Do Musicians Need Record Companies?

[Gresh]

Looks like George Michael is planning on releasing future music directly to the consumer online rather than through the traditional channels. While you can debate about his music and his relevancy, it is a provocative idea. In this day and age, do musicians really need record companies to release their music? Or do you believe if the quality of music is good - consumers will find it?

Article link:

"http:/zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/03112004php"

Hope that link works - article is at zeropaid.com

[Dusty Chalk]

No (the link doesn't work), but here's a fixed one for ya.

And the answer to the original question is no, not the way things are now.

[Worf101]

like you need t*ts on a bicycle... You need a thousand middle men making a living off your sweat? You need a mid level company flacks telling you "you're not commercially viable"? You need some fat old man telling you to "make a record just like the last one only different"? You need some lawyer telling you don't on the rights to your band name, your songs or even the chord progessions you use? I hate record companies only slightly less than I hate murderers and terrorists... Chuck Berry had to sue to get the rights to his songs?

I hate em...

Kill em all....

Da "really really pissed off" Worfster

[Woochifer]

It's kind of a double edged sword. Yes, the record companies are skimming off of the musician's livelihoods, but at the same time, they also marshall together a lot of resources (marketing, promotion, production, distribution, etc.) that musicians would be hard pressed to round up themselves. In college, I was on a student committee that booked concerts and music festivals. We worked with record company A&R reps all the time, and they would do a lot of promotion and logistical work on behalf of bands that they hoped that we would book. In some cases, they were newly signed and did not have a local presence, so we would not have even heard of them without the record company contact. One thing that record companies are good at doing is creating a buzz for certain bands (even ones that suck).

The internet is something that could definitely change this balance, and get the word out on new music. However, the challenge is still getting heard by a large enough group of people. George Michael can get away with this because he has a built in following. Record companies have a function in that they can easily get the music into a variety of channels very quickly, and they have the resources to put the music in front of a big audience. The drawback of course is that they keep the majority of the revenue for a band's efforts, but on the other hand, they assume most of the out-of-pocket risk.

Most of the signed musicians I knew had a love-hate relationship with their record companies, and I totally hear Worf's point about how they stifle artistic freedom. For example, some of the jazz musicians I knew at that time were forced to write "smooth jazz" so that they could get or maintain a record deal. It got them a ton of exposure and airplay, yet they were recording stuff that they weren't all that hot on. However, all that exposure and distribution allowed them to build a large enough audience to go on national tours, and during live shows they could play the stuff that they actually enjoyed playing. Without the record company deal, they might not have been able to make a living off their music. Another guy I met was in a band that opened for Tom Petty on one of his mid-80s tours, and with them got to play arena and stadium shows. But a few years later the band broke up, and as an unsigned solo artist, he had to work a day job in order to keep a roof over his head, and played whatever evening gigs he could get a hold of (he's since gone on to some success as a session player and producer). As I said, it's a double-edged sword. Whether or not going direct to the internet would have made a difference, who knows!

[Dusty Chalk]

Peter Gabriel's new music distribution company.

[agtpunx40]

I finally got my $13.86 from the RIAA from the anti trust suit.

[Jim Clark]

Probably, at least in the beginning. The biggest name I'm aware of trying to make it on her own would be Aimee Mann. She seems to be doing fine, both commercially and critcally. Of course Aimee Mann and George Micheal have one big trait in common-they aren't faceless entities going in to the deal. Without the initial efforts of a big label, would either of them have a snowballs chance in hades? doubt it.

jc

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's kind of a double edged sword. Yes, the record companies are skimming off of the musician's livelihoods, but at the same time, they also marshall together a lot of resources (marketing, promotion, production, distribution, etc.) that musicians would be hard pressed to round up themselves. In college, I was on a student committee that booked concerts and music festivals. We worked with record company A&R reps all the time, and they would do a lot of promotion and logistical work on behalf of bands that they hoped that we would book. In some cases, they were newly signed and did not have a local presence, so we would not have even heard of them without the record company contact. One thing that record companies are good at doing is creating a buzz for certain bands (even ones that suck).

The internet is something that could definitely change this balance, and get the word out on new music. However, the challenge is still getting heard by a large enough group of people. George Michael can get away with this because he has a built in following. Record companies have a function in that they can easily get the music into a variety of channels very quickly, and they have the resources to put the music in front of a big audience. The drawback of course is that they keep the majority of the revenue for a band's efforts, but on the other hand, they assume most of the out-of-pocket risk.

Most of the signed musicians I knew had a love-hate relationship with their record companies, and I totally hear Worf's point about how they stifle artistic freedom. For example, some of the jazz musicians I knew at that time were forced to write "smooth jazz" so that they could get or maintain a record deal. It got them a ton of exposure and airplay, yet they were recording stuff that they weren't all that hot on. However, all that exposure and distribution allowed them to build a large enough audience to go on national tours, and during live shows they could play the stuff that they actually enjoyed playing. Without the record company deal, they might not have been able to make a living off their music. Another guy I met was in a band that opened for Tom Petty on one of his mid-80s tours, and with them got to play arena and stadium shows. But a few years later the band broke up, and as an unsigned solo artist, he had to work a day job in order to keep a roof over his head, and played whatever evening gigs he could get a hold of (he's since gone on to some success as a session player and producer). As I said, it's a double-edged sword. Whether or not going direct to the internet would have made a difference, who knows!

Bud,
I think you summed it up nicely. As a musician, former recording artist as a youngster, and recording engineer, I personally loathe record companies. And it's more the people that run them, and not the company itself. There are too many unscrupulous and greedy leaders of these companies that want nothing more than to bleed an artist to death, and eleminate in future income that can come from their work. With alot of major artist vowing never to record for major record companies again, I am glad to see some finding another alternative to getting heard.

I personally gave up recording, playing, and singing with my cousins(five women that can sing their big butts off) because I refused to give up rights to my music, refused to quit playing for the group so the record company could hire their own musicians(they just wanted a way of controlling the sound we delivered, WRONG!!), and didn't want to sign a contract that weighed things so heavily in their favor that we would be doing 5 albums before we even got paid for what we did. Thank God my twin brother was a entertainment lawyer who read the contract and advise me not to sign as it was written.

As I type this, I find myself getting as mad as Worfster. I say piss on the record companies, and may all of that recycled beer electrocute them all!!!

[Woochifer]

I hate record companies only slightly less than I hate murderers and terrorists... Chuck Berry had to sue to get the rights to his songs?

I hate em...

Kill em all....

Da "really really pissed off" Worfster

As I type this, I find myself getting as mad as Worfster. I say piss on the record companies, and may all of that recycled beer electrocute them all!!!

Good gawd, can anyone on this board give a guy a straight answer?

Wow! So, tell me again what you think about record companies? hehehe I haven't seen this kind of vitriol since the days of DIVX! Good show, boys!