AN INDEPENDENT INDIE RELEASE

1 november 2006

for mercado negro (radio ibero 90.9fm)

Last week the Universidad Iberoamericana held the first Latin American conference on popular music with three days of discussion on a variety of themes. 

One session considered the definition of “indie” as opposed to “independent” as used within the context of popular music.   After a couple of hours of interesting debate a hazy conclusion was reached.

The word “indie” was usually applied to a particular style of music that involved “jangly” guitars of mid-eighties pop. The term however had obviously evolved and diffused through a whole new range of sounds that could presently be considered as part of the “indie” music scene.

“Independent” however was given a somewhat more robust definition as a release made by a label unconnected with the major labels (Universal, Sony/BMG, Warner Bros and EMI) that together control around 80% of the global market for CD sales.

The definition of an “independent” release was arguably  something that could be easily identified in the late seventies and early eighties with the proliferation of small do-it-yourself labels such as Factory and Creation from England that sprung up to challenge the hegemony of the “big 4”.

However in the complicated business environment of the music industry in the early 21^st century labeling something as an independent release is a slightly more difficult task.  A couple of examples of recent releases within the context of the Mexican music industry highlight some of the complexities involved.

One of the strongest album sales of 2006 has been Zoë’s “Memo Rex” released through Noiselab.  Much of the press generated around this release talked of it being Zoë’s return to independent music although it seems Sony and EMI Music still retain an interest in the band’s activities which would disqualify it under accepted definitions of ‘independent’.

In fact Noiselab would seem almost to be a small label with a big label attitude.  The business model involves in-house design and high profile producers such as Phil Vinall (of Placebo and Radiohead fame) who has recently worked with Zoë and Sub Division. 

There is no doubting Vinall’s technical expertise however it is far easier for a band like Zoë to shift enough albums to cover the “recoupable expenses” associated with such a big name producer than a band like Sub Division who prefer the musical backstreets to the middle of the rock highway. 

The constraints over the design and production side of the music at Noiselab and the associated cost levels, plus its arrangements made with EMI would, for many, challenge its position as “truely independent label”. 

Happy-Fi Records in Monterrey with the “lo-fi” un-mastered approach of bands such as La Live Band and Arizona would seem to be the epitome of an “indie” sound generated through a collective “independent” label; yet, as mentioned last week, a distributional arrangement with EMI would again seem to disqualify them from being considered a “truely independent release”.

Independence in its purest form should be should be associated with absolute creative freedom and a fair return for the artists efforts.

The recent consolidation of some original independent labels under “major” control and agreements such as the ones discussed above have undoubtedly made the identification of independent music more difficult.

However advances in technology in terms of production and communication have made the possibility of generating and distributing music independently much more achievable than it ever was before.

Surely a true independent release these days must come directly from the band and reach the ears of the consumer without the distortion that many of the middlemen of the music business can create. 

The challenge lies in reaching sufficient people without the marketing support and preferential access to mass media that powerful labels can provide.