Is Justin over 21?

Originally posted by Member 656:
Nonesuch is distributed by Warner.

Nonesuch is owned by Warner Music Group.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Member 656:
Nonesuch is distributed by Warner.

Nonesuch is owned by Warner Music Group.

Well.. that too.

The beauty of this board…
we can go from talking about Justin Timberlake's real age to whether or not he is actually talented to being a hippie and spreading positivity to talking about what classifies a band as indie to how wilco sucks at life.


i love it. :)

42

The beauty of this board…
we can go from talking about Justin Timberlake's real age to whether or not he is actually talented to being a hippie and spreading positivity to talking about what classifies a band as indie to how wilco sucks at life.


i love it.

I think its called ADD

Actually, he is not on Subpop. He has releases his last two album on Ashmont, which is bascially just him and one other person working out of their own little office.

He dropped off of Subpop so that he could have more control and self-release his music..now THAT'S indie.

Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:

Originally posted by Celeste:

now Joe Pernice…he's indie

yeah, he is on subpop, right? Do you think if he sold a half a million albums he would stay on Subpop?

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
now THAT'S indie.

Can we clear some things up:

White Stripes: Multiple albums on Sympathy an honest to goodness independant label. Then signed with V2. I would say they now fall into the vast black hole of "Alternative" which is another can of worms. But for a good while they were a legitimate indie band.

Strokes : One, maybe 2 eps on indie labels but jumped to a major as fast as humanly possible. Although they had college radio backing they were never really "indie". Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins got played on college radio but indie they isn't. Another "Alternative" band.

BRMC : Uh, they're on what, V2? Not particularly indie. I mean, they don't get much play on mainstream radio but, SHOCKING, neither does a lot of stuff on major labels. Not getting played every hour on HFS when you're on a major =/= indie.

I'm listening to Green Day right now for the first time in ages. Are they a "punk" band? Damned if I know.

Originally posted by mjnova:
Can we clear some things up:

White Stripes: Multiple albums on Sympathy an honest to goodness independant label. Then signed with V2. I would say they now fall into the vast black hole of "Alternative" which is another can of worms. But for a good while they were a legitimate indie band.

By all accounts, they didn't make any royalties while on Sympathy. V2 offered them a sweetheart deal which included the oft-mentioned "full artistic control" - which is why people sign or stay with indies, isn't it?

So if they still have control over their output, and have somebody who can do more for them than Long Gone John could, isn't that a good thing?

So, if you still play the same style of music, but jump to a major label, do you lose the "indie" title simply because you are actually making money now?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
[simply because you are actually making money now?

I am with you on this one GGW….

as for the strokes well they released 4 singles on roughtrade:

http://www.roughtraderecords.com/

if you take b-sides then they must make up over half of their album. So does that make it an indie album afterall?

I say yes, you do lose the "indie" tag. But who said indie=good, majors=bad?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by mjnova:
Can we clear some things up:

White Stripes: Multiple albums on Sympathy an honest to goodness independant label. Then signed with V2. I would say they now fall into the vast black hole of "Alternative" which is another can of worms. But for a good while they were a legitimate indie band.

By all accounts, they didn't make any royalties while on Sympathy. V2 offered them a sweetheart deal which included the oft-mentioned "full artistic control" - which is why people sign or stay with indies, isn't it?

So if they still have control over their output, and have somebody who can do more for them than Long Gone John could, isn't that a good thing?

So, if you still play the same style of music, but jump to a major label, do you lose the "indie" title simply because you are actually making money now?

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
But who said indie=good, majors=bad?

[/QB]

Well if the major is only interested in manufactured pop, written by some dodgy songwriting team, like the matrix. Then majors are bad. For the strokes and whitestripes I dont think it matters except they get more media space.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I say yes, you do lose the "indie" tag. But who said indie=good, majors=bad?

Nobody. But "indie" is more often used to describe a band's style of music than to describe the band's business arrangements. I mean, you call a band alt-country whether they are on a major or an independent. Same with metal. But when someone says an "indie" band, do you think, "A band that is not business partners with a multi-national recording company?" Or do you take that term to mean they sound unlike what is generally played on the narrow confines of radio and MTV?

Originally posted by Anton Newcombe:

Originally posted by ggw™:
[simply because you are actually making money now?

I am with you on this one GGW….

as for the strokes well they released 4 singles on roughtrade:

http://www.roughtraderecords.com/

if you take b-sides then they must make up over half of their album. So does that make it an indie album afterall?

The Strokes were inevitably gonna jump ship for a major.

I think if you get more than one song consistantly played on a corperate radio station that weakens your indieness. I know I know, the band has nothing technically to do with it, but if they have multiple tunes deemed palpable for the masses than it it's tougher to lump them in with the indie crowd.

ppssst, ggw, for some reason we're not getting anywhere with these explanations. Valiant attempt, though.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I say yes, you do lose the "indie" tag. But who said indie=good, majors=bad?

Nobody. But "indie" is more often used to describe a band's style of music than to describe the band's business arrangements. I mean, you call a band alt-country whether they are on a major or an independent. Same with metal. But when someone says an "indie" band, do you think, "A band that is not business partners with a multi-national recording company?" Or do you take that term to mean they sound unlike what is generally played on the narrow confines of radio and MTV?

I dunno, I always took indie to mean a bands record label status. indie=independent.

There can be indie bands that are alt-country, lo-fi, shoegazer, trip-hop, whatever. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno, I always took indie to mean a bands record label status. indie=independent.

There can be indie bands that are alt-country, lo-fi, shoegazer, trip-hop, whatever. But that's just my opinion.

I think that's too hard and fast. There are bands on majors who are still concidered indie for whatever reason. Wilco being a prime example. But that's more in keeping with my radio example. If folks in the mainstream don't hear the band then they're not necessissarily mainstream even if they're on say Capitol (which does a good job of working with college radio).

At least one person agrees with me…

http://www.llarion.com/likes.htm

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I say yes, you do lose the "indie" tag. But who said indie=good, majors=bad?

Nobody. But "indie" is more often used to describe a band's style of music than to describe the band's business arrangements. I mean, you call a band alt-country whether they are on a major or an independent. Same with metal. But when someone says an "indie" band, do you think, "A band that is not business partners with a multi-national recording company?" Or do you take that term to mean they sound unlike what is generally played on the narrow confines of radio and MTV?

I agree totally here. "indie" came from Independent. However, it has grown to more than that. Because when i say "alternative", thats Smashing Pumpkins, Our Lady Peace, Staind, blah blah blah, whatever. And then theres Indie which is the likes of bands on Victory, Sup-Pop, TVT (are they independent still?) XL , V2 , whatever, but if Badly Drawn Boy was on an independent label and then he signed to Warner, what would he be then? Alternative? nooooo, i dont think so, and isnt Dashboard Confessional on an indie label still?

The point is , we ALL know what "indie" originally meant, but it has kinda changed the way its thrown around, unless you are really old and out of touch i suppose.

i dont even like to use the word indie for this reason , however.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
At least one person agrees with me…

http://www.llarion.com/likes.htm

That guy sounds like your type, Rhett.

In addition to all those pictures of his "kitties," he's got this great tidbit about his background:

I thought I'd tell you a little bit about my best friend in the world, the late Aaron Michael Leonard. Mikey and I met in the fall of 1977, rehearsing for The Wiz. I was the Lion, he was several parts in the chorus.

i DON'T LIKE CATS OR NEGRO MUSICALS