I heard a talk show/DJ on a Texas station saying that you can't hardly go to a myspace page without finding an indie band with their tunes on their site. This begs the question why we don't see more indie artists making the headlines, but further begs the more fundamental question of 'CAN YOU BE SUCCESSFUL IN MUSIC WITHOUT THE BACKING OF AN RIAA AFFILIATED LABEL?"

Well, of course, I believe it is possible. First off, you have to define what "being successful" means the kind of stuff you find in the lyrics of ROCKSTAR by Nickelback, then it probably is easier to sell your soul to the devil and make that Faustian deal with an RIAA label. I still contend the fame and big money is possible as an indie, just maybe a longer road, and perhaps, more inventive marketing.

If you define success as having your tunes played and appreciated by masses of kids, that's even easier, and no, I assert you don't have to have the RIAA on your side.

Part of the problem though is, that with the explosion of indie artists, you have more competition. It's exactly what that DJ said...there are so MANY artists, you may get lost in the shuffle. Another thing of course, and this harkens back to "success scenario number one", if you want to the big money, it usually won't appear if you are giving ALL your tunes away, in MP3 form, and never charging for them (after all, where will all the money come from...tours?).

Certainly, the RIAA associated artists with the "big names" are not where they are because they are the most talented humans on the earth. Does anyone think Metallica is a "big name" because they have the best singers, bassists, lead guitarists, and drummer in the world (e.g. "Lars?" don't make me laugh). No, they had the giant hype machine of an RIAA affiliated record label.

And, even with the RIAA labels running every game and playing every trick in the book to push, promote, and get buzz going about their artists...sales are tanking (and no, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with KaZaa...been there lately?).

Here at DMusic, we have some damn fine singers, songwriters, musicians, and yes, some are better than the people the RIAA labels have signed.

Some of the admin here are great musicians. Not all of us are in bands or are pursuing a career in music. I for example, play guitar and keyboards, but play because I genuinely LOVE music and love to make music. I don't want a career in music, but, I honestly believe that indie artists CAN "make it big".

Of course, you need talent and technical proficiency, whether you are only an instrumental player , or are only a singer. But, one thing Simon Cowell is right, the personality and charisma MUST come through, otherwise, you are just a better than average karaoke performer.

The well known performers in the past, love 'em or hate 'em, had that charisma, that personal something that made people want to listen to them and watch them. In my thinking, it's the same thing that Alexander the Great and Hannibal had...that something in your personality that attracts other folks. To me, Janis Joplin had it, as did Jim Morrison.

So, talent, charisma, and yes, promotion. You need a way of getting yourself notice above the crowd. Many years ago, having a "gimmick" seemed to work. Think about the WHO tearing up their instruments, KISS , with the makeup, Gene throwing up blood, shooting fire, etc., Arthur Brown ("FIRE") set his hair on fire...even the Beatles had their "moptops". That's not to say that an artist nowadays needs to set his hair on fire, shoot fire out his or her mouth, and paint on makeup, but there has to be something about you or your group, that makes people remember you.

But, I could be wrong on everything I just wrote.

Maybe indies cannot become " big names" and sell out stadiums.
Maybe you don't need to find a special way of promoting yourself.

Maybe all you need is a good tune and a place for folks to download it, swarming there like bees after pollen.

Maybe, all this was just to make you think and get you motivated to post YOUR opinions.

So, what d'ya think...can you be successful as an indie?

~Code

Arcade Fire seems to be doing pretty well. They're not with an RIAA label. I know who they are and I've never heard one of their songs.

Success is relative; it depends on the goal.

If I look back at the people I started out with 30-some years ago, they were the only real musical competition I've ever felt, the only people I felt I had something to prove to.

When we sold our first CD, I won that game because I'm the only one who's still playing it. The rest of them gave up, as far as I can tell.

Who's the success? Which is better? To make more money or make more music?

"there has to be something about you or your group, that makes people remember you."

Good songs?

I am already a "success" because I refuse to ever sell-out and thus make my own decisions about my music and get to play what I want.

But more money would be nice.

More artists that can make a living = less mega stars = more successful artists

Anyone here ever heard of Fred Eaglesmith?

Aimee Mann -- I suspect she's making more money now than when she was tied to a big label. It isn't exclusively about how many you sell, it is how much you make on the sales.

Sufjan Stevens, though I can't stand more than a handful of his songs, certainly has made a success of himself. I think when you get on Austin City Limits, you are a success.

It is easier than ever to get your stuff before the public, and if it is quality, hopefully enough people will notice, and promote you through word of mouth. But quality has a select audience. You may not sell a million units.

Fred Eaglesmith has made a good living for himself & his family for over 30 years touring and selling his music without the aid of the "Big Record Deal". I call him successful!

So in answer to Code's question here...yes, Indies can be successful..you just need to know you're going to work for it, like everything else worthwhile in this life.

We need new models for music business. I'll suggest two:

1) professional open-source model: you release your music for free under creative commons. Many other artists do likewise; we continue improving and promoting conduits of copyleft'ed music (repositories, internet radio) that make it easier for people to find and enjoy this stuff. Indie music becomes synonymous with creative commons - free-as-in-speech music - rather than just a minor league for the RIAA. This allows more direct connection with artists and scenes and more widespread exposure; the culture changes from one of restriction to one of collaboration. The "better living" for the non-rock-star comes from finding more audiences who are willing to pay a decent price for the show since they were able to freely access the music. There are probably also new collateral product/service opportunities with this model. It's worth remembering that the average band/musician does -not- make a living off of CD sales or broadcast royalties, so this isn't really a stretch. And if you release non-commercial you can always still license your hit song commercially for Mitzubishi or whatever if you're weak that way. I believe that we will, sooner or later, see a "Marc Fleury" of free music - someone headstrong enough to become a millionaire musician while giving away their recordings for free.

2) Be a non-commercial musician for life. I'd never tell anyone else to do this (there's nothing wrong with trying to make a living) but it's the commitment I've made. It's the be-your-own-patron model: find a practical day job that you can enjoy and that is as much a part of your total personality as your music, and use it to feed your art. Being obsessed about music as a marketable commodity is a RECEIVED notion and a FAIRLY RECENT one - we should question that notion and if you love creating but hate self-promoting, give it away and stop torturing yourself with the RIAA/entertainment-industry paradigm.