emily wrote:

It seems people resent the thought of them trying to get a major label, but why? They wouldn't be indie? They'd be selling out? They'd get too successful or mainstream? I don't get where the apprehension comes from.

well, it's kind of a cliche to say "corporations are evil." but, that's the only reason i would resent bishop allen if they signed to a major label or a label which was a member of the RIAA. the major music industry has been well documented as being flawed and corrupt. if you've paid any attention to the recent proceedings of eliot spitzer's uncovering of the payola scandal (if not, read up on that), you'd know that there is an uneven power distribution in the music industry. independent releases account for something like 25% of record sales nowadays, but the major labels have almost complete control over the radio airwaves. major lables, corporations, they are about making a quick buck, over and over, selling the next big thing and then dumping it once it's past it's prime. there is a heirarchy within the rosters of major labels and it's not merit-based, it's based on sales figures.

independent labels, pretty much inherently, are founded on heart and love for music, not making money. independent labels (for the most part) are about freedom of choice and treating people right, and sometimes, hopefully breaking even. if you email bar/none or polyvinyl or drag city, they'll sometimes send you a handmade sampler for free. i once emailed matador records about a stephen malkmus poster i wanted to buy, and within three days i received two envelopes from two different employees. they sent me three malkmus posters.

aren't these the sorts of ideals that are worth preserving?

is a major label going to bother putting out a bishop allen album on 180 gram vinyl? no way.

if clementines was released on a major label, i wouldn't buy it.