.....sort of.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...pUFypY24cA

Do superstars still need record labels?



By ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer 12 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - Prince freed himself from record labels years ago. Paul McCartney, Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have followed. Now the Material Girl appears to be kissing her big-name record company goodbye for a cool $120 million.


Could U2 be next? Justin Timberlake? Coldplay? Do superstars even need traditional multiyear album contracts when CD sales are plummeting and fans are swiping tons of music for free online, or tuning in to their favorite bands via YouTube, MySpace and other Internet portals?

"There's a prevailing wisdom that many established acts don't need a record label anymore," said Bruce Flohr, an executive at Red Light Management, which represents artists such as Dave Matthews Band and Alanis Morrissette, and ATO Records, home to David Grey, Gomez and Crowded House, among others.

"This is the new frontier. This is the beginning of a new era for the music business," Flohr said.

Executives at the four major record labels would not comment on the record for this story. But several noted privately that their companies are still the best at artist development, promotion and physical distribution of their product — something even big acts can't entirely do without.

The four majors are Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC, and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a joint venture of Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG. They accounted for more than 88 percent of all U.S. music album sales this year.

Still, some headliners are becoming convinced they have the clout to change the rules.

Madonna is said to be close to signing a recording and touring deal with concert promoter Live Nation Inc. after turning down an offer from her longtime label at Warner Music Group Corp.

Under terms of the new 10-year deal, Madonna, 49, would receive a signing bonus of about $18 million and a roughly $17 million advance for each of three albums. Live Nation also would have to pay $50 million in cash and stock to promote each Madonna tour.

Warner Music just couldn't afford to pay that much to re-sign Madonna, Michael Savner, an analyst with Bank of America, said in a research note.

Meanwhile, Radiohead created a stir — and plenty of publicity — when the British rockers disclosed last week they would bypass signing a new deal with a record label and make their new album available online, letting fans decide how much they wanted to pay to download it.

Earlier this year, Paul McCartney signed with Hear Music, a startup label launched by coffee retailer Starbucks Corp. and Concord Music Group, rather than going to a major.

Even the Eagles are going it alone with their upcoming album, "Long Road Out of Eden." The group, which has sold more than 120 million albums worldwide, will release the album exclusively through Wal-Mart stores.

The trend had Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor exulting over being "free of any recording contract with any label" in a recent post on his Web site.

"I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate," he wrote.

Music industry insiders say the bids for independence only make sense for the most popular acts or those with devout fans who fill concert seats, buy T-shirts and seek out their music.

"These artists are in the position to basically set their own rules and set their own course," said Ted Cohen, managing partner of media consulting firm Tag Strategic and a longtime record label executive.

Meanwhile, social-networking sites and Internet distribution are making it possible for lesser-known and unsigned bands to boost their profiles and sell CDs.

"The game used to be really simple," Flohr said. "You get your record played on radio, you get your face on Rolling Stone (magazine), and you get on 'Saturday Night Live.'

"Now, it's you put your video on YouTube, you get your MySpace page happening, you do your deal with Facebook, you tour ... all these things add up, hopefully, to a successful record."

Some established major acts are using the same tactics as their new albums post lackluster sales but their concert tours keep selling out.

The strategy doesn't help record companies. The industry has seen a 14 percent drop in the number of CDs sold in the U.S. compared with the same time last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Sales of digital tracks online are up 46 percent over the same period, but have yet to offset the industry's losses during the past decade.

To adapt, the major labels are trying to cut deals with artists that go beyond album sales and encompass income from concert tickets, T-shirts, music publishing and other sources.

New bands with their eyes on superstardom still need the deep pockets of the major labels to pay for the promotion, marketing and distribution necessary to get heard above the din of countless other acts.

Even superstars can use the boost.

Take Prince. Famous for scribbling "slave" on his cheek during a bitter dispute with Warner Bros. Records in the early 1990s, he has released most of his music over the Internet during the past 10 years while striking CD distribution and marketing deals with different major labels to get copies of his albums in stores.

Radiohead has said they want to get their latest album in stores in a few months and are said to be shopping for a possible major label distribution deal, if not a multiple album contract.

And it's widely expected that Live Nation will have to strike a distribution deal with an established label to handle promotion and get Madonna's upcoming albums in stores.

In theory, that could lead Live Nation back to Warner Music, home of Warner Bros. Records, where Madonna signed as a new artist in 1984.

"It comes down to, do you need a label? Possibly not. Do you need the expertise that a label traditionally brought? Absolutely," Cohen said.

Despite the turmoil in the industry, the major record companies continue to exert considerable influence in the marketplace.

