This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Record Labels Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Rock music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doughboydro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm intrigued by the mention of Open Source record labels at the end. The link only goes to the usual Open Source article though, which I'm pretty sure doesn't feature anything about the record label aspect (I shall be having a look after I write this though). If it is on there then perhaps it should be put on its own page - Open Source record label rather than Open Source? If it isn't on the general open source article then same principle - I'm not even sure how that would work - presumably the songs are freely downloadable, but do they make the tracks used to compose the songs available as well? sheridan 07:46, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Had a poke around, and open content seems to have more in common with what an open source record label would be. Have changed the link (though not the text of the article) accordingly sheridan 08:11, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Good call. In fact, open content seems to be better text: open source may the the root of the open content movement, but source has inappropriate computer sciencey connotations here. I made the change. ---- Charles Stewart 10:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Aatombomb changed the lead paragraph (#)to the following:

The concept of an independent record label is a record label operating without the funding of one of the 'major' record labels, which are generally defined to be the handful of media companies which have recently dominated the recorded music industry in the West. The boundaries between major and independent are quite blurred in practice. Some independent record labels, in particular labels with sucessful performing artists, receive funding from major labels. Independent labels often rely in part on international licensing deals, distribution agreements, and other deals with major record labels. In some cases, major labels have wholly acquired independent labels.

Indepedent labels have been in existence for almost as long as there has been a market for recorded music. Even as the music industry has become more centralized, independent labels have continued to be a significant, if small part of the overall market. In a number of cases, independent labels have assembled rosters of recording artists that rival those of the majors. In particular, the '60s and '80s are regarded as particularly fruitful periods for independent labels.

I'll enumerate my disagreements tomorrow when I have more time, roughly speaking I think the above text reads better than what it replaces, but contains many inaccuracies. I'll make a stab at reconciling the two tomorrow, as well. ---- Charles Stewart 20:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd maintain that notion of independent is largely based where the money comes from. Management practices may vary from label to label, but funding is king. Majors have always been interested in acquiring independent labels if they are profitable or have a profitable roster. Also, there's no mention of the significance of the independent label in the development of new styles of music, such as rock and disco. The notion that independent labels only gained cachet in the late 70's is very inaccurate.

And now I look at it after a night's sleep, I think it was a good edit, despite some issues. I'm sorry for reverting it, I should not have done, and I've now reverted my revert. Two points: the first sentence reads as if you are introducing a definition, which you contradict two sentences later; secondly your second paragraph seems to be mostly concerned with market share. The article needs to say something about why people care about independence when it comes to music labels. I think Aatombomb's text is a better place to start than what went before, though. FWIW, I started the article Independent music ethos some time back. ---- Charles Stewart 12:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the wiki links? --Smooth Henry 12:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

What links are you talking about? ---- Charles Stewart 13:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought we had more links in the text... Maybe I was wrong. I'll add some. --Smooth Henry 15:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a quick edit and I see what you are saying now. At the moment, I'm finding it hard to resolve the independent music ethos with the ntion of independence of funding which is really at the heart of the debate about independent labels. In fact, every sucessful independent label I know of has had the ethos, but not the independence of funding. It's almost impossible to grow a business without cutting deals with the majors. At one time there were distributors like Rough Trade which dealt with independent labels, but there isn't really anything like that now.--64.191.211.54 19:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some googling provided some web sites that might be of interest and would help us write this article.

• Association of Independent Record Labels (Australia only) seems more of a resource for Australian record labels than for people trying to find info about indie labels.
• indierec.com see above concern, but more universal. Maybe we need a "Resources" heading to contain this info?
• dream job again, "resources"

Other thoughts:

• Should Indie label redirect to here rather than to List of independent record labels?

--Smooth Henry 00:53, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Another idea: we should make a template/boilerplate thing for all the record label articles, like the ((hiphop)) one. What would we include on it?

Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates

--Smooth Henry 01:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

put in a merge tag... I'll make the merge later today unless someone thinks we shouldn't. --Smooth Henry 20:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The case isn't obvious to me. Indepdence is a different issue to openness, and has a longer history. It may be the case that the two topics would benefit from being described side-by-side, but you need to make the case, and I'm doubtful. ---- Charles Stewart 00:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Some music consumers have begun to actively boycott RIAA member labels by purchasing only music from independent artists" There is no chance of finding a citation to support this - anyone can make a statement and preface it with the phrase "some people..." Unfortunately, that sort of conjecture is rarely appropriate for encyclopedia articles. I've removed it.Phil500 07:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a list of indie labels owned by a specific band that are notable for article creation? Second Skin (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a paragraph that starts "In the United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s" why is Island Records not mentioned as it was founded in 1959 as an small independent record label according the Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Island Records was set up in Jamaica and in the early days the label had to licence their tracks to UK labels like Fontana (like, for example, with the first Island 'megahit', which was "My Boy Lollipop" by Millie in 1964). Even before independence Jamaica wouldn't have made up part of the UK even though it was a British overseas place like if the label had been set up in Gibraltar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed The Rocket Record Company from the paragraph that starts "In the United Kingdom during the 1950s and 1960s". As the article states "The Rocket Record Company was a record label founded ... in 1973". -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why no mention of Virgin Records? -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably because it was founded before the notion of 'indie' was dreamt up...with it, Chrysalis and A&M being seen as Major-Minors in the late 1980s/early 1990s (i.e. before they were bought by bigger 'Major' record companies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.230 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Adele seen as having the best selling independent record of all time? Adele's records were from XL Recordings (Beggars Group) in the UK but were licensed to majors around the world (which is like Happy Mondays, Depeche Mode, New Order etc were in the 1980s/1990s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have kept Eleven Seven in the list of independent record labels even though the article of the Eleven Seven Label Group states that the parent may have been originally Sony Music Entertainment, please can somebody look into this fact to make sure they were an indie and it was only a label/distribution deal with a major. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.174 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uejrjfjdjd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.247.79.187 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]