OT: Still do not believe the music industry is against artis

[Eric Iverson]

My impression, which of course may be completely mistaken, is that the major labels are not really even looking for new talent that much anymore. They find a handful that they think they make megabucks on, because to sink money into a mid-level artist or niche market just isn't worth their while.

 

Leaving lots of talented artists to record and promote their own music and careers. Which of course has its benefits, and its downside.

 

One thing that is clear to me is that people in general love music, and some people just love to play and sing, and that talented musicians will find a way to survive. Actually, they always HAVE, haven't they, down through the centuries?? LOL

[Fumblyfingers]

You see, this is the problem with generalizations like "the artists always got screwed." They aren't always true...

 

Well said Picker. But you do see the vortex though right?

 

[picker]

You see, this is the problem with generalizations like "the artists always got screwed." They aren't always true...

 

Well said Picker. But you do see the vortex though right?

 

I don't understand what you're asking, Fumbly.

[Bartholomew]

The bottom line and reality is that everyone I ever met got screwed to some degree, lawyer or not. The Lawyer is NOT your audit firm and regardless of contracts the internal accounting department of any record label was NOT our friend. Been there,done that.

 

The business is loaded with thieves, pirates and whores - and those are the good guys as the saying goes. Major artists make so much $$$ it gets lost in the shuffle - would you be suing the company that just sent you a cheque for big bucks ?

 

I don't think so.

 

If you aren't prepared to take it on the chin financially do something else...it's called paying your dues. The only artists I've seen avoid at least some or maybe most of this problem are the session singers I've worked with in Quebec and New York - under the contract rules of ACTRA and Union des Artistes for on camera and/or session fees and residuals.

 

By the way...ASCAP & BMI are no better - one of my close friends in NY is consulting Lawyers - his catalogue of tunes (including several BillBoard chart singles plus radio & tv commercials) got completely lost in their systems. One of my friends in Montreal has been banged-out for performance royalties on a tv theme song in several European countries as SOCAN, Canada never followed up or filed the paperwork.

 

There's no end to it and the unfortunate thing seems to be that a statute of limitations exists - so if you don't catch them in time --- kiss it goodbye and move on.

[Scott Fraser]

You see, this is the problem with generalizations like "the artists always got screwed." They aren't always true...

 

Well said Picker. But you do see the vortex though right?

 

I don't understand what you're asking, Fumbly.

 

You made a generalization about generalizations.

[Fumblyfingers]

PM coming your way Pickster.

[Larryz]

Fogerty was being sued for stealing from Run Through The Jungle, not because he refused to promote or sing CCR songs...The Beatles were sued for doing My Sweet Lord and the claim was they stole it from He's So Fine, The Beach Boys were sued by Chuck Berry for Surfin USA which they stole from Sweet Little Sixteen, the list goes on with Dolly and others who steal...the method by which you can be prevented from recording is called a law suit...go ahead and try recording anything you want to while stealing from others (to include yourself if Fantasy records owns your material) and see how far you get...Fogerty was successful with his defense and thus wanted his pitbull fees... years later the court recognized and included low income artists who couldn't afford the pitbulls in their decision and also awarded Fogerty his doggey fees...you can look up many things on the internet these days...and even read the court cases if so inclined...just google it...

 

huh?

 

I didn't read anyone here making those claims, but I did skim quite a bit.

 

Fogerty wanted out of his contract with Fantasy records in the early 70s and was blackmailed into signing over the rights to the CCR compositions. When he didn't perform those songs on his comeback tours (thus not invigorating back catalog sales) Fantasy records made the crappy maneuver of suing him saying he was plagiarizing his own past compositions, which they owned the rights to, as a way of cashing in and of just furthering a very antagonistic relationship.

 

George Harrison wrote and recorded "My Sweet Lord," not The Beatles... and he was sued by the composers of "He's So Fine." And the thing is... the main composer had died before the Harrison song was released, and former Beatles/Harrison manager Alan Klein bought the publishing company in the middle of the lawsuit, so ultimately Harrison had to pay his own former manager the legal settlement.

 

The lesson in both cases is that managers and record company execs can screw over the biggest superstars in the world, so what chance did/does a lesser success have?

