amount of bands that are on labels now that call themselves "indie" because it is more credible is sickening. Indie is always better and less contrived. Nothing like someone doing it because they love it versus the big fat check. Support indie music...pop, rock, folk, psychadelic...whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:23 am
evilbrainbabies What about a band, like Rancid who kind of whores themselves. They're punk, then they go sell themselves to Dreamworks like AFI. Or some band like that anyways. I think Rancid is still on Epitaph, if not Hellcat. (They replaced the drummer with the one from the Used... wow. Downhill since like.. uh.. the start. ha). Basically I'm curious what they are considered if they are on both a major and an independent label at the same time, or from one to the other and vice versa. I would be reluctant to call most bands on Epitaph indie even though the record label is technically coined as 'independent'. Perhaps bands like the Weakerthans who still use audio tapes and seedy motel rooms covered in woolly/cottony blankets, but other than that... :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:15 pm
I do like the weakerthans... But that's beside the point.
what's with the way Epitaph pays there bands? Because I have heard from different people that they pay okay, some say it's average, but for the most part, I hear that Epitaph pays there bands s**t. That is why so many keep getting off of there label. And there ideas were supported really well with the way bands went and did different labels, Like some making there own. Others went to a less-than great label, and others went mainstream. So I find myself questioning Epitaph constantly because of the artists that come and go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:37 pm
evilbrainbabies I do like the weakerthans... But that's beside the point. what's with the way Epitaph pays there bands? Because I have heard from different people that they pay okay, some say it's average, but for the most part, I hear that Epitaph pays there bands s**t. That is why so many keep getting off of there label. And there ideas were supported really well with the way bands went and did different labels, Like some making there own. Others went to a less-than great label, and others went mainstream. So I find myself questioning Epitaph constantly because of the artists that come and go. I was pretty pissed with Brett when I found out that the Weakerthans were only given $100 to record 'Reunion Tour'. On their youtube webisode, Samson stated that he had to scrap some songs which were probably better because they simply didn't have enough to record it. I was thinking to myself. WHAT THE ******** ARE YOU ON BRETT! I would think that with the more popular bands like From First to Last, Motion City Soundtrack, The Matches and the Beatsteaks (ok, they're mainly just popular in Germany), the label would be reaping in a lot more money to fork out a more than a 100 bucks. So if that's anything to be said, I wouldn't blame them if they did run to another label.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:56 pm
Wow is that a joke or an insult? For a guy that knows about how hard it must be to tour and all that, he's being pretty damn stingy with the cash. What's his problem with holding back the money on recording and all that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:26 pm
You could easily make an album for $100, but I guess once you're signed too a label you're too good for someones basement and a pirated version of Cubase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:33 pm
Obviously it's doable, considering the album is already made. I'm simply wondering what those other songs he scrapped were?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:15 am
They're probably be released as b-sides when they want to push out an album to get off Epitaph and end their contract a la Thursday, or as some box set for when they break up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:08 am
Just asking, since the whole question of indie came into it. What if you're signed to your own label?
As in the case of Bell X1. They were signed to Universal Island Records and then they walked out and formed Belly Up Records themselves.
So, technically they're signed to themselves. Does that make them 'indie'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:51 pm
Eires heart Just asking, since the whole question of indie came into it. What if you're signed to your own label? As in the case of Bell X1. They were signed to Universal Island Records and then they walked out and formed Belly Up Records themselves. So, technically they're signed to themselves. Does that make them 'indie'? You're probably thinking about this in the wrong way and over complicating it. If the band is signed onto an independent record label, then it's an indie band. If an album was released by an independent record label, it's an indie release. Mostly, there's very little point calling something by what it longer is. You could still call the band a popular or well-known band by virtue of the fact that perhaps their time with the major record label has made them such - but for as long as they are signed with an indie label, they are indie. Or so that's my take on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
