Actual indie labels less than thrilled by 50% indie chart

The Guardian's Louis Pattison asks indie labels about the new rules for the Independent Chart.

They're not that impressed:

Allison Schnackenberg of Southern Records, which acts as an umbrella label for Dischord, Kranky, Crass Records and Ipecac Recordings, among others, describes the new rules as "an absolute con". The issue is the "50% or more" rule, meaning that labels can receive a significant chunk of major-label funding and still qualify as "indie". "It's turning the independent charts into yet another marketing ploy for major-funded ventures," she says. "They are blurring the lines to the point that the word 'independent' will be meaningless to the general public. One is either independent or not. You can't be 'mostly independent.'"

Stewart Green from Beggars is a little more welcoming, but has his doubts about indie as a concept:

"Without getting too philosophical, what does 'indie' mean anymore? It's been used and abused to represent a watered-down form of guitar music rather than a totem for original, innovative, challenging music. So work needs to be done to reposition what the term 'indie' actually means – it cannot be allowed to be a term lost forever to a genre of guitar music! The success of the charts and breakers chart will depend on coverage. They need to be embraced by media outlets and given the space to exist alongside the commercial chart. Perhaps only then we will stake a claim to a truly interesting, diverse and meaningful independent chart."

To be fair, though, Stewart, the reason why 'indie' became synonymous with thin-legged boys playing guitars and wearing black jeans is surely in a large deal because that's the sort of music which used to dominate the indie charts? Given that the new big idea is a chart, I wouldn't hold my breath for a change in what that means.

And, from a broader listener's point of view, is there any real value at all in having a term which identified music not by its genre, but by the structure of the company which released the track? I'm pretty convinced that the idea clung to by Sony, for example, that "being on Sony" means something to a consumer is a desperate fallacy; for people who get their music between Chris Moyles' monologues and out the rack at Tesco, what difference is knowing a Bon Iver record is selling more copies than a different album released by a small label really going to make to them?

Indie charts prepare for 1995

It's not like the BPI and the Official Charts Company don't really care about the indie charts, but they've just got round to having the first tweak of the rules for inclusion since 1978.

Yes, the BPI and the charts people are redefining indie:

The initial criteria defined an independent release as any record which was released by a label with independent distribution, in an era when major record companies were self-distributed and smaller labels used alternative routes. Today, however, with even majors outsourcing their own distribution to independent operations, this criterion has become less relevant.

Under the new rules, a download or CD will be eligible for the Official Independent Charts if it is released on a label which is 50% or more owned by an independent (or non-major) company, irrespective of the distribution channel through which it is shipped or delivered.

In other words, your record can now come out on a label fifty per cent owned by EMI, and still be magically 'independent'. It's a fair point that the criteria probably needed changing, but 'half-owned by a major' seems to be an odd compromise point.

Actually, isn't the idea of there being an "official" independent chart slightly odd anyway?

But there's more. A whole new chart:

In addition, two new charts will be launched to reflect "breaking talent". The Official Independent Breakers Charts - for singles and albums, respectively - will be open to independent releases by artists which have not previously been featured in the Top 20 of the Official Singles or Albums national charts.

This is like the old 6Music chart, only with slightly tighter entry criteria, then.

Given that the indie chart ceased to have any meaningful relevance to the average person sometime between the time The Chart Show finished and NME dropped its chart pages, it's probably not especially important that these rules are being changed - although I'd love to know where they feel the demand for an Indie Breaking Talent list is.

Julian Wall, the BPI's Director of International Events & Independent Member Services says, "The independent chart has a long and illustrious history. After 30 years, the time is right to bring it back into a world in which truly independent labels are releasing masses of music that deserves to be heard and recognized. A credible independent label chart for albums, single tracks and new 'break' acts is an important step to achieving this.

"Working alongside AIM, Iain McNay (the chairman of Cherry Red Records responsible for launching the independent chart in 1978) and the Official Charts Company, has been a great experience. The BPI is 101% committed to the re-launch of an authoritative and genuine UK Independent Chart."

Only 101%? Couldn't give it that final hyperbolic extra 9%, could you? Although since the BPI's commitment to independent members is such that Wall has a whole other job to do as well, I'd be interested to see how he manages to overdeliver that commitment on half his time.

It's instructive, though, to discover that the independent chart is vital to provide a showcase for slightly-non-mainstream music to be heard.

But hang on... what's this, in the press release sent out to promote the change?

They will be accompanied by the new Independent Breakers charts. The new Breakers Charts are designed to reflect and bolster music from the independent sector’s newer, developing acts, by remaining open only to artists which have not previously scored a Top 20 hit in the UK – in the first few months of this year, they would have benefited critical darlings including Bon Iver, Friendly Fires, Patrick Wolf and The Horrors.

So these moves mean Friendly Fires and Patrick Wolf will have a platform? But since they're already "critical darlings" (and isn't that a slightly sneery term, a put-down rather than a leg-up?) why do they need a new platform to be discovered? Wouldn't they be brining credibility to the charts rather than the charts offering visibility to them?

It does make me slightly nostalgic for the old days of working through the 94 pages of charts in the back of the Record Mirror during Wednesday night tea, though.