 

Huh, What claims? You are correct My Sweet Lord was Harrison not the Beatles but the point that I was making in prior posts was that Fogerty and Elvis were being prevented by contracts from performing and recording what they wanted to do (to include Fogerty plagerizing his own works) by the Movie and the Record industry. In Fogerty's case, he won and is one of the few to successfully go up against a record company (and later was awarded his attorney fees). In Elvis' case he avoided the legal issues by not performing for 7 years until his movie contracts expired...the other point I am making is that you can be prevented from doing and/or stealing from cover tunes and your own tunes (if you have sold your rights)and the method of prevention is by law suit...Copyrights are also involved in the protection and collection of funds due the estate as you indicate in the Harrison case...I agree with your lessons learned in all of these cases, it's hard to go up against the big boys even when you have superstar status...and it's also nice to see the courts take an interest in protecting the little guy...

 

 

 

 

[webe123]

The business is loaded with thieves, pirates and whores - and those are the good guys as the saying goes. Major artists make so much $$$ it gets lost in the shuffle - would you be suing the company that just sent you a cheque for big bucks ?

 

I don't think so.

 

Then explain why people like Don Henley and others have sued the industry over this very issue! Sorry, you are wrong.

 

If you aren't prepared to take it on the chin financially do something else...it's called paying your dues. The only artists I've seen avoid at least some or maybe most of this problem are the session singers I've worked with in Quebec and New York - under the contract rules of ACTRA and Union des Artistes for on camera and/or session fees and residuals.

 

 

NO, it is CALLED Getting ripped OFF! Not paying your dues. That makes you sound like a music industry executive, you seemed to have missed your calling. But it is a lie either way!

 

A friend of mine worked for a guy that always wanted him to work overtime but never wanted to pay for it. And when my friend brought up the subject, he acted like he was doing that guy a favor just letting him work there!

 

Your crap analogy of "paying dues" sounds no different. It is total crap and a complete lie! That is why this law was enacted, to give artists a more level playing field because most people saw how the music industry was treating artists.

 

If you really think someone should "pay their dues", then maybe you should do it and quit asking someone else to do it that does not think it is right.

 

It is a ripoff what the music industry has done to artists. Pure and simple. Only a handful of people ever make it big enough to get to the point to where they don't need the profits that are due them.

 

There are execs that think the artist owes THEM when they have been ripping off their profits for years! They seem to forget that they would also have nothing to sell if it was not for artists. So it goes both ways!

 

And all the artist want is what is coming to them. But now the recording industry still wants to retian control of their songs even AFTER the 30 year contract runs out. You don't think that a bit greedy? I do!

 

Oh......and as far as "finding something else to do"? That may be the music industry execs that have that problem, because the artist can always survive without them, but not the other way around! The way the music industry is changing the Big three may not play that big of a role in the future of music. They are a dinosaur that is dying and they don't even know it.

 

[d halfnote]

Artists don't need that level of representation when starting out, though they need it when they come to sign a long term agreement of any type.

 

GOOD NEWS !

There are many places one can get info, from some excellent books to forums like this one, that can give one a heads up on what to consider & what to be alert abt.

There's no source that's gonna have all the answers nor be able to be totally up to date on changing legalities, etc., but it's hardly a foggy minefield for someone who puts some effort into investigating matters.

 

 

These contracts you and I speak of were made 30 YEARS AGO! There WAS NO INTERNET back then! Read my post. Yes, today, it is easy to find out information on contracts with the record industry on the internet. But back then there was no internet.

 

It was also a much different time when artists were not as educated about music contracts as they are today.

 

Aw, so what ?

The main diff is that we lived in a more naive time, but savvy cats kept their guard up.

Check the history of Dave Clark, of the famous 5.

He owned all his production from the get go.

 

30 years ago or tomorrow, that's the deal: let the scales fall from yer eyes, as much as from yer fingers [ ].

 

Sometimes I think ppl just wanna take a position & not alter their idea or way of thinking.

Is the point here to recognize that one should be alert to the facts of what they need to do or is it just to whine abt the big, bad music biz ?

 

As to the idea offered by WFang that "artists" may not wanna concentrate on nonaristic matters...that's why you'll need someone to do so but the fact is it's not that hard & not much more trouble than handing the eother business aspects of yer life, bill paying, bank accounts, etc.

 

The idea that there's some artistic mentality that is unable to consider biz is piffle, I think.

There are those of that mindset but that's b/c of their mentality NOT b/c they're artists.

[webe123]

Aw, so what ?

The main diff is that we lived in a more naive time, but savvy cats kept their guard up.

Check the history of Dave Clark, of the famous 5.

He owned all his production from the get go.

 

30 years ago or tomorrow, that's the deal: let the scales fall from yer eyes, as much as from yer fingers [ ].

 

I think it is you who needs the scales removed from your eyes. You seem to think everyone who gets into the music business SHOULD be either a savy businessman or lawyer or both. Nowdays we know that is correct, because we have seen the damage that was done by the music industry to unsuspecting artists.

 

But it is easy to sit here and judge people when we do not know what they went through years ago. Sure there were some musicians and artists that learned real quick how the industry would rip them off, but most were unaware.

 

Sometimes I think ppl just wanna take a position & not alter their idea or way of thinking.

Is the point here to recognize that one should be alert to the facts of what they need to do or is it just to whine abt the big, bad music biz ?

 

Sometimes I think people also need to realize the FACT that things were NOT as they are today. Once you get that idea in your head you may understand how it felt to get ripped off.

 

As to the idea offered by WFang that "artists" may not wanna concentrate on nonaristic matters...that's why you'll need someone to do so but the fact is it's not that hard & not much more trouble than handing the eother business aspects of yer life, bill paying, bank accounts, etc.

 

 

Ummmm....signing your life away in a music contract heavily tilted in the industry's favor..... even if you have a lawyer beside you, is NOT the same as handling other "business" of your life! I don't know where you got that from, but it is plain wrong!

 

The idea that there's some artistic mentality that is unable to consider biz is piffle, I think.

There are those of that mindset but that's b/c of their mentality NOT b/c they're artists.

 

Let me make this as simple as I can. Music contracts are FILLED with doublespeak that is intentionally put in there by lawyers for the industry. Only another lawyer usually understands what that doublespeak is saying. If you have ever read a legal contract maybe you would know what I am saying. But it is ten times WORSE when it is a contract designed by an industry to squeeze every penny they can from you...and most artists did not have a clue what was being done to them.

 

That is WHY we have laws like what we are talking about today. Most people realized what the industry was doing to the artist and sided with them!

 

 

[d halfnote]

Naw man, yer just stuck in yer own argument.

 

All I've done is point out that one needs to have an awareness of the facts of music as a business, something that's always been true.

 

I'm not judging anyone abt anything, really & can't figure where y'get that bit.

 

QUOTE:

"...signing your life away in a music contract heavily tilted in the industry's favor..... even if you have a lawyer beside you, is NOT the same as handling other "business" of your life! I don't know where you got that from, but it is plain wrong!"

 

RESPONSE:

The simple answerr is, as I've tried to point out, don't sign yer life away but learn how to control yer creations.

It, in fact, is exactly like handling the other aspects of yr financial/biz affairs.

 

QUOTE:

"Let me make this as simple as I can. Music contracts are FILLED with doublespeak that is intentionally put in there by lawyers for the industry. Only another lawyer usually understands what that doublespeak is saying.

If you have ever read a legal contract maybe you would know what I am saying.

ut it is ten times WORSE when it is a contract designed by an industry to squeeze every penny they can from you...and most artists did not have a clue what was being done to them."

 

RESPONSE:

Back at ya, simple-wise.

I appreciate your attempting to explain something I've dealt with for 20+ years but y'might learn something yerself if y'opened up to that possibility.

 

Don't accept any standard contract.

Create yr own controls.

Why try to follow the template of a biz you distrust?

 

It's a fiction that NO artists had an awareness of business angles.

It's also a falsehood that in modern times such awareness is commonplace (evidenced by this debate).

 

Sail on, Brother, dragons remain to be slain !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[whitefang]

Fogerty was being sued for stealing from Run Through The Jungle, not because he refused to promote or sing CCR songs...The Beatles were sued for doing My Sweet Lord and the claim was they stole it from He's So Fine, The Beach Boys were sued by Chuck Berry for Surfin USA which they stole from Sweet Little Sixteen, the list goes on with Dolly and others who steal...the method by which you can be prevented from recording is called a law suit...go ahead and try recording anything you want to while stealing from others (to include yourself if Fantasy records owns your material) and see how far you get...Fogerty was successful with his defense and thus wanted his pitbull fees... years later the court recognized and included low income artists who couldn't afford the pitbulls in their decision and also awarded Fogerty his doggey fees...you can look up many things on the internet these days...and even read the court cases if so inclined...just google it...

 

The funny thing in all this, referring to the George Harrison fiasco, is that Sammy Cahn, one of America's long time foremost songwriters, at the time claimed that HE stole stuff from time to time also. Claimed there really aren't a lot of songwriters who didn't. If they ALL went to court, it would create havoc. Anyway, it didn't seem Rachmaninoff saw fit to sue anybody when "Full Moons, And Empty Arms", an obvious lift from the 2nd piano concerto, became a big hit. And as Tchaikowsky was already long dead when "Tonight We Love" hit the charts, well, it didn't matter. They all knew they were being lifted, and simply figured turnabout is fair play.

 

Personally, I might feel flattered!

 

Then there's Coolio, who made a big fuss when "Weird Al" Yankovic did his satire "Amish Paradise", a send-up of Coolio's "Gangsta Paradise". Claimed he didn't give Al permission. Al said he DID. But in the midst of it all, Coolio failed to mention that 99.99% of all the music in his recording was from Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise". Wonder likely gave Coolio permission, but a courteous nod would have been nice.

 

Maybe that simple dose of courtesy would eleviate all this bullshit? Would it really kill the label suits to pipe an extra nth% to the artist for his efforts? Why not give that artist the money they would spend on legal services to screw the artist TO the artist? Either way, they're out that ammount of money, aren't they? CAN'T be INTEGRITY they feel is at stake!

 

HMMMMM?

Whitefang

[Fumblyfingers]

Here's the thing though.

 

There is all this talk about the labels could not do it without the musicians.

 

Well let's take into consideration that most of these bands we are talking about here were close to broke when they got signed.

 

Take one of the biggest bands of all time. The Beatles. Where would they have been without management and without the label and the might of the industry in general?

 

These labels are able to front the money for the production of the album, get the band into the best sounding studio with the finest equipment, pay for sidemen/session musicians, pay for the best engineers and 2nd's etc, pay the producer his sizeable chunk....in fact in many cases FIND the best producer for the job......pay for the mastering using the best mastering houses and ME's, pay for the artwork, pressings, packaging etc etc and then put their promotion people behind it to market the album, pay for the advertising, get copies out to whoever for the reviews yada yada. In later years also pay for the music video...a substantial amount of money.

 

And in addition to all of this and even way more......advance the band some money for living expenses and image related stuff...promo photography, stage clothes and accessories, hair styling. Perhaps even transportation.....although maybe management took care of some of that back in the day.

 

Honestly, where do you think all these famous bands would have been today, based purely on their talent..... and popularity in their home town, without the ability and power...... of the labels? The ability and clout to market them on a mass scale, to influence public opinion of them, their ability to create trends, to latch onto public consciousness and the big money power to actually go out and feed it. Power. Something almost no new artist had.

 

 

Because regardless of who found who or who did what for who.......it was the labels who took the biggest risk initially-both financially and as far as their credibility. They put up their money..... based on what they thought would give them a good return. Straight business. That is all it is......a business deal.

 

Also..... while we all know the labels sometimes "looked the other way" so as not to rock the money boat, nobody forced so many of the "victims" of the big star music machine, to go out and become complete idiots; addling their brains with drugs, alcohol, sexual immorality and perversion etc etc all the good stuff.

 

But seriously. Instead of taking a stance like..... " I just started a business. I got a start up loan from the label, it is now up to me to nuture that and make my business grow the best I can with a view to longevity....and so I can pay off my loan so eventually a larger portion of my income becomes straight profit for me" etc.

 

Not all artists/bands etc became casualties either. Many still managed to turn out to be extremely savvy businessmen or businesswomen......even though they perhaps did tons of drugs and engaged in other counter-productive behavior, as far as good business. Mick Jagger for example. And yes, Fogerty got screwed by that prick Saul Zaentz big time. But I garondoggonetee you he is still doing, or has done, a whole hell of a lot better financially, in his life, than many of us here.

 

Nah, I am not going to waste my time sitting around feeling sorry for musicians who had record deals........especially those who had it all in the palm of their hands and either squandered it or lost it all; or a substantial portion of it.......basically due to their own lack of vigilance and good business acumen.

 

The "Royal Shaft" has been there in all it's glory since the beginning of man. It is nothing new. Lawyers and lawyering up is nothing new either. Our now having the internet basically does not change what people have known for years.......if you are getting in over your head, hire someone to help you. And the fine print in legal contracts........what's new about that? NOTHING! Maybe they have become more sophisticated in the way they can fool you.........but everyone knows a contract is SUPPOSED to be read carefully. I was a musician kid around the time of these bands involved in this contract expiring, and even I knew about having to be wary about being scammed. It is nothing new for Pete's sake!

 

It's like people suing the tobacco industry because they got cancer....because they didn't know cigarettes were bad for you, or they were conned into smoking by glamorous advertising. Please.

 

I'm not going to say that all these artists, who supposedly got screwed, were not led like lambs to the slaughter by evil men hell bent on the artists on their roster making a lot of money, so they could rob it off them later...or right away LOL!!. But if they were robbed.......well maybe it's more a case of...shame on them for being so naive.

 

Maybe some of them shoulda listened more to their Daddy, Grandpa, Uncle Ernie, Momma...or whoever else was trying to knock some sense into their blockhead, before they left home and started smoking all that weed and sticking that needle in their own arm.

 

I will agree that a lot of musicians/artists/bands/songwriters etc got abused by the industry. But this thing that we have to feel sorry for them because of double speak in a contract or because they are so creative and fragile that they need to be mollycoddled and have everything laid out for them, extra time spent explaining everything in a manner they can comprehend and full understand ....or whatever........ this is just ludicrous.

 

It is a fucking business. And again, the labels took ALL the initial risk with THEIR money and used their power to elevate these bands to positions they would most likely NEVER have got to without them. And this is even before the internet. So promotion was way more involved, more difficult.....way more people in the chain....who also had to get paid, department heads, assistants, A&R, secretaries, switchboard operators and all the other overhead, not the least their own legal people. WTF?

 

Okay.......so if the law now makes for the artist to be able to get back his masters and whatever else.....if someone wants to do that...coolio. More power to them! And if the label opposes it based on their side of the story....let them go to court. Big deal.

 

How many artists are going to want their masters back anyway? Right now the labels are paying for that storage, security, keeping everything in a climate controlled facility etc.In other words, they are assuming the responsibility and COST to make sure the product will last well into the future.

 

To me the only thing is whether the artist wants to re-master and re-release their product and perhaps they are out of their contract with the label that holds the masters. One would like to think that even if the artist get's back his tapes that an amicable agreement can be reached where fairness is at the core of it all.....and that maybe the label gets some points out of the re-release.....to cover what they have invested in the entire shebang.

 

As far as writers......they have always owned 100% of their writing and whatever % of the publishing. Maybe they would like to take the material to a new publisher, maybe they would like to re-negotiate with the original label.....who knows.

 

I AGREE that the business side of the music business sucks ass. I agree that many people ended up unhappy with the way they were treated by their label. I fully agree that the labels today are even less about the artistic side of making music and are perhaps even more greedy. I agree it's possible that maybe many of the top executives are even assholes by many an artist's standards. I agree that current trends that directly influence the music industry, have the labels facing having to restructure and even downsize, due to massive losses in revenue.

 

But this sense that the poor artist is this helpless little puppy that has to be spoonfed and have his or her fucking feelings massaged on a daily basis is just pure bullshit.

 

Bottom line......many of the people who got fucked, probably just were not paying enough attention.

 

Not only that.......just how well is the fucking internet doing for the average band, huh? How many million's is the average band making purely on their own? Not!! This is still just mostly all an illusion and the hard working musicians out there know this. They are quietly chugging away, working their asses off (like any good little worker-bee out there) while trying to do the right thing.

 

As far as modern times and the internet.....the speed of informationn and misinformation etc etc.....we gotta be careful we don't get too uppity and screw the pooch completely. I love all this new technology...I am at the forefront of it as much as any other consumer. But in some ways, it ain't all that it is cut out to be and it's dangerous. We are all just cruising right along thinking how great the internet is.....and few are seeing the other side of it too clearly.

 

In the big picture, now more than ever...... we really need to have our eyes wide open and our ear to the ground...... just as much as all those artists who got fucked, should have.

 

Long post. Sorry. I have been wanting to dive in but kept holding back. Several shorter posts might have been better.

 

 

[george costanza]

Getting a little confusing in here for me.

 

It seems everyone's got the same basic idea (music business requires diligence on the part of creators/performers to protect their interests) but there seems to be a difference in how that should be dealt with and what tactics might be taken.

But what's to argue about ?

Isn't it possible to take advantage of various approaches to protecting one's interests ?

 

I will have to differ with one idea, which I hope doesn't draw another argument.

That is WHY we have laws like what we are talking about today. Most people realized what the industry was doing to the artist and sided with them!

 

Really, laws on either side, corporation or artist, have more to do with the lobbying of labels, musicians unions and other interests than with "most people siding with the artist".

These laws aren't based on any ideas from society in general, which cares little about artists but about entertainment.

 

In fact some laws are so convoluted in their effect, they benefit both "sides" and it's hard to tell who they're intended to benefit in the long run.

Consider the continuing extensions of copyright term, for example.

Seems to benefit the creator of a work and their descendants but actually lobbied for by corporate interests and may benefit them even more, as they acquire works over time.

[picker]

I don't mean to pry webe123, but I'm curious how many of the contracts you are talking about you have signed, and how much money you figure you were screwed out of by the labels. You sound like you have had experience getting the screws tightened on you by the record companies, or perhaps just A company. Is that so?

 

[Fumblyfingers]

Yes George Costanza, it requires diligence on the part of the artist/creator or the estate/family...whoever currently owns it....to make sure they do what needs to be done when the term is set to expire.

 

I think we do basically all have the same idea......I agree with the OP that many musicians may have been duped or had contractual issues that seriously screwed them over and other such stuff.....found in almost ANY business deal or where money is involved.

 

However I just totally disagree that somehow they were an unsuspecting victim.... oh woe is the artist, let's all hold hands in a circle and think good thoughts for him or her.

 

Do the labels that did pull a fast one now owe these guys anything? If it was a serious misappropriation of funds....funny business etc.....well yeah, maybe this is an opportunity to get some payback.

 

But if they went by the letter of the law and the contract....... the artist is fully responsible for either reading the contract over and over himself......OR..... hiring an attorney to do so. The fees for basic contract negotiation for a new band.....were not all that bad as far as I recall. I seem to remember a sort of unspoken "going rate" of $1500.

 

Deals can be made too. "Can you please take a look at our contract and see if there is any funny business.....and can we pay you out of our first advance if we get the deal?" Or give the guy a % of sales up to his regular fee plus a bonus perhaps for fronting his services. Dunno.....I am not a music attorney but I am sure there were attorneys wanting to branch into entertainment to be closer to the bands and in the loop etc. Besides, a deal can be made with almost anyone.

 

And I agree our having the internet has made us more aware of contractual scams to look out for and well, anything at all really. Of course it has.....with a much faster rate of information flow, lightning fast.......no waiting for the library to open on Monday at 10am or for a letter to come back from the US Copyright Office at the LOC. Bam right now!

 

BUT.....everything moved slower then...it's all relative.....and the artist should still have taken the time to make sure SOMEONE knew what the heck they were signing and how it would affect them, not only for the term of the obligation, but maybe for their lifetime.

 

We had a lot of the same basic info available back then. We just did not get it so fast and so easy as we do today. But bands back then and even today also networked with each other and maybe caught the the horror stories that went around.....you knew which promoter was fucking the bands, which manager was the best for a certain style, who the A&R guys were at all the labels.....etc etc etc. Once you are in the circle there is a lot of support to be had if you are on top it.

 

And of course there were shysters, scam artists etc etc. Still are and they have got way more slimy.

 

But my opinion is very different to Webe123's.

 

However, at the end of the day...... aside from Bartholemew and maybe one or two others on this board who have had first hand experience with record labels and contractual obligations etc and maybe even getting the shaft...or a even great experience..... OPINION is all the rest of us have. And all opinions are valid in their own way.

 

I mean......I don't have any proof that any of what I said is true....nor does anyone else really. Right?

[george costanza]

Oh, I agree that those who a victimized are either very naive or just too innocent.

That doesn't mean they're not deserving of sympathy but it does mean that (and this has been true for decades) that they were not attentive to the facts of the world.

 

[Eric Iverson]

But don't most young artists now know enough to take any contract to an attorney before signing??

 

 

[Fumblyfingers]

But don't most young artists now know enough to take any contract to an attorney before signing??

 

 

I suspect it is something that is "built in" to the process now...inasmuch as it is not a matter of contracts being written on paper napkins in a late night diner anymore.

 

I reckon that having an attorney represent you in contract negotiation is just par for the course. In addition, the process of getting signed is one that usually might take a minute rather than a piece of paper with words on it is shoved in your face, along with a pen and a guy saying "Here sign this-don't worry about reading it we got you covered."

