On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jack Younger wrote:
> Hi!
> I realize you guys have put the subject to bed,
> but these notions of the way the industry is are a bit
> antiquated. As you said, there were more majors than
> there are today. The music "industry" is only a tiny
> subsection of represented music that floats along the
> top like slag. The better, more creative product is
> something to hunt for on the net, in bars and
> basements, anywhere it's being made. It is apparent
> that the kids getting into the business today are
> rejecting the old values in droves. They are saying
> no, and the industry is suffering. Fine. A major
> label deal is like a credit card. You don't need one,
> but one becomes severely hampered without one.
> Artists are changing what they need from their careers
> as a result. The expectation of becoming a "star"
> just isn't important any more. More and more artists
> are doing it for the creative release and the simple
> fulfillment of the artistic impulse.
> As an example, I asked some of my clients about the
> following statement:
>
> > 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:
>
> The responses were as follows:
>
> > an art department
>
> The band usually can come up with better artwork that
> is more appropriate to the product, isn't messed up as
> often and isn't over-priced or "padded". There is a
> difference between an artist, and a commercial artist.
> Art departments try to sell, artists represent and
> support.
perhaps, but how many bands have the expertise to be
knowledgeable in things like spot colours, flood fills,
bleeds, and all the other technicalities involved in
modern printing. just making something that looks nice
in photoshop does not a beautiful finished product make.
and it takes further expertise to craft an entire
marketing scheme tying things together into the posters,
postcards, ads [yes - you get ads in real magazines at
reduced rates that the individual could NEVER get] and
all the little things that make up a band's 'brand'.
these people are well-trained professional artists also.
and this 'padded' thing is, i think, something that
is a myth, like being charged for the paperclips.
you pay for qualified personnel and you get professional
work. there is no 'padding'. and they take their jobs
very seriously and spend qiality time with a bands
entire image, from lyrics and influences to likes
and dislikes. i think you hear things about labels
that are just not true.
> > a pressing plant
>
> There are so many more options on a private basis and
> a small distribution deal will provide duplication
> without taking publishing or other hunks of the
> artists' souls. Many even press vinyl!
economics of scale.
this DOES provide a major label artist with a reduced
cost per unit to manufacture. in some cases, a HUGE
discount compared to the 5,000 or whatever an individual
would be paying for by themselves. unless you really
did mean 'duplication' [which would be a CDR] and not
what is done with commercial CDs which is 'replication,
involving a glass master and stamping. and yeah, you can
get vinyl too. AND you can get a mastering engineer that
has a clue how to master FOR vinyl.
a 'small distributiuon deal' hardly competes with major
distribution, now does it?
please clarify 'without taking publishing'.
mechanical royalties are paid TO the publisher for the
right to mechanically reproduce the work [in this case,
a pressed CD]. i just don't grok your point here. the
label is not, in most cases, the publisher. not the
same thing at all. i do not mean to question your
knowledge, but do you know the difference?
> > a printing plant
>
> Again, there are other options with more control, less
> screw-ups and less expense. Some release via the web
> and need no duplication or printing. Others do the
> same and provide collector's copies made in limited
> numbers for the hardcore fans. Radiohead just did
> this.
> > distribution
less screw ups?
the band [or in many cases, management] approves EVERYTHING.
less expense?
again - economy of scale.
have you ever seen what is charged on a royalty statement
for printing? and what a printing plant will charge an
individual to 'fix' improperly submitted work? and
why many insist onm charging you for a [damn - i can't
remember the term they use] finished sample, in order to
verify that you are happy with the actual finished and
done product, rather than deliver you 5,000 posters
that have awful skintones? i have. it's very ugly indeed.
[i remembered the word - it's a 'proof', and without one
you absolve the printer from any mistakes, but people
do not like to spend the couple hundred bucks, and they
then live with their posters of the martian band that
sort of looks like them... sort of...]
oh - so you are talking about MP3s?
we need to be clear here what it is we are talking
about, and not just randomly substituting apples
and oranges whererever it's convenient for your case.
with all due respect, and i do not want to start a
pissing contest here, but it seems like you are trying
to make a case without real hard factual numbers.
ask one of your clients to show you an actual royalty
statement from a major label. they are, in reality,
quite straight forward and clear, if you have all the
needed 'decoding' information. [these are NOT some voddo
thing - these are the various expense codes and income
codes that make the cumputerization of it all possible].
and, if you are willing to pay for it, you are allowed
to perform an audit. try THAT with the box of CDs you
dropped off at 'bob's cd swap mart' last year...
