The difference between indie label and major label
red mos
Posts: 4,953
I have a REALLY stupid question 
What is the sole difference between a Major label and an indie label band? I ask this, because the Burden Brothers (see indie band thread) are signed to Kirtland Records and Kirtland also has possession of Bush's albums as well as the flys so I'm guessing they are a division under inerscope records. (sp)
The confusion is this: The Burden Brothers albums are being sold nationally, but other artists on their labels recordings seem to only be available locally like an indie cd store or through the website. I remember when the Offspring exploded with the release of smash, I was under the impression they were on an independent label Nitro Records (I think??) but yet they had videos on mtv and toured the big festivals circut like woodstock 94 , numerous radio festivals, and the warped tour? so what's the difference to some indie label bands get the major label treatment and others just continue to be local or what?
Thanks to anyone who can shed some light- I'd really appreciate input on this
What is the sole difference between a Major label and an indie label band? I ask this, because the Burden Brothers (see indie band thread) are signed to Kirtland Records and Kirtland also has possession of Bush's albums as well as the flys so I'm guessing they are a division under inerscope records. (sp)
The confusion is this: The Burden Brothers albums are being sold nationally, but other artists on their labels recordings seem to only be available locally like an indie cd store or through the website. I remember when the Offspring exploded with the release of smash, I was under the impression they were on an independent label Nitro Records (I think??) but yet they had videos on mtv and toured the big festivals circut like woodstock 94 , numerous radio festivals, and the warped tour? so what's the difference to some indie label bands get the major label treatment and others just continue to be local or what?
Thanks to anyone who can shed some light- I'd really appreciate input on this
PJ: 10/14/00 06/09/03 10/4/09 11/15/13 11/16/13 10/08/14
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Today, a label like Matador or SubPop is still "indie" because it doesn't have any ties to a major label, but they have much bigger distributions and you will probably even find their latest albums being advertised in major retail stores. So it can be argued that Matador and Subpop are both major labels themselves.
A major label like Interscope has a ton of separate record labels underneath them. Being under a major label means that the big label can help distribute the album if they want to. Some of the really far out branches on the major label tree might not get national distributions because the top of the tree doesn't think there is a market for them nationally.
Then, there are labels like Touch & Go who are independent, but have signed with Interscope to distribute some of their albums(like the latest TV on the Radio album).
Basically, the term 'indie' started as a term for record labels, but now it is used more to define a genre of music rather than labels. Big "indie" labels is sort of an oxymoron, but there are a few of them today. Labels that started out being truly indie but now fight to get their CDs on endcaps at Wal-Mart and Circuit City.
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
Dischord
To them being a independent label means:
They sell cd's at a reduced rate, and even if you order via website and they have to send it to you the rate is still low even with shipping and handling figured in
Dischord and others like Alternative Tentacles and Touch and Go refuse to have their artists sign contracts. Its a handshake deal. The bands that make records for these indie labels do so out of love of the label not because they are forced to do so. Along with this comes the idea that the artist isnt exploited on these labels. And many of these indie label Dischord in particular share profits 50/50. While Sony or something like that they have a CEO who makes tons of cash while the actual artist makes little of that money
Dischord refuses to sell merchendise like posters or shirts. It isnt a buisness in the typical sense. They do sell DVD's, and CD's but thats about it. They are in it for the music.
I think to be an indie record label, you have to treat your artists well, you arent greedy, and you are politically conscious.
On indie labels you have the label putting out records not because they will sell but because they feel the music is art. I mean Dischord doesnt sell much stuff. I dont think the last Fugazi record sold millions and millions. Most of the Dischord label bands sell 50,000 or so.
Music is more abstract on an indie. So while you have 50 Cent on a major label or Puffy on a major label, on an indie like Def Jux or Anticon you have oddball, strange, experimental hip hop thats more art and less crap. For example you have a hip hop crew on Anticon called Themselves. Its bizaare music, no way in hell Sony would pick it up. Yet this is music that people respond to.
