I am starting to realize that differentiating a “real” independent label with one posing as one or one that used to be but was swallowed up by the major labels is very confusing.  After reading Ed Christman’s article Defining A Sector, written for Billboard, I believe that not even he fully understands what constitutes a label as an independent.  Once the major labels starting buying independent–or “other”– labels everything became muddled.  In the past, it was quite simple (at least compared to today) to distinguish the “indies” from the majors because the majors sort of stayed away from the other type of label.  But once the independent labels started to gain some recognition for the artists/bands they were producing, the majors quickly became interested.  However, some indies wanted the money that came along with being purchased by a major but wanted to still have their indie roots when it came to creating and distributing music.  The indies allowed themselves to be partially sold to the majors but not fully.  This when the confusion starts.  An independent label that is only partially independent?  Should it still be considered independent?  I believe that this is what Christman intended to answer with his article but never really does because, nowadays, the term “Independent” is so ambiguous.