> National distribution is available through many online
> services at the rip-roaring cost of $20 yearly.
and just how many actual stores will that put your product
in, with how much co-op ad buying and merchandising space
guaranteed in those stores? and... overseas? yes, rates
on overseas royalties are reduced and delayed, but you
DO get your product overseas.
or are we talking about a link from the myspace page
to the cdbaby page?
or are we talking about mp3s again.
have we not recently discussed how bad mp3s sound?
> > the attention of radio programmers
>
> Radio? Are you kidding? Who really listens to radio
> anymore?
lots of people.
just because you don't does not make it empirical that
nobody does.
> > the attention of retailers
>
> Again, the web.
again, the mp3.
> Now granted, all these things provide the artist
> solutions on a much smaller scale, but isn't tossing
> around tens or hundreds of thousands the problem here?
> Why put so much capital into motion when you're
> really only looking at getting all the intermediaries
> paid and still making a pittance as an artist, not to
> mention losing percentages and royalties?
a much smaller scale?
this is the entire point of signing with a major, and makes
all of my points above...
> > why are you signing a deal then?
>
> Exactly.
>
> > 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?
>
> Don't get me started. A hundred grand to play with?
> If I had a hundred grand, ain't nobody playing with
> it! These are inflated numbers that make people feel
> important and like the label cares. A band making a
> record does far better creatively when they earn it
> and when their own blood and sweat is behind it. Not
> to mention, the big label recording machine often
> decides your sound for you. I've made records for
> $2000 that sound far better and are more creatively
> potent than records the same artists have made at a
> "world-class" (what does that mean anyway?) studio on
> a label dime of $50,000. And just as importantly,
> faster. You have to keep up with the artist
> creatively, otherwise they get the pleasure of playing
> and recording the same stale material countless times
> for a year or more. Good times.
so deliver a finshed record with no advance, or just what
uou think you might want as a small advance.
are you really asking what 'world class' means?
please don't pretend to be so naive.
you have a studio.
you know what that means:
access to microphones, technology, a REAL tuned room, and
the expertise that you don't get in a project studio.
want a neumann through a fairchild?
want that on a 24 track studer or slowtools HD?
...by someone that knows how to do it?
> > 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?
>
> Knowing people are making lots of dough off of your
> creativity and you're getting squat, more like.
> Sometimes it's better not knowing, or knowing that the
> product is being bought by listeners who want it, not
> sitting in the dustbin at some promo company.
> Now, I don't mean to get back on the whole "evil
> empire" mentality, but it's valid. The music industry
> was founded on screwing the artist. Just look at
> Motown or Atlantic and their history. But none of
> that is realistic or necessary anymore. There are new
> ways around these things, with far less at stake.
> Artist don't want to pay a lawyer for every decision
> they have to make. They are happiest when things are
> simple. A happy artist means good, honest product.
> Good product means happy listeners. That's what sells
> records.
> That's my hundred grand.
> -Jack
if you don't want or need the things that a major label
deal offers then, i repeat, don't sign the damn deal.
i seem to have been placed in the position of defending
the major label record deal, but it also seems that i might
be the only person with the real world experience to do so...
and i do not envy my position.
there needs to be a 'snopes.com' for the record business myths.
i have heard them all, but only a few have even a grain of truth.
most are because people do not understand something, so they
make up a story to cover their own misunderstanding. if you
don't know what a deal means in the real world, pay for an
abstraction to be done, or ask the right questions. as i
said before, not knowing what it meant is not a valid defense.
i know you are being cynical, and i can't blame you, but
not everyone is the business is a 'treacherous cretin'.
not everyone is just a bean-counting weasel that bathes
in the tears of children [or blood of musicians] every night.
yes - there are many - FAR too many, and it's the land
sharks and bean-counters that are, in many instances,
running the show. but this is sterotyping an entire
industry full of people, many of them good and caring
and hard-working people that DO care about music, and
THAT's not fair. the industry was NOT founded on screwing
the artist, but it has perhaps BECOME that, but if that
is so, it's screwing people that WILLINGLY ENTERED into
an agreement to get screwed. and if they don't want to
pay a lawyer to advise them, then they live with the
realities of being taken advantage of because they are
not willing to pay for the protection.
can we please end this, or at least take it 'off-list',
or create a new 'jeff the music biz weasel list'.
[even though i am not even in the biz anymore?]
...jeff
