[atlantaprog] Re: Major Labels

Actually, the major labels have gone a long way towards ruing the careers of many artists who didn't manage to score a *hit* right off the bat. I grew up in Nashville and I saw it all the time, albeit mostly in the country music world. Some *next big thing* gets signed, paid a few bucks to make an album. The album sinks without a trace. The label isn't interested in them any more, but still has them by the 'nads until the contract is up. Meanwhile, the artist is forgotten, left out the dry. Unable to move on, they usually throw in the towel.
The problem is that labels set themselves up as the arbiters of *commercially viable product* (which usually translates as someone that sounds like the latest big start) and shut out everything else. And by wielding their financial clout, they manage to limit to avenues that indies can have access to (witness the indy-promoter payola models of the 80s & 90s).
From what I've seen, the only way original & innovative artists can truly achieve a sustainable success is by laying the groundwork on their own, without making artistic compromises. By the time an artist has achieved some level of success on their own, THEN the majors can step in.
Yeah, I'm rambling. Bottom line is I don't trust huge capitalist entities (such as the major labels) to do the right thing by anyone except their stockholders and CEOs. 

On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Wade S wrote:
So record labels are bad because they rob artists, control distribution and are only interested in producing commercially viable music. A new system of self distribution via the internet is better because now anyone can promote and distribute themselves, the best bands will stand out and get the most attention and the money goes straight to the artist rather than the majority of it going to the label.
Sounds good in theory, but most of the artists who I hear are “getting robbed” still make a lot more money than I make by being signed to major labels. Even the bands who get dropped have a major label quality record to hang on their wall and in those cases, the label loses more than the artist since the label has put up the money to create that album.
The record labels spend a fortune in the studio and on promotion while the band creates the music. It seems like both parties SHOULD get paid. If a band doesn't’t like that idea, well the major record labels have never completely controlled distribution and promotion anyway. There have always been indi labels and bands who’ve done it themselves. The Misfits did all of that in the 70s without the benefit of the internet. Now you’ve got the guys who wrote “Chocolate Rain” and “Peanut Butter Jelly Time.” Is that a step forward? That’s what I see getting the most attention.
Commercially viable product, regardless of whether or not it’s any good, is still the music that will sell the best. Who has really risen to the top? Who is the cream? Tila Tequila? Probably the best band that I can think of who’s really made it big through the internet is The Arctic Monkeys. They don’t seem any different than the other pop bands only their production isn’t as good. Theoretically, they are making more money because the major labels aren’t involved, but does anyone here actually know what the Arctic Monkeys make compared to a comparable band on a major? Does their indi label really pay them more? Either way you have a really tough time standing out and only a handful of bands can do well enough to make a living at it. That brings me back to the statements that NOW bands can distribute themselves, promote themselves, do it themselves. Since it’s always been possible. Is the argument that now it’s easier? Well that just means that there is more competition for the dollars that are getting spent. Ok, so it’s easier now. How many people here are making a living solely by recording and performing their original music?
My point is that it’s easy to blame the major labels for popular music on the radio being crap, but popular unsigned artists on the internet seem to offer the same percentage (if not a higher percentage) of crap. It’s easy to blame the major labels for robbing the artists, but it seems like you can still make more money with the support of a major (even with them robbing you blind) than you can on your own. Before the internet and since, I don’t see much difference in the percentage of people that I personally know making a living from their music. There have always been a few and there are still only a few. I don’t think that’s going to change with the fall of the label.
For years I felt the way everyone here seems to feel. I'm starting to wonder if that's because it's easier to have the major labels to blame, so I'm just trying to look at it objectively.
[regarding downloaded music] Instead, they got Lars Ulrich to open his mouth (pretty much always a bad idea) and started suing teenagers.
As for Lars Ulrich, I think that's more of an example of a musician being an idiot than the record label. I don't think the label put him up to it as you suggest. I'm pretty sure he did it on his own. 

-Wade

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx? icid=starshuffle_hotmailtextlink2_oct

Other related posts: