The Aleatory Dynamics of Independence: An Analysis of 2 West Coast Music Lables by risa
Epitaph not required
Epitaph is an intriguing independent company because in some instances it both proves and disproves
Hesmondhalgh’s claims. Epitaph was created in 1980 by Brett Gurewitz, the guitarist for Bad Religion. It all came about because Gurewitz and his band wanted to release a 7” but no label would take them on, so he was forced to borrow $2000 from his dad. Epitaph slowly began signing a few bands and initially they were only involved in the production and distribution of their clienteles’ albums—they would outsource everything that was related to sales and marketing. During this period their band roster was composed of The Vandals, Thelonious Monster, The Primates, The Seeing Eye Gods, and the Things. Shortly after recording the album Suffer with his band in 1986, Gurewitz decided that it was time to make Epitaph a full-fledged label; this involved incorporating their own marketing and sales department, along with taking on full manufacturing responsibilities. The early 1990s were Epitaph’s halcyon years. In 1993, Epitaph was selling 5 million records a year thanks to money-makers such as: Rancid, The Offspring, NoFX, and Pennywise.47 Then in 1994, Epitaph wrote themselves into the annals of independent music history, when one of their bands, The Offspring, released their album Smash and it went gold 16 times over; though figures vary, it is said to have sold nearly 10 million copies world wide.48 This is a rare feat in the realm of indie labels. Epitaph’s band roster is and has been composed of—at different times: NoFX , Merle Haggard, Refused, The Hives, Pennywise, Rancid, The Distillers, The Dropkick Murphys, Millencolin, etc. That having been said, Epitaph does not rely solely on the punk genre to amass their profits, instead, by developing sub-labels the likes of: Anti-, Burning Heart, Hellcat, and an affiliation with Fat Possom,49 their have managed to branch out and broaden the gamut of genres that they cover, thereby expanding their potential audiences.
From our quick overview, we can immediately realize how in 1986 Epitaph began garnering greater responsibility and control of the production, exhibition and distribution spheres, as opposed to making a deal to share them with a major. As Hesmondhalgh is concerned, this is an unorthodox occurrence. Epitaph’s method of operation is equally unorthodox insofar as it completely eschews the traditional organization adopted by majors—as in the notion of having separated ‘publicity, marketing and A&R’ departments. Instead, Epitaph is comprised of teams of two who are allotted four to six artists. These teams are responsible for all the work normally carried out by the aforementioned departments. Additionally, as opposed to the standard three-month cycles adhered to by most major labels, Epitaph’s tag-teams follow their bands for an eighteen-month cycle. This structure permits Epitaph to have an overhead that is considerably lower than that of their major competitors. Major labels normally have to make $100 000 to break even, whereas Epitaph only has to make $30 000;50 still, this is not as impressive as Subpop’s figure. This restructuring of operations is a move that is touted by Gurewitz as a refusal to compete with majors on their terms.51 In fact, by redefining their method of operation, Epitaph are seizing upon the circumstances to personalize the playing field in which they compete; to find other means of making up for their lack of capital. One of the advantages of operating in such a manner, is that Epitaph contends they are better placed to give their artists the personalized representation that they deserve. Hesmondhalgh underlines how “contemporary independent record companies often pride themselves on their treatment of creative artists.”52 That which is also salient about this ‘refusal,’ is the fact that it is actually a smart business decision, which is rhetorically masqueraded as an anti-institutional move by Gurewitz. Nuances such as these reveal one’s level of mastery with regards to Bourdieu’s notion of practical negations.
Thus far, this is how Epitaph has managed to distinguish itself from its top competitors: EMI, Sony and
Universal—all of whom are majors.53 However, life with this independent might not always be utopian. In 1996, The Offspring, one of Epitaph’s marquee bands, left them to sign with Columbia, a major label.54 In this divorce it was clear that both parties harboured some bitterness. The Offspring were discontent with what they claimed was a lack of autonomy, and accused Epitaph of surreptitiously trying to sell out to a major. To these charges, Doug Mark—Epitaph’s Business Affairs Executive caustically replied “Whatever rationale the Offspring can use to justify their departure, they may, and we wish them luck.”55 Thus far, The Offspring have failed to repeat the level of success that they had attained with Epitaph.
