Stay In Your Lane
By "The Truth"
November 30, 2005
Creative Control. Artistic expression. Musical experimentation. There are many things that can cause an already established artist to record an album that goes off the beaten path of their typical sound and/or genre. A famous rock artist decides they want to do a techno album, an R&B sweetheart wants to do a country LP, or a Christian artist wants to release a heavy-metal offering. If you were said artist's A&R rep or labelhead, what would you think upon hearing this? What do you do? Now how about if you were one of said artist's #1 fans? Are you excited? Intrigued? Or annoyed? It's a funny thing these explorations that many artists go through from time to time because it usually causes some form of mayhem. The artist thinks they are doing the right thing by growing and trying new things but that's not always the reaction they receive. Either the label is furious and refuses to release the album the artist has submitted, or it is released and critics and fans alike are unmoved. However there is a very interesting element to this backlash that I want to bring forth in this installment of "The Music Biz Truth" and that is hypocrisy.
For years fans have cried and complained that the big bad major labels do not care about artistic growth. Popular arguments include the fact that all major labels care about is money (big surprise) and what's fresh and new (again, big surprise) and therefore do not allow an artist to truly develop anymore like they used to in the 50s. This is all very true. It is very rare that an artist will be given the time to sit around on a label for a decade or more releasing album after album without an initial boom or platinum LP out the box.
The old formula used to look something like this:
1. Label guy hears about a hot new talent and either goes to see them perform in a small club or talent show or invites them into the office to showcase their abilities.
2. Upon hearing this ingénue "do their thing", they are signed on the spot, handed an agreement (which may or may not be fair) and signed, sealed, and delivered that very day.
3. A single is released and may not do so well.
4. Label pays for artist to go on tour and nurture their craft.
5. Label decides the artist should release a different kind of track which could reach a wider audience.
6. If the next single still doesn't hit it big, the label may give the artist a new name, or put them in a group, or let them release a song they personally wrote, or a plethora of other things just so that they could find somewhere for them to "get in where they fit in".
7. So on and so forth…
But nowadays, it looks more like this:
1. Label guy/gal avidly reads the radio reports and sends proposal to any indie unsigned talent making noise across the nation.
2. If deal is reached, artist is signed and hands over the single that has been getting said buzz so that it can be repackaged and re-released through major distribution.
3. If the single doesn't explode like the label thought it would, they either opt out of signing a full length recording agreement with the artist, or they give them such a small budget for their full-length album that it subsequently bombs and the artist's attorney is sent a termination agreement to review.
Or sometimes, it looks like this:
1. Label guy/gal avidly reads the radio reports and sends proposal to any indie unsigned talent making noise across the nation.
2. If deal is reached, artist is signed and hands over the single that has been getting said buzz so that it can be repackaged and re-released through major distribution.
3. The single explodes and label exercises their option with the artist requesting that a full-length album be recorded and delivered ASAP.
4. The artist submits an album that doesn't really sound like the successful single.
5. Label tells them to go back to the lab.
6. Artist says they don't want to and want to instead go in a different direction.
7. Label shelves the product until artist begs to be let out of their agreement with a company who doesn't truly "believe in them".
Granted, things are different now. The climate has changed thanks to the age of the internet and the digital download. Labels are not given as much time to wait around and see if they can make an already signed artist work another way because they are too busy looking for the "next big thing". Personally, I don't agree with this tactic. I think it sucks for the artist and it sucks for the state of music in America and I'm sure many of you agree with me. But before you go getting all "music industry execs are the devil" on me, let's discuss another side to this story. Let's discuss those aforementioned artists who want to explore new territories with their newfound love of techno, or country, or heavy metal. Let's discuss how you would react if you were those artists' labels, and if in fact you would be delighted to release their new experimental album, or instead frustrated and upset that they just won't give you what you want. It's all relative. The labels don't want to take a chance but then again you as the fan or music lover don't want to buy that new "different" album anyway. So then is the label wrong to refuse to release it in the first place? Or are they being unfair to the artist who just wants to flex their creative muscle and keep it fresh and new by going in another direction? After all, isn't that what the labels want? If they kept releasing the same kinds of records over and over, wouldn't we all eventually get bored? Or would the public accept the fact that this artist just happens to be so good at what he or she does that we don't ever want them to do something different? I know there are a lot of questions to tackle at one time. I just wanted to get them all out there in a stream of consciousness so that you can see how much really goes into these very difficult decisions. Artists don't want to be put in a box where they feel as if they can't breathe. They want to know that label execs and fans alike are both behind them 100% no matter what road they want to travel. But labels want that winning formula. They want "Thriller 2" from Michael and "Purple Rain 2" from Prince.
In order for me to fully illustrate my point though, I offer up some recent examples to you to think about.
1. FIONA APPLE. Apparently Fiona wanted to do something a little more off-kilter than her usual fare and employed Jon Brion to give her an odd Tin Pan Alley feel on her latest effort "Extraordinary Machine". This in turn caused Sony to shelve the project for quite some time until she rearranged it a little under the supervision of new executive producer Mike Elizondo. The album was finally released this year to mixed reviews. So did it work out for Fiona in the end to release this experimental work? Or did Sony prove their point that it wasn't really worthy in the first place? Well with an artist like Fiona, just getting her vision out there is all that matters. She is proud of the final product and is currently touring and performing the work in front of sold out crowds. So I guess in the end, her fans still love her and accept her current album as creative and cool.
2. QUEEN LATIFAH. After years of releasing rap albums, the Queen decided to show the world that not only could she rap AND act, but she could sing too. Queen's singing ability was already known to her fans and viewers of some of her films. She sang jazz/blues in the movies "Living Out Loud" and "Chicago" and regularly spoke of her love for jazz and blues standards, and how she dreamt of recording an album like that in the future. Last year, Interscope Records allowed Latifah to release "The Dana Owens Album" thus helping her to realize that dream. So did it work out for Dana Owens in the end? "The Dana Owens Album" was well received and her performances around the globe promoting the album on awards shows, talk shows, and on tour were very well received. I've even heard talk of her "bringing the house down" during her shows with Erykah Badu and Jill Scott over the summer (two women who have been known as talented songbirds way longer than her).
3. MADONNA. Ah, the queen of re-invention. Madonna has been testing the waters of pop ("Borderline", et al.), rock ("Act of Contrition"), electronica ("Bedtime Stories"), techno ("Ray of Light"), burlesque ("Hanky Panky"), and political activism ("American Life") for the last twenty years. Now just when you think she'd pick one genre and settle, she's decided to release the electronic disco opus, "Confessions on a Dance Floor". Did it work? Sure, there are naysayers but there always are wherever Madonna's involved. However, the album did debut at #1 and received many rave reviews so…
OK, so most of the examples I used have turned out in the artists' favor in the end, but there are plenty that don't work out. My point was to expose the paradox that is the relationship between labels, artists, fans, and critics. Everyone wants what they can't have just so that they will have something to complain about.
Granted, there is a difference between what's blatantly bad and what's just cool and different but who should be in charge of deciding what's what? Shall we as the consumers and critics make that judgment? Or shall the labels act as gatekeepers and try to prevent that product from reaching the store shelves in the first place? If you are going to pan it regardless, aren't they doing you a favor rather than cruelly stifling your favorite artists from expressing their newfound interests? Think about it. Discuss with some executive friends and fellow artists and most importantly, work it out.
# # #