| Author | Message | ||
  Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2700 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
This thread is intended to show the origins of the music industry & their numerous nefarious business practices. For some time now, I've read how Jack or Jill Artist is to blame for getting contractually screwed. On the surface, this seems to be a pretty straight forward assessment. However, upon investigating these types of statements, I decided to do a little fact finding. What will follow will not be my opinions or assertments. It will be the facts as they are & the entire recording/production/packaging /recoupables will be walked through step by step, by those who are in the industry. Once you read these breakdowns & how simple it is for record companies to get away with murder, perhaps it will be realized that the artist(s) are not quite as dumb as some may think. This will expose some of the obvious ways & most importantly, the nasty little inside accounting tricks that the industry employs. These practices are employed in every genre from Salsa, to Jazz, to Pop, to Soul & it sucks. Hopefully, this information will