Contributed by Nasa.

The older you get the more times you end up starting discussions with something that sounds like "Back in my day, blah, blah, blah".  I guess that's part of getting older.  In any case, back in my day there was a very simple explanation for what made you or disqualified you from being considered an "Independent Record Label".  I was educated on all of this stuff Circa 1997 and in those days being involved with a major label in anyway, made you a subsidiary- you were no longer an indie.  In those days, once you became a subsidiary, you were no longer autonomous.  Majors were not interested in doing deals that were ultimately favorable to smaller labels or letting them keep too much freedom.  And from the other side of it, many labels in the 80's and 90's that were started were done with the idea of becoming a subsidiary some day in mind.  This clearly is not the way things are today.  Why?

The main reason is back then you had the "Big 6" and everyone else.  You could trace all subsidiaries and almost all worldwide distribution of music to what was called the "Big 6".  The big 6 labels were: EMI, Polygram, Sony (formerly Columbia), BMG, Warner & MCA.  All of corporate America started to go "merger crazy" around this time and the Music Industry was no different.  I remember hearing this whole situation described as the "Big 6 or 7" many times in passing because no one really knew what was happening due to it happening so quickly.

Back then, all the labels you could name traced back to one of those 6.  Some examples: Def Jam- Sony, Jive- BMG, Pendulum- EMI, Virgin- EMI, Loud/RCA- Sony, DGC/Geffen- MCA.  You could name any of them and they lead back to a Big 6 label.  It was fun fodder for music biz classes to create these sorts of "Family Trees".

In 2009 we now have only a Big 4- this due to MCA becoming Universal and then merging with Polygram (who had just been merged with Seagram's) & Sony merging with BMG.  So now we have Sony, EMI (hanging by their finger nails), Warner & Universal.  Confused yet?

Ok, so this leaves us hanging upside down, in our old definition of "what makes you indie" because there are now only 4 "Major Labels" left and they ain't taking on subsidiaries the way they used to.  The deals that are made are a lot different then they used to be.  Todays labels that enter deals with "Majors" are getting much more of a hands off approach from them in certain cases.  In fact, sometimes the label is actually just paying for the majors' services and resources.  Couple that with the fact that "independent distributors" like Caroline had grown to have just as many resources as the majors in the late 90's and early 00's, in some cases taking over parts of their infrustructure for them Stateside.

Put all of this on the back drop of digital music and it spins the whole situation for another 180.  While all these changes have happened in the infrustructure of major labels, the need for them is far less, so more and more people are releasing their own music and starting their own labels NEVER intending to become a subsidiary or sign a deal.

This situation calls for a new definition of what an indie label is, so let's try to do that.  Firstly, let's make sure we're not trying to mix genres with business.  I can call an artist "Indie Rock" or "Indie Hip-Hop" with the conotation of what that means musically- BUT, that doesn't speak to reality.  Being Indie is not a genre of music nor a state of mind or a state of independence in musical decisions.  Being indie means just that.  The label is making the calls to place the record in stores, placing the record in the digital landscape themselves, sending out their mailers for promotion (or paying an independent contracter), etc.

As soon as a label gets into the business of shipping off records (or even having someone else manufacture them) to someone else's warehouse for someone else to distrubute, market and promote- that's when they cease being indie- depsite the quality or independence of the music itself.

In a few years, none of this will matter, because all music will be purchased digitally, so the lines will blur much further because the value of "being on a major, or involved with one" will be even less then it is today. 

You may be asking yourself- so what does that make a label that has one of those more modern/less controlling deals with a major?  I'll be honest, I don't know what to call them, but I know their not INDIE.  Uncommon is INDIE, write us an email, ask us a question, ummm your gonna be in touch with me.  There will be a point where we have a crew to handle things, but it will all still be us.  That's INDIE.  That may be a much more strict definition then it used to be, but as I explained in the first part of this post, this is a totally different era and in 2009, this is the only rational way to parse this subject.  Times have cryed out for an updated definition then what was in the text books I was educated on back in the late 90's.

Does all of this matter?  Sort of.  If your just a musician, putting out music, not really.  But to me, if you are truly interested in the nuts & bolts of the business I think this is the best way to look at things. 

Thanks to all my Twitter peeps that brought up this subject sparking a debate the other night and in turn an explanation here that is far more then 140 characters.  Follow me there @uncommonrecords for more stuff like this and of course all the most up to date news on Uncommon Records releases/events and other fun stuff from me personally.