Do Major record labels control the content in artists songs?

grimtraveller said:
The point about building up a fan base through covers couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, it is pretty much well established historical fact from so many zillions of sources over the last 40 years that it was their songwriting that really twigged. .
Click to expand...

Yup, Here on Long Island (New York) there was a huge cover band circuit in the late 70s, bands drew crowds of 3-400 people on week nights. A big Zepplin cover band actually got signed working originals into their sets. Despite huge radio support etc. they failed miserably. The second album even worse. None of those bands went anywhere. However Long Island has produced several big selling artists but none were cover bands.
 
VomitHatSteve said:
The problem is that often cover bands are what people want to hear. Where I live, the bands that do nothing but classic rock and Johnny Cash have a gig every week. One or two original bands can get a show a few times each month. The rest of us are lucky to get a gig every 2 months.

That's not to say that cover bands don't completely suck; it's just that the audience sucks just as badly.
Click to expand...

Right. It's a cycle of suck.
 
PDP said:
I agree with most of what you've said but I disagree this ^ as a solid principal. When Willie Nelson wanted to record "On the road again" the record executives refused to release it, he proceeded the way he wanted and it's regarded as one of the greatest country records.

I agree having an open mind and open to suggestion is of importance, but you can do that and still be true to yourself.
Click to expand...

There are two points here.

The first is that the equations I gave were not intended to be "solid principles". The first equation was a statements about popular thinking. The second was a statement about how some performers use the personal integrity trump card to rationalise their inability to attract an audience: "no-one likes my music, but at least I'm true to myself", thus saving them from having to figure out why they aren't attracting an audience in the first place.

The second is that around every Willie ("buck the system") Nelson success story are the scattered corpses of those who tried the same thing and failed.
 
JakJak said:
The Major Labels are in-human.
Once artists sign that form, the label owns them.
The artist has hardly any control over what is released, the company controls this and the music is no longer determined by the artist.
Without a doubt this is not the case with every record company.
Only big multi million pound labels, they cant leave trust in the artist (their label is on the line)
This is the future of the music industry whether we like it or not.
But we must find a way to stop this.
Independent record labels/artists have little or no chance in the industry.
Click to expand...

I think that's what many people believe, and while there is some truth in it (as I said earlier), I don't think it is as total as people believe.

I also don't think the future of music is as as bleak as you describe. Independent labels do pretty well.
 
gecko zzed said:
The second is that around every Willie ("buck the system") Nelson success story are the scattered corpses of those who tried the same thing and failed.
Click to expand...

The fact is most acts will fail whether they play what they want, or intentionally try to make their music attractive, their both OK with me, its a personal decision which one you prefer.

Some producers have a long track record of making music that sells, they're opinion has the proof of the results. Beyond that who cares what people think.
 
PDP said:
What internet distribution? You pay on the internet the same way you pay anywhere else, the major labels own the front webpages, search engines etc. Even if a video you have goes viral (because your cat can talk or something) then what? They fade as fast as they rise. The best way to get actual fans is to play gigs and push a website to your followers.
Click to expand...

Well that's just it, kind of what I meant, but they both use each other. Play gigs, get people to visit your website. Get lots of visits, get gig offers.

Back in the sunset strip days of L.A. Hair bands (at least from what I heard, I was probably 5 at the time) a band would play lots of shows, and lots more shows, and hand out tapes to people at these shows to copy and hand out to their friends and so on until the tape was so crusty from being re-recorded it was unlistenable. Tons and tons of demo tapes being circulated by a fanbase and a lot of shows for some industry type to come scout, eventually someone would take notice.

Nowadays mp3s would take the place of demo tapes and youtube would take the place of shows - at least as far as having some way to let people see what you are doing - and most major label recordings are turned 'live' for a tour by adding a few nameless backup musicians (for the look) and playing a backing track (for the sound). At least if the MTV music awards, grammys, and so on are to be believed that looks like the formula to me.

I don't think KP or JB spent a lot of time paying their dues at shithole clubs garnering a fan base to get label attention. I don't think Kelly Osborn or Lisa Marie Prestley Jackson or Ashley Simpson would have had label support if not for family ties. The label attention created them a fan base, not the other way around. So in that regard, the label created their product for which they are just a stage prop, and the label should be able to tell them to do exactly as they are told if they want to continue being pimped. For every JB out there getting pimped, there are a million other talented 8th graders in school choir who can get a cute haircut waiting to take his place if he doesn't do what he's told.
 
Last edited:
Record companies know that sales are in the tank. The live show is where bands made their bread and butter. Nowadays, the record contracts dip into live revenue as well.

Bottom line: Record contracts are a joke unless you're pre-determined to be "big" by the labels themselves.
 
Yes I guess I over exaggerated a bit.
I think in some ways its better that Independent artists/labels remain independent.
 
I see it two ways.

A record company comes to you, in which case you are probably their bitch if you sign. OR you have certain cases where there is a bidding war between labels for an artist, in this case, the artist has leverage. If you have leverage, get a good lawyer and make sure you get what you want in terms of creative control.
 
The blues genre is based on the blues form but possesses other characteristics such as specific lyrics, bass lines and instruments. Blues can be subdivided into several subgenres ranging from country to urban blues that were more or less popular during different periods of the century.
 
MATTHEW1 said:
The blues genre is based on the blues form but possesses other characteristics such as specific lyrics, bass lines and instruments. Blues can be subdivided into several subgenres ranging from country to urban blues that were more or less popular during different periods of the century.
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
MATTHEW1 said:
The blues genre is based on the blues form but possesses other characteristics such as specific lyrics, bass lines and instruments. Blues can be subdivided into several subgenres ranging from country to urban blues that were more or less popular during different periods of the century.
Click to expand...
Should I hire a detective agency to investigate the possible meaning here ?
 
MATTHEW1 said:
The blues genre is based on the blues form but possesses other characteristics such as specific lyrics, bass lines and instruments. Blues can be subdivided into several subgenres ranging from country to urban blues that were more or less popular during different periods of the century.
Click to expand...

A new user with a single post that is relevant to the forum at large but not relevant to the thread?

I'm gonna guess spam bot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top