Prince said this during his 2007 NAACP Award speech

http://prince.org/msg/7/345701

Besides the internet, it's also lawyers and accountants who have ruined the music industry.

Now I am a lawyer myself who has worked in art and entertainment, including music and I would never claim that lawyers, nor accountants, have ever done much good to the music industry. There have been many who have not done good at all. But to blame it all on those who do not make the real decisions, but who are merely the advisors and controllers, is a bit too much.

While many of the music contracts I have seen pass, cannot be excused and were often so shady and wrong that no decent person, let alone a lawyer would approve, in the end it's always the decision of a company to offer such a contract and the decision of an artist to accept it, not anybody else's.

I could tell clients who were offered shady contracts, not to sign because they would regret it later, but 99% still signed, often because it was their first chance at a deal with a record company or music publisher and they didn't want to lose out. So then, when the deal that was offered was bad, but they still wanted to sign, I would advise them not to sign for more than 1 or 2 albums and not the 4, 5 or 6 the record company wanted. But 99% didn't even want to try and ask that.

Sometimes, some came back to complain that they were screwed and I could still find some room to get them out of it. But then they would have to be ready to battle too. 99% however never wanted to battle. Meanwhile the record companies and music publishers were owning everything, including my clients underwear and were laughing all the way to the bank. That is, whenever there was some money to make. Usually, they would lose out too, drop my clients within a couple of years and wait for the next one day hit wonder to pass by.

What can you do? Blame it on the lawyers and the accountants?

- -

[Edited 11/19/10 19:28pm]

well i agree that a lot of artists sign away their integrity for the sake of fame and money, so yeah, ultimately the blame can only be taken by the artist, but ...

its still a two-way street, and a lot of lawyers and accountants have done their fair share of hacking away at the art, all for the sake of numbers, dollars and biased deals.

there's a certain emotional blackmail involved in this scenario, where the artist is almsot 'bribed' into bending over: " do it this way or you get zip"

its not fair for any artist to be presented with ultimatums like that. deals should be fair from the beginning, not something you 'earn' once ur 'established'.

that whole line of 'well you know once people know who you are and you've made us some money maybe then you can control your own work.'

excuse me? fuck off lol - without the artist, no lawyer nor accountant nor record exec has a job, yet they presume the arrogant gall to turn the whole thing round right from the get go.

its been said we have equal rights to the pursuit of happiness, just not in the music industry lol where the business men claim exclusive right, right from the start.

no wonder its all turned to shit.

robinhood said:

that whole line of 'well you know once people know who you are and you've made us some money maybe then you can control your own work.'

excuse me? fuck off lol - without the artist, no lawyer nor accountant nor record exec has a job, yet they presume the arrogant gall to turn the whole thing round right from the get go.

I used to say that every time and then they would smile at me for saying that.

But they would still sign.

Crash JP Morgan. Buy Silver.

robinhood said:

deals should be fair from the beginning, not something you 'earn' once ur 'established'.

How do you do that in a world where everybody wants fame and money?

The main problem is that the music industry's business plan is based on the hope that only a few of record company's artists are able to become 'a star' and rake in the big dollars.

Record companies pay their biggest artists ridiculous advances to produce a new album, hoping the sales will be huge, but they usually make nothing but losses on all the other bands and artists they sign and promote (or not) and who do not sell enough to make a profit. This also causes the big artists to feel like the masters of the universe. Without them, after all, there is no music industry whatsoever and no money for new talent either.

They are actually very much part of the problem. Just look at Prince. He says he is against the "work for hire" standard for recording artists, but he still signs his own artists under such a contract.

- -

[Edited 11/15/10 16:51pm]

Tremolina said:

robinhood said:

that whole line of 'well you know once people know who you are and you've made us some money maybe then you can control your own work.'

excuse me? fuck off lol - without the artist, no lawyer nor accountant nor record exec has a job, yet they presume the arrogant gall to turn the whole thing round right from the get go.

I used to say that every time and then they would smile at me for saying that.

But they would still sign.

of course, because they are naive to the snake between the lines, all dreamy-eyed at the promise of fame, enticed by the psychological illness of a society which prmotes lifestyles of the rich and famous,

and dont forget the deep and desperate yearning to be 'loved', yes, truly 'loved.

then there are artists who want to put their music out there simply because they love doing it and want to share it with as many people as possible, which is also pretty naive, to think the whole world should stop and listen to what you're doing lol

but even so, they are presented with one-sided deals from the start, and its wrong.

i met with tommy matolla once, wont say what went down, but that was all i needed to wake me up to the reptile within the industry.

dance with the devil in the pale moonlight and hell is what you'll get.

robinhood said:

its been said we have equal rights to the pursuit of happiness, just not in the music industry lol where the business men claim exclusive right, right from the start.

no wonder its all turned to shit.

I have dealt with all kinds of creative people and companies and none of them I found really pretty. The music industry however I thought was the worst.

Tremolina said:

robinhood said:

deals should be fair from the beginning, not something you 'earn' once ur 'established'.

How do you do that in a world where everybody wants fame and money?

eliminate greed, put the focus on subtance over form, and quality over quantity.

record companies with so so many artists on their books? please guys who do you think you are kidding? your not a bank with a whole bunch of accounts, but thats the way they act.

then they charge you 'account keeping fees' when they never give you any attention at all lol sheisters plain and simple.

smaller companies though, indie labels for example, have fewer artists on their roster, and for the most part they produce some good talent for a smaller budget and get the job done just as well as any major label, if not better.

but hey, the whole idea of 'success' is backward anyway. its apparently defined by how much units gets sold and how much money that makes.

how does that even make any sense? what? big numbers equals success? right there my brain short-circuits.

for the most part the music industry is a bunch of children vying for top dog bully position in the playground and whoever ends up with the most stolen lunch money wins.

Tremolina said:

robinhood said:

its been said we have equal rights to the pursuit of happiness, just not in the music industry lol where the business men claim exclusive right, right from the start.

no wonder its all turned to shit.

I have dealt with all kinds of creative people and companies and none of them I found really pretty. The music industry however I thought was the worst.

because the laws themselves are screwed. the laws need to be rewritten to reflect fairness, equality, financial objectivity, and 100% creative rights protected from the start.

the laws are currently written to serve the companies first, the middle-men second, and the artist last.

no industry can survive on such an unethical basis, then they blame the internet, blame the economy, blame file-sharing, blame anything they can to avoid looking at their decrepit lack of integrity, and conscience.

c'est la vie.

robinhood said:

Tremolina said:

I have dealt with all kinds of creative people and companies and none of them I found really pretty. The music industry however I thought was the worst.

because the laws themselves are screwed. the laws need to be rewritten to reflect fairness, equality, financial objectivity, and 100% creative rights protected from the start.

the laws are currently written to serve the companies first, the middle-men second, and the artist last.

This is not true. Copyright law grants copyright to the author of the work, which in the case of music are the songwriters and the recording artists.

It's the CONTRACTS that turn everything around. Contracts are the only way for a record company or a publisher to obtain ownership and control over the artist and his work.**

Artists are lured into contracts with the false prospects of fame and money / ego and cash...: --> Who's that lurking in the shadows? Mr. John Hammond with his pen in hand, saying sign your kingdom over to me!... and be known throughout the land... but you ain't got no money, no you aint got no cash, so you sign your name and you BITH claim innocence, juts like every other snow flake in an avalanche...

--

I should add here that there are many countries where the producer of a record, usually the record company, is also granted (sort of) a copyright to the recording by the law, along with the recording artist (making it a joint ownership). In the US however, this is not the case...

[Edited 11/19/10 20:11pm]

robinhood said:

for the most part the music industry is a bunch of children vying for top dog bully position in the playground and whoever ends up with the most stolen lunch money wins.

so you are saying its impossible

Tremolina said:

robinhood said:

because the laws themselves are screwed. the laws need to be rewritten to reflect fairness, equality, financial objectivity, and 100% creative rights protected from the start.

the laws are currently written to serve the companies first, the middle-men second, and the artist last.

It's the CONTRACTS that turn everything around. Contracts are the only way for a record company or a publisher to obtain ownership and control over the artist and his work.

sure. are there any laws which stipulate what kind of contract a company can issue an artist?

or any law which stipulates what right an artist has to challenge the contract without being immediately dropped?

"lawyers and accountants" is just code for Jews.

What really killed the music industry are prima donna recording artist who want all their money upfront and over paid CEO and A&R guys.

emesem said:

emesem said:

"lawyers and accountants" is just code for Jews.

What really killed the music industry are prima donna recording artist who want all their money upfront and over paid CEO and A&R guys.

[Edited 11/15/10 19:07pm]

muleFunk said:

SavonOsco said:

muleFunk said:

[Edited 11/15/10 19:07pm]

Ignore that racist bait food and he's right on the other part

Prince has gone on record several times talking about how the jewish businessmen took his money and his ancestors' money.

Spinlight said:

SavonOsco said:

Spinlight said:

Prince has gone on record several times talking about how the jewish businessmen took his money and his ancestors' money.

Yeah but lawyers of his own race will take him under just as well...This is the new normal...

Preaching to the choir. As a jewish AND gay man, it's really cool to hear Prince say how awful my people are.

SavonOsco said:

...the label hired an attorney to write up a contract that will work in the favor of the company...

and there it is. doesnt matter if the con is one-sided, unethical and just plain ludicrous, as long as the suits come 1st.

the lawyer takes home his or her lovely pay packet and leaves their conscience out of it.

Tremolina said:

Not many people noticed, but Prince said this the other day at an auction.

http://prince.org/msg/7/345701

Apparantly, next to the internet, it's also lawyers and accountants who have ruined the music industry.

Now I am a lawyer myself who has worked in art and entertainment, including music and I would never claim that lawyers, nor accountants, have ever done much good to the music industry. There have been many who have not done good at all. But to blame it all on those who do not make the real decisions, but who are merely the advisors and controllers, is a bit too much.

While many of the music contracts I have seen pass, cannot be excused and were often so shady and wrong that no decent person, let alone a lawyer would approve, in the end it's always the decision of a company to offer such a contract and the decision of an artist to accept it, not anybody else's.

I could tell clients who were offered shady contracts, not to sign because they would regret it later, but 99% still signed, often because it was their first chance at a deal with a record company or music publisher and they didn't want to lose out. So then, when the deal that was offered was bad, but they still wanted to sign, I would advise them not to sign for more than 1 or 2 albums and not the 4, 5 or 6 the record company wanted. But 99% didn't even want to try and ask that.

Sometimes, some came back to complain that they were screwed and I could still find some room to get them out of it. But then they would have to be ready to battle too. 99% however never wanted to battle. Meanwhile the record companies and music publishers were owning everything, including my clients underwear and were laughing all the way to the bank. That is, whenever there was some money to make. Usually, they would lose out too, drop my clients within a couple of years and wait for the next one day hit wonder to pass by.

What can you do? Blame it on the lawyers and the accountants?

- -

[Edited 11/15/10 16:33pm]

If they don't own their publishing and master tapes, they'll always be obligated to watching the record company reissue their material without their consent. They gave it up in order to get that advance money and gold records to hang on their walls.

Artists will be dismissive about money, saying "I'm an artist, not a businessman", until they realize they're getting ripped off. Or when they try to run their own business, and face the cold hard reality of day to day operations and the paperwork involved.

The recording industry was hit with the following blows:

In WBs case? They re-signed Prince and REM for a lot of money, who followed up with recordings that did not sell as well as they hoped.

File sharing went global, but the RIAA is only able to go after those on US soil. Film industry is different, because they can go under the excuse of "kiddie porn" to shut down just about anyone, anywhere. Interpol... not just a band name.

People had "upgraded" their record collection from vinyl and tape to CD. Then people were able to digitize the CD and not put wear and tear on their discs. How many Steely Dan remaster projects does the world really need?

Most artists don't make a lot of money from recordings, compared to touring. Even if you're talking about "Thriller", Michael didn't produce it, he didn't write the entire album himself, he didn't own the master tape. But the smartest thing he did was "Making of Thriller", which allowed him to recoup money spent on a promotion video. Prince prob made more money off of "Purple Rain" because he had home video, an album, and a tour that was also a home video. And I'm pretty sure it cost Prince very little to make the album, compared to having to hire Quincy Jones, the guys from Toto, and the other people who worked on that album - except Eddie Van Halen, who worked for free.

But the recording industry itself, by focusing more on protecting its material than putting money into developing and supporting up and coming acts, is where it shot itself in the foot. If no one is buying old music because they have it, or have easy access to it, they're still going to be able to license their songs to "Glee", "American Idol", or a movie soundtrack.

The only thing a record company is going to be able to do is up the ante with elaborate packaging, higher quality recordings (they're dipping their toe in the water as far as Blu Ray goes), and be the distributor of new recordings. I think the only good that came out of record companies merging is the ability to put out career retrospectives of artists that were on different labels. The "Ultimate Billie Holiday" is a case where they were finally able to get all the important recordings collected all in one place, after being scattered among different labels.

Even though the threat of public domain scares people, it's no different than a "Night of the Living Dead" fan owning a copy that George Romero oversaw and did commentary on, and the copy you picked up in the dollar store.

Music's important in our day to day lives, but so is food, air and water. The most important thing anyone can do when it comes to music is pass it along, turn people on to it, and participate in creating it.

Tremolina said:

Not many people noticed, but Prince said this the other day at an auction.

http://prince.org/msg/7/345701

He didn't say it the other day at an auction.

The article quotes his 2007 NAACP Award speech.

The article also makes reference to the sale of Prince items at a recent auction.

langebleu said:

Tremolina said:

Not many people noticed, but Prince said this the other day at an auction.

http://prince.org/msg/7/345701

He didn't say it the other day at an auction.

The article quotes his 2007 NAACP Award speech.

The article also makes reference to the sale of Prince items at a recent auction.

Apologies, I thought he said it at the auction.

robinhood said:

Tremolina said:

It's the CONTRACTS that turn everything around. Contracts are the only way for a record company or a publisher to obtain ownership and control over the artist and his work.

sure. are there any laws which stipulate what kind of contract a company can issue an artist?

or any law which stipulates what right an artist has to challenge the contract without being immediately dropped?

There are some countries that have laws that automatically limit the scope of a contractual transfer, or that provide for minimum statutory license fees.

In the US the best example of this is the "35 year rule". It enables the author to retain ownership of his work, even after selling all the rights to it. In other countries that rule doesn't exist. When you have sold your soul, you have sold it for good, unless the devil is willing to sell it back to you.

SavonOsco said:

The OP has reviewed contracts and advise his artist not to sign...but have you ever waived your fee or refused to continue?..you let your clients sign anyway and still got paid.....

Assume much? No, usually my clients didn't have to pay me a dime. But they still whored themseleves after being advised not to. In the hopes of getting paid themselves you know

Tremolina said:

Not many people noticed, but Prince said this the other day at an auction.

http://prince.org/msg/7/345701

Apparantly, next to the internet, it's also lawyers and accountants who have ruined the music industry.

Now I am a lawyer myself who has worked in art and entertainment, including music and I would never claim that lawyers, nor accountants, have ever done much good to the music industry. There have been many who have not done good at all. But to blame it all on those who do not make the real decisions, but who are merely the advisors and controllers, is a bit too much.

While many of the music contracts I have seen pass, cannot be excused and were often so shady and wrong that no decent person, let alone a lawyer would approve, in the end it's always the decision of a company to offer such a contract and the decision of an artist to accept it, not anybody else's.

I could tell clients who were offered shady contracts, not to sign because they would regret it later, but 99% still signed, often because it was their first chance at a deal with a record company or music publisher and they didn't want to lose out. So then, when the deal that was offered was bad, but they still wanted to sign, I would advise them not to sign for more than 1 or 2 albums and not the 4, 5 or 6 the record company wanted. But 99% didn't even want to try and ask that.

Sometimes, some came back to complain that they were screwed and I could still find some room to get them out of it. But then they would have to be ready to battle too. 99% however never wanted to battle. Meanwhile the record companies and music publishers were owning everything, including my clients underwear and were laughing all the way to the bank. That is, whenever there was some money to make. Usually, they would lose out too, drop my clients within a couple of years and wait for the next one day hit wonder to pass by.

What can you do? Blame it on the lawyers and the accountants?

- -

[Edited 11/15/10 16:33pm]

Yeah, but you blame it on the record companies' lawyers and accountants!

I like how prince blames the record company when an album sales poorly. maybe he is just not hitting that nerve like he use to?

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I like how prince blames the record company when an album sales poorly. maybe he is just not hitting that nerve like he use to?

Flawed argument.

Look at the initial USA sales for albums like Parade, and Lovesexy. Do those sales reflect the quality of the work (aka Prince "hitting that nerve")? Many state that Sign O' The Times is his all time opus...look how many copies it sold in the US in 1987.

Sales = Quality? Quality = Sales? Maybe every now and again.