On Sunday, February 23, 2003:

http://www.foxnews.com/st...37,00.html

On Sunday, record-business attorney Lundell McMillan, who represents Prince and others, had a lunch at the New York Hilton for a new group, Artists Empowerment Coalition.

A leading member of the African-American entertainment world here in New York, McMillan attracted a huge number of black artists, each of whom had the same question in mind: "Where is our money?"

Roberta Flack, Nickolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson, Isaac Hayes and articulate rapper Doug E. Fresh all spoke, while Prince marinated in the audience. (He's shy.)

"Soul Man" Sam Moore and his wife Joyce, who have led the charge against pension-fund fraud in the record business, were guests of honor. They watched and listened while these other artists took to the stage and repeated the Moores' contention: The ripping off has got to stop now.

AEC will seek legislation to do this. They've already lined up New York Congressman Charles Rangel and more politicians will be coming on board.

"The days of the plantation are over," said Flack, who thought so much of this that she drove twelve hours from a gig Saturday night in Columbus, Ohio to be at the New York meeting.

Believe me, Flack's plantation metaphor applies to blacks, whites, Latinos — everyone who's ever made a record in the United States from which a corporation has profited.

A lot of the great rock stars who didn't make a lot of money, or squandered it, are waking up at age 60 to find they have nothing to live on. Meanwhile their CDs and records have kept the record execs in mansions, pools, and diamonds. The party is over. A new reckoning has begun.

I'm all in favor of these musicians getting paid.

A little side note though; why did the article stress "articulate rapper Doug E. Fresh..."? There are plenty of "articulate" rappers out there.

NuPwrSoul said:

too bad this is reported by Fox. Let me be clear that I do not support the music industry contract practices, but this "news" kind of disturbs me.


errr... in your lunch at the New York Hilton? In your villa's? In your "latest fashion"? In your cars, your diamonds, if not in the advances the record company transferred to your bank account?



shy and rich.

Stop signing those ripp-off contracts and it can do nothing but stop.
Artist need to stop portraying themselves as poor suckders and start to ORGANISE themselves by arranging their OWN standard recording contracts.


right... that will never happen. US copyright law already knows provisons that are more favorable for artists than other copyright laws around the world.


Not when the record label doens't want you anymore. In that case you get rid off your contract within no time. But if you made them pay lots of advances and promotion, you can bet they want it back. Stops signing those contracts if you want to stop the "plantation practices".


Sorry to be harsh, but artists need to wake up much sooner than that. In fact they need to wake up before they sign their name.


How are they goonna get their fair share of royalties? How are they gonna retain ownership of the copyrights? Not by having lunches at the New York Hilton by millionaries claiming they have been "ripped off". Develop new standard contract practices and force the industry to agree to the terms.

-
[This message was edited Wed Feb 26 11:56:55 PST 2003 by Abrazo]

Lordy! I thought the day would never come where I totally agree with Abrazo. This "poor little me" mentality gets on my fucking nerves.

NuPwrSoul said:

Like all rappers can't talk worth a damn!

Abrazo said:

those are all really good points and i agree. One thing in support of the artists, though...if they come up with their own standard contract and no record companies accept it what do they do then? The record companies can, and will be, selective with the artists they sign. There will always be the britney's and madonna's who aren't really artists, but just want to sign and make a buck and be famous. They will be the acts that get signed meanwhile real artists will be left behind...oh, wait, hasn't that already started?

yeah - BUT - there's a bajillion of artists willing to sell their soul for a hit.

Once they got that hit, they want their soul back.

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

MADONNA ain't an ARTIST?

Oh man don't start on that one. I'd say you've gotta be a HELL of an artist to start out as a Britney and end up probably the most powerful woman in the music biz.

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:
---
those are all really good points and i agree. One thing in support of the artists, though...if they come up with their own standard contract and no record companies accept it what do they do then? The record companies can, and will be, selective with the artists they sign. There will always be the britney's and madonna's who aren't really artists, but just want to sign and make a buck and be famous. They will be the acts that get signed meanwhile real artists will be left behind...oh, wait, hasn't that already started?
---


Madonna, in my opinion, was/is a great artist. The music world is still standing on its ear because of her, and she has her own record label.If the artist comes up with their own contract and is rejected, go on to the next one. He/she will eventually come across someone in the music business with some integrity. If the artist is truly interested in the art that is music and not selling his/her soul for a buck, they will be able to make it in the music business.

stymie said:

And you are ???

There is something else I like to add:

If you are being advised to and thinking of SUEING a record company or publisher, or manager, or concert promoter, or whatever company looking to EXPLOIT you and your work as artists then DO SO.

But what those the majority of artist do? Complain yes, but they back out of court once the company offers to settle... for $$$ of course.

Recent example: Courtney Love.

She bitched and complained and in fact had very good reason to do so. She called upon other artists to join her in her fight and she SWORE she would do anything to crush Universal and Geffen records in court.

And she had a good case. A case that, if won in court, could have changed the entire recording industry...

But she settled... for $$$.

A settlement out of court ensures that there is NO legal precedent created and therefore that the company can continue the disputed practices on and on and on...

Thanks a lot Courtney and all the others who backed off at the last moment.

-
[This message was edited Wed Feb 26 12:46:16 PST 2003 by Abrazo]

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

Thanks, but don't get me wrong tho'. I am supportive of the artists, but they have to change themselves first too, if they really want change. That's my "underlying message".


