New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
|
Why can't Prince get a recording contract with a major that satisfies him? It's all in the question?
Why does he HAVE to be different than anyone else, look at U2, Jay Z or even MJ who has an enormous royalty rate that keeps him afloat. These guys make millions. Prince seems to want it all, why should he be different from everyone else? His new leaked music is great, with backing, he'd be a viable option for some major, and he'd make more money than just sitting there, thinking new ways up to distribute his music. A website won't do it, half a mill from a newspaper won't do it. It's cool and all, at aftershows pontificating about the evils of record companies, and after a pint or two, we lap it up, but in this day and age, (and when we're sober) at this point in his career, with his legendary status, i'm amazed at him. he comes across as greedy to me, you know, one of those seven deadly sins. Thoughts?  [Edited 12/19/08 13:21pm] |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Because that is not how he chooses 2 do business these days. Simple really. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If you could figure out how to do it all on your own,would'nt you?
I don't know much about his future dealings with record companies,but I think he has major trust issues where that is concerned. Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life. ~Berthold Auerbach | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
well he's managed to get the product to us any way he can
over the past decade and then some. i don't think there's any reason for him to go back as far as we're concerned. he's still recording and releasing. and money-wise i don't think it makes a huge difference to release it with a major label or a newspaper. the newspaper gave him $ up front and he got to keep all his rights to the music. a record label would also give him some cash i suppose and a royalty on top of that for every unit sold. at the end of the day, if you don't have a huge hit and go 6,000,000 there's no money in selling units anymore these days. look at the new GNR album. anything can tank because everyone is downloading. the money isn't in selling albums or singles anymore it's in touring and other stuff. releasing planet earth on a major label might have made him one or two more million but so what? i guess that makes prince, who can afford to compromise a million or 2 for the sake of breaking new ground, less likely to jump into bed with a major again and more likely to try something new and unexpected just for the sake of showing people that it can be done. and that he's a clever bastard, that too  and true love lives on lollipops and crisps | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
IstenSzek said: and that he's a clever bastard, that too I give him props for effort, but i feel he's not as clever as he thinks he is, not being funny, but his peers from the 80's MJ and Madonna (despite their own label problems), don't cry like babies as much as Prince seems to. He can't let it go. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
According to the Purple One, contracts limit an artist and Prince will like to put out his music WHEN he wants and make fair $$$ from it too.
More money's made touring these days cause ppl usually download the songs through p2p. Not everyone can handle working under somebody i.e. a boss. Prince is the type that likes to be in control and being signed to a contract will just cause another name-to-symbol change. I swear the words "HATER" is wayyy over-rated...smh | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: IstenSzek said: and that he's a clever bastard, that too I give him props for effort, but i feel he's not as clever as he thinks he is, not being funny, but his peers from the 80's MJ and Madonna (despite their own label problems), don't cry like babies as much as Prince seems to. He can't let it go. well yes, you do have a point there and true love lives on lollipops and crisps | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think it is simple.
One... he can have ultimate control over the content and hire only those he trust to carry things out. Two... it is more money in his pocket... though not much more I would think. Mass distribution has its own headaches. I think it has more to do with control of his work. No contracts, no hidden talk. Sounds mainly like some time in the past, he is left with a very bitter taste in his mouth when it comes to labels. We are all so full of  here | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i agree with Prince here. he doesn't need a label. the new trend is giving away your shit for free with donate option and the cleaning up the cash in the touring department. however, he has to capitalize on the net and sites like youtube if he is going to make it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rockability said: i agree with Prince here. he doesn't need a label. the new trend is giving away your shit for free with donate option and the cleaning up the cash in the touring department. however, he has to capitalize on the net and sites like youtube if he is going to make it.
i downloaded the NIN "slip" album for free. i liked it so much (and i wanted to support what TR was doing with his music) that i then also bought the $25 cd/dvd when it hit stores. and really, most of the music i've been most excited about over the past year has been music that has been self-released and offered online in different packages (download only/download+CD/deluxe package). these offers give fans the instant gratification of the mp3s, and then when the physical product is ready, we can get that too if we choose. i'd be really excited if prince did something like this. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: Because that is not how he chooses 2 do business these days. Simple really.
