In the wake of last week’s Jagermeister Independent Music Award nominations, which saw nods to several major label distributed acts, we asked six local labels whether the definition of being “indie” has been muddied by major label subsidiaries and distribution deals.

Steve Cross

Remote Control/Dot Dash

As my footer says: “Be Vigilant - Faux Independent Labels Operate In Your Area”. Being independent means different things to different people. For some artists, being on an independent label is an aesthetic decision. They want to maintain control over their music, their artwork and the way they are presented. It’s perhaps even a choice they make because it’s a best fit with their social values. It’s important to them that Australia doesn’t become a musical mono-culture.

For other people, being on an independent label is nothing more than being on their training wheels for the mainstream. They’re looking for an opportunity to drive down the middle of the road. If they could be on a major label they would be, and as such they aren’t concerned if their “indie label” has major label affiliations.

Shaun Hemsley

Tenzenmen

Independent went out of the window with the release and aftermath of Nevermind and it could be argued well before that too. What did independent mean even before that? One man’s independent distributor is another crusty punk's capitalist.

Simon “Tig” Huggins

Two Bright Lakes

As much as it's a played-out term, independence is mostly about choice and control. For Two Bright lakes it's about artists learning the skills and mechanics of the industry to build and maintain their careers. Outwardly, to the general public, the line between major label and indie acts has blurred, mostly around marketing of the term "indie" by large corporations in music, film and TV. In reality, in the music industry, they have probably moved further away from each other. If you look at acts on major labels, the majority of them have 360 deals or something close, whereas most indie acts would control the majority of their management, masters, touring and publishing.

Thomas Hyland

Clones and Clones

I’m not sure what it actually means. Irrespective of “business structure”, I think the term is now tailored to mean what anyone wants it to mean. I suppose I can see the term sometimes being used to signify an emphasis on artistic output as opposed to something else: a way of alluding to credibility.

We’re now only just preparing for our first release - a compilation - and the distribution structure we have is essentially based on the gigs, movement and friends of the artists. Almost every copy is going to be put into their hands. This isn’t because we don’t want “proper” distribution - I would love to see Clones material in good record stores around Australia – but because it’s currently the most appropriate model for someone as small as us to tackle.

Nic Warnock

R.I.P Society

I'd use the same definition as Michael Azerrad in his book Our Band Could Be Your Life: If a band or record label has any ties (whether funding, distribution, etc.) with one of the “Big Four” corporations, they’re not independent. I’m not saying it's a bad thing to have any major label involvement in all circumstances, this is just how I define independent.

There's a difference between the "independent music industry" (about as interesting as the “packaged meats industry”) and what I think of as true independent music culture (a life-changing experience). You know, the whole “we jam econo” (Minutemen), “get in the van” (Black Flag), “it was easy, it was cheap, go and do it” (Desperate Bicycles) type of thang. I'm pretty sure anyone that gives two shits about independent music culture can see through these subsidiaries edgy names, grunge typefaces and poor attempts at viral marketing.

Steve Phillips

Sensory Projects

I think the meaning of the word independent is completely different from the inference of the term independent nowadays. I personally don't think too much about what it means to be independent or that I run an independent label, because contextually no one cares very much if labels are independent or not, so long as they're putting out good music.

Sensory Projects is very much an independent label: we are self-funded, we run our own business, we make our own decisions. Spunk!, which is supported by EMI, is considered an independent label too, because of the nature of the music it releases out into the Australian marketplace. The fact that Spunk! is supported by EMI is really only an issue for EMI, Spunk! and [founder] Aaron Curnow, and not for anyone else. As far as I can tell, Aaron is still driving the releases and the nature of those releases has not changed significantly since the inception of Spunk! back in 1999. But in the musical community, I guess Spunk! and Sensory Projects and a whole lot of other “small” labels would be deemed indie labels because it's a way of compartmentalising what we represent.

I think terms like independent are generally pretty flawed anyway, but in terms of distribution I think for some at least, the perception of independence is a real win-lose situation. Shock has maintained itself for more than 20 years as an independent, but seriously, when you are putting out big selling albums by The Offspring and the like, the inference and suggestion of the word independent starts to change. As a business they might have been financially independent, but as a portal for music, their support for “indie-music” sort of waned a long time ago. But, really, as a music lover, does anyone care? The days of tracking labels release-by-release come and go, and when a label is on a hot streak you may feel a little more connected to the aesthetic of that label, or not. And who does what is really less important than the existence of a good record from any source, right?

+

The Jagermeister Independent Music Awards will be announced at The Forum Theatre in Melbourne on October 1.