Fleet Foxes = Still Indie • After a Seattle Weekly blog post erroneously reported the Sub Pop folkers had signed to Virgin, Robin Pecknold used his own blog post to squash the rumors: "Fleet Foxes will never, ever, under no circumstances, from now until the world chokes on gas fumes, sign to a major label. This includes all subsidiaries or permutations thereunder. Till we die." There's plenty more, including word that Pecknold cut off all his hair, over at MySpace. (Note: Warner has a 49% stake in Sub Pop, so it technically remains an indie. So far so good, Robin.)
Posted at 5:07 PM
Tags: Fleet Foxes
You tell 'em, Robin!
Score = 5
it technically remains an indie? thats pure bullshit. the fact that Warner even has a stake makes them a major player in a major label world. period. no argument.
these Fleet Foxers are huffing on the cock shaped major label tailpipe. end of story.
i love it when a band sells a bunch of records and begins to run their mouths about stuff. suck it up losers. your record wasnt anything to talk about and im really suprised how people lauded them so highly. theyre basically My Morning Jacket light with a touch of Band of Horses
Band of Fleet Jackets
Score = -33
the whole 'fleet foxes are my morning jacket with a light touch of grizzly bear sprinkled with some band of horses' argument is just fucking played out man.
anyway, robin sounds pretty believable.
Score = 18
played out? i recalled it as it is sir. if it smells like bullshit, it is bullshit.
go delete yourself.
take me out with a bong rip and a thank you jesus
Score = -41
mmj and ff don't sound alike.
Score = 6
it sure got you talking about them..
Score = -5
I agree with Johnny Cum Lately. And "Band of Fleet Jackets" was pretty fucking funny. Oh shit here comes a -25 for me.
Score = 0
Am I the only one that is hoping that Sub Pop gets completely bought out by WB?.... God, I would love to see that WB logo on Fleet Fox's catelog.
Score = 6
I really like Fleet Foxes, but I don't understand these comments on major labels. It seems to me that Sub Pop still has a lot of creative control, but they have a major distribution channel due to their partnership with WB. I mean, 49%? That's is significant, in both voting rights for major decisions and revenue allocation. So what does it mean to be associated with a major label? Fleet Foxes is clearly associated with WB. They own 49% of Sub Pop!
Score = 12
I would imagine that the people at Sub Pop still pursue music they actually like, and while owning 51% means they have the upper hand in decisions, still, it's basically half-supported by an enormous conglomerate. So it's foolish for this guy to say what he said, particularly because he goes out of his way to mention "all subsidiaries or permutations". Sub Pop isn't a subsidiary of Warner, but, well, "permutation" would seem to suffice!
Score = 21
i have a feeling this could be the slope
Score = 1
Close call eh guys? (thank you jesus. what would I have done if Fleet Foxes signed to a major)
Score = 2
People still like Fleet Foxes?
Score = -18
To say the Fleet Foxes album was nothing to talk about is not only laughable but its retarded.
Score = 8
Hey there Fleet Foxes guy! You are signed to Sub Pop, one of the biggest indie labels around. Why do you think you have so much success?
(spare me the good music... blah, blah, responses, if the label doesn't do their job no one will know any band ever existed)
Either way, Sub Pop is the best you can do while remaining "indie", or so it seems to me.
Score = 8
i agree plus, why is there such bad karma around major labels? times have changed, being signed to a major doesnt mean they turn you into a robot anymore, majors are going for broke too now, fleet foxes deserve the promotion and he shouldnt sell himself short of opportunities should they happen to come his way just to maintain "indie cred"
Score = 2
Even though sub pop is indie, it still seems like they're just as bad as major. I was listening to an interview with blitzen trapper(also sub pop), and they said they had enough new material for 1-2 new albums, but it was up to the record company to set the release dates. So, I really don't get this indie vs. major thing.
Score = 12
Sub Pop can't just put out a record any time one of their many bands has one ready. Promoting a record the way Sub Pop does (magazine ads, radio promotion, videos) costs money, each release has a budget amount that can be spent on it, and I'm assuming a label with as many artists as Sub Pop has to plan out their release schedule months in advance because of this. Warner having a 49% stake in the label doesn't mean Sub Pop has an endless stream of revenue that they can throw out on a band's whim.
Score = 16
that guy robin sure loves the drama
Score = 6
wow. be dramatic more.
there's NOTHING wrong with signing onto a major, as long as you get to keep your vision and don't compromise your integrity. but oh noes.... they won't be "indie" anymore! how dare they "sell out" like that!!
shut up robin, you're setting yourself up for failure. and you sound like a tantrum- throwing 14 year old.
besides, didn't death cab say something similar before....
Score = 14
He does seem a little too concerned with his band's image and public status, which is ultimately, so very pointless. Isn't that whole "hating on major labels because they hate music" ideology completely outdated, and more importantly, completely inaccurate at this point? Didn't a major label oversee the release of Kid A, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and The Soft Bulletin among countless other albums that define the independent music landscape that Robin is trying so hard to convince us he still belongs to?
Never mind the fact that as someone else here has mentioned, Sub Pop itself is partially(and significantly) owned by Warner, but hey! why doesn't Robin break that whole situation down for us in his next blog post, maybe whip up a nice power point presentation, that's indie right???
Score = 15
Is Robin the mildly retarded guy who sits down all the time?
Score = -2
When exactly does a record label cross the threshold from being an "indie" to a major label?
Also, Sub Pop has some sort of big distribution deal with Starbucks. Back in October and December, Fleet Foxes' album was one of like three that were being sold there. I work at a Starbucks, and we seriously played that album, in its entirety, at least four times a day.
When it gets to this point, the distinction between "indie" and "major" label seems almost negligible to me. Sub Pop must have some input or veto power over releases to be as successful as it is. If someone truly wants to be indie, they can record on their own hard drive and burn their own CDRs.
Score = 12
Or, they could sign to Sub Pop, release a brilliant album, support a local venue, and run their own independent label at the same time. I think that would qualify them as "indie". *cough* No Age *cough*
Score = 9
But Warner is a HUGE reason for their success in AND outside the US. In fact, for every album that No Age, Fleet Foxes, and every other band on the Sub Pop roster sells outside the US has Warner Bros to thank. And don't think Sub Pop doesn't ask their "Sugar Daddy" for help with promos, advertising & touring.
Score = 1
but what if fleet foxes make sub pop enough green to become a major label? what then, huh?
that's when we all flip the fuck out and ditch both their asses, I suppose. are you all ready for it? I'm sure not.
Score = 2
Who the fuck cares?
Score = 14
the 'indie' label depends on the music they play, not the label they sign to.
hell, the music industry is all about competition these days though. if they think they need to prove their indie-ness by "taking a stand" and "defending their unique, different, defiant sound" then whatever :P
http://bonafidewithheadphones.blogspot.com/
Score = -1
wrong.
'indie' isn't a genre. you could have an 'indie' rock band, or an 'indie' rap group. the 'indie' title, in it's traditional sense, is regarding their label status.
Score = 2
That's very nieve. So based on their music, you would consider The Budos Band, Murs, Ghostland Observatory, Anthony and The Johnsons, and Kylesa INDIE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please, for your blog's sake .................
Score = 0
Get over your fucking selves. It's a great album and a great band. Enjoy the music and stfu.
Score = 0
Everybody with a clue knows Vidal Sasoon and the CW is runnin' the main stage these days. Like the look Robin...very "Big Pink".
Score = 3
I'm not even sure being associated with Warner Brothers is all that bad, either. Flaming Lips have been on Warner for years. In fact, Warner released Zaireeka, which is a much stranger album than anything Sub Pop has put out, and it's also remarakably unsellable. It's four CDs, so they can't make it too cheap, and there's no way that the casual CD buyer will pick it up, yet Warner still took the chance and released it - even though at the time the Flaming Lips hadn't put out a hit record in a few years.
I'm sure that the heads of Warner probably aren't the best, but peppered throughout the company are intelligent, creative, sympathetic and interesting people who will probably try fairly hard to bring good music to the masses. I hope Fleet Foxes remember that, should they find themselves under the sway of one.
Score = 25
great response. +1
Score = 5
Uh... I don't know that Sub Pop has ever really been that "indie". The label's entire career has been based around the emulation of Big Label marketing. Poneman and Pavitt have said as much *countless* times in interviews. Read interviews with Nirvana, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, and any of the other countless bands that made a name for Sub Pop (although Poneman and Pavitt would like you to believe that *they* made a name for those bands); every one of those bands complained about the strong-arm major-label style tactics of Sub Pop in the early 90s (ignoring artists, refusing to pay royalties, shelving records, etc). Why do you think they all left for major labels? Most of those artists even had *more* control over their art once they signed to majors.
Score = 7
Thank God. Their music would've become immediately terrible and I would've removed them from my iPOD if this rumor was true.
Score = 8
Robin's faux humble schtick is getting old. He's a bit too precious for his own good. Needs to chill on the internet and just be "mysterious" for a little bit.
Score = 10
How about that new J. Tillman album?
Score = 3
yes.
Score = 0
Fleet Foxes = Still Indie?
Don't you mean:
Fleet Foxes = Still Gaaaay?
Score = -1
I don't see the problem with any of these things. Warner has made some pretty "indie" decisions e.g The Flaming Lips release as mentioned above. Sub Pop has put out some awesome stuff with Blitzen Trapper and whatnot. Also the Fleet Foxes made a great album and hopefully they will make another one. With the exception of the reverbophilic nature of the band, they don't have much in common with MMJ or BoH. I suppose the music blog backlash was always inevitable. A good record is a good record though
Score = 3
Generally, I agree with much of what Mr. Fleet Foxes has to say here, and think it's pretty cool that saying this kind of thing is actually happening in this post-Rainbows world of ours, but there is one exception to being on a major label -- if the band/artist is still allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. If a band like U2, Red Hot Chili Peppers, whoever is still doing whatever they want, I don't really care if its getting people paid. People in this country get paid for much more sinister endeavors than making music that many people like.
Score = -2
Who cares what label they're on, or whether you like their music or not? If I were in their position I would do whatever the hell I pleased...and as if I'm going to give two shits about some nobody who blew a big fat blog our their ass complaining about my music or what label I was signed to. What music have we produced of any distinction? None. What labels are looking to sign us blogging losers? None. The fact remains that they've had more success in their young lives than any of us internet blogging wannabe losers will ever have. That is to say at least while we sit around voicing our lame ass opinions online all day like a bunch of geeked out nerds that no one will ever want to know or remember. By posting anything at all up here we've all just fucked ourselves with our own fist...again. Get a life!
Score = 3
I would have to agree with Kevin Barnes' assessment of of selling out here. The fact that they may be on the biggest "indie" label is pretty irrelevant to me. Its obvious by listening to their music that they are playing what they want, how they want, and that's all i can ask for from a band.
Score = 1
If a band truly wants to be independent, it simply has to put out its own stuff online and tour like crazy. If not, get off your high horse, accept it for what it is and make good music!
Score = 0
When My Morning Jacket put out "At Dawn", a record that is eerily similar to the Fleet Foxes, they put it out in 2002, on an INDIE label. Darla Records.
They may not sound alike now, because MMJ has explored and grown, and will most likely continue to do so. The big difference here, is that they didn't start off by biting and mimicking another band's asthetic that had already reached a good portion of discerning music listeners and make somewhat popular by said band (MMJ). In 2002, nobody sounded like that....certainly, no one was using reverb in that way. (shit, not many people had beards either, not that that matters, and is waaay besides the point).
that's why Fleet Foxes were an overnight success, and it took MMJ 6 to 7 years to get there. The genre had already been tried and tested, and people were ready for it.
Robin should look at the big picture and learn a little bit more about the record business, and be thankful he's so lucky. I like their record a lot, but the fact that pitchfork gave it such a high rating, and gave At Dawn a 7.5 or whatever, says a lot about how short sighted, uninformed, and addicted to the "flavor of now" a lot of music blogs/sites and so called hip inside music buffs are. History will look back on At Dawn and rate it a masterpiece, and the Fleet Foxes record will be considered a very good record that came a lot later..... He should be way more concerned with making good music, and creating his own sound that he is, dissing some ambigious group of capitalists, whom at this point, and clawing and scrapping to make money just as much as any "indie" label.
The word "indie" need to be retired. It doesn't have any useful meaning anymore.
Score = 2
i 'll listen to fleet foxes before bed/in the morning whatever label is in the corner of the lovely artwork. it hangs on me wall right nex to hissing fauna and the '59 sound<3
Score = 0
i 'll listen to Fleet Foxes before bed/in the morning whatever label is on the back of the nostalgic styled artwork. its not like they are on itunes commercials. come down folks!
Score = 0
Wow. There is a serious brain trust of music industry wisdom at work here. Where did all you armchair experts come from anyway? From what I've seen here I wouldn't let most of you people compile a mixtape let alone pontificate on the finer points of a record labels business workings (indie or no).
Score = 0
shit i am a little late on this one. quick, someone fill me in...is it cool to hate fleet foxes now?
Score = 1
fleet foxes are a good band. pecknold does sound like jim james but does this mean he should be forever banned from using his voice? come on people this is rediculous. mmj plays completely diffferent music, and i personally think fleet foxes are doing something pretty original with an almost renaissance feel that ive never heard on a my morning jacket album. stop giving them flack simply because they are getting attention these days. if you dont like their music dont listen to it and go jerk off to some arcade fire
Score = 1
My ears like Fleet Foxes. That's all I care about, honestly.
Score = 0