Calling yourself an "indie" artist may be doing more harm than good...

I am dropping "indie" from the description of my music...here's why.The only difference being "Indie" or "major" is that when you sign with a major label you are actually signing up with a huge promotion/advertising company that doubles as an incredibly unfair bank....who in the end will own your music....also 95% of you will never see a royalty cheque. However as far as the music goes the only difference is your ability to promote it to a mass market, that takes a Major Label....PERIOD! There is a hefty price for that service and it's up to you if that is the route you want to pursue.

I understand everyone's [me included] desire to label themselves as "indie" to prove you are against the establishment...but are you actually doing yourself more harm than good? Are people assuming you aren't that good because you never got signed by the big

promotion/advertising/bank? Again...that's your decision to make...I have decided I am a

recording artist....not "indie or "Major". Why put yourself behind the pack from the start...???

I believe most peoples perception of the word "indie" is the recording is bad....the music is obscure...and the artist is selling diddly squat. So why give people that misconception from the start by calling yourself "indie". Aren't we all just recording artists whether signed to a "major label" or not? Why not just call yourself a "recording artist"...that's what you are!
If someone asks you if you are signed to a label politely ask them "would it change your opinion of my music depending on my answer" they'll look at ya weird but it's fun to watch their response...lol?

People's perception of your success is directly related to how they hear about your music. For example: I released my debut CD in 2006. It sold ok for a typical "indie" release [see even I make assumption about indie] and had a song on it called "Come Home" which absolutely know one commented on. The song in mid 2009 ended up on local radio. I did some interviews etc...and suddenly the song was the most requested on the local station. The funny thing was that people who already had the CD [for almost 3 years] were asking where they could get the song. It meant nothing until they started hearing it on the radio so suddenly it was a legitimate song.

This is a micro example however my point is, that ii illustrates the difference between a major label getting your music out there on mass radio, print etc...and creating the "perception of success". People assume you are successful because of the mass promotion of your music which only a major label can provide. When that song was not on radio and just another song on an "indie" CD know one cared.

So are you an "indie artist or a "recording artist"....you decide.