Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

Interesting article... "Are Record Labels Greedy?"

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by pmkelly, Dec 5, 2001.


  1. pmkelly

    pmkelly

    Nov 28, 2000
    Kansas City, MO
    Thought I would post a link to this article... It was written by Miles Copeland.

    Click here

    Just wondering what you think of his arguements, as they seem pretty reasonable to me... Thought it would be cool to here what you think about it!

    :p


    P@
     
  2. Christopher

    Christopher

    Apr 28, 2000
    New York, NY
    Boo hoo. Yes, running a record co. is a high-risk, low return business. What Miles fails to mention is that the record co. makes the artist eat most of the risk. Everything is recoupable and cross collateralized, and the record companies are pretty stingy with what they pay out of pocket. I should also mention that there are only five major record labels left, and each of these is in turn part of a larger media empire. Whatever losses the record co. incurs is made up from movies, books, Harry Potter-themed garden tools, etc. Record co.s are run by businessmen, not musicians; if there wasn't money to be made, they wouldn't do it.

    What do record companies bring to the table anyway? Two things: promotion and distribution. In the future, I'd be willing to bet that both will be handled by the artists and their management over the internet. However, the industry is slow to change; it'll be at least two generations before everyone is downloading and only old geezers will be trolling chain stores for physical embodiments of auditory entertainment. Til then, the Clive Davises and other rich fat bastard record moguls have plenty of time to extract their pound of flesh, earn their wad of cash and weave their golden parachutes. Miles' attempt to portray record co.s as victims is simply laughable.
     
  3. Imagine a theoretical record company. It is honest, fair, and open. It HAS to charge fairly high prices for it's records, because that's the only way to break even from the losses of the majority of records which do not succeed. I have no problem with this. I do not regard CD prices as being too high. I am happy to shell out my AU$25 for "Exile on Main Street".

    Now lets look at what he DIDN'T talk about.

    This mythical fair record company does not pressure it's artists to sign "memoes" beforehand which legally bind them from signing with anyone else. They don't hold back from paying royalties and pocket the interest. They don't use contract tricks to make deals appear far more generous than they actually are. They don't pay off radio stations to flog their product.

    They don't, in fact, exist.

    Record companies do not deserve respect because they haven't earned it. Profits are neither here nor there, because I'm talking about the morality of their actions.
     
  4. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    And that's the reason I believe that the record companies are afriad of Napster and similar mediums. With Napster, it's more of a fan control. Fans are exposed to a broader bases of music, which more more groups getting expose. A record label can soak their resources into a few artists to give them exposure, (Like the Backstreet Boys) where it would be a bigger pain to promote more artists. Still, I'm not saying file sharing is a perfect situation, or should even be legal. It's just an arguement that's been floating in my mind.
     
  5. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    LMFAO