I would say no, artists are artists. The ones that get paid to do so are most often extremely talented, as well. And being "independent" doesn't necessarily mean an artist is any good.
I don't think it really makes a difference. Husker Du was the first of the American 2nd generation punk bands to go major label. They did it merely because the distribution of their products through SST was horrendous. Bob Mould later helped others, such as Sonic Youth, make the same type of transition.
Bands like Rush, who have controlled their own production from the beginning, raise the question: are they major label or independent? While their distribution is major, their content is not.
Then there are the bands like The Church who started on major labels and are now on indie labels. The Church had their Arista years where they were pushed to the breaking point, but it did yield Priest = Aura, arguably the most popular among their fans. While it's singles Ripple and Feel did get some airplay, they only charted only on the College charts. Now we would call them alternative, back then, they were just not popular.
That said, most of what I listen to is not played on the radio. At least, not out here in the sticks. The only thing I ever hear broadcast is news on NPR. Most of the stuff I own is from small labels, but is there a stigma attached to a large label? There are still folks at those places that love what I consider good music and they can have a few bands signed that are never going to make anyone rich.
If Ke$ha can fund a few good bands, go baby go.
I'm a self taught artist! Never really ever made much money. A few murals here and there. People really don't want to pay or they just don't have the cash flow to do so. I just paint because I can.
Doesn't every artist start out as an "independent?" Some of the biggest bands/singers in the world once had to play in crappy bars or nightclubs or record albums for obscure independent labels before hitting the "big time"
I think it's best not to generalize.
What matters is that an artist is true to his or her voice. For some artists, that means being independent of the corporate system in the marketplace. Others find their true voice fits into the mainstream. Others - including all poets in America - must find another source of income.
What matters is being true to our voice and improving the quality of delivery. How it reaches the world matters much less
by irenev178 years ago
We are progressing in everything: technology, green movement etc. what about music? record labels have become obsolete. What next? I have ideas, but I want to hear you first
by Alecia Murphy5 years ago
Do you like when musicians or bands come back after a long hiatus or not?Do you think a long hiatus (more than five years) hurts an artist coming back into music or does it help them? This week, we've had a total of...
by irenev178 years ago
mean buying stock in a band or writer, photographer, even a filmmaker. Not in the traditional 'fund-raiser' sense, but actual shares of digital media.
by hawkprosound3 years ago
i have been in a lot of studios and around 1000 of underground artist were you realy dont have to be around the main stream artis to see what these A&r reps are looking for so do you think the unerground music is...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.