The truth is that the companies rely on the artists, not the other way around. Artist also profit from technology, enabling them to make and release music themesleves. Their bargaining position is stronger than you may think. If they organise in vast amounts with legal negotiators backing them up they can make that difference together.


Yes, it has, and also prince has always been a part of that. Don't forget that. And these artists still are relevant. Altho they may seem to do it all for the money, there usually is more driving them.

imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said:

What more does Madonna have to do to be considered an artist? She's had a tremendous impact on our culture, and her agenda has frequently extended beyond just making another buck.

Abrazo said:

I don't think this is a fair depiction of what has happened with many artists who don't live as large as you make it out to be. So they were supposed to meet on the street corner instead of at a hotel? Give me a break.

This is all relative. Relative to what they SHOULD earn, and what they DESERVE, relative to what the execs get for their labor.

But let me add that many of the older artists are not living so large. They do not own the benefit from their labor and many live modestly or are forced to continuously tour in order to maintain any income.




SO? No one is claiming poverty here. They just want to know where the REST of their money is.



Especially for older artists, and new ones who are desperate for a deal, I hope you are not naive enough to think they they are dealt with fairly in their interaction with the industry.

They ARE trying to organize as you say into a coalition, and its news of such a meeting that has you writing this rejoinder?

EDIT QUOTE MARKERS.
[This message was edited Wed Feb 26 13:30:35 PST 2003 by NuPwrSoul]

by the way I sent this in as a news item, and it was posted here by the moderators... weird

Tom said


i think she has to create something...ok, i'm being harsh but just because she sells millions of records and has had an impact on the world does not make her an artist. It makes her a business woman who is brilliant at her marketing skills and in that sense, she is an artist in the art of manipulation. Her records solely rely on whoever the producer is. She co-writes most of her material. She relies heavily on other people creating a finished sound that she supposedly came up with? I don't understand the art in that. Get me a brilliant producer and a couple million dollars, i'll have a hit record too!
Don't get me wrong, I own her good records, but still don't consider her any more of an artist than i do Britney or Spice Girls.

there ARE lots of artists who barely have 2 dimes to rub together, people who would be considered greats in their field. Cats who played with Hendrix, James Brown, u name it. Now they're too old to play out much, have no retirement package, get little to no royalties, and live off of a couple hundred bucks a month social security IF they are lucky. This is reality folks. Call the Jazz Foundation of America (in NYC) and ask them about it -- great, once-famous musicians who had to swap their gear just to pay the rent. some of em who can still play are playing on street corners just to get by. A lot of them have no one to turn to and nowhere to go. Check into it people, and if u can, help a brotha or sista out if u want the music to go on.. this could be U someday. (And it's not just older musicians... ALL musicians need empowerment to stand up for their rights to survive in a system that lives off of artist ability. It's time to stop the greed machine!)

NuPwrSoul said:

It's not a depiction of every artist, it's a depiction of the ones, quoted and named in this article, who DO have plenty enough, but still claim they got "ripped off". I know most artists don't live as large as I "make it to be" (which I don't, but that besides). The point here is that artists with more than enough money are saying they got ripped off.

If they would claim that the vast majrity of artists who truly got ripped off are the poor sucker and that THAT should change, I am all with them. But having an expensive lunch while sitting with your ass in one of the most expensive hotels in the world, asking "where is my money?".. to me is pretty unconvincing, to say the least. Of course your opinion may vary and I respect that.


I am all for less pay for the executives as well, but you can't compare the executives or the A&R managers, who are EMPLOYEES of the company, with the artists, who are "the blood" of the company. Unless of course you are arguing that all artists with a recording contract should be seen as employees as well, making them instantly subjected to the "work for hire" provison in the US Copyright Act (something that should not happen of course)


Yes, I know that... But do we see THEM quoted in this article? Do we see THEM arriving in limo's at the New York Hilton claiming they got ripped off and demanding compensation? No.
OK then. Do I then get the "Hilton artists" saying that all these older artists got ripped of and that they as the more fortunate artists are going to make sure that injustice is corrected? No.
All I hear them do is complain about their own mistakes and not bringing up any comprehensive plan of action to actually CHANGE.

Nuwpowersoul said:

That is not how I see them quoted here. All I see is "Where is our money???" while sipping their cocktails. If they would actually come up with something more accurate by actually admitting that they DID get paid, but just not enough in relation to their sales, I would have nothing against it. But they don't do that.

newpowrsoul said:

Abrazo said:

Did I say that they were treated fairly? I thought I made it quite clear that I don't agree with the industries contract practices. I am very well aware of the way it works. That is also why I am well aware of many artists who SAY they are not about the fame and money. But in the end so many of them again and again DO turn out to be about the money and fame. The industry knows that and profits from it. Therefore it is the artists who need to change themselves as well.

As for the older artists who now have nothing I feel a lot for them. But I have said nothing besides that many of them found out way too late that they got ripped off. And nothing I said that could be read as if they don't have any reason to have grievances, because I know very well that many do. But what have they done the past 3 to 4 decades? Have they organised themselves properly and demanded change? NO. Some have engaged in lonely battles tho'... battles in which their "colleague" artists didn't support them.


I have follwed the AEC actions for quite some time now and so far I have seen nothing but empty statements other than that the companies have to change. Tell us somehing new... I haven't caught them ONCE saying that artists need to change as well, if true change is what they want, nor that new standard recording practices must be enforced collectively by artists themselves. Which is the reason for my "enjoinder".