1. They tell you what to do.

Are you following this Kelly Clarkson flap? She made an album from the
heart, that she wrote. What did the label do? They shelved it for
months, hoping she'd come to her senses and record some more upbeat hit
tracks just like the ones she recorded before, positive not NEGATIVE!
Who wants to hear about Kelly's love losses, no one in the audience ever
broke up with their boyfriend!

Now you might think Kelly is a mindless twit, with a voice only. But
she'll tell you she wrote hit records for others. And, she's sold a
FUCK OF A LOT OF RECORDS!

Used to be selling records gave you leverage... If KELLY CLARKSON has
no leverage, what hope is there for you, someone selling ONE TENTH the
number of discs!


2. They're only in the disc business.

Well, we'll call it recorded music. If they ever figure out how to
monetize Net acquisition, maybe their fortunes will change. But for now,
the label only makes money if they sell your music. They'll do
whatever it takes to sell your music, TODAY, to run up the value of the
company so it can be sold to someone else. They'll whore you out to
corporations (say this to yourself, "Verizon is not my friend."), release
multiple singles (if they get any traction at all), do whatever's best for
THEM, not YOU! Your career...they might pay lip service to it, but they
don't really give a shit, the employees are probably not going to be IN
this business by the time your next album comes out.

As for labels getting a piece of your touring income, other revenue
sources, do you want to marry someone DESPERATE?


3. They don't pay you.

Oh, they'll give you an ever-shrinking advance. But royalties? No one
sells enough albums to go into royalties anymore. And they own the
rights to the recording. Terry McBride's got it right, you want to
control all the rights, so you can license INSTANTLY! So you don't have to
get someone on the phone to say YES to YOU about YOUR music!

Oh, they'll give you money to get started, but it's like making a deal
with the Mafia, they own you, forever.


4. There's no one working there.

Most analysts believe Warner cut its workforce to make its balance
sheet look better, to stanch losses, hopefully report profits. In other
words, it's got nothing to do with whether these people were NEEDED,
whether they had jobs integral to the company, just what their salaries and
benefits were. Oh, the company can outsource these jobs, but when you
go for a meeting at the label do you really want to sit in an empty
boardroom with a speaker phone on a conference call with a zillion
temporary workers? Whose allegiance is not to this company, hell, why should
it be, they've got to make their nut every month, they've got OTHER
CUSTOMERS!

So, going to the building to work the label...that's a passe concept.

And, what if they don't outsource/get independent contractors to do the
work? Will it be done at all? And, how well, by the overworked,
multitasking employees still left?


5. They just care SOMETHING hits.

The label doesn't give a shit about you hitting, they just care that
SOMETHING breaks through. And as soon as it does, your work project goes
to the bottom of the pile. If you own your own copyrights, own the
label, you're ALWAYS the priority!


6. They control physical distribution, not online distribution.

They can get your disc in stores. Then again, CAN THEY?

Online, distribution is close to flat. Make a deal with CDBaby, they
can get you on all the online services, can get you paid. You don't
need to be with a major to get into the online store.

As for albums... Do you really think albums will be the definitive
format in the future?


7. Tour support is a thing of the past.

Not completely. But it's just about gone. And more than ever you need
to break on the road. If you're doing all the work, why shouldn't you
get all the profit?


8. They only want you once you've proven yourself independently.

If you've created the base, why give up control now?


9. MTV is dead.

You don't need a big budget video which won't be aired anywhere anyway.
You just need a digital camera and Final Cut Pro, maybe even iMovie,
and you can create a video for almost nothing and put it up on YouTube
where it's got as much presence, as much priority, as the majors'
efforts. And, you control the budget. Zillions aren't spent, and they're
not charged back to you.


10. Terrestrial music radio is dying.

If Pink can go to number one at Top Forty and languish at the bottom of
the SoundScan Top Fifty, selling 15k a week, how important is that
airplay ANYWAY? As for other formats... Hot AC doesn't sell many records,
and AOR is an oldies format and the Alternative panel has shrunk to
almost nothing and Active Rock...that's not selling tonnage either.


11. They specialize in saying no.

Music is now about inspiration, made by the seat of one's pants. You
have to do business the same way. In this fast, ever-changing world,
you need to take risks, you've got to make snap decisions, you've got to
be able to say yes, QUICKLY! The major is against innovation, it's
hard to get an answer AT ALL, never mind YES!

You want to give your new track away for free? No! They won't even
let you SELL IT if it competes with the track they're working at radio/in
the marketplace. It's not about artistry, but commerce.

But, if all you care about is commerce, if you want all your money up
front, if you want to whore yourself out to corporations, do whatever it
takes to sell your lame, paint by numbers built by committee music,
then sign with the major label. I hope you achieve your goal and get
instantly rich, because after this instant, you'll be done.


--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

also see:
http://negativland.com/albini.html

officemarc, I am a bit confused about the budget at the bottom of your article you linked. Why are the album sale royalties marked as expenses? I understand the flat out record sales of $3m would not go right to the artist, but the $351,000 cut they get of it WOULD count as an income source, yet it is marked as an expense. I don't feel like added the whole thing up, so did you just forget to bold the $351,000 album royalties but mathematically count it as an income?

i guess i can understand how you could be confused, but it was counted as income. if you want to make it easy, just take the royalty amount and subtract the amounts from there.

ex:
351,000
-250,000
-40,000
-25,000
-50,000

the figures above the royalties are just a breakdown of how a band might spend their advance.

Right on.

interesting!

I don't think there should be much doubt, that this is one of the very best articles Lefsetz has put out in many a moon. Hats off to him for doing a super job on this topic!

I don't know why the majors shelve music. There's always room for more musicians. American Idol has shown us that.

theres always the obvious reason that once you sign the riaa own you for atleast a decade or 2 or possible life and beyond. as for american idol id like to see evryone responsible for that piece of trash burned alive at the stake.

spwee, that might be true if every artist made money, but the fact is that 9 out every 10 records that are released by the majors is a commercial failure, and considering that record sales are down, you have to expect that they are only going to be more cautious with what they release.

“but the fact is that 9 out every 10 records that are released by the majors is a commercial failure”

officernarc, maybe the majors are failing because they're signing shitty musicians. There are alot of great unknowns that might be successful if they were only discovered. Which is my point. Many up and coming bands are overlooked so the majors can keep our focus on the band they're currently promoting. I still contend there is room for all sorts of undiscoverd talent, and room for success as well.

The only worth-while form of being "discovered" is by the fans.

Screw the labels. We don't need them.

actually, that's the way it's always been. the industry has always had a 90 percent failure rate. i mean, sure, you can shit on all the justin timberlakes in the world, but because of the money a record like "futuresex/lovesounds" brings into a label more than makes up for the fact that those other 9 records the label released that week aren't making any money, and it's because of these huge shitty artists that the smaller artists are able to be signed to majors. i mean, you can't expect someone to make you famous. you can't expect someone to discover you. if you are sincere about making it in the music industry, you have to work your ass off. you have to play hundreds of gigs. you have to promote the shit out of yourself and raise your profile high enough and show the labels that you have a strong work ethic and that you really are worth the investment. can you blame them though? they're in the business of making money, not catering to some art-house scene. even for independents, the bottom line is money.

independentmusician, that's totally right on the fucking nose. the way that the labels work is horribly antequated, and really, considering the advancements that have been made in recording technologies and the internet, unless you are planning a billion dollar world tour, there's really nothing that they can do for you that you can't get done yourself.

independentm: “The only worth-while form of being "discovered" is by the fans. Screw the labels. We don't need them.”

Yes, a band can become famous through self-promotion. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't mean to imply that bands had to rely on a major label to get discovered.

officenarc: “they're in the business of making money, not catering to some art-house scene. even for independents, the bottom line is money.”

Not necessarily. Some artists (and producers, i believe) focus on the music first. The money will come if the band becomes popular. It isn't always about greed.

yeah, that's true of the artists and producers, but i'm talking about the money men and the handlers. their interest in art is only as great as their interest in making money allows them to be.

You only have to look at how Sony and George Michael slugged it out, or Sony v the late Joe Strummer (The Clash) to see that they will try to hold onto you for dear life, unless they can screw you some more.

I never had any respect for the blood suckers but after hearing how they are now eating away at artists' only real income, touring, I have developed a deep and lasting hatred for them.

Interesting comments.

Spwee: "There's always room for more musicians. American Idol has shown us that."

Huh? There are no musicians on American Idol.

officernarc: "the industry has always had a 90 percent failure rate."

Motown had a 75% success rate. The industry used to be run by people that liked music. They had much better taste.

officenarc: “they're in the business of making money, not catering to some art-house scene. even for independents, the bottom line is money.”

If you sign with a major, the bottom line is that THEY get the money and MAYBE they'll give you some. At least that's how it worked when things were going well.

If making money is your most important goal, you should get a real job.

If you walk on the stage and the amount of money you're getting paid is foremost on your mind, you should get a real job.

In more than 30 years of playing, I was always happy to be on a stage (or even just rehearsing) for the musical interaction, telepathy, self-actualization and just plain fun of it, like playing a song for the first time and nailing it, complete with unrehearsed three-part harmonies that kill and a tight ending. Audience is optional but it makes it so much sweeter if there's applause at the end.

Your bottom line is money? Good luck with that. I'll play music for free every day of the week. It's so much better than therapy.

"Not necessarily. Some artists (and producers, i believe) focus on the music first. The money will come if the band becomes popular. It isn't always about greed."

I'll stop laughing in a minute. While some artists might actually be interested in the "art" of music, I think that by far, most are more interested in the almighty dollar. Why else would they sign with a major label? You give up your music and lose control to a corporation that is interested in ONE THING --- MONEY.

While I'm sure there are many artists out there like George Z that perform music for the art, but far far too many sign with an RIAA label solely for profit. Would you, as an artist, sue your fans for listening to music?? Would you sue for royalties when you know your music will go off the air if you succeed?? That's what you get when you sign with an RIAA label. Greed.