3 ms·

If record labels do not provide value then why would artists sign with them in the first place?

by naz 16y ago

wwortiz 16y ago
The value that record labels provide is distribution and advertising the question should be is all that distribution and advertising worth so much of a percentage. There is a reason so many bands continue touring year after year other than the want to play live, that is how they get paid. There is starting to be a rise in indie and self published bands through many online services (one of the first big ones was cdbaby, which a hner (sivers I believe) made and sold) and other things which may be the life of new bands, pop music and such will probably be burdened forever with large record labels.
marknutter 16y ago
Because they are essentially giving into a massive bribe, often at a very young and vulnerable age. And keep in mind, the vast majority of musicians out there do not sign with record labels. Furthermore, only a small percentage of those who do actually become successful. It's essentially like playing the lottery. It used to be that record labels provided powerful marketing power in addition to the initial cash bribe, but these days superstars are born on myspace and YouTube. I think record labels will be replaced be smaller, more agile PR/management teams who understand how to nurture viral growth and also manage the business side of making it in the music business.
- pyre 16y ago
  In addition to marketing they used to provide: * Access to top-notch facilities * Access to top-notch talent (recording/sound engineers, etc) The problem was that in the fine print, they were not paying for all of this. You (the artist) were. They give you a huge loan with onerous terms with the expectation that only ~2% of artists will ever be able to make good on the loan. They loan you money, knowing that you'll never be able to make good on it. All of this is done in a fashion that convinces you that it's "no big deal." "These are the same terms that Nine Inch Nails got, so they're good enough for you!" The difference is that NIN was able to sell enough records to make good on the loan; there is no guarantee that you (the artist) will be able to.
Groxx 16y ago
Up front money, and connections (which they use to further screw you over) if you're one of those 0.1% who make it big enough to need the connections. Lots of groups sign out of necessity - it's that, or break up. That they break up later due to the crap they signed themselves into is another issue.
steveklabnik 16y ago
It's very different to be good in two disparate fields at once. I've spoken with a lot of bands, and most of them know they're going to get fucked by labels, yet still sign, because they think it's still necessary to get ahead in the world. They think it's the only way do what they love every day, all day: making music. Who can blame them? That's how it's been for fifty years...

If record labels do not provide value then why would artists sign with them in the first place?

by naz 16y ago

If record labels do not provide value then why would artists sign with them in the first place?

The value that record labels provide is distribution and advertising the question should be is all that distribution and advertising worth so much of a percentage. There is a reason so many bands continue touring year after year other than the want to play live, that is how they get paid. There is starting to be a rise in indie and self published bands through many online services (one of the first big ones was cdbaby, which a hner (sivers I believe) made and sold) and other things which may be the life of new bands, pop music and such will probably be burdened forever with large record labels.

marknutter 16y ago

Because they are essentially giving into a massive bribe, often at a very young and vulnerable age. And keep in mind, the vast majority of musicians out there do not sign with record labels. Furthermore, only a small percentage of those who do actually become successful. It's essentially like playing the lottery. It used to be that record labels provided powerful marketing power in addition to the initial cash bribe, but these days superstars are born on myspace and YouTube. I think record labels will be replaced be smaller, more agile PR/management teams who understand how to nurture viral growth and also manage the business side of making it in the music business.

pyre 16y ago
In addition to marketing they used to provide: * Access to top-notch facilities * Access to top-notch talent (recording/sound engineers, etc) The problem was that in the fine print, they were not paying for all of this. You (the artist) were. They give you a huge loan with onerous terms with the expectation that only ~2% of artists will ever be able to make good on the loan. They loan you money, knowing that you'll never be able to make good on it. All of this is done in a fashion that convinces you that it's "no big deal." "These are the same terms that Nine Inch Nails got, so they're good enough for you!" The difference is that NIN was able to sell enough records to make good on the loan; there is no guarantee that you (the artist) will be able to.

Groxx 16y ago

Up front money, and connections (which they use to further screw you over) if you're one of those 0.1% who make it big enough to need the connections. Lots of groups sign out of necessity - it's that, or break up. That they break up later due to the crap they signed themselves into is another issue.

steveklabnik 16y ago

It's very different to be good in two disparate fields at once. I've spoken with a lot of bands, and most of them know they're going to get fucked by labels, yet still sign, because they think it's still necessary to get ahead in the world. They think it's the only way do what they love every day, all day: making music. Who can blame them? That's how it's been for fifty years...