Re: MOJO's 50 Greatest UK Indie Stating the Obvious

My US sensibilities rebel at the idea of throwing singles, EPs and albums all into one list, but it's an interesting selection regardless.

[www.mojo4music.com]

So I can have a Warner Brothers logo on my video and still qualify as an "Indie" act? How awesome is that?

...

Up next: "Top 50 Music Acts Built Up And Torn Down In A Fortnight By The Fickle British Music Press."

Wire - Outdoor Miner? How did they get that one to be a)indie and b) on Ralph? Mine was on the EMI offshoot Harvest.

Also, seriously bad web design. I have a fairly big, detailed screen and even maximized I couldn't see all of the text without scrolling.

Quote

So I can have a Warner Brothers logo on my video and still qualify as an "Indie" act? How awesome is that?

Creation was definitely an indie label when they released Psychocandy in the UK. If the rights to the label's catalog eventually got swallowed up by a conglomerate, that doesn't change the fact that Psychocandy was originally an indie album.

Quote

Creation was definitely an indie label when they released Psychocandy in the UK.

That Creation was an indie is undeniable. However, evidence that Creation released Psychocandy anywhere is a bit thin on the ground.

...

1.) The Infallible Wikipedia states that it was released on Blanco Y Negro.

2.) The following snippet is quoted verbatim from the Creation Records website:

"The Mary Chain leave for Warner Bros to release their debut LP ‘Psychocandy’"

...

--> Perhaps Creation is in error? What was the Creation catalog number for the 'Psychocandy' album?

--> Perhaps Warner's Blano Y Negro subsidiary somehow counted as an "indie?" Does that mean all subsidiary labels are "indie" labels?

--> Perhaps 'Psychocandy' counts as an "indie" album (despite being released on the subsidiary of a major label) simply because the band's initial singles were released on an indie label?

...

I'd refuse that last one, on the grounds that it might make virtually everyone "indie" retroactively.



Post Edited (07-23-14 21:27)

Quote

That Creation was an indie is undeniable. However, evidence that Creation released Psychocandy anywhere is a bit thin on the ground.

D'oh!!!!!

The dope slap has been duly applied. Thanks for the correction.

Does anyone know what the first "fake indie" label might've been?

The earliest one I can think of is DinDisc, which I believe was a subsidiary of Virgin that was used mostly to try to muscle in on Factory's territory - known mainly for scooping up OMD after the first version of "Electricity" came out on Factory and for dressing their releases up in Saville sleeves for that maximum Factory vibe. But there were probably earlier ones than that.

Quote

Does anyone know what the first "fake indie" label might've been?

Caroline?

Quote

Does anyone know what the first "fake indie" label might've been?

How about Grunt (division of RCA)?

Blanco Y Negro UK, and Reprise US.

UK
[www.discogs.com]

US
[www.discogs.com]

1st single was Creation

Creation also did Munki, which was Sub Pop in US

S.t.o. example: Sonic Youth on Geffen, yet epitome of indie band.
s'why I preferred "underground".
"independent of mainstream support and/or acclaim".
Several books make this or that position about "indie" better than I, but
WB was doing a lot of indie signings at that time (Hüsker Dü , etc.) and allowing much autonomy in their attempt to divide and conquer via subsidiaries, using WB for distribution.



Post Edited (08-25-14 06:34)

Modest Mouse have been around for 20 yrs (unlike many Redditors)

What bugs me is that the pick is always Good News, which is probably their worst (one of their best tracks + an hour of last-minute studio bleating) , or Lonesome Crowded, which is still second to Antarctica.



Post Edited (09-01-14 15:00)

This reminds me of a thread on Reddit a few days about the best "indie" albums... it (the Reddit thread) must have been written by a 12-year old. Radiohead, Modest Mouse...the usual suspects. Not that I have anything against Modest Mouse but isn't too soon to have them on such lists? Props to MOJO for at least possibly introducing Huggy Bear and JAMC to the aforementioned 12-year olds who have no clue there's any good music outside their Spotify.

I've often wondered if there should be a Trouser Press subreddit. The reddit system lends itself to music exploration, but /r/music is a wasteland.

There were boutique labels within majors in the 60s.
I can't recall names. The first ones I can remember were Don Arden's Jet and Harvest, both with direct major label deals.

There are so many ways of making deals and setting up labels that you'd probably have to define the parameters. Even a one-guy independent would sometimes have to deal with part of the majors' business chain at some point.

I have a pile of 45s from the fifties on weird labels that were probably managed/pressed/distributed by majors. I have a book on this subject but glancing at my shelves - I'm of little help.

It's just too easy to make a one-off label or some such.

i like independent music,
until it's popular.



Post Edited (07-24-14 22:30)

Quote

There were boutique labels within majors in the 60s.

I can probably think of at least two.

Overall, a commendable list. Off the top of my pointy little head, the omissions of Marine Girls, M/A/R/R/S ("Pump Up the Volume"), Goldfrapp, Monochrome Set, Coldcut, Billy Bragg, Ballboy and The Housemartins are quite glaring, but why quibble?

Ahem, the fact Pop Will Eat Itself garners nary a mention, however...