The negative side of major record deals

Interesting story

Is there a positive side to the major record labels, too? 

Tarquin Underspoon wrote: Yep, and it's a shame.   But it's a business. We here at the Archives seem to forget that complete creative freedom with major record labels only applied to a handful of bands for a period of about 7 years. That time was really an exception, and we'll never see anything quite like it again. It's called the music business because, at the end of the day, it's about music making money, not money making music. You can have the creative freedom, or you can have the money, but rarely can you have both.   Please excuse my rant, but I tend to get a little pissed off when the industry I'm just now beginning to step into is collapsing as I type.

You're completely correct. It's only about music to the musicians. The businessmen are purely interested in shifting units and getting their investment back, plus a profit.

There was an item about Prince on the news this morning. Music retailers were moaning that his sales had slumped since he'd been giving his albums away free with newspapers. Well, the words tough and sh*t spring to mind...and in that order. Prince is in the enviable position, as are Radiohead, to no longer need a record label. Artists of this stature have the creative freedom to do as they so wish, and make their bucks playing huge live shows.

It's kind of ironic that back in the day, record companies wanted their bands to be huge, multi platinum selling, stadium filling giants, now they dread the day when their bands have this kind of power. It's also ironic that in these days of dumbed down music, never before have big name acts actually had such 'potential' artistic freedom.

It depends on the label.  All there is to it.

Conor Fynes wrote: Artists shouldn't be treated like mere employees...

I will never understand how some people here continuously express surprise and disappointment at stories which suggest that companies are concerned with making money.

Well this album did sell one million copies. 

This story is an echo of when Geffen Records took Neil Young to court for releasing uncommercial albums. In the case of Geffen vs. Young, Geffen actually had a good case. Neil Young's records were horrendous at that time. The case was settled out of court and Neil Young then released some really excellent albums.

Funny world........   

Kestrel wrote: I agree with the label - Tom Jones singing hymns is a sick joke. I expect more Sex Bomb and covers of sh*tty songs like Black Betty! (I'm totally serious, by the way.)

That's my opinion on the topic too. The only reason Tom Jones would record 12 hymn songs for an album is because 1) he's stupid, 2) he has terrible taste in music.

I tend to think like a record label executive these days, but I would have reached the same conclusion either way.

yanch wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Is there a positive side to the major record labels, too?  Exactly. Why is any one surprised by this article? Major labels don't care about artists and creativity. They want sales volume and dollars!!

That too happens on smaller indie labels. I remember very well some German indie labels and others jumping on band wagons like there was no tomorrow. I also remember the mad push among the small indie labels to get as many bands as possible through a very fashionable studio in Florida as fast as possible.

You find dollar signs in most label managers eyes.