 

I think that contracts are pretty standard. I would also think that the labels want the artist to understand and be comfortable with all aspects of their obligation and the money stuff, before they sign.

 

That way things are smoother for everyone. Nobody wants time and money consuming lawsuits, unhappy clients etc etc. It's not good for business.

 

Dunno for sure. I could be wrong.

[whitefang]

A good example of what fumbly was talking about earlier can be found on a television program I like to watch, "American Pickers".

 

No, not GUITAR pickers.

 

These two guys travel around the country going through people's junk and buying certain items. Then they turn around and sell it for a profit(hopefully). Now, my wife often comments that it doesn't seem fair...They give some schmuck $20 for an old lamp or whatnot, and sell it for $100. But, in this context, the pickers are the ones who drive all over the place, pay for the gas it takes, climb in and out of spider, other bugs, dirt and dust infested nooks and crannies, carry said junk to the truck, do the cleaning and restoration(in some cases)of that same junk, and provide storage space for long-forgotten rummage that schmuck forgot he even HAD. If that schmuck got off his ass and did all that himself, he'd have the money that the pickers make. But that would leave little time for him to accumulate more junk, so it would be a short lived endeavor.

 

See any connotation in any of this?

Whitefang

[skipclone 1]

[quote=Fumblyfingers

However, at the end of the day...... aside from Bartholemew and maybe one or two others on this board who have had first hand experience with record labels and contractual obligations etc and maybe even getting the shaft...or a even great experience..... OPINION is all the rest of us have. And all opinions are valid in their own way.

 

I mean......I don't have any proof that any of what I said is true....nor does anyone else really. Right?

 

Sorry Fumbly-in a general sense I don`t agree. Too easy to play that game. You could walk up to any historian and say, how do you know? were you there? there`s good quality information and bad quality-sorting the two out employs quite a few people. I was in a band with a bass player who had been an executve with Island Records. Besides having a ridiculously detailed knowledge of which song appeared on what label in what year, we talked about the people he had dealt with and some of his experiences. If I cite his references that`s not something I experienced but it`s a little more than an opinion. What you can say, is that even those who have firsthand experience can`t generalize about what goes on in the industry. Someone else`s experience maybe totally different even at the same label, or with the same people.

[d halfnote]

I think there may be more than merely a couple of ppl here w/valid insight into this.

I've been in the music biz since a teen &, while never signed to a major label, have done everything from contract w/agents, sign promotional deals with managers, issue indi recordings, compose for hire, work with numerous bands & musicians on all sorts of short & long term projects.

 

None of that lends validity to my thoughts or opinions, though.

What does is that over time I became aware of many of the concerns a working musician has & regularly investigate the ever-evolving realities & legalities.

[Eric Iverson]

None of that lends validity to my thoughts or opinions, though.

 

Eric here: I think that your experience DOES LEND validity to your thoughts and opinions.

 

It doesn't make you infallible, of course, and everyone's experience is different.

 

But I certainly am willing to hear your thoughts and opinions, if you have years of experience in the field.

[d halfnote]

Fumbly hisself has a fair amt of exp in show biz.

I'm surprised he took such a reticent stance, there (esp after earlier being assertive).

 

 

[Fumblyfingers]

I agree with you Skip, and d I don't really want to throw out my own experiences......I just disagree with much of what was said and this thing about all these artists getting screwed etc.

 

I also don't think one person stating an opinion that is not based on fact....has the right to call another doing the exact same thing, a liar or that he/she is full of crap.

 

That's all.

[Larryz]

Fogerty was being sued for stealing from Run Through The Jungle, not because he refused to promote or sing CCR songs...The Beatles were sued for doing My Sweet Lord and the claim was they stole it from He's So Fine, The Beach Boys were sued by Chuck Berry for Surfin USA which they stole from Sweet Little Sixteen, the list goes on with Dolly and others who steal...the method by which you can be prevented from recording is called a law suit...go ahead and try recording anything you want to while stealing from others (to include yourself if Fantasy records owns your material) and see how far you get...Fogerty was successful with his defense and thus wanted his pitbull fees... years later the court recognized and included low income artists who couldn't afford the pitbulls in their decision and also awarded Fogerty his doggey fees...you can look up many things on the internet these days...and even read the court cases if so inclined...just google it...

 

The funny thing in all this, referring to the George Harrison fiasco, is that Sammy Cahn, one of America's long time foremost songwriters, at the time claimed that HE stole stuff from time to time also. Claimed there really aren't a lot of songwriters who didn't. If they ALL went to court, it would create havoc. Anyway, it didn't seem Rachmaninoff saw fit to sue anybody when "Full Moons, And Empty Arms", an obvious lift from the 2nd piano concerto, became a big hit. And as Tchaikowsky was already long dead when "Tonight We Love" hit the charts, well, it didn't matter. They all knew they were being lifted, and simply figured turnabout is fair play.

 

Personally, I might feel flattered!

 

Then there's Coolio, who made a big fuss when "Weird Al" Yankovic did his satire "Amish Paradise", a send-up of Coolio's "Gangsta Paradise". Claimed he didn't give Al permission. Al said he DID. But in the midst of it all, Coolio failed to mention that 99.99% of all the music in his recording was from Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise". Wonder likely gave Coolio permission, but a courteous nod would have been nice.

 

Maybe that simple dose of courtesy would eleviate all this bullshit? Would it really kill the label suits to pipe an extra nth% to the artist for his efforts? Why not give that artist the money they would spend on legal services to screw the artist TO the artist? Either way, they're out that ammount of money, aren't they? CAN'T be INTEGRITY they feel is at stake!

 

HMMMMM?

Whitefang

 

All good points Whitefang...on the Harrison My Sweet Lord coming from He's So Fine, it's like "I can name that song in 3 notes" so noone can use those 3 notes ever again?...I think Harrison got a raw deal, the two songs are entirely different IMHO. There are so many songs that have been ripped off from each other (i.e. especially 3 bangers in Blues, County and R&R)how can keep anyone track of all this stuff? :idk

 

[Larryz]

I agree with Eric, Fumbly & Skip...We all can't have 1st hand exeriance and I think everyone on the forum should be allowed to give their opinions from beginner to expert...and for the most part they are just OPINIONS...it is nice to hear from the guys that are experts but it's also nice to let us numnuts get into the mix four paws, faux pas (however you spell it) and all...come one, come all...I enjoy reading everyone's comments...and appreciate it even when they correct me or have a differing viewpoint...

[picker]

If I have to have an appendectomy, give me a doctor who's done several, not one who's read about them. For general sitting around and shooting the bull with the fellas (or fellettes), opinion is plenty. But, if I'm going to base any real action of any importance on information from another person, I want to hear from someone who has actual experience in the area of interest, not merely an opinion on the subject from things they've read & heard about it.

[skipclone 1]

I agree with you Skip, and d I don't really want to throw out my own experiences......I just disagree with much of what was said and this thing about all these artists getting screwed etc.

 

I also don't think one person stating an opinion that is not based on fact....has the right to call another doing the exact same thing, a liar or that he/she is full of crap.

 

That's all.

 

No worries Fumbly-maybe it`s a little mean to regard the comment out of its intended context, I just thought it sounded unhealthily exclusionary as a general statement.

Personally I don`t write off comments before I`ve heard them-someone could have access to sources I don`t, or save me a lot of time pouring over them myself. I`m not about to floor the gas because someone `heard` the bridge ahead has been repaired. But part of the reason we can reason, is to give things a fair hearing, then decide for ourselves whether it`s good or not.

[Fumblyfingers]

LOL....no not you Skipper........that was not directed at you.

 

I swear...it has been catching up with me for days now, sleep deprivation....I am so exhausted I am not making sense and I have a bad case of Foot-In-Mouth disease. When I open my mouth, I change feet. Last night I made dinner for my family, tossed the dishes and pots in the sink after we ate, and was in bed before 8.

 

But about this thread, since it seems like I am bagging on everyone....LOL....

 

Without being a jerk and without getting into every little negative aspect of what appears to me a sort of aggressive stance the OP took after his initial post.......... what tweaked me the most was when he said......

 

Your crap analogy of "paying dues" sounds no different. It is total crap and a complete lie!

 

Pretty harsh considering we are all just stating our own opinion and thoughts, which are probably mostly based on things we have read and heard. The OP comes off like he is the leading expert on this and the rest of us are just wrong.

 

I would love it if he is in fact an expert on artist/label relationships and who screwed who, with the authority of facts. I would want the skinny on some of that.

 

And I totally get his passion about this....he wants to side with those who got boned. Admirable. We should take aim at any and all bastards in the industry who got rich by ripping off hard working and sincere musicians.

 

But before pulling the trigger, let's check our backstop......make sure there's no friendlies back there.