There's a popular--albeit, overblown--practice of dissing musicians for wanting to make money off their music, especially musicians loosely categorized as "indie artists." Terms like 'sell out and 'corporate greed' are coolly attached to any individual or collective that, shockingly, wants to be paid for their services. Many of us might experience a twinge of disappointment when our favorite unknown band signs to a major label; but we do well to (mostly) keep these thoughts minimal and not time-consuming (sometimes sheathed in anonymity on our never-read blog).
However, a Twitter user who goes by the handle @hateindierock is somehow personally damaged by the music industry. He or she is rather (passive) aggressively spreading the good word that true indie music died along with a true indie spirit. And those musicians and labels that call themselves "indie" are, at best, "trojan horses for the most destructive industries" and at worst, Quizno's-endorsing billionaires that have "done awful things." Naturally, no one in the business is taking this very seriously, but it has spurred conversation. LA Weekly asked Paul Tao, co-chief of Iamsound Records (one of those evil pseudo-independent labels trying to gorge America on sandwiches no doubt) to address a few of I Hate Indie Rock's more volatile arguments. You can read the full interview online, but here is an excerpt:
[@hateindierock tweet] 'The main reason touring has allegedly replaced record sales is because the companies that stock the bars in America want more MONEY'
Tao: Yes, because alcohol companies invented the internet, file sharing and the archaic business practices of most major labels.
If bars and alcohol companies profit from the rise of touring profits, so be it. As long as bands get money, fans get to see shows and have drinks, and everyone else is happy, then what's the difference? If you really want to complain about the touring industry, how about the people who put extra fees on tickets that we all hate?