Music Industry Discussion

There are record companies who do care very much about the music and offer the artist freedom and the ability to control their product. While they may not have the budget the major labels have, they offer distribution and some label support. Many artists who were once on major labels find it more agreeable to be represented by a smaller label which offers label support without controling the artist's creativity.

i used to dwell on gettin signed untill i did..or was in the process of it.i had a friend who was lucky enough to get an epic legacy card from a salesman and i used it.
they liked my cd.but they wanted to re do it.because i didnt do it professionally.it this point it was such a old thing id been through and i did NOT want to redo it.i told them i had newer and better songs.that killed it.and im glad.because if they wanted to use the stuff id have allowed them to get another performer to do them or a few of them.that..to me would have been as good as getting signed.id have been proud to have any song(almosty any) redone by another artist who was bigger than me.
but to go out and redo the entire album?
with other people?
nah.im too old and so is the music now.
if i could have handopiced the people to play ion it maybe then.but it was all thier way or no way.and that tells you what the industry is like..its still that way.
makes me admire guys like buddy holly and the beatles who abiolutely refused to give in.
i have no regrets.
i guess im nutts buit it wasnt for me.

What is the harm in letting them do the song(s) how ever they want. They are still your songs and they are interested in them, even though they may completely redo the production or arrangement. Continue to concentrate on new material, but allow them to re-record your past works. Who knows? You might like what they do with them.

Isn't that basically the conform or die, argument?

I choose die.

Conform or die? This seems like extreme polemic devices. Chip Taylor wrote "Angel of the Morning" which was a C&W hit for Juice Newton in the 80s. Shaggy recorded the same song in recent years as a Pop/Reggae hit. While completely different arrangements in different genres in different musical eras, they were both financially lucrative for Chip. Perhaps he is a conformist. He also wrote "Wild Thing" in the 60s which was a hit for The Troggs, but countless artists have done various versions of it including Lou Reed and Jimi Hendrix. While "you can't teach an old dog new tricks," you can take an old song a breath new life into it. It is commonly referred to as "artistic license."

I agree, 4perc, & if it keeps a good song alive through more than 1 generation, it's a wonderful thing for everyone involved, from the writer through the performer to the listener. I do find it kinda disturbing when someone does the Kidd Rock "tribute," where he steals entire sections from different songs to make up the entire foundation for a "new" one.

Either write something new, or give an old song life by playing it in a new way. I don't mind a stolen signature lick here or there to give a song a certain alliteration, but don't make the whole thing about the alliteration...if I wanna hear that tune, I'll listen to it, or a decent remake, rather than a cheapo plastic version painted up to look new.

As far as I'm concerned, that's as bad as the sampling that Vanilla Ice & other rappers did.

Gentlemen, the idea is to get noticed, to get noticed, you have to ,how do you say, CONFORM. Do what the most talented people in the industry are doing. Remember, it's only money. Indie is fine, but if you have that much belief in yourselves, then go for it.

You know, I think there's a reason that my band only plans on going to Indie Labels like Victory, Razor & Tie, or hell, maybe some day, Roadrunner. Yeah that would F***ing awesome one day!

I think everyone should maybe just try to get on an indie label, so you can still make your music the way that you still want to, without anyone tampering it whatsoever; which is kind of like what George Lucas did with the last three Star Wars films. He filmed in Australia (though sometimes on Location), then did all the work after that at his own place. I am also a supporter of the completely independent idea.

While Indie labels offer the artist more musical freedom and creativity, many offer little or no money for recording and production, much less any money "up front". The artist has a vested financial interest either through monies raised via investors or a personal investment. The former is usually the most favorable, unless a private or Federal grant is obtainable. A label should offer credibility and a better chance at radio playlists offering a larger audience and increased sales which is profitable for the artist and the label alike.

I see your point, but for starting out it is defiantly the best way to start. However, you must also keep in mind, that if music TRULY IS YOUR LIFE, then you might want to consider how you would want to try to impress the larger crowds (and the larger labels), of course!

Impressing a major label is easy, if you sell a ton of product on a smaller label. You are right. Starting out on a small (Indie) label is great and it provides the artist with a certain amount of credibility. It means someone (the label) has some faith that the artisit will be successful. No one wants to hitch their wagon to an unsuccessful artist. This is where it is imperative to make a quality recording in the most professional studio(s) you can afford, since you (the artist) will probably be responsible for paying for it. You want to create the best quality product posssible with high sales potentially forcasted. This is where post production should be liberally budgeted and you may consider hiring some "big guns" or folks with noted success in mastering and mixing the final mix. Sometimes name recognition on a project goes a long way and opens some doors for you. Then the product must be promoted at live appearances, radio and TV interviews, and anywhere you can. Do not expect the label to make these arrangements. Once a successful sales record has been established, larger labels will be more eager to talk to you and may offer more support in these matters as well.

I swear I knew you would say that, 4perc. It's easy as hell to impress the major labels, but defiantly tricky to keep their faith in you strong. Just take a look at Breaking Benjamin, they impressed Hollywood Records (a bunch of dumbassess if you ask me, I can't believe Atreyu signed to them), and now they are still a very successful, more independent than not band. Which this is what Park Boycott's goal is.

(Serioulsy though, Atreyu and Breaking Benjamin with those pansy asses Miley *spew* Cyrus, Jonas *go f***k yourselves* Brothers, and that dumb@$$ Demi Levato! I think Chad Gray (with help from Shawn "Clown" Crahan) should kill all 5 of those losers (you know, miley, jo bros, and levato) [hee hee hee!!!!!]

Reminds me of Original Mind Melters a band from this site.

They had a good raw sounding tune, but the label didn't like it as is.

So they re-recorded it and it sounded like garbage.

(Tell the producer where to get the f*** off)

PS Miley Cyrus and The Jonas Bros are good, especially if you need a few human sacrifices that night. lol