[atlantaprog] Re: Major Labels

I agree with both Allen and Wade; the major labels have been, not always 
perhaps but for at least 15 years, agnostic at best toward musical quality and 
development, and have committed many sins of hindering or destroying budding 
careers of worthwhile artists.  However, this is inevitable in a largely 
capitalist society and I'm not sure different-but-equal problems wouldn't arise 
from some other system.  

I've read elsewhere that the biggest bottleneck is attention, not distribution 
or manufacturing.  (I would add that stupidity is the real underlying 
bottleneck-- if we raised the average IQ one standard deviation through genetic 
engineering, Britney, Kenny G, Toby Keith, 50 Cent and their ilk would cease to 
be a problem, but that's another can of worms).  It used to be that labels were 
necessary to achieve all three, but they still perform a useful function with 
the first.  As I said a few days ago, labels are unnecessary (and indeed, 
uninterested) until you have gotten off the ground a ways yourself.  And once 
you've achieved a stable orbit like Radiohead to the point where you're a 
household name with mucho dinero, they're useless parasites.  But in that 
middle ground, going from bare self-sufficiency touring in a van and eating 
Ramen, to playing arenas and selling platinum records, major labels may provide 
the necessary upfront cash and marketing machine to catch the
 notice of short-attention-span, distracted, sensory-overwhelmed consumers, in 
a way that no MySpace page can.  I have to wonder if Radiohead would be in 
their current, enviable position if they hadn't gone through the major-label 
phase for awhile.  They has already achieved their mindshare and no longer need 
a label's marketing muscle, but that was not always the case.

As Wade points out, there is a massive supply glut of original music; it's 
nothing new and is unlikely to change, since most kids would rather grow up to 
be rock stars than accountants or Walmart greeters.  There's an eternal fight 
over who gets the limited pool of eyes, ears and dollars, and that will remain 
true even if technology enables artists to stream their music to you 
telepathically.  King's X is a good example-- they've had a steady cult 
following for many years and have been on small labels most of the time.  They 
can probably sustain this level indefinitely on their own.  However, most of 
the fans got into them during the years they were with Atlantic, getting 
exposure on radio, MTV, magazine ads, etc. They parted with Atlantic 
acrimoniously with the usual complaints, but I doubt they would have this 
steady cult following now if not for the previous major-label phase.  So, I 
guess I'm looking for a band to go all the way from the garage to the arena 
without a
 label before I write them off as irrelevant robber barons.

BK

Allen Welty-Green <agmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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
>
>




       
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

Other related posts: