Haha yes.

Does anybody on here play Battlefield: Bad Company for the 360? If so, comment back with your gamertag.

I think definitley only for mass market pop acts. With myspace and whatnot, independant bands can reach a lot fans of (and i hate to use this term) "real music" without a multi-million dollar record deal.

I think the death of the music 'industry' may be the best thing to happen to rock n roll since the invention of the electric guitar.

I guess I probably just said what everyone else has said, or will say, but i think its the truth.

i care more about the huge shit i just took more than anything this SHITTY website ever posts. why the fuck do the people who run this shit suck so terribly? i mean, holy shit, you guys fucking suck. and matt ramone is a faggot.

Honestly, i think indies have a future. But I mean, bands just don't need majors anymore. Panic at the Disco is one of the biggest bands out there right now and theyre on an indie label.

the tram company line made me laugh, hard.

1st and foremost - alan mcgee is a prick and always has been. don't give a fuck what he's saying here but he is a complete tool

record collectives are the way to go.

i think there is something to be said about association. There are certain record labels that put out solid releases, one after the other. When those labels bring on a new band, i generally will look into that new band. So i think labels can be helpful based on reputation associated with the label.

As far as the bigger labels go, they offer the financial backing for a band. advertisements, promoting connects, etc. You need all the help you can get in a in a media driven culture where everyone wants to be a rock star. i don't think anyone 'needs' a label to make it. It just has perks that doing it solo doesn't have.

I love polls! Thank you!

A lot of the things label's used to be important for are obsolete now, but there are still plenty of things an outside party can help bands with. Call that outside help a label, management, a promotions company, or whatever you want, but its still needed.

I love the idea of having polls here.

So far this one is entirely inconclusive. I voted "Yes, not everyone can be Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails," which kind of overlaps with the first option in my mind. I don't think labels are always necessary, but they definitely serve a purpose. Even if they wanted to deal with all that themselves, which I'm guessing most don't, most bands just don't have the resources to pay for recording, pressing records, touring, etc. on their own, and labels often provide much-needed publicity simply through their reputation. But the time of the giant majors definitely seems to have ended.

fuck oasis

lol @ the 20% who said No, DIY is all you need

ignorant motherfuckers, grow up

I think there's a difference between big labels and small labels. Small labels can exist because they adapt to new ways. All the power to them. Big labels are killing the record industry by not changing (all the power to them as well).

This is a really tough poll to answer by the way. But I like the idea of having polls around here.

I think corporations will always be able to find some way to make money off of music, and I think some bands will always try to grab the brass ring. I never used to understand why people would walk into the Gap, and get some clerk who gets paid $5 an hour to pick out clothes for them. Then I realized that people are either lazy, or don't give a shit, and are happy for someone to tell them what to wear (or listen to).

Isn't this guy filthy rich?

Huh...

I've been on this site for a few years now and I have never before clicked on the "about" link. It was actually informative, even though I'd gathered most of that information from experience on the 'org.

I hope it all comes crashing down....Labels kinda sucks, although some labels have put out consistently good albums(Jade Tree, Fat Wreck, Lookout,SubPop), but I guess as far as majors go, I hope they all burn.

Dinosaurs Will Die

If ever met Oasis I would urinate on their faces.

Helms is dead.... great news!

I think the poll results can't really be trusted as to reflect the views on this site, seeing as how it appears you can vote as many times you want.

A question like this has no clear yes or no answer. And I thought the polls sucked on Slashdot...

Some labels are corporate and by nature exist only for financial gain. Others are run out of a bedroom and lose money just to, according to some apparently antiquated hippie ideal, consistently present good new bands to those who trust their judgment mostly for art's sake. You can't compare Dreamworks to Recess. Yes or no? I abstain.

Good luck paying for Cds, paying for vinyl, and paying for gas on tour without a label behind you. You have a bunch of money saved up and want to really "do it yourself?" Good luck with what that entails, including dealing with pressing plants, dealing with distributors trying to get paid, and dealing with all of the little things that it takes to get your records/cds/digital out to the public.

new shook ones song from split w/ hour of the wolf

http://www.myspace.com/nosensevancouver

There a lot of indie label that put out music just becuase they love music. Labels like my own and others I work with. I put out records and cd's/tapes by bands and artists that I enjoy and other labels do the same for me. I know other people who run labels and they don't play in bands but want to do something for underground music so they put out records/book shows etc... Indie labels will never die becuase people will always be doing this, putting out records by bands they love becuase they want to. Not to make money or get popular simply just becuase they want to. Major labels are already dead. Indie labels are very alive.