In my mind I see no reason why an up and coming band would sign with a major label. None whatsoever. And I have always wondered why Ed and the crew didnt sign to an indie. They obviously have tremendous respect for those in the indie scene
Started in the 1980's, they refuse to do interviews with magazines, they refuse to do ads in magazines that promote drugs, alcohol or smoking, they sell their cd's at a reduced rate, they sell tickets for around 8 bucks, they only play all ages shows, they dont have ANY merchindice at shows, they dont sell t-shirts or key chains or ANYTHING, just cd's.
They sell their cd's via their label Dischord Records, which is run out of the childhood home of Ian Mackaye, the head honcho of Dischord and fugazi.
To them, the ONLY thing that matters is the music. They live modestly. The music is what matters, not the bands egos.
Ed said Ian Mackaye should be put up for Sainthood, and I completely concur.
The head honcho of Fugazi, started Dischord, and refuses to take a salary from being the CEO of that operation. Imagine, starting a band and refusing to sell out, and then owning your own buisness and refusing to be paid a salary for it. He truely is one of a kind.
Instead of having no control over their music, their tours, their band, the image, Fugazi has complete control over everything.
I remember even reading that they are ashamed to even promote their music. Pretty selfless people here folks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_At_Leeds_%28John_Martyn_album%29
Its a bit different now, but in the recent past, major labels would invest a million dollars in a new band, so it can be argued that the band may have a better chance at breaking on a major label. Of course, there are credibility issues, but I think its possible to have credibility AND not have to worry about paying your bills, etc.
Major labels pay a smaller royalty rate to make up for the fact that some bands get $500,000 advances when they sign their deals.
Taking a huge advance in exchange for a lower royalty rate is, in a sense, betting against yourself, because if the album flops, the band doesn't have to pay back the advance, and, only a small percentage of albums ever recoup.
If a band has a publishing deal, the publisher may require that the album be released on a major in order for the band to be entitled to their publishing advance.
Obviously, the music matters most, but its also important to realize that band members are forgoing college/careers, so getting a bit of a financial help to live/record/tour isn't the worst option!
To the person who asked me about loving the Burden Brothers music, Yes I do.
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
larger monetary advance, broader distribution, more industry connections, proven track record...
and then of course there's the fact that most unsigned bands can't really afford to be picky...
i would sign with a major label in a second, as long as i was able to retain creative control of the project. i don't feel like this makes me any less of an artist (it's actually my shitty music that makes me less of an artist, if you want to get technical about it).
Since when does shitty music preclude anyone from getting a major-label deal?
LOL
that's why i'm hopeful.
Thats why I see no reason to sign to a major label. You have two choices: sign with an indie, where you wont hit it big, and wont be on MTV, but will have control over your music, and can be more experimental, and can feel that the label cares about you, or sign with a major label where the label tells you how to look, dress, and act and what they think your new single should sound like, where experimentation is bad because it isnt a proven success, where you sign a contract but the label heads always make more money than the artist.
Its a no brainer
It interests me how Radiohead was able to pull off what they did. Making a really predictable Grunge influenced record like Pablo Honey. I mean its a good record, but its not mold breaking, its not genre shattering. For them to make a Kid A or a OK Computer, I mean, listen to those songs, they are bizaare, strange, and odd. The record company must have thought radiohead was out of their gourds or something.
How does a band get to the point of dictating to a major label, this is HOW THINGS WILL GO, and they dont care about what the record label says.
Avocado seems like a record where pearl jam could have cared less what J records thought of the music and words. They were making a statement musicially and politically.
no, you don't have two choices. very few bands ever even have one choice. maybe you're living in a world where you have 20 different record labels bending over backwards to sign you, but that's not how things generally work for the rest of us. almost all rock bands go their entire careers without ever getting a single contract offer, so it seems to me that the only "no brainer" in this situation is having a willingness to negociate with anyone who takes an interest in your music. keep an open mind. DO NOT waste an opportunity with a record label just because you assume things won't work out in your favor.
and if you ever end up in a business contract where you don't have control over your music and/or the execs are seeing more of the money than you are, it's your own fault! that's why you hire a lawyer who's familiar with the industry. losing creative control and getting scammed are not inherent qualities of major-label deals (see pearl jam), but it certainly will happen to those people who are too stupid to know what's really going on. if you go into a contract negociation concerning the rights to your intellectual property and you don't bring a lawyer, you kinda deserve what's coming to you. it's called natural selection.
don't get me wrong, i think it's bullshit when business executives try to take over the creative side of a project. what the fuck do they know? having an MBA does not automatically make you creative (try telling that to anyone who has one). but if you try to negociate with these people on your own without assuming that you may end up getting screwed, well... like i said... natural selection.
i really don't give a fuck if the record label "cares" about me. "yeah... it turns out that nobody in the world is ever gonna hear your music because we have no way of distributing it... but we still care about you!" fan-fucking-tastic! if i work hard to write and record the songs, they damn well better put my music in a position where people can hear it.
it's a no brainer.