As mentioned with regards to Subpop, independents are often regarded as the incubators of the new. This role is a particularly salient one because independents give us a tangible institution in which we can centre in on the nascent development of the new. One of the main reasons why independents can confidently claim to introduce the new, is because their independent status and specialized knowledge in music affords them a legitimacy that majors do not possess. The specialized knowledge of independent labels is also one of the main reasons why word-of-mouth—especially as it occurs in indie stores—can be invoked as a viable means of marketing.56 The majors have long recognized this. Frith maintains that majors have, for many decades, treated ‘independents as talent and trend spotters and [have] tried to formalize such arrangements financially.”57 Nevertheless, it appears as though—now more then ever, major labels are chasing independents in a bid to gain the legitimate or ”cool” status that only they possess. Thus partnerships are formed based on the agreement that the independents retain all the artistic latitude with regards to artwork, music, recording, and singles, but that the majors will be involved in the distribution and provide recording facilities along with equipment. Examples of this include Sony with Trustkill, EMI with Rough Trade and Tooth & Nail along with Solid State. It is interesting to note that in this chasing of the new, the majors make a concerted effort to keep this association discreet because if it recognized by the listeners, the independent labels can lose their legitimate status (as can be argued in the case of Subpop).
So far Epitaph has managed to steer clear of associating with major labels. In fact, instead of playing the part of the meek independent label that eventually falls prey to a major, as Hesmondhalgh often claims is the case, Epitaph has taken a proactive approach. First, Epitaph has—in a sense, launched a war campaign against majors in a bid to pry former indie artists from their grasp. This appears to be an occurrence that Hesmondhalgh hasn’t considered at all. Epitaph’s advertising campaign, as described by Rolling Stone Magazine’s Matt Hendrickson, is:
[…] aimed at wooing superstar acts like R.E.M. away from the big boys. One tagline reads, ‘EPITAPH: FOR RELIEF OF MAJOR HEADACHES.’58
Epitaph has been successful in signing big names the likes of Tom Waits, Tricky and Solomon Burke.59 One of the ways in which they were able to accomplish this feat is by offering themselves as an alternative to the formulaic approach of representation used by most majors. Tom Waits confirms this when he explains that he chose to sign with Epitaph because he wanted to avoid the “plantation system of the music business.”60 The signing of Tricky, however, was less a case of prying and more a case of giving an ostracized star a new home. With regards to Solomon Burke, his last album Don’t Give Up On Me won a grammy for Best Contemporary Blues Album in 2002 along with the acclaim of making both Mojo and The Rolling Stone’s Best of 2002 Lists. The release of his album occurred because Epitaph struck up an association with the savvy blues label Fat Possom. For this album, Epitaph president, Andy Kaulkin, strung together a song-writing team composed of Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello, Brian Wilson and Tom Waits to bring this work to fruition.61
Another one of Epitaph’s proactive moves was that in 1997 they opened an office in Amsterdam62 and one in Montreal in 1999.63 The opening of the Montreal office was hastened by the bankruptcy of Cargo Records, which used to serve as their link to the Quebec market. With regards to considerations of flexibility and technology, Epitaph is a great example of how an independent makes use of technology to maximize their contact and relationship with both store and customer. Their technological artefact is a simple database and by making daily phone calls to their numerous stores, they keep detailed information on how and why their records are selling; specifically keeping track of “influential clubs, radio and media”64 within that store’s area. This close relationship, updated on a daily basis, allows Epitaph to help indie stores sell their products more efficiently; thus, both parties benefit. The Amsterdam office operates in their traditionally centralized, personalized and cost-effective style. Nevertheless, there seems to be a certain naïveté in their approach to Europe, because they proudly admit that they outsource their European distribution; Epitaph Europe’s president Hein van der Ree gleefully contends that “distributors are for distributing and selling.”65 This leads one to believe that either they haven’t fully figured out the importance of controlling the distributive sphere or it reflects their level of commitment in Europe. The notion that Epitaph’s level of commitment in Europe might be limited is further supported by the fact that they do not have an A&R department—dealing specifically with that market—at their European headquarters; as van der Ree explains “bands do find us, but we don’t have an A&R department, […] besides, we wouldn’t sign anything until Brett gave it his blessing.”66
Additionally, it is important to underline the fact that Epitaph’s existence and continued development has not been without the occasional bump in the road. Ironically, in 1997 (around the same time as Subpop’s restructuring), Epitaph’s Andy Kaulkin was named acting president because Brett Gurewitz began receiving drug abuse treatment. Additionally, Epitaph eliminated 20 positions, thereby reverting back to a team of 30 employees.67 The move was a corrective one, aimed at rectifying the hasty expansion undertaken after their success with The Offspring.
Leave a Comment