"Indie Label"

>>71746413
This isn't news. Indie labels have had mainstream artists since forever.

Touch & Go Records is the best indie label.

adele and radiohead are my favorite rave artists :^))

What does it mean to be an "indie label" to begin with? How is UMG less "indie" than anyone else?

the prodigy are indie you fucktard

>>71746589
Not being part of the big 3

File: state of electronic music in 2017.png (370KB, 1272x590px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1272x590px

>>71746413
it's pretty indie if you ask me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WKWZ9y-dvU

>>71746809
What is this "big 3"? Does it have any actual technical meaning or is it just a buzzword like "the 1 percent"?

File: b4ed2ba0e280316d54cfa3a2108e6046.png (13KB, 1600x241px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1600x241px

>>71746907
Just going by wikipedia

>>71747059
But does that mean anything? Are Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Dr Pepper Snapple considered the "big 3" of soft drinks?

>>71746589
MASSIVE marketing budgets. And lots of money/production resources to throw behind emerging artists willing to sell their souls.

>>71746413
They were better as a rave label

>>71747120
It does to some people. I don't get it, but wikipedia editors must have the final say

>>71746413

before being acquired by Sony/BMG, even Zomba/Jive, the label behind massive pop phenomenons like Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys, was technically a indie label.

File: 1490118331150.jpg (562KB, 2508x3344px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 2508x3344px

Well they had Vampire Weekend, that was pretty indie.

Unrelated, check this out.
https://soundcloud.com/robertodelraspado/hype-1

>>71747224
pretty much this. indie labels give more artistic independence in exchange for less promotion. but labels don't matter anymore unless you're taylor swift or bruno mars. it's all about PR now.