some interesting stuff i learned from a music exec

[casualbb]

so I was talking to a dude who works for a medium-sized record label, and he told me some things most people don't know about the business

- gold, platinum, etc. does NOT refer to how many albums were actually purchased, just how many were shipped to stores

A large percentage of albums are often shipped back after going unsold. but in this way the corporations can create buzz and determine who will be successful

- record companies lose money on 98% of their artists. The only thing that keeps them in the green is superstars like britney spears

- The money spent recording music and promoting a band is given to the band as debt. album sales don't help a band that much because most bands don't pay back their debt anyway

stay tuned for installment 2

 

[Flah]

I really don't know why people sign to majors. Recouping the fees must be the big band killer.

Sure, wider exposure and a great advertising push but damn man, those contracts are just shit.

 

[BOOEY]

I really don't know why people sign to majors. Recouping the fees must be the big band killer.

Sure, wider exposure and a great advertising push but damn man, those contracts are just shit.

But "exposure and a great advertising push" is KEY if you're an artist who wants to make some serious money. I heard that most artists get most of their money from concerts - but in order for you to generate buzz for the public to actually go to your concert, you'll need the help of big record companies

 

[Flah]

Concerts and merch are the big money makers. I disagree that you need major label backing to build a large fan base though.

 

[BOOEY]

Concerts and merch are the big money makers. I disagree that you need major label backing to build a large fan base though.

Yeah I guess it's not always necessary - but it makes things a lot easier

 

[sigweed]

this may be a very naive question, but regardless, does your music exec friend believe that a record label's profits could coincide with a providing contracts to musicians that aren't comparable to signing a contract with the devil? It seems unanimous between artists that record labels are evil, but are they a necessary evil? Or with perhaps the sacrifice of some profits (or soemthing along those lines) could the artist and label coexist happily?

 

[Flah]

Yeah I guess it's not always necessary - but it makes things a lot easier

Agreed.

 

[Flah]

this may be a very naive question, but regardless, does your music exec friend believe that a record label's profits could coincide with a providing contracts to musicians that aren't comparable to signing a contract with the devil? It seems unanimous between artists that record labels are evil, but are they a necessary evil? Or with perhaps the sacrifice of some profits (or soemthing along those lines) could the artist and label coexist happily?

Big labels are the devil but smaller independant labels are (usually) pretty good about things. Take part of the mission statement for Magic Bullet:

Nobody gets "signed" to the label. My friend Matt from Majority Rule puts it best: "Contracts are for people who don't trust each other." The way that a record comes to fruition on Magic Bullet is really simple: I ASK the band if they would like to work together on their next project. This comes about when the band involved is usually a combination of my friends AND an interesting or revolutionary group of musicians. I have never released anything under any other premise - not for the money, not for the status, not for anything but the fact that I love the bands and their music and their people.

That's pretty easy going.

 

[majutsu]

great post casbb, and great thread~


fight the power - d.i.y.