windowlicker wrote:Thinking it over, there's a couple of bands in this city that signed major UK deals in the last couple of years without touring/establishing themselves beforehand...neither of them have even got albums released, and it's not looking good for them, so it's not like we'd go into anything completely naive about what could happen. I know record companies sign 10 bands in the hope that one of them succeeds in a big way...
We don't even really know what these guys are seeing in us, we're not a haircut/new wave/whatever's current band at all, and perhaps we have only got "raw potential"...

I've heard of majors sending A&Rs to sign hot bands, then keep them on the shelf while they promote another, shittier band that has a similar sound. They do this to keep the buzz focused on the one group thay've put all their chips on and prevent a competive musical marketplace. In other words, 5 bands sound like Nirvana, let's put 4 in traction and just promote one so they suck up all the public's attention. Then by the time those other bands are free from their contract, the fad is over and they get accused of "biting" a sound. It's a way of stacking the deck and it's really fucked up for the guys/girls who've been conned into a contract that prevents them from going anywhere.

yaledelay wrote: Yes I stole a beer from an American Records reps hand drank it down and gave him the empty pint to return to the bar, I did this right infront of his face and after doing so I thought, "I bet this is the only way my band could ever deal with a major lable and not get screwed over"

Nice.

Wood Goblin wrote:

Mark Lansing wrote:And Gang of Four were fairly open about the fact that the reason they re-recorded their old stuff for Return The Gift on V2 was because they were still in "unearned position" on their old, expired deals with Warner Bros. (USA) and EMI (EU) and had no idea when or if they would ever get royalties their back catalog. Who knows what Go4 will do now that V2 has gone under.

Curious: what does "unearned position" mean?

That means WB and EMI say the band is in debt to the label; the income from records sold is (acording to their accounting) less than what the label has paid out so far. As a result, label doesn't have to pay the band anything when they sell a few thousand copies of "Entertainment!" or "Songs Of The Free."

It would really make my day if you guys told me that these

Sum 41, Fall out Boy, My Chemical Romance guys are fucked.

True?? Please say it's true. Or are these just exceptions to the rule.

Boombats wrote:I've heard of majors sending A&Rs to sign hot bands, then keep them on the shelf while they promote another, shittier band... It's a way of stacking the deck...

This goes on in the world of motion picture distribution as well. Mirimax, for instance, bought the North American rights to an Abbas Kiarostami film and pretty much sabotaged any chance it had of getting into theaters here. They've done this with a lot of other films as well. It's disgusting.

The way I see it, whether your chosen medium is music, film, the written word, etc., it's best to avoid dealing with "the suits". You're better off simply making the art you want to make, with whatever means you have, and sheperding it through the world yourself. If it's good enough it'll develop a life of its own and find a proper audience in due time. These short cuts to the top are almost always perilous.

Personally, I wouldn't consider making art a mere hobby but that doesn't make it a career either.

bri2u2002 wrote:It would really make my day if you guys told me that these Sum 41, Fall out Boy, My Chemical Romance guys are fucked.

have you heard their music? they are fucked.

I am in a band that got signed to an "indie", which was owned by a bigger "indie", which was owned by a major. We were definitely worse off in every imaginable way under contract to this label than when we were unsigned. We didn't get any money, we didn't get any studio time, we couldn't release records, we couldn't get our music out into the world. We argued over contracts, we argued with the label and we slowly began to cease functioning as a band. I got very depressed and very angry, and the thought of making music made me feel almost physically sick. We came to the point where we decided to split the band up, just to end the horrible situation. With a bit of dodginess at the last second, we wriggled out of the contract. We all got happier, the band is still together, and we enjoy making music again. I think we were relatively lucky.

It's so hard to turn a deal down, though. It's flattering and it feels like you've reached a goal. You may say, we don't have a van, we can't afford strings, we're broke - it can't get much worse. It can get worse when you sign a contract, and it most probably will.

Consider signing with a major as the same thing as taking out a home equity line of credit. You can't win unless sales far exceed yours and the labels expectations.

I'm not saying "this is how it is, kid" by any means. This is my personal experience and observation.

Even the most famous artists have problems with their major label. Look at Prince, who toured a year or two with "Slave" written on his face. I don't think that anyone has a great experience to share, these guys are solely in it for the money and the big payday, and that's it. No promoting of art to benefit the masses, sheer greed.

Something to think about.

Even if signing with a major won't change you, it could have dramatic consequences with your band members.

There could very well be an element of "must" and "have-to" in regards to something you once did "for kicks" only.

And that pressure works wonders on those with serious drug and/or alcohol problems (...well, you know who I mean). Basically, 80% of people calling themselves "musicians".

Obviously, it's definitely do-able though.

I guess you could call it the rocker's lottery?

dreams of wealth beyond your imagination, living on easy street, everyone loves you...

but the reality is even if you do win, somehow, you still lose it all.