Labels; a gift or a curse
![[Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/54592295fb364bce88cadcf255d0e9d3.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 6,058 Forum Member
✭
The music labels are the core of the music industry, but how exactly do they affect the music scene??In a positive or in a negative way???
On the one hand, music fans often criticize the labels and their decisions(bad single choices, lack of promotion, wrong marketing strategies, no creative freedom for the artists).Aside from that, there are always conspiracy theories about labels and sadly most of them are true.The labels have seemingly forgotten all about the music itself and have become like every business; it's all about the money for them.Also, they are sometimes accused of holding the good music back and only promoting pointless tracks, not to mention that they launch acts that don't really deserve a place in the industry
On the other hand, music labels can launch an artist and really make him/her a superstar.They offer budgets for videos and they are the reason why we can still see our favorite acts on TV and on tour, while they also support and advise their artists.
So, could an artist make a good career without a label??Would the music industry be better if all the acts were independent or would it be rather boring and uneventhful??
On the one hand, music fans often criticize the labels and their decisions(bad single choices, lack of promotion, wrong marketing strategies, no creative freedom for the artists).Aside from that, there are always conspiracy theories about labels and sadly most of them are true.The labels have seemingly forgotten all about the music itself and have become like every business; it's all about the money for them.Also, they are sometimes accused of holding the good music back and only promoting pointless tracks, not to mention that they launch acts that don't really deserve a place in the industry
On the other hand, music labels can launch an artist and really make him/her a superstar.They offer budgets for videos and they are the reason why we can still see our favorite acts on TV and on tour, while they also support and advise their artists.
So, could an artist make a good career without a label??Would the music industry be better if all the acts were independent or would it be rather boring and uneventhful??
0
Comments
No.
Labels offer artists more money to make their music, bigger marketing budgets to promote their music, and stronger distribution networks to release their music. They also have connections that help managers with things like touring and merchandising.
I hadn't thought of that.Yes, you're right!
For dance-pop, I definitely prefer record label stuff, because it has great production values (usually), and most record labels would ensure the songs are great. (When they don't step in, it results in Nicola Roberts.)
For other genres like soul, ballads, hip hop or rock, it doesn't really matter as much as you're not there for production values, it's more the raw talent. But even then, just compare Nadine Coyle's debut album to like Amy Winehouse's, the former being independent and the latter a record label artist. It just doesn't compare.
Distribution is less difficult for the independent artist these days, but there is still a certain financial investment required to make and distribute quality music to a reasonabld audience. If you've talent, but no money, a good A&R man is your friend. Even if you want to retain creative control, they can provide the funding and advice so you get the right equipment to record your music. They can provide the funding that lets you tour your music and perfect it, or build up a fan-base.
A band like Guns N' Roses, for example, would never have gotten anywhere without their label pulling strings to get 'Welcome to the Jungle' aired on MTV at a time when the network was pulling rock music from their show. Yet, on the other hand, labels often take far more of a cut from the artist than they should be entitled to.
Some people say that the big labels have monopolised the music that people listen to, but really, if labels didn't exist, then people would look to something else to monopolise their tastes - whether it be a blog, a radio station, a magazine etc. Those who genuinely want to listen to independent/small label music can easily do it in this day and age thanks to the internet.
They did however have a good distribution network through Warner.
Yes, but the amount that they sold was so low that I cannot consider it a success.And if Warner was involved with the distribution, then they are not 100% independent.
Record labels have one major goal which is to make as much money as they possibly can. Of course most labels try to massage the artists or just outright demand that the artists go in certain directions that they feel will sell the most & therefore make the most money. But that's not always a bad thing; for every singer who knows what the hell they're talking about & knows what's best musically for them at that moment there are an equal (or probably a far greater) number who don't have the musical understanding to make those kinds of decisions and need a strong label to help guide them.
So I would say whether it is a positive or negative depends on which artist the label is dealing with and how much pressure they are exerting.
No, of course it wouldn't be. Why would that be the case? That's like saying that all independent music is good or better than all label music and that is just not true. Having a label behind you doesn't not make you bad in the same way that having no label behind you doesn't makes you good.
No, because it all comes down to what the public wants since the record companies only care about money. They sell what people are buying once the public shows that they want something else then of course the labels will be happy to try to sell that to them. Perfect example of this is 'Someone Like You'.
At the moment the public is eating up girl dance-pop crap made by Katy Perry, Gaga, Rihanna, Ke$sha, Brit, etc.. So a record company would be absolutely insane to put out an eye-watering, soul crushing heartbreak dirge of epic proportions regardless of the fact that it is absolutely brilliant. Except the public loved the performances of the song so much that the label changed the original plan & released 'Someone Like You' as the 2nd single from 21 because the public demand for it was so high.
You can't blame poor radio selection or stagnant & stale pop music on record labels alone the music buying public are just as much (or even more) at fault.
What I am asking is: Is it a good thing that the labels actually intervene with the musical direction itself???
As I said before that really depends on the artist in question. I don't believe that just because you are the "artist" that means that you necessarily know what makes 1. a great record or 2. a commercially successful record. I think that often artists believe that they always know what is best since they are the ones out their singing the songs but I don't think that's the case with every performer.
If an "artist" needs someone to tell them what type of music to play, then they're not an artist, they're a puppet.
I partly agree that an artist needs to be able to produce both something great musically and great commercially, but the labels' interpretation of commercial is the one that is wrong.For the labels commercial = generic, radio friendly and that's one dimensional.Not every artist should go that route but that's what ALL the labels are going for (with very few exceptions).
No it is not wrong. The labels are trying to make money so they are selling what the public is buying. If the music buying public has been shown to be eating up the stuff that Katy Perry is releasing why would any record company exec do a 180 & start releasing stuff that is completely against what the majority of the music buyers want? That's just bad business.
I can't fault a record exec who doesn't think out of the box completely because the music fans for the most part are not willing to give new stuff a chance. You want the companies to take chances and have a more indie outlook on making & promoting music but if there is no audience for that, why should they?
Most record companies don't sit with an artist 24 hours a day and dictate to them in the way you are describing. They pay for the record, they may hook specific artists up with certain writers & producers if needed and they may want something that sounds like [fill in the blank] or want a certain # of "singles" on the album but it isn't like you have a label guy putting it all together 100%. But yes they need to have some input (more with some artists) because it is ridiculous to expect them to hear nothing for months & months and then be delivered a record that they have to promote. What happens if the band has thrown away a fortune and produced nothing that can be sold?
Now that said, I am sure that some "artists" have that kind of overseer relationship with their label. Many people have spoken about how Syco controls the music that is released from their artists and I have no reason to doubt that they do exert a certain level of managing director control over the stuff they release. But when you look at the kind of "artists" they usually deal with I think it is understandable why they would need to exert more creative control there.
Also I think we should all remember that having a record label with a clear vision or a "manufactured" sound is not necessarily a bad thing. Motown was a label that dictated every aspect of most of its artists' careers even down to what they would wear on stage & their sound was "manufactured" but it certainly wasn't bad music.
I think in a way the public is demanding generic music at the moment. Music fans (not all but a large #) more so than the record labels are largely the reason why music today sucks!
The young music buyers who will go on iTunes and buy electro-dance singles one after the other are the problem. They have no musical knowledge outside of this very enclosed dance/pop girls club and they don't want to learn.
As far as they are concerned anything that doesn't sound exactly like the last Gaga or Ri Ri song is shit or boring and they have no time for that. They genuinely believe that Britney or KP or Ke$ha are talent performers, they genuinely believe that Gaga is an original trendsetter, they genuinely believe that Ri Ri is a great singer and they don't look for anything else outside of that musical box.
They have no interest in new music unless it fits with what is already out there. Not all music fans are like this but unfortunately a sizeable portion of them are.
So how can you blame the record label for continuing to sell what the vast majority of people who are buying music want to hear? How can you blame radio or tv for playing what the vast majority of people who are listening and watching want to hear & see?
Certainly some artists are guided & directed by their labels. And in some cases I believe that guidance is the difference between having a shit record and a short career and releasing something much better and more successful.
Do you really believe that most of the people signed to Syco would be able to get an advance & go off on their own to produce a record with no direction or oversight? Some artists are capable of (& truly thrive) handling making all of the creative decisions about their music but not all artists can do that.
And no Motown music is not a turn off for me in any way, because I appreciate good music. I don't sit around and think about if it was manufactured or not because the songs are great which is all that I care about as a music fan.
...because she's HOT!!! That's why they signed her. Beauty goes a long way with some people.