Since Prince is doing things on his own, so to speak, I often wonder if all record labels shut down tomorrow, would artists be able to stay afloat without them? Few I think could, but I highly doubt it. As much as I don't like the evil ways of the music industry, it's kinda a necessary evil in the end. Even Prince has to go through record companies when he's releasing a new album, except he has more control, but he still needs them. What do ya'll think and what artist do you believe would be able to stand on their own two feet if the record labels folded?

i think established artists can be more successful without a label than new, unknown artists, but on the other hand, if a new artist is creative and has a strong DIY approach and an original enough sound to build a following, i think they could do well without the aid of fame or years of success.

Anxiety said:

That's a very good point. I remember hearing stories of how Ludacris used to sell his albums out of his trunk before he got signed to a lable. I think the biggest difficulty for newer artists would be international success because I can't see them promoting themselves as easily in another country without the help of a label. I guess as long as their is a large fanbase in more than one area of the globe, an artist would be capable of making it without a label...now if they would only start cutting those strings.

depends on how you define "success"

as Anxiety said, artists that are already established and who built a massive international fanbase on the back of major label promotion and distribution can do it pretty easily.

but without labels, there are no massive international superstars who can do it on a level that most people consider "success", so it's a bit of a catch-22.

if we lower the expectation attached to success and consider selling something like 1,000 or 10,000 albums or downloads a success, then yeah, it can be done with the right approach by pretty much anyone.

estelle81 said:

i think distribution is the most difficult thing. i think if you have imagination and if you have something people want to pay attention to, publicity can come relatively easy. i think it takes more than just a clever idea to ship CDs to wrecka stows. of course, with less people buying CDs and more people going online to check out new music, the distribution challenge is probably changing slightly in favor of the artist.

i can think of two or three artists i like who have been mostly independent throughout their entire careers, so i think it's very possible. you just need to have something worth people's time and attention. and money.

I'm an Independent Artist. It is very difficult to get your music out there without support from a Label. With websites like Myspace & Youtube, it's easy to get your music "heard".....but not so easy to get people to buy your music.
[Edited 8/17/09 14:53pm]

estelle81 said:

Prince's deals w/ Columbia, EMI, and Arista etc were based (mostely) solely on manufacturing and distribution to get the product to a wider audience. Prince even said Target was acting as a record company for the LotusFlow3r release.

If labels didn't rip off their artists (especially new artists), they would be more respected. Young artists see a "record contract" as their golden ticket, but as popular as Nsync was, and as many records as they sold, and tours that they sold out, they were barely making rent on their apartments back home (the ones that had apartments). Theirs is an extreme case as well because Lou Pearlman was taking a huge amount of cash from them. He bankrupted everyone he ever worked with until they sued his fat ass. Even before he was arrested, Nsync paid 1/6 of their earnings from records to Lou Pearlman as part of their release agreement w/ him. But since he's in jail now, he's getting zippo. TLC is another great example of a bad record contract. Toni Braxton is another (both LaFace people, btw.)

Prince said "50/50 is a partnership. 90/10 is employment." He was right. People like Madonna and MJ get much larger shares of profits. But Prince wasn't the first to demand ownership of his masters (although he's never gotten them from his back catalog under WB). Stevie Wonder owns his stuff. Ray Charles demanded ownership of his before he signed anything. It was unheard of, even moreso for a black artist to demand such things. I think MJ owned his. KISS owns theirs. In the late 80's, Donna Summer bought her back catalog to control her music more, and now owns her masters as well.

There should, at the very least, be an agreement about the masters, perhaps an even 50/50 split, or a sliding percentage of ownership over time based on sales. Like you have 40% ownership of record #1. Fast forward: if record #5 sells 10 million, then you get maybe 48 or 49% ownership on record #1 and 2, and so on. Anything is possible, and this the time to continue to break new ground with any sort of contract or agreement.

But to answer the question: Artists would be successful as independents even without labels for a couple of reasons.

1) they would own their work.
2) they would control their work, and promotion
3) their fans would seek them out via internet, twitter or whatever they needed to keep in touch with the artist and buy their product.

People still seek out Prince, Ani Defranco, Meshell NDegeoCello, and anyone else who is under the gun of being independent or not well promoted. Fans are faithful, and the artist knows that.

But then you have to measure success by what standard? Record sales? Platinum records on the wall? The percentage of money you make from it? Sold out arenas and theaters? Or the fact that at the end of the day, you did what you could to promote your record, touch base w/ fans, offer a great product at a great price, and know you're getting the bulk of the profits to keep your livelihood going? Prince can talk about not caring about the charts, but sometimes it's an easy out to saying "I know I'm not that popular anymore, and I'll never have a #1 single again." Sure it's nice to be on the charts and radio and be acknowledged, but there are great artists still making their way who few people in the mainstream have heard of, that are making waves w/ their fans, and slowly growing more widely known.

Yes, a label is easier because they are the long arm of the record buying public. But then again, you have to understand what is available, what you want, and what you're willing to give up in exchange for something else. Give up ownership for wider distribution (which still doesn't guarantee success). Give up a wider audience for full ownership and a bigger share of the profits that do come in? It's a toss up.

here's the thing though. record labels know what it takes to pay for the production, manufacture, distribution and promotion of music, so no new artist gets a "great" contract from the artist's standpoint. because the label is going to go on and get someone else if the new artist doesn't like the terms the label is going. the label doesn't need that new artist. that new artist needs the label and the label knows it. and the label also knows damn well that after they've spent the time and money during the first contract to build up interest and repertoire and fame and a fanbase and success in the artist that when the next contract negotions come along, the artist has them over a barrel and can get whatever terms they want, because at that point the label NEEDS the artist more than the artist needs that particular label. the artist knows this. the label knows this.

It depends what you call "successful" are we talking gold and platnum or a chart position, or are we talking what its really about and that is getting paid for your work. At this point Billboard and soundscan is meaningless unless you are looking at them for a good laugh. Almost no one with these so called hits like Flo-Rida and others are even getting close to PAID, and yet they are bringing in millions for the suits.

To me success has different levels to an artist, if a chart decides for you, then you are missing things totally, you are nothing more than a bean counter. Right now any established artist could (if they know how and have the patience) leave their labels and put it out on their own for the biggest profit they will ever see. TRUE they will not have the promo $$ behind them, but do we think bands like REM and Pearl Jam and others give a shot about being played on Mtv during THE HILLS at this point? I mean most artists (established) have the smarts and know that labels and that way of thinking is bullshit now, they choose to stay because of many different reasons, one would be distribution two would be they dont want the headache of running the business or having to hire people to do it.

But artists who put out their own stuff and are established, like The Eagles or so many others, they are making money, some more than others, i mean they also have money too going in and that helps, so trust me bands that tour and draw the crowds still and make money that way, could care less if their new cd on their own label charts.

A kewl article on Indie Artist Natalie Brown.

http://flipsidetomusic.com/?p=2137