Major labels are not likely to disappear or become irrelevant, although the role they play might change as digital music overtakes CDs and other physical formats, Flohr said.

"I don't think this is the death of anything," Flohr said. "I actually think this is the rebirth of all of us."

Are the Major Recod Labels Are "Dead ?

Mm.. nope records labels are not dead.

Only albums sales are dying.

I'm still here...

forget all the business crap ! what about if the Maor labels started developing , signing, and promoting QUALITY artist again...? with actual musical TALENT !

prettymansson said:

Now that would be the end of the Major Recod Labels...

VANITYSprisonBYTCH said:

That'here I get wanna get signed

Either there or Atlantic

I hope they die a horrible death. I would like to see the record executives go so broke that they have to move into the ghetto and live among the thugs that they have raised.

vainandy said:

vainandy said:

vainandy said:

Ok,so what's the point about the record executives raising the thugs living in the ghetto...

Record companies arent going anywhere, so if you are thinking and hoping for that DREAM ON as Steven Tyler says. THE RECORD INDUSTRY is dead, the Music Indsutry isnt going anywhere, u will start seeing labels only bring on "media" stars from now on and dropping and not signing anymore straight forward musical acts. Dont Believe the HYPE labels are making $$$, music may not be selling like it did 10 years ago, but its selling alot more than it did 2 decades ago, and the MEDIA stars at labels now are bringing in alot of $$$ for their labels. So dont make the funeral arrangements for the LABELS because they arent going anywhere, just pray that your favorite artists know how to work on their own and put their shit out themselves, because they are the ones that are DEAD.

vainandy said:

YES YES YES YES !!!!!

If you don't know already then there's no need for me to try to explain because I could type 10 or more paragraphs on the subject. I'll give you the short version though. Turn on your radio or music video channel (the rare times they play videos). What do you see or hear? It's either a damn thug or someone who has been influenced by a damn thug.

vainandy said:

Break it down vain !
Thats "THE DEAL" !

vainandy said:

vainandy said:

lastdecember said:

Pretty much sums it up. As long as there's corporate welfare, there'll be labels.

vainandy said:

Excuse me but...
Labels have no "responsability" for the crap played on radio stations or music channels everyday...

The so called "thug" music started from the street in the late 80's. The gangsta rap genre became so popular that it was impossible to ignore it. NWA sold millions of records with no help from any majors. Same thing for Master P.

Majors have no interest to support something people refuse to hear or buy.

Don't forget that it's up to the public to choose what they want to.

krayzie said:

Yes but its also up to the Record companies to prioritize TALENT,QUALITY and Originality...If the labels are the ones paying the stations to play certain records..and they also are the ones that pay for Videos and Promotion for acts..Then they also are Directly responsible for what gets seen and Heard by the consumers !

prettymansson said:

They ain't heard ya.

I don't know why we excuse labels for their bullshit, they never care about the artist or building that artist. All they're concerned with is making paper. And unfortunately the artist gets blind by the million dollar checks and sell their souls as a result. True they want the fame but when things go wrong and they can't go nowhere with what they wanna do, they're stuck. True, record labels should be important to build budding artists but what happens after they reach the top?

Like the old saying: they build you up then they bring you down.

Timmy84 said:

We should boycott all these artists that are fucking up R&B music and when a great performer releases a new album(Like Maxwell, Van Hunt, Badu....etc) We all go out and buy it instead of downloading!


Yea, I know.....wouldn't work

bboy87 said:

But it doesn't hurt to try.

The public chooses to buy what they are buying because it's all they know. The record labels have either kept everything out or not promoted it if it wasn't shit hop for over 15 years now. Why? Because they see how cheap it is and how ignorant the people are that are making it that can be easily manipulated.

Styles have always changed naturally on their own every 5 years or so. Back then, the labels were constantly signing and promoting new artists with a new sound. It all changed when they saw how cheap shit hop is. They aren't about to let anything new come in and threaten the huge profits they are making off of it. If something new took over, it might cost more to make and the musicians might have a little sense and not go along with everything they tell them to do.

Yes, labels are definately to blame and the bad part is, they have kept shit hop dominating so long that a whole generation is grown now that knows nothing else. If something else were to come along, it would be hard as hell for it to take over because they have raised a generation of mostly rhythmless, dull, dead asses who don't want anything else.

They don't give a damn about talent, quality, or originality. All they care about is making the cheapest music possible for the biggest profit they can make. And if promoting thugs who don't have an ounce of musical talent creates a generation of criminals they don't care either because their white kids are listening to it in a nice safe suburb.

vainandy said:

There is always power in the pulpit with vainandy speaks. PREACH!