X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b1J (Windows; I; 32bit)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paul_Senior-FPS007C@email.mot.com wrote:
>
> >Hate to break it to you, but the power of the major labels will never
> >be taken over by the indies...We are here to make money and we do it well.
> >You're naive if you think any company's primary purpose should be other
> >than to make money. Of course we should drop musicians after a trend is
> >over. We don't put out albums to have them dust on the retailer shelves.
>
> I totally disagree with you. First of all, you do not have the ability to
> predict the future with any degree of accuracy. The only reason a musician
> needs a major label is for large scale distribution and mabye for an
advance if
> they don't have the $$$ for studio time and everything else involved in
creating
> a finished product.
> I feel that technology is going to kill the majors. In the future, what's
going
> to keep me from logging onto a web page, putting in my credit card number,
and
> downloading a copy of an artist's CD onto my writable CD-ROM drive?
Absolutely
> nothing!
this is inherently non-democratic. only rich artists will be able to afford
to produce their own work... and only the very richest will have access to
state of the art facilities, engineers, side musicians, etc. granted, some
forms of music won't require high production value, but some will. majors,
for all their evils, are also willing to take a chance on a destitute band
and help them realize their potential. i personally do not look forward to
the day when the only new music you can get is free demo quality downloads
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are not quite understanding where I'm coming from. Maybe now the
cost of the technology needed is prohibitive, but in 5 to 10 years, electronic
equipment will be much more powerful and more affordable than it is now.
Everyone will have access. Phone lines will be digitial (i.e. super-fast). You
will download 16 bit, 44.1 Khz CD quality music in no time at all.
Majors, as is easily evidenced, only care about making money and taking
advantage of others. If they are such great risk takers, then why is it so
difficult for artists to land a contract on a major label?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If I were to be "fortunate" enough to sign with a major, I
> would probably have to give up at least 50% of my publishing and more than
> likely never see any more money than what was given to me as an advance. I
> would probably get no tour support and have to give up a huge chunk of my
> merchandising as well.
here's some math for you. if you sell 2x as many albums through a major, you
make just as much publishing $ (after giving away 50%). and do you think an
indy's going to pay tour support for a band a major would not give tour
support? you're just plain wrong. merchandising rights? who's going to buy
your merchandise if they've never heard of you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your argument is simplistic, and incorrect. There a big IF in it. You can make
more money selling 20,000 copies on your own label (reaping 100% of the profits)
then you can selling 500,000 copies of an album on a major (reaping mabye 5%).
Don't just take my word for it. Read "Everything You Need to Know About the
Music Business" by Don Passman.
Believe me, merchandising is big bucks, and if you give it away, you're making a
huge mistake. Who's going to hear about you if you aren't in control of your
merchandising? It's a big part of an artist's image, and should be controlled
solely by the artist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If the whole world thought like you, many of the great, legendary musicians
of
> the past would never had been recorded.
if they were great, and legendary, then they probably did some stuff for the
majors. if they didn't, they're probably poor as shit, and wish they had. i
don't think there's more than a handful of true legends who spent their whole
careers on indies. maybe you have to work at a major to realize that they
actually give the artists tremendous leeway to do whatever they want. not
always, but generally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the legendary artists were screwed out of ton of money by their labels,
which may have became major labels on the strength of the record sales of that
artist!
I would say that major labels more often than not screw around with an artist's
sound by trying to pawn off some stupid-ass producer on them. A producer is yet
another person who eats into the percentage of $$$ the artist stands to earn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Everyone would be forced to listen to
> this God-awful Top 40 shit I hear on the radio every single day.
actually, there is no more top 40; it's called chr (contemporary hit radio)
now, because there aren't even 40 songs in rotation at most stations--it's
more like 24.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know. I read Billboard magazine also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You, my dear,
> are a corporate scum sellout.
>
> Paul Senior
> FPS007C@email.mot.com
paul, it's not very nice to call someone scum. name calling is a sign that
you have nothing more intelligent to say. are you personally willing to work
for 45 years at an indy, making $20,000 when you're 65, no pension? some
are, and i salute them. why don't you put yourself on the line and show this
committment before you bust someone's chops for getting paid. indies are
good and indies are nice, and without them music stops moving forward. but
look through your record collection--you can't tell me a lot of your all-time
favorites aren't from majors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone with such a Machivellian attitude, who only cares about making money...
To me that person is a scumbag. I create music in the hopes that others will be
affected positively by it, even if only for a few moments. Money is nice and
you need it to pay bills and stuff, but it's not the focus of my life, and I
feel sad for those whom it is because they will never be satisified.
I am willing to work hard at creating my own label and at every other aspect of
my musical career. Money is not the main motive in doing it. Music is a
personal passion of mine. If I were to add up all the money I've spent on my
passion versus the income it has brought me, I would definitely say it's a bad
investment. But, at what price comes happiness? Every single dime I have spent
has been worth it and I'm really not concerned if I ever get it back.
Also, you have never seen my meager record collection, so you don't know of what
you speak. I own mostly albums by artists who are not heard on the radio, so of
course they are mostly on independent labels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kevin "worked at indies, worked at majors" kiernan
mrfliz@interport.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Senior
FPSOO7C@email.mot.com