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.

Where has all the money gone...???

In the 1980's artists at the club level were actually paid for their services and paid pretty well I might add....

Yes, it may be a joke to laugh at those 80's bands with the "big hair and eyeliner" but there was a benefit to going to that
much trouble to put on a solid entertaining show. We actually got paid for our hard work!

My band SYRE regularly played [at our peak] over 250 shows a year and "grossed" a substantial amount of money year after
year. Those days are unfortunately long gone...these days clubs are barely willing to hire live entertainment... let alone
"indie" recording artists who play their own music [god forbid]. I think their are serval reasons for this...

Back in the day, there was genuine excitement about seeing bands who "may get a record deal", people would flock to their
local club to see the next "big thing". Nowadays with the onset of the internet and arguably declining music "sales", record
label A & R reps are rarely [if ever...] leaving the sanctity of their label shrine to check out bands in the local clubs... unless they are going to see what they believe to be a "sure thing".

"A sure thing" is defined as an artist who has sold 50,000+ units on their own, a track record of selling out clubs on a
regular basis, have at least 5,000+ fans on their Myspace/Facebook and have a finished "broadcast quality" recording to hand the record label. Oh yeh and they must be willing to tour relentlessly for very [and I mean very...] little personal income.

Label reps are also rarely [if ever] signing "development deals" where they bring the artist's along and mold them into what
they need at the time. Again...those days are long gone. Now they are looking for a complete package ready to go out of the
box.

For the average indie artist, it's tuff to get a club to pay you particularly if you only play your own original music. To get around paying these artists to play, club owners are hosting "Jam nights or "Open Mic' nights so they can have musicians come in and make the club money by playing for free!

Young bands flock to this type of event just so they can play a gig. This was [and continues to be] the beginning of the end for payment in return for the performance of live original music. As soon as artists devalue their services it sends a
dangerous message that they [and others] are willing to play for free just to get a gig. This tends to snowball and suddenly artists that were being paid for their services in a clubs are now being asked to play for less money... or even free.

Many artists will justify [to themselves] playing for free by saying well "we'll sell some CD' or T's at the gig" and make money that way. Only to find that it's tuff to get people to part with their hard earned cash these days.

It's very much part of the current "free society" mentality flamed by the internet...where the general public is starting to believe everything should be free. Unfortunately, our economy doesn't work that way folks and the music business is no different. It is called a "business" for a reason...artists, producers, studios, managers etc all need to make money for
their services. Without those arms of the industry making money there will be no music [or to even give away...]. Club level artists [which includes me...]have become slaves to the clubs themselves. Begging for gigs, playing for free, devaluing the very "profession" they have worked so hard to succeed in.

Now just to play devil's advocate...and in the clubs and music fans defense. Rock music [in particular] has become boring and the live presentation of music even worse. Artist have faded into that garage band mentality of the 90's and are still paying the price for boring shows and poor live attendance.

Rock music is supposed to be about excitment...not going up there and
going through the motions...if that is your mind set then don't expect to get paid for your services. If you are not excited about what you do then how can you expect others to be?
What we all need to remember is that music is a form of "entertainment" and like it or not we are "entertainers". In order to
be paid for a service you have to perform that service well....and part of being a recording artist is to "entertain" people.
Even the greatest guitar players can't juts go up there and display their chop's...even that becomes boring without some form of showmanship or in the least banter with the audience.

My message is don't be afraid to ask to be paid for our services...the clubs will make money if you draw an audience and that will happen if you are entertaining and provide a service worth the money you are [hopefully] being paid.