On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Rick Blechta wrote:
>
> On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:29 PM, jeffc@netaxs.com wrote:
>
> > if anyone ever told ya life was fair, they were being less than
> > candid.
>
> Jeff,
>
> Falling back on an argument such as "Well, that's the way it's done",
> is hardly grounds for making your point. Whether it was even more
> unfair years ago is an even worse argument. The road to hell is well
> trodden by people who have said, "I was only doing what other people
> were doing." That never makes it right.
then don't sign the deal.
right and wrong is to imply fairness.
can you WILLINGLY sign an agreement and then claim it unfair?
i don't think the mortgage on my house is fair.
i still gotta pay for it or it will be taken away.
> As for money paid to the artist on signing the contract being an
> "advance on future earnings", that's true, but then if it's the
> artist's money (even if it is an advance) that paid for the recording,
> then the recording belongs to the artist, especially if they make
> enough money to cover the advance. If the record company wants to own
> the recording, then it should pay for it outright and not expect the
> artist to pay that money back. To say the record company often doesn't
> make the advance back, well that's what any business is all about. You
> take risks in hopes you'll get your money back. You can be making
> recordings or widgets; it's all the same thing.
the label has many things to offer an artist that the artist would never
have otherwise, that are part of what you DO get when you sign to a
label:
an art department
a pressing plant
a printing plant
distribution
the attention of radio programmers
the attention of retailers
those things take years to establish and cost a label a lot of money in
both staff and resources. yes - there was absurd excess for many years
that the artists ultimately likely paid for. but what price do you put
on these things?
> You know as well as I that any new artist will never get a record
> company to give up there right to the masters. Established artists,
> maybe, but like you say, it is almost unheard of.
almost unheard of, yes; but it can be done - i have seen it done.
> Rick
i think wem ay be getting into some semantics here as far as fair and
right and wrong and unfair. the label does offer soemthing that you would not
otherwise have. do you give up a disproportional share of what SHOULD be
rightly your own creative property? maybe. then don't sign the deal.
why are you signing a deal then?
there must be SOMETHING in it for you, right?
like...
a hundred grand to go play around in a studio with?
the chance to work with a world-class producer in a world-class facility?
knowing that your record will be in all those stores?
knowing that all those radio stations will have your record with a major
label behind it?
it's not ENTIRELY one-sided.
and MANY concessions are made throughout the life of a record contract.
in the eold days a label would give a band more than one record to
establish itself, it would help DEVELOP an artist; everyone benefits.
those days seem gone forever. was it better to have a worse deal, but
a chance to be a career artist, or to have to sell a million records
to keep your deal, even if you get a higher royalty?
i mean... is a casino fair?
no?
then don't gamble.
...jeff