Record industry's 20 biggest, stupidest mistakes
From rootkits to hair-metal, from suing Neil Young to ditching Bob Dylan, from nuking Napster to passing on the Beatles, Blender Magazine rounds up the 20 worst gaffes of the record industry, going all the way back to Tom Edison's dismissal of Jazz.
#2 Decca Records A&R exec tells Fab Four, “No, thanks”Link (Thanks, Barry!)
Dick Rowe was not the only record-label executive who passed on the Beatles in the early ’60s, but he was the only one who brushed off their manager, Brian Epstein, with the astute prediction that: “Groups with guitars are on their way out.” Epstein begged Rowe to reconsider, so Rowe hopped a train to Liverpool to check out the band live. When he arrived at the Cavern, he found a mob of kids trying to force their way into the club in the pouring rain. Annoyed, he smoked a cigarette, went home and signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.
Unintended consequence: The Monkees
the latest
latest episodes
There's nothing wrong about the Monkees. They were a great band.
Wht bt th sccssfl mstks?
I agree with the Monkees being a great band. Sure they were a manufactured band, but eventually they found their own.
Michale Nesmith's solo work is great too. SOme of Shelley's Blues is just an awesome song.
I am very glad to see WILCO on the list. Boy did the label screw up that deal. See "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" to see the whole debacle.
At one time, record companies had a purpose and they provided a valuable service to aspiring artists. Today, I'm not so sure. I published an interesting article last month about the relationship between record companies and radio stations. If interested, you can read about it here.
Cheers!
I saw Peter Tork's band at the 9:30 club in Washington, DC many years ago. They were pretty good. But they were not gods like The Beatles.
Ths bnd ws hrrbly mrktd n th Stts.
Good to see this article on the same day that I read about Nine Inch Nails making $1.5 million in two weeks on their self-released new album. There's no need for record companies anymore.
I'm amazed someone in his position would be annoyed and turn down a band based on their show being *busy*. That shows some real business acumen right there.
"Pretty Boy Floyd" is actually getting rave reviews over at Amazon.
Maybe their time has finally come?
Yup, The Monkees were pretty good. Maybe great. Hell The Partridge Family were good too. Good pop music. Tell me you haven't hummed Last Train To Clarksville, or I Woke Up In Love This Morning.
Manufactured bands sometimes turn out some really great stuff. Think of, oh, The Sex Pistols, Alvin & The Chipmunks, The Blues Brothers, or... Menudo. Hmm, I'm not sure about Menudo, but you get what I mean.
After all, manufactured bands usually have seasoned professional songwriters backing 'em up.
“Groups with guitars are on their way out.”
Back in the early 60's, when the Beatles were making their first splash in the US, my folks -- like a lot of parents -- sent their kids to lessons to learn a musical instrument.
For my oldest brother, Gary, it was the trumpet. For my next oldest brother, Dave, it was... the accordion.
My brothers -- like a lot of kids -- lost interest pretty quickly. Since the accordion cost over $300 (I don't even want to think about converting that to 21st-century dollars), my dad took it to a music store that sold used instruments to see if he could get anything back for the thing.
The store owner said it was essentially valueless, because the crazy popularity of the Beatles made guitars and drums the only things that were really selling well.
"But," he said, "if you just put the accordion iinto a closet and wait, in a year or two, some new rock group will come along that uses accordions instead of guitars, and everyone will forget about the Beatles."
I think it was about fifteen years later that that accordion ended up going to Good Will.
(The nearest thing to a rock superstar accordionist would be, I guess, Weird Al Yankovich.)
(The two youngest kids in our family, Denny and me, didn't get pressured to learn an instrument, for some reason. (Mom: "I think we'll just set some money on fire instead.") Although Denny did, on his own, try to learn a bit on the, ummm, guitar.)
Numbers 15 and 20 on the list are almost not even worth being on the list-- record companies did that all the time, those are only two examples of throwing ridiculous money at unproven new artists, which is a habit that goes back at least to the 60's when groups convinced labels to invest a lot of studio time into trying to make the next "Sgt. Pepper." Of course it paid off enough for record companies to continue making those gambles.
But the labels brought these ills on themselves. The way the industry runs is borderline thievery. For example: the artist pays for the recording (as part of their advance) but the recording is then owned by the label in perpetuity. How is that remotely fair? And that is only one of the many sinister clauses in artists contracts that lets the label come out on top and the artist in the poor house.
Steve Albini had a good rant about it in Maximum RnR once, all the dealings of record companies are designed to their advantage, but made to seem like they are for the good of the artists-- it's only when the deal falls through that the artists realize they were being scammed (IF they ever realize it). I've witnessed it firsthand: contracts designed to benefit the label but not the artist, labels finding ways to bill things back to the artist so the label makes the profit at the expense of the artist, labels signing contracts to "lock up" the artist and keep a competing company from grabbing him/her/them (while never intending to actually release an album), etc.
ZIOSTEFANO aka TheProcrastinator
SPAMMER!
You subtle, prolific, sometimes-relevant bastard.
15 spams, and not one disemvowel. Clever.
Sic 'em Theresa!
Many people are saying record labels are not needed. I'm not taking their side, but it's easy to release your next album yourself if you are Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails.
What do the unknown bands do? They don't have a marketing platform in the form of a huge fan base. They don't have dollars to market their songs.
Maybe it is best that everyone lists their stuff on iTunes and we let the market decide which music is worth buying and talking about.
Oh yea. Now I remember. Talented musicians need something to live on while they dedicate themselves to making music. The record companies pay them something on the front end while in the studio, and on the back end after the music is released.
Now, do the record companies take too much of a cut on their biggest stars? Maybe. But they also lose a lot on the acts that don't pan out. I haven't seen anyone recommending record labels as a good investment sector. They aren't making a lot of money overall compared to other industries.
Fortunately, this is America. Emerging artists are free to sign with a label or not. They can negotiate deals. They can release music on their own.
It is what it is. If you sign a deal with a label, you can't complain that you were taken advantage of if your success exceeds everyone's expectations.
@CultureVulture: While I agree, in general, with your points about Radiohead/NIN and the severe advantage they have considering their huge existing fan bases, your take on the labels as friendly investors is a bit skewed.
Taking 'too much much of a cut on their biggest stars' is quite a serious understatement. They are more like loan sharks in the Mob who will make you pay them back in blood if your albums don't sell as well as they expected despite their marketing power.
Another commenter mentioned Steve Albini - read what he wrote here - he breaks down the numbers in a real way:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
This is also a fascinating take from a seasoned band manager. Basically there is no negotiating a 'fair' contract, only one that is less unfair:
http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/story/0,,2241769,00.html
While I would agree it is a tough question as to how a relatively unknown band can build up an audience and market/promote their music or shows without having a lot of money or resources behind them, the 'old' record label way of doing it is simply criminal, and needs to go. Period.
I agree with almost everything culturevulture said, except, "They aren't making a lot of money"
As for artists under a restrictive contract: of course they shouldn't complain - they've traded money for fame! The cool thing is, after they finish their contract, they get to keep the fame. With this fame, they have plenty of avenues to make their money.
Remember-- big record labels are usually arms of other bigger media companies (which are then arms of bigger conglomerates). Someone higher up usually appoints a head of the record label who knows nothing about music. Big record companies are run mostly by suits who are trained in marketing and promotion, not by music lovers, which is part of the problem-- guys who don't know squat about what is good or bad (or care), but only think "will it sell?" Thus they blow wads of money on something they think will sell, but don't realize is actually a piece of crap. However to their credit they have succeeded in forcing pieces of crap down the worlds musical gullet in the past, so they figure they can keep doing it. If they didn't waste time and money on garbage they would have more for artists who are more valid, and everyone would make more money, the public wouldn't be so jaded about new releases (and prefer free downloads instead of paying for an album put together by a marketing committee instead of a band. )
you have to admire people like Dick Rowe; annoyed at the popularity of an Unsigned band?
One of the reasons you used to need a record contract is to pay for studio time. But you really don't need a whole studio anymore, as anyone who's listened to Cody Chesnutt or...oh I don't know, plenty of bands, would know; you can cut a record with a laptop and a Rock Band mic and have it sound pretty professional, if you put the work in. As far as distro goes, I don't think you worry about it: you burn a few cds to sell at shows, get on myspace and try to stay happy about it. Now I'm in my twenties, I don't honestly believe money is going to come from music; it's just a bit fun, really.