People who complain about record labels

[cheesedip1]

I saw an interview once where the guy from Staind was saying that record labels screw people over.

I don't know if I totally agree. I mean, yeah, they could like not promote your album or something but remember there is a limit on how much they can do. I mean, they aren't just going to spend all their money on your special little album, although I feel like they should at least do a decent amount of promotion. How much should they be responsible for?

Also, you can't blame record companies for taking the lions share of profit. The manager always makes more than the guy who just works the cash register, if you get my analogy. Plus, unless your album does decent, the company is basically in the hole, when it comes to your album. Well, technically I guess, the artist generally has to tour to pay it off, but still. There was a thing a long time ago, where Nickelback discussed how their label made them tour more often in order to recoup the losses of the other bands on the label who weren't bringing in as much cash.

Regardless, Wind Up seemed to be pretty crappy towards Creed. Plus, like one of the managers was sexually harassing someone on the label and using her credit card for stupid expenses (long time ago). Well, anyways......


Thoughts? Thoughts about record labels specifically?

[Fish Tacos]

As far as how much should be spent on promotion / advertising, I always thought this was a good article http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/54436

I would disagree with you on the share the label should receive simply because in your analogy, the manager generally outlines tasks for the employees. The company / boss has a vision and the employees are there to help management achieve it. With better planning and resource management, the company does better which is why, in theory, upper management makes so much more. However, with music, the label is just a means to an end. The band does a lot of the creative work and in a sense have the vision, needing the label to achieve it. It's kind of a unique scenario though because the dynamic is flipped. Bands are a dime a dozen, while the better labels are not which gives the label the power. While someone with the proper legal representation / connections might come out doing fantastic, I think especially with newer bands that are comprised of younger folks are not savvy to a lot of the industry's legal/contract tricks and loopholes. Especially when they're being wined, dined, promised to, and befriended by their business partners, I think they can be taken advantage of or get into positions that might sound good but are actually undesirable (aka Wind-Up's 7 album contract). I remember Tremonti also talking about when they were trying to go forward with One Day Remains, Wind-Up didn't like the album as much and felt that they were holding back "the good Creed tracks". So there's definitely pressure on the band's artistic expression as well it would seem.

Perhaps though with the ability to stream music, labels may not hold the same strength they used to in the coming years making it easier for emerging artists to get better deals or even represent themselves.

[cheesedip1]

How many bands could do everything that the label is doing for them? Like promotion and whatnot? And even if they could, it doesn't mean they will just be raking in the dough. Tremonti's record label is "working", they are independent but it doesn't mean they are making a ton of money. Generally, I assume big labels make big money because they know what they are doing. That is why they should make more than a band generally. Would artists know how to do everything themselves? Such as planning tours, and promotion?

Note: Idk, maybe the label itself doesn't do promotion, maybe they have a guy on the label or something to do that.

What I'm saying is, most labels or people who aren't the band do the work of promoting, setting up tours, running the whole label, and pretty much do everything that the band isn't doing (not always). Some people run the whole show themselves (50 Cent) and therefore make the lions share of the cut. Although technically, that's kind of a separate issue.

The point is, I don't think most bands do the marketing/setting up tours etc stuff so obviously the people who do the other stuff (production, mixing, promoting) need to get their share of the label or whatever overall profits. That's how I see it.

[anguyen92]

I don't know if I totally agree. I mean, yeah, they could like not promote your album or something but remember there is a limit on how much they can do. I mean, they aren't just going to spend all their money on your special little album, although I feel like they should at least do a decent amount of promotion. How much should they be responsible for?

You're right there is a limit on what they can do nowadays with selling albums being as less lucrative as it once was.

Here's a quote from Duff McKagan's book, How to Be a Man (and Other Illusions) regarding how other labels just cannot simply promote newer acts' albums, regardless of how the material or the band can be in terms of potiential.

Most labels are smaller these days and are barely able to survive. The larger labels have, for the most part, had to depend on ultracommercial pop music marketed to young kids (and their parents, who will willingly buy music for their little darlings). The major labels these days can’t afford to take a risk to develop great rock music.

It’s easy to think of a band like U2 as always having been a colossus—and for fans born in the ’90s, they always have been. But Island Records stuck with the band for four albums
before they broke with Joshua Tree. Labels today don’t have the resources to do that anymore. Sometimes I think about how many U2s have broken up this year or last because they just couldn’t sell enough records to make a follow-up. It’s not that they don’t love making music anymore. It’s that they have to feed their kids.

That bolded part seems really scary to me as Rush was in a position as U2 was. Rush was on the verge of getting booted out of their record label and ending the band in 1976 after the commercial, and critical, bomb that was in their third album, Caress of Steel. Record label wanted them to go more commercial where Rush basically stated "F' it. We going to make the album we want to, damn it, and if that involves a 20 min. song, so be it." and they came out 2112 and it had great success where the record label backed off and gave them the creative freedom they want, because the album had a good amount of success to keep Rush around.

It's scary to think that if Rush was in the same spot, that they were in 1975, in 2015 they wouldn't make it as a band now and that's something I wouldn't think dig. It's sucky to think that can be many bands out there that does not have the financial backing to make a well-crafted album like 2112 after having a feel for what they can do as a band, because the record label gave up on them since they can't bring the revenue the label wants.

Sometimes, I question how AB is still alive all these times after two record label buyouts.

[cheesedip1]

That bolded part seems really scary to me as Rush was in a position as U2 was. Rush was on the verge of getting booted out of their record label and ending the band in 1976 after the commercial, and critical, bomb that was in their third album, Caress of Steel. Record label wanted them to go more commercial where Rush basically stated "F' it. We going to make the album we want to, damn it, and if that involves a 20 min. song, so be it." and they came out 2112 and it had great success where the record label backed off and gave them the creative freedom they want, because the album had a good amount of success to keep Rush around.

It's scary to think that if Rush was in the same spot, that they were in 1975, in 2015 they wouldn't make it as a band now and that's something I wouldn't think dig. It's sucky to think that can be many bands out there that does not have the financial backing to make a well-crafted album like 2112 after having a feel for what they can do as a band, because the record label gave up on them since they can't bring the revenue the label wants.

Sometimes, I question how AB is still alive all these times after two record label buyouts.

Good points. It kind of bums me out that YouTube will now let people upload an album the day after it comes out. I wish they'd give them a month or something. With YouTube, it's even harder to make it nowadays, its kind of sad. I guess it is nice getting to hear a ton of songs via YouTube though, because in the old days there were so many songs you didn't get to hear unless you either bought the song/album, heard it on the radio, got it on Napster or something or something else.

But yeah, good luck to bands trying to make it nowadays. It's harder than ever. Tremonti said song of his shows were breakeven shows.

[Fish Tacos]

Would artists know how to do everything themselves? Such as planning tours, and promotion?

I'm not really sure what's involved. I imagine that there's a bunch of networking involved, that manager X has a history with venue manager Y. Having a newer band use an existing label's connections seems like it could be a great advantage, but networking has to start somewhere even for the managers so I don't see why it would be out of the realm of possibility for the band after they cut their teeth. After all, venues need bands to sell tickets right? A label probably gets you bigger venues though. Once you're able to confirm gigs, you just need to do the travel logistics.

As far as promotion, how much advertising is really done in its traditional forms? Interviews, sneak peeks, swag, etc are all either free or (hopefully) turn a profit and can be set up by any of the band members themselves with ease.

There's probably a certain amount of legal protection a big label provides too though.

TL;DR some of the stuff the band could probably do themselves, other stuff they might be able to do, either way they probably don't want to though.

[cheesedip1]

There's probably a certain amount of legal protection a big label provides too though.

From what?

either way they probably don't want to though.

Why not? Too much time consumed and they would rather focus on the music/songs? Maybe they don't know how?