Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
if they want to get rich, get a business head on your shoulders. ignorance isn't an excuse
Fortunately for people like Gilbert O'Sullivan, the aforementioned Mr. Knoffler, and Elton John, plus a whole bunch of others, the courts don't agree with you.
-
dire straits gag reflex
Mark Knoffler...now there's someone who will happily say he was screwed by the record industry. He does so fairly regularly...75% new tech deduction on all those Brothers In Arms. They settled out of court of course.
I'm warming to him, and there's a pool less than 10 metres away for me to twist embarrassingly beside.
-
if indie offer everything a major offers with a non satan tinged contract then go indie and stop complaining about getting into bed with the devil you should know very well by now.
So, 18 years old, playing gigs, a big label turns ups and says 'we want you, sign this letter of intent' (see Albini) and you say, with the stars fully removed from your eyes because you've read a few posts on the internet, 'no, I don't want any of that. I want indie because you are satan'. And if I don't say that, I'm responsible for any onerous terms I may sign because you've offered an enticement to the stuff I've been dreaming about in my bedroom for years.
Sorry Rob, it's not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
-
tell us about you hatred of mark knoffler. is it his band stuff or does it extend to his solo career and his soundtrack work?
Rob, don't tell me you're merrily wandering through, and misconstruing, half decade old NZ Radio threads again.....
yes you have, you've listed all this stuff endlessly.
uhhh, no, as I say, I just offered the tip, I haven't started on this stuff (and have no intention of doing so).
-
did these peoples parents not show them how to shop in a supermarket when they were growing up.
Or perhaps they just wanted to be pop stars..it's happening to one or two kids out there I believe. The number of people I've seen when presented with a contract, who simply ask 'where do I sign', is just silly.
Labels know that and they know they have the upper hand in negotiation, and that that there are 100 bands willing to sign the almost non-negotiable terms if you don't.
These are negotiated from a very unequal position, and ypu may find it appropriate to muse that 'they should've known better' but the inequity has traipsed it's way through a variety courts over the years and I believe is usually settled by a behind the scenes face-saving deal between the label and the act. It's also a core platform for the Billy Bragg led UK artists foundation mentioned earlier in this thread. There is, not being a lawyer, a fairly fundamental legal breach of fair dealing here I'd think, which is why the labels usually settle.
Simon, if you haven't grabbed it by then, I'll give you a copy of the recent BBC4 doco on Rough Trade when you come in June. I am very confident that you will love it.
shhhhh..don't tell Rob....but yes, I'd love it.
-
I can barely imagine how.
new technology deductions, the packaging deduction has up to tripled from Albini's deduction, they want a cut of your peripheral income which can be used to recoup costs, and much much more. And then there are the option extension equations which can hold an act tied up in non-recording mode for years, if the label so desires.
And now you're recouping those costs more or less on a ringtone or mp3 download rather than album sales. There was a list of acts on The Velvet Rope who'd never been able to recoup and the list is frightening, some household names appeared, but to be fair, many were their own worst enemies when it came to spending.
Talking of which, there is an interesting breakdown here:
Artist Break-Even - Same numbers, but assume that 60% of the marketing costs are recoupable. The artist's break-even is 945,945 units at the old price and 1.3 Million units at the new price (these numbers are actually low because, for similicity, I did not take into account the fact that producer royalties will be payable before the artist is recouped - in most instances, the record company will pay them and charge them to the artist's account, further delaying recoupment). "
Although that breakdown misses the fact that the artist breakeven is further extended by the deductions which go into the labels' pockets. So assuming 20% packaging, then only 80% of the royalty goes against the artist recoupment account, and that 20% can be added to the label's side of the ledger, thus the label is in profit sooner and the artist later.
And we haven't even started on the amount of stuff given to retailers as discounts, promo, inducements, and cut-outs.
-
I'm sure it was all very exciting at the time but now there's absolutely no excuse for not knowing about these nasty contracts
Not sure how that's a relevant point. Why was there any excuse at any time? Lawyers could read and the stuff in those links was hardly a revelation either then or now . You've never had to sign them but people did. And they still do, and for most bands or acts who've signed a recording contract with a major or many smaller labels, since about 1975 up until today, it's highly relevant.
One of the fundmental philosophies of the new wave of post punk indies in the late 1970s and onwards was not to subject artists to those sorts of deals (hence the Factory, Beggars Banquet and Rough Trade 50 /50 splits...label advances costs, then after recoupment from all income, profits are split 50 / 50), but a list of acts who've signed such punitive deals since then would take this thread forward 5 or 6000 pages.
And it remains a major stumbling block for the labels (major and many indies) claiming victimisation in 2009.
It has as much to do with the present, perhaps even more since the terms have often worsened.
-
Worth referencing Steve Albini's version of all this too
It's got worse since then.
-
that the company then make the artist pay for the recording costs out of their cut of the profits.
Under a very much reduced share of the profits, minimised by technology deductions, packaging deductions (including on digital), royalty halving when it's advertised, holding large percentages in reserve, and a multitude of other things. And now they want to add your '360' income into that flow so you don't even have that to draw from, whilst all the time you're forced to rely on advice from your management company which, uhhh, they now own....
And we haven't gone into to re-recording and options clauses.....
There is very much a rough justice happening right now and it's very hard to feel sympathy for any major label
-
have the right to re record it any time at theirs or someone elses expense.
Not under most recording contracts I've seen