The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 7
And now for tonight's presentation of MASTERpiece Theater…
By "The Truth"
August 10, 2004
"It's not like we're against them or anything like that. The idea is that we find better ways of working with one another. It shouldn't be a situation where they own the album or the work. We're talking about intellectual copyrights. If they're going to, indeed, be a delivery service, then that's fine. But even FedEx doesn't say that they own the thing that they ship, right?" – Prince
The above quote is excerpted from a recent interview Prince granted for Canadian television. Now I like where he's going with this, but is Prince really justified in saying that record labels should NOT own the music they put in stores because they are only, in fact, delivering it for the artist? Yes, it's true that the record executives are not the ones actually performing on the tracks they release (although in some cases, they are: certain A&R execs trying to live vicariously through their artists by performing on their albums in some capacity) but does that mean they should not be granted any form of ownership for what they do? There are many facets to this argument that can easily be broken down into three sections: Marketing/Promotion, Advances, and Production.
First off, in many cases record labels are doing much more than just delivering the album to the consumer. If that is in fact all you need from the Columbias and Jives of the world, then by all means, try to secure yourself a distribution deal and you're set. In those cases, Prince is sorta right. Of course the label distributing your product should be getting paid something; they are after all doing a job for you. But should they stake a claim in the product they are only printing, packaging and shipping? I don't think so. They didn't write it, sing it, or play the sax on it. The artist only needed someone to step in and help press the CDs for them, and get them on store shelves. I mean if a friend came over your house to help you assemble and stuff your wedding invitations and then drove you to the post office to drop them in the mail; do you ask to have your name added to the envelope? And then on the night of the wedding, do you ask for a cut of the gifts? No, you don't. Unless you're rude and broke I guess.
However, there are more artists than not that need a little something extra. This is where the labels will step in and claim that only they can effectively market an artist to a record-buying public that they know and understand. "Sure you can film your own videos and buy your own ad time, but it's much harder to get it out there without our experienced team of seasoned professionals behind you" says the big bad record exec. Of course, there are exceptions to any rule. An independent artist from Bumblebee, OK can film a music video in their basement, ship it off to MTV, have it land in the right hands, and actually gain some airplay on their own, but these situations are few and far in between. Usually, that's the part of the equation that a new band or teen rapper needs help with. They can write and perform their own music (sometimes) but they don't know how to sell it to the fans. They need someone to plan and schedule in-stores, interviews, promotional events, etc. for them. Artists like Prince regularly state that they can do this all by their lonesome, and they may be right, but Prince can do this NOW because he has the money to do it NOW. Could he have done it on his own in 1978? I'm not so sure, which is probably the reason he signed with Warner Brothers in the first place. "The label wasn't marketing the album right, they weren't getting it to the right people, that's why it didn't sell well, I could've done a better job myself" says the disgruntled artist. But can they really? Marketing and Promotion is very expensive. Advertisements alone can cost millions (when you consider print and television ads, billboards, bus and subway posters, and radio spots). So is it really feasible for a new band, or rapper to pay for that out-of-pocket? I HIGHLY doubt it. Sorry Charlie, but it looks like you'll need to sign up with a label for that one.
Then there's the issue of Advances. For those who don't know, Advances are the monies a label will pay you upon signing a recording agreement and/or at the commencement of recording a new album. These can get pretty large. And they are recoupable. This basically means that the labels aren't in the business of charity. They may believe that you are the "next big thing" and that you will sell truckloads of CDs down the road, but they need some security in their investment. If they are going to send you a check for $75,000 just for signing your name at the end of a 60 page document, best believe you will have to pay that back BEFORE you start making money off of your record sales yourself. It's essentially a loan. So let's say worst case scenario, the label pays you $100,000 upon signing, and your record goes on to sell……nothing. The label is really the only person who loses out here. They put their money on a bet that didn't pan out. Granted, the artist will also be upset that their project didn't soar, but in many cases, if the album did really poorly, the label will drop the artist from their roster and terminate their agreement. And as long as the artist has a good attorney, they can usually negotiate to buy their masters back, or acquire the rights to the album they released for a certain fee. But are these practices justified and fair? Or should the artist still hold complete control of their masters, with the record label only taking a certain percentage of sales off the top? After all, they don't have anything to do with the actual product, do they? They are only helping to sell it……unless the artist needs something even more.
Prince is amazing no question. He can write his own music, pen the corresponding lyrics, play 26 instruments, sing like a sexy something-or-other, dance like it's going out of style, help design the clothes he's wearing while he's shaking his ass AND book concerts and appearances for himself. Most artists can not do more than two of those things at any given moment. So yes, I believe that Prince deserves to own his masters and do what he pleases with his career. But does Justin Timberlake have a right to say "I'm the artist, I am the one singing on these tracks, I should have sole ownership of the masters" when he didn't write, produce and record the album alone? Not from where I'm standing. The problem is that many of today's artists do NOT write their own material, do NOT play instruments, and do NOT produce the tracks on their album themselves. Granted, Justin plays a little, and writes a little, and even produces a little, but for the most part his label helped coordinate the recording of his debut album. Many times the label gathers songwriters, producers, and A&R representatives to help produce the album as a group effort. A certain image is created, clothes are chosen for said artist, and media training and/or choreography sessions are booked. In these cases, the label has much more of a "hands on" role than with a Prince album. Not to mention that the label sets aside a recording fund for the artist, so that all studio invoices and producer fees can be paid out directly from an A&R Administration department, who is closely watching budgets and spreadsheets. As you can see, the label is involved with the recording process every step of the way with these kinds of artists. But again, does that mean that they should have a right to claim ownership of the artists' masters? I mean in comparison, FedEx doesn't say that they own the thing that they ship, but they also aren't helping you to 'create' your package. Be it a manuscript for your boss or a present for a friend, FedEx did not edit, select, or pay for the item for you either. It's a toss up.
I believe that Prince is a brilliant musician, and deserves the rights to his master(piece)s. Personally, I think it's a shame that in the end he had to walk away from Warner Brothers and surrender the rights to such gems as "When Doves Cry" and "Little Red Corvette" but at least Prince is in a position to write, record, and package his masters himself all in the comfort of his home studio. Many artists do not have access to this luxury, but even if they did, they still wouldn't have the ability to do so. He's genuinely talented. So when Prince makes encouraging "learn an instrument, take control of your music" comments directed towards the youth of America and the up and coming artists of the day, I am right there along with him but I am also realistically aware that there are not many others like him. (Well actually, there is no one like him. He's the best. Seriously, don't even go there with me.)
It's true that artists should be taking more of an active role in their careers. They should be writing their own material, and they should be learning to play their own instruments and producing their own records (if they don't already). But what I'm saying is that there are more artists than not that actually do NEED the label to help them with many aspects of the recording process. They NEED someone to write for them, to sing background vocals, to play the guitar solos, to book the studio time, and to hire the producers. So those albums really are collective efforts. In those cases, the label definitely deserves compensation in some form. I truly don't believe that their payment should be in the form of master ownership. But I think that the issue here is not whether labels are "pimping" their artists but rather why the artists allow it. If it's because they can't do it own their own, then maybe they should learn. And maybe we should be teaching our kids, nieces, nephews, and sometimes friends what real music is about. I've heard about fans of Prince bringing their 8-yr. old nieces and nephews to his current shows and having the children come out totally in love with the sound of real music, even though they are not familiar with his hits. I personally made sure to take my sister, who is 23 years old, to one of his concerts this past summer because I KNEW that even though she has been to a bunch of shows in her life, she had never experienced REAL, LIVE MUSIC. She loved it. It was SO different from the Destiny's Child, P. Diddy and Britney Spears concerts she had grown accustomed to.
So in the end, I do agree with Prince. But I agree with him on a larger level. I agree with him that people need to embrace music in its purest form. People need to play music with real instruments and not just computers. And artists need to write their own songs, and do more themselves, so in the future they won't need to depend on the labels for so much and subsequently sign very restrictive contracts. If we could just get the next generation to appreciate and understand this concept rather than just accepting MTV's version of "music" as gospel, then maybe 10 years down the line, we won't have to worry about the issue of master ownership any longer. Work it out.
# # #
Posted at 01:33 pm by MusicBizTruth