Either you live under or a rock or are really naive about the music buisness. A record label, major labels, their job is to generate money, to turn a profit and sign bands who will churn out hits that kids will want to download off itunes and request on TRL.
Pearl jam are a rarity in major label buisness. I am positive they would say that too. Not too many bands with the exception of those I listed above, are on labels and have complete control. I dont think J Records told the band what the hell to do on this new record, and I dont think the angry incisive and biting political commentary was something the label necessarily liked, but I think pearl Jam told them how they run things and told them off basically.
The point remains: If you are on a major label, no matter how good you think your record deal is, the fact is the record execs and the higher ups are making more cash than you. Thats a given. I dont think this point is radical, its a fact. Unless someone on here tells me otherwise, I assume Sony or Reprise or name a major label, I assume they dont have fair contracts.
Thats why Ed says Ian Mackaye should be Sainted.
I also think you give bands a way out buddy. All bands have a choice. All bands. Ask Tom Morello ( and I am not bashing rage here, they are one of my favorites). Rage back in the 90's when they first started, they had a choice of signing with an indie which would be more receptive towards their radical politics, or signing with sony. We all know what they chose.
Pearl jam had the same choice. So did Mars Volta. So did Tool.
But they are exceptions. They dicate to the record labels what occurs, while people like Britney or Justin or 50 Cent have no power in the bargaining room.
If you sign with a major label, you are getting the bad end of the stick. I dont put down bands who sign with majors but thats the facts buddy.
Touch and Go, Alternative Tentacles, and Dischord and many others I assume have handshake contracts, 50 50 sharing of profits, and dont harm the artist and take advantadge of them. Name a major label that offers that type of stuff?
with all due respect, i'm not entirely convinced that i'm the one who's coming across as naive here. just out of curiosity, what type of band are you in? clearly you have more experience with record companies than i do. you say that all bands have a choice, but i've been playing in bands my whole life and i've come to accept the fact that i will probably never be offered a record deal. so right now i'm kinda wondering what sort of expertise you have that allows you to tell me what my own personal choices are with my music. should i sign with the major label that didn't offer me a deal or with the indie label that didn't offer me a deal? please explain, because i am having a difficult time with this "all bands have a choice" notion.
in addition, a large part of your argument seems to be based around the idea that major record labels are trying to make money and take away creative control. ummm... yeah. obviously. if you re-read my previous post, you'll notice that i never disputed this point. of course they're trying to make money. they're business executives. making money is their job. please point out the part of my argument where i suggested otherwise.
but instead of just complaining about it, i offered a solution. maybe you missed that part of my previous post, but the solution i offered was that you should always bring a music business lawyer with you when you meet with a record label. if the deal isn't good, your lawyer will tell you. i never said that you should automatically sign whatever offer they throw at you. all i said was that you should be open-minded enough to set up a meeting, because there's a very good chance that receiving interest from a major label could be a huge break for you as a musician.
if you try to negotiate for creative control and they still won't budge, well then you don't have to sign the deal, do you? go sign with your indie label in this case. no harm, no foul. but there is no reason to avoid meeting with the major label altogether. at least hear what they have to say before judging them. that seems to be the rational approach.
perhaps i am misreading your analysis, but you seem to be telling me that major labels are inherently evil and therefore you should avoid this initial meeting at all costs. i believe that this view is quite narrow-minded. but whatever, man. it's your music. i'm in no position to tell you what to do with it. if your anti-corporate beliefs are more important to you than getting your music heard, that's your decision.
as far as specific bands go, you keep bringing up completely irrelevant pop acts like britney spears and fall out boy in your argument about bands who have no creative say. well here's a news flash for you: these people are not songwriters. i wouldn't even categorize them as artists. they are merely a product of the labels who create them, and thus they cannot possibly be compared to legitimate bands like pearl jam, radiohead, or tool.
any band that is legitimate has creative control of their music. that is the bottom line. anyone who is willing to give up this control clearly isn't as legitimate as they originally thought they were. but the major label bands that stay true to themselves are usually the ones whose music ultimately survives the test of time. sure, they are the minority. but any band that has a record deal is in the minority. and i see no reason why a band should give up their dreams just because the odds are stacked against them.
it is not that inconceivable that a major label allows you to control your own music. but this control comes with a certain level of respect that you have to earn prior to signing your deal. britney spears would clearly have no way of making money without the help of her label, so therefore she doesn't get creative control. but a more legitimate artist will have generated a tremendous amount of local buzz prior to getting signed. therefore, they have a better chance of retaining creative control. this is how it works.
and i think it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that pearl jam "told off" j records. both parties in this instance knew exactly what they were getting into prior to signing the deal. pearl jam had a proven track record that included millions of album sales, and no record label is going to question a band with such a history. and i have no idea why you think j records would care about their political views. since when do anti-republican views hurt a mainstream rock band's record sales? U2, green day, rage, system of a down, pearl jam, the list goes on. the reality is that teenagers see these bands as "rebellious" and therefore are more likely to listen to them.
you also seem to be making quite a big deal out of the monetary issue here. again, that is why you hire a lawyer. if you're intelligent enough to negotiate a fair deal, you will almost certainly end up making more money than your indie counterpart, regardless of how much the record label takes.
personally, i don't really care about the money. if i can make enough to support myself playing music, then that's all i ask. but what i do care about a lot is the idea that people will get to hear my music. that is what's important to me, and therefore i would absolutely sign with a record label that would ensure widespread distribution of my album. yes, i understand that they are making more money off my art than they deserve, and that sucks. but the bottom line is that i want my music to be heard and they are the ones who will make this happen. i'm sorry, but there is nothing you can say that will convince me that this attitude is wrong. and there is nobody who has the authority to tell me what i need to do with my own art in order to maintain my integrity as an artist. only i can decide that.
and in 100 years, it won't matter whether or not i made more money than the record executive in charge of my band. we'll both be dead. but only the person who created the music will truly have made an impact on the world.
if you want to continue this discussion, i will be more than happy to reply. but right now i'm going to sleep, so my response will have to wait until tomorrow night.
peace.
But with all due respect, the quote I keep refering to, the one by Ian mackaye, in which he said "any band that signs with a major label is getting the short end of the stick", I am paraphrasing here but thats the gist of what he said, I would find it interesting if you feel he is naive and doesnt know anything about the world and music. Is that what you feel? Is Ian Mackaye a liar? Is what he said untrue?
Call me names if you like, but I would trust Ian mackaye over your spin on things any day. He went through the buisness and he has lived his life according to his beliefs. If he says any band that signs with a major is getting cheated, well to be honest, I trust what he says.
I just think its so funny, your fighting this idea. Its not like I am calling for an assassination of people. I am not a raving lunatic. I merely suggested that bands who sign to major labels arent going to be treated fairly. Obviously thats tantamount to a sin in your eyes.
Again, I repeat my earlier assertion. An indie label like dischord or Alternative tentacles is out to make and create and produce and promote art, plain and simple. They are out there to make music for musics sake, for arts sake. They are perfectly happy with bands on their label selling 20,000 copies of a record.
Ask someone who runs Sony or Arista if they will sign bands they dont think will sell a million copies. Ask them if they would sign a band who takes chances musically and pushes the envelope musically, politically, sonically. Ask them if they would be more likely to sign someone like a Britney Spears or a Ludicris, as opposed to a band like The Mars Volta. Ask them. Or if you cant ask them, just think this through in your brain. This isnt rocket science, friend, this is simple logic. A major label wants hits, they want the next Fall Out Boy, or the next Hit me Baby One More Time. They want to sell millions of copies.
Now you tell me, if a major label is more interested in creating hits, than making challenging, thought provoking and mindblowing music, then do you really think they have the artists in mind when signing a contract?
I mean this is Music 101 here. Major Labels take advantage of artists. Its a fact. Anyone who says different is lying or severly delusional.
Look, I could care less if you dont worship at the feet of Dischord or Ian Mackaye or Alternative Tentacles or Touch and Go, Thats your own deal. But to suggest that bands are just as well of on major labels as they are on indies is just plain stupid and dumb. Its false, and a flat out lie.
Major labels are the devil, they are liars, cheats and theives. They think that CEO's and exec's deserve a bigger chunk of change than the artist. I mean even N SYNC, who I have no respect for admitted THEY WERE CHEATED BY A MAJOR LABEL!!! I mean come on!!!!
Again, bands who are smart should sign with indies. Its common sense. You either get taken to the cleaners, and ruined and live with no control over anything, while your boss makes the dough that you and your band deserve, or you are on an indie where you may not get paid in the millions but you get paid 50 50, you have control over your album, you can say what you want, and heres a novel idea, on indies you actually get treated as a human being with an artistic idea and something to say, as opposed to what the majors see artists as: profit to be exploited.
I mean, you are on a PJ message pit for godssakes friend. You think eddie vedder would say to you: "Yeah I really respect major labels, they are really fair, and nice and kind, I would reccomend all bands sign to a major". Hell no. And if you are somewhat lucid and clean and sober, that is a given
Read, be aware, and dont sign to goddamn majors. They are leaches
If Indie's were all about staying "Indie" they wouldn't let themselves be gobbled up by the corporate machine. Such as the labels with major distribution( Like the example of the Burden Bros.)
Take Sub-Pop for instance. When the whole "Seattle scene" came about they went out and paid for publicity so they could basically fatten their pockets. That doesn't sound that "Indie" to me, but it does sound like a smart business plan. Art can be made on The Sony label and It can also be made on Barsuk records. It all comes down to whether you're an artist or an entertainer. Both are vital pieces of the music industry.
Another good example may be "Ruthless Records" They were indie and treated the artists like shit and hid money from the group, except for Eazy-E. This caused the break-up of the N.W.A and changed how a whole genre of music grew IMO.
There are so many different forms of marketing music out there. Look at someone like 50 Cent. He may release a major label Album like "Get Rich Or Die Trying" that is low on the artistic side of things. On the flip-side he'll release a street mixtape once a month that you'd never hear come from the major label side of things which is creative and takes risks. That's basically how someone of his ilk can still have street cred yet have Nate Dogg on all his hooks.
I think there is no wrong or right answer on this. Just getting the music out there is the most important thing you can do.
Majors don't give 50-50 deals because they are taking a huge risk by doling out big advances.
An indie label can afford to give 50-50 deals because they are not taking too huge of a risk.
Its basic business....the bigger the risk to the investor, the bigger return on investment they will demand.
A friend of mine was on a major label for 1 album in the 90s.....the label invested $1 Million in the band, but the album sold only 75,000 copies.....the band members got to keep a tidy portion of the advance, and the label dropped the band.
In this case, the band got the best of the label, since the band signed to a new label and had a hit record, without having the $1 million recouped, which would have been the case had they stayed with their old label.
I am not a fan of the current major-label business model, but, none the less, the majors do serve a purpose.
Its great to have indie cred, but I see nothing wrong with looking out for the financial interests of the band members, as long as it doesn't overly compromise the music!
Smaller labels lack the massive resources of manufacturing, promotion and distribution resources that major labels wield... so the sales numbers are usually smaller. Major labels also have a greater influence on radio station and it is difficult to get smaller bands and artists on the air.
Hail, Hail!!!
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
the question then becomes, do bands sign with labels to make millions of dollars and to hit it big on TRL, or do they sign to get their music out, to be heard and to express themselves artistically.
2004 Boston I
2006 Boston I
2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I
2010 Hartford
2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford
2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II
2018 Fenway I, Fenway II
2021 Sea.Hear.Now
2022 Camden
2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
I think Garden State helped them with that.
I love the Shins new album. I am listening to it right now.
I agree with you 100%
Just like you stated, but this can be done on a Major Label. There's nothing wrong with making money and getting your music out at the same time. You can be on a Major Label and not be a sellout.
Fans can pick up on this shit. Look at all of us here.
they failed then cos they suck
first of all, i don't believe i was calling you names. i apologize if i was, but i really don't recall using any terms that hadn't already been used to describe me.
secondly, i really don't give a fuck what ian mackaye has to say. he's not the one arguing with me. you are. there are a lot of people in the world with a lot of different beliefs. so if this is going to continue, you might be better off providing your own thoughts. "i trust what he says" is not a valid argument unless you can present your reasoning for it. yeah, i like minor threat too, and i mean no disrespect to ian. but my own music is far different, and i'm not gonna blindly follow somebody's opinion unless i can justify it for myself.
which idea do you think i am fighting, exactly? i'm honestly not sure that you and i are involved in the same discussion right now. if you go back to my previous posts, you'll notice that i never once tried to imply that record executives weren't evil or that they wouldn't try to scam you. and yet you insist that this is the battle i'm fighting, which is kinda frustrating since i thought i made it clear several times that this wasn't my viewpoint at all. you want to know what i'm fighting here? i'm fighting pessimism. i'm fighting the idea that musicians need to give up their dreams just because of a few assholes in business suits. i'm fighting against the notion that it’s better to complain than it is to take action. and yes, you should be prepared for a battle if you want to deal with the major record labels. in my previous posts, i outlined what i felt was a legitimate strategy for dealing with these types of people: i said that you should bring lawyers to the discussion and be prepared to reject any proposal that isn't to your liking. but not once in your replies, cheguevara, have you remarked on this. maybe you should comment on the specifics of my argument rather than just recycling ian mackaye’s point of view over and over.
i truly believe that you can sell a million albums and still maintain your integrity as an artist. i could give you a laundry list of bands who have accomplished this. most (although not all) of the bands whose music remains culturally relevant after their time are the ones who sign major-label deals with clauses which allow them to maintain their artistic control. of course the labels will still be more likely to sign someone like britney spears. but that doesn't affect me. the only artist that affects me is me.
20,000 sales is great, but i could damn near accomplish that on my own without the help of a label. so why should i give somebody 50% of my earnings if they're not going to do anything for me? i'm not looking to hire a friend or a well-wisher or a shoulder to cry on. i just want people to hear my music. that's what's most important to me. i want to give people an option that is different from all the emo and teen pop and other bullshit that is floating around in the mainstream. i've also explained that i want to be able to play music for a living. and while it would be really cool to sell 20,000 albums, i would never be able to support a family that way. i'm sorry if wanting to support a family (at some point in the distant future) makes me sound selfish.
as far as the "work" aspect goes, of course musicians get exploited. but try explaining that to anyone who works long hours for minimum wage or less. they would kill to trade places. the truth of the matter is that musicians have it pretty good in the grand scheme of things.
by the way, i asked you very specifically to tell me what experience you have had within the music industry. you have not done so yet. this is really the only thing that's "tantamount to a sin" in my eyes: you keep trying to imply that i know nothing about the industry, but meanwhile i'm the only one who has cited specific life experience in this area. so PLEASE clarify this for me before you start telling me about music 101. i am an aspiring musician. it is my job to understand music 101 (in addition to my day job which i hate). the ones who don't understand are the ones who end up getting screwed. i have proven through my analysis that this isn't going to happen to me.
and no, i don't know what eddie vedder would say to me. i don't think he'd take the time to read through this entire ranting thread. but if he did, i think he'd respect the fact that i've shown a logical progression in my thought process and a willingness to explore the situation from all angles before making a decision. that's all i'm doing. i'm proposing that an artist should meet with everyone before deciding upon the best course of action. i also think ed would respect the fact that i have a strategy in mind to fight the labels. i'm not just going to resign myself to the idea that there's nothing i can do to improve the state of the music industry.
most importantly, i don't think ed would misinterpret my argument to suggest that i have any sort of respect for the major labels. i have made it very clear that i don't. so you can keep up your "major labels are the devil" argument, but i can assure you that it is unnecessary since i already agree with you 100% on this issue. the only difference in our two philosophies is how we intend to fight these battles. my philosophy is to confront the major labels with guns blazing (not literally, of course). yours is to avoid them altogether. our discussion is not going to progress until this is acknowledged. right now, all we're doing is wasting time (and bandwidth) repeating the same points over and over again.