I respect that, but the problem seems to be that he cannot choose how he WANTS to do business these days. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Isn't finding a recording contract that satisfies him like looking for a needle in a haystack? Doesn't that explains why he has his own label? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IstenSzek said: Marrk said: I give him props for effort, but i feel he's not as clever as he thinks he is, not being funny, but his peers from the 80's MJ and Madonna (despite their own label problems), don't cry like babies as much as Prince seems to. He can't let it go. well yes, you do have a point there Can anyone explain why Madonna's Maverick label didn't work out as well as MJJ Productions? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's hard 4 me 2 understand distributing music without all of the facts on that process.
As far a Prince being a business man...I believe that Prince wants the artist's to be treated fairly. At this point, Prince hasn't any reason 2 be greedy, unless it is to be the "Robin Hood," generous type.  "The Lion Sleeps Tonight... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Soured with WB. He hates labels. WB still own's all his old stuff. I can understand all that.
He's done the internet, they record label thing (EMI, Arista, BMG, Columbia, etc.). Give away in a newspaper after securing payment before hand. Smart business move BTW. And in doing so he got in another shot at the traditional record label industry by screwing over Columbia. He got paid up front, didn't concern himself with sales, didn't matter that it was pirated. He was smart. I think he might be doing the "newspaper" approach with the internet. He may be shopping around his market viability. In other words, he may be trying to get some internet company to pay up front, like The Mail did, so that he can release a new album and be paid up front (brilliant way to beat the pirating issue also). Again, smart business move. He knows, along with everyone else, that the traditional record industry is on the downturn. That's why he tries so many ways to get the music out. Problem is he may have backed himself into a corner. I highly doubt any label will do business with him without major safeguards. He's trying to make sure he never has to again. I think he released these new songs for nothing because he is gathering marketing information for negotions with some company. He most certainly has a lot of stuff to get out. He stated recently that it's just not realistic to release new music and expect to profit, so he is always trying to stay a step ahead. Whether he can continue to find a newspaper company, internet company or find a company who will put one of his CD’s in a cereal box remains to be seen, but he may eventually run out of people to piss off. [Edited 12/19/08 16:25pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked.  I swear the words "HATER" is wayyy over-rated...smh | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: It's all in the question?
Why does he HAVE to be different than anyone else, look at U2, Jay Z or even MJ who has an enormous royalty rate that keeps him afloat. These guys make millions. Prince seems to want it all, why should he be different from everyone else? His new leaked music is great, with backing, he'd be a viable option for some major, and he'd make more money than just sitting there, thinking new ways up to distribute his music. A website won't do it, half a mill from a newspaper won't do it. It's cool and all, at aftershows pontificating about the evils of record companies, and after a pint or two, we lap it up, but in this day and age, (and when we're sober) at this point in his career, with his legendary status, i'm amazed at him. he comes across as greedy to me, you know, one of those seven deadly sins. Thoughts?
[Edited 12/19/08 13:21pm] Dude haven't you been paying attention? Because it seems Prince is pretty satisfied with his major label record deals since his departure from WB. By now he has had record deals with most of the majors most of the time, apart from a couple of years (Crystal Ball, TRC) and he is in bed with Universal for his publishing. He has only chosen to do business with the majors a bit more wisely than before. For example, he is not getting into long term record deals or joint ventures anymore. He retains ownership of his records and apparantly he also manages to get paid more than average. Then after a one or two album deal he is off to the next sucka ass label willing to fork out money and distribution for him while he delivers them an album with a couple of good songs to sell. He throws in a little publicity stunt here and there (Superbowl, selling Musicology with concert tickets), goes on a tour and he is banking. Now, if all that and more is 'good' or not is an entirely different question, but I don't think you can dispute that, apart from his WB years, overall he is pretty happy with his record deals. - [Edited 12/19/08 19:33pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. That is the whole problem and the labels don't care. The whole industry has been destroyed by a bullshit system of unfairness geared toward artists and fans alike. Some people don't care because they are contributing to the problem. They want to steal the music but complain when someone wants $$$ for their hard earned work.Then you have fans like us who will buy the CDs,videos,and DVDs. The whole thing is fucked up. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JayJai said: berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. That's a wee bit too negative. First off any reasonably selling artist with some business sense still makes some dollars of his records (most probably only advances but still income). Or itunes, merchandising etc. Plus touring income has risen for most, especially bigger artists, since ticket prices have skyrocketed. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
How much did he actually make in the Mail newspaper agreement? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. I think you're a bit confused as to what people are saying. The money is in the tour and merchandising because you're still making money, even if you're making the same amount you made 10 years ago, you're still making a pretty good profit, that is, if you got a good tour going. With CDs, these days you make little to nothing or fall into debt/negative profits as opposed to 10 years ago when it was still a profit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
...at times prince may show bizarre behavior...for the most part this a HARMLESS DIVERSION...to captive others with seductive charm..this talent is an easy manner....free of self-consciousness or calculation.....he sets the fashion for his social set or family....a colorful figure...is he chosen to fill a commanding role for which he is not suited¿...can confidence and charisma lead to disappointment in that sense¿..he ventures out to achieve wider acclaim in society at large.....mzsexybaby  ..She's Just A Baby..but she's my lady..my loveR..my only friend!..true love that will last!..PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND..WHAT SHE SEES IN AN OLDER MAN..they never stop 2 think that maybe i'm what she's looking 4..THEY NEVER TAKE THE TIME..2 look in her mind | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. I think that's spot on, except the YouTube argument. Even if a whole show is posted, it's still not giving you the actual feel of the show, it's more like a teaser to make you buy a ticket. I guess that's why there are hundreds and thousands of clips of Madonna's tour allowed to be online whereas her official album tracks are usually being hunted down. Not even a DVD gives you the concert experience. That's why Live Nation is signing up all the big artists and that's why people like Mariah Carey will soon struggle to have a career because CD sales became meaningless but they can't balance that out with a famous and successful live career... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. 100,000$ So your telling me , artists are only selling 6,000 or so units? Because C.D.s cost about 15 bucks then and the average artist made 2 dollars per CD Your figures are way off sir figures are more in 500,000 thousands to millions, especially for an artist of prince's stature for 50,000 units he makes alot more without label, on a 15$ cd he probably makes from 8 to 11 dollars from, thats about 500,000 just for selling 50,000 units which he could do in his sleep In case you haven't noticed... Artist have always made no money with C.D. sales. (unless your michael jackson) Downloading never hurt the artist, it hurt the record companies... (Which is probably not a bad thing) Artist have always made the lion share of their money touring and merchandising and it's no different now... Albums have always been a vehiclee for new material, and a preview of the tour... and MARRK heres the REAL ANSWER to your question... Heres a common fallacy... that people getting royalties are rolling in the money WRONG! prior to 2002 Royalty dividends are exactly 1.45 cents per record sold (or radio spins) Its changed to 8 cents, but thats still pretty miniscule, for a SONGWRITING CRED The publisher of said song, takes 50% , and the rest is divided between you and the label... I give Prince credit very RARELY, but when it comes to finances he's got my vote. Niggah should've been an accountant. but he saw this coming and got "Free" A LOOOOONG time ago instead of just 3 to 4 dollars per C.D. he gets, the majority of the money. The money he made on Emancipation was UNHEARD of for any singer... He was one of the first to usethe internet as a means of selling a product, and he's reaped the benefits... The deal distributing deal with columbia was genius, he still managed to get the most money... Newspaper... Genius... Record Companies are scum... and have gotten worse through the years... Prince is greedy, but then again why shouldn't he be? It's His Music... I think he should get every penny he can... Dling isn't really a problem with Prince because of his wide fanbase... I think his big pet peeve is the linked material that gets passed around in places like piratebay... Thereare people who upload his whole entire catalogue, bootlegs and all just to spite him... And i'm sure it infuriates the shit out of him... [Edited 12/20/08 2:04am] I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EmbattledWarrior said: berniejobs said: In regards to the current condition of the music industry, everyone seems to say "the money is in touring and merchandising these days".
Why? Think about it. People are illegally downloading music, thus hurting the sale of CD's, I get that part. But 10 years ago and artist would release a CD and do a tour. That artist would make, say, $100,000 in CD sales and $100,000 in concert ticket sales. (merchandise sales aside). Now today, that same artist would be $0 from CD sales, but still $100,000 in concert ticket sales. When I do the math, it doesn't appear to me more money is in touring these days. It appears the same amount of money is in touring, just MINUS the CD sales. In fact, there may be LESS money in touring now if more artists adopt this theory that "money is in touring". More competition means less money. So, the artist of today will make $100,000 on a release when he's make $200,000 10 years ago. And you can't really say "well, just increase the touring" because you can only be in one place at one time as an artist. And hell, if everyone videotapes live shows and posts them on youtube, you might not have to leave your house to see your favorite artist. Then that artist will get $0 from you for the CD and $0 from the live show. Artists... are... fucked. 100,000$ So your telling me , artists are only selling 6,000 or so units? Because C.D.s cost about 15 bucks then and the average artist made 2 dollars per CD Your figures are way off sir figures are more in 500,000 thousands to millions, especially for an artist of prince's stature for 50,000 units he makes alot more without label, on a 15$ cd he probably makes from 8 to 11 dollars from, thats about 500,000 just for selling 50,000 units which he could do in his sleep In case you haven't noticed... Artist have always made no money with C.D. sales. (unless your michael jackson) Downloading never hurt the artist, it hurt the record companies... (Which is probably not a bad thing) Artist have always made the lion share of their money touring and merchandising and it's no different now... Albums have always been a vehiclee for new material, and a preview of the tour... and MARRK heres the REAL ANSWER to your question... Heres a common fallacy... that people getting royalties are rolling in the money WRONG! prior to 2002 Royalty dividends are exactly 1.45 cents per record sold (or radio spins) Its changed to 8 cents, but thats still pretty miniscule, for a SONGWRITING CRED The publisher of said song, takes 50% , and the rest is divided between you and the label... I give Prince credit very RARELY, but when it comes to finances he's got my vote. Niggah should've been an accountant. but he saw this coming and got "Free" A LOOOOONG time ago instead of just 3 to 4 dollars per C.D. he gets, the majority of the money. The money he made on Emancipation was UNHEARD of for any singer... He was one of the first to usethe internet as a means of selling a product, and he's reaped the benefits... The deal distributing deal with columbia was genius, he still managed to get the most money... Newspaper... Genius... Record Companies are scum... and have gotten worse through the years... Prince is greedy, but then again why shouldn't he be? It's His Music... I think he should get every penny he can... Dling isn't really a problem with Prince because of his wide fanbase... I think his big pet peeve is the linked material that gets passed around in places like piratebay... Thereare people who upload his whole entire catalogue, bootlegs and all just to spite him... And i'm sure it infuriates the shit out of him... [Edited 12/20/08 2:04am] interesting stuff. And i agree with a lot of it. Royalty rates vary from artist to artist though don't they? in terms of what they get per unit sold and radio plays. I wouldn't expect some wet behind the ears band to get as much as a legendary act still signed to a major label.  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LiveToTell86 said: That's why Live Nation is signing up all the big artists
Yes - soon I will sign your beloved Prince to dance to my tune. And then I will take over the world! Mwahahaha! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't think he wants that, he loves his freedom. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LiveNation said: LiveToTell86 said: That's why Live Nation is signing up all the big artists
Yes - soon I will sign your beloved Prince to dance to my tune. And then I will take over the world! As long as my Boo has a front row seat at the press conference when you make the announcement, I'm cool.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: Why does he HAVE to be different than anyone else, look at U2, Jay Z or even MJ who has an enormous royalty rate that keeps him afloat. These guys make millions.
Prince is in a completely different situation vs. the artists you mentioned. With a vault of unreleased work. Long term deal would equate to them taking the best work from P and milking that work for 35 years. And also releasing albums on a time frame. That's difficult to contend with when you have all that work(in the vault) and none of those companies are interested in the artistic aspect of what you have to say at each moment. They are interested in the viability of commercial products. I would not wish for them to take the best from the vault and then have that in mass production then have to find a way to release new music on his own. It seems like the last few one shot deals he has done was for limited time/output of the product. I'm not sure why he would wish to do one shot deals with the evil monkeys that push to change the 35 year rules. Maybe in doing so is out of convenience? It will get interesting if he is somehow looking to unload a lot of work and looking for the means to do it in a way that works in this world? Maybe a real small label of his own would work. Model it after something like B Unique records?? NPG records = a tag that lives only in the mind. Indie record companies usually have 3-4 workers and they work to keep the product moving, viable. Kaiser Chiefs sold 3 million units of the first album worldwide and have 4 workers at B unique. Yup 4 lads at B Unique did a better job than the many(best buy, interscope) involved with Chinese Democracy. This is an insane and changing industry. Sometimes you give a little and get a lot and IMO a small label of his own would be the way. It would have to be something more than just a name. Downloading is a problem if one wishes to go alone. It's not that you download and you will buy the product. It's the 1000's that download with no intention of purchasing. Downloading destroyed the industry but that's not all bad IMO, music became too much of a commercial product = cheesy songs. Music returning to art - because it must be something special in order to rise above in order to move units is not a terrible thing at all. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |