I had an interesting conversation with a prof at CSULA. She’s been signed to a major label, and also done the indie thing. She said that her advice to young artists when they get offered crap major label contracts is to take them. Even if they are horrible, disgusting, exploitive contracts that will never ever turn out well for the artists.
Her perspective is to take the money, take the advance (which is the only money you’ll ever make), and treat the whole thing like a 2-year crash course in how the industry works. Meet people, network, build a fan base, treat them well, and then in a few years when the label realizes that you won’t sell six million records, you’ll get dumped.
And at the end of the ride, you’ll walk away with your name, a network, insider knowledge of how things work, a fan base, and it’s not like the label surgically removes the part of your brain that knows how to make great music.
Her quote (which I love), “who wouldn’t rather start their indie career with all of those things going for them?”
But does the label have any recourse to a half million dollars to unrecouped contractually obligated expenses? Her idea is cool as long as the experience doesn’t come with the burden of owing somebody a half mil when you’re 90 years old and still being chased by financial hellhounds.
If the music biz works anything like publishing, no — the label does not have recourse. The artist is not under contract “to make money,” per se; he or she is under contract to perform a variety of activities set down in the contract, all of which the label hopes will lead to money being made. The artist is only responsible for meeting the obligations set down in the contract, not for the end result.
michael’s pretty interesting links
michael lee 10:03 am on 5 December 2009 Permalink
I had an interesting conversation with a prof at CSULA. She’s been signed to a major label, and also done the indie thing. She said that her advice to young artists when they get offered crap major label contracts is to take them. Even if they are horrible, disgusting, exploitive contracts that will never ever turn out well for the artists.
Her perspective is to take the money, take the advance (which is the only money you’ll ever make), and treat the whole thing like a 2-year crash course in how the industry works. Meet people, network, build a fan base, treat them well, and then in a few years when the label realizes that you won’t sell six million records, you’ll get dumped.
And at the end of the ride, you’ll walk away with your name, a network, insider knowledge of how things work, a fan base, and it’s not like the label surgically removes the part of your brain that knows how to make great music.
Her quote (which I love), “who wouldn’t rather start their indie career with all of those things going for them?”
Stick 11:22 am on 6 December 2009 Permalink
Yeah, that’s an interesting and perhaps wise perspective.
corey 1:00 pm on 7 December 2009 Permalink
But does the label have any recourse to a half million dollars to unrecouped contractually obligated expenses? Her idea is cool as long as the experience doesn’t come with the burden of owing somebody a half mil when you’re 90 years old and still being chased by financial hellhounds.
aly hawkins 5:04 pm on 7 December 2009 Permalink
If the music biz works anything like publishing, no — the label does not have recourse. The artist is not under contract “to make money,” per se; he or she is under contract to perform a variety of activities set down in the contract, all of which the label hopes will lead to money being made. The artist is only responsible for meeting the obligations set down in the contract, not for the end result.
michael lee 5:16 pm on 7 December 2009 Permalink
Yes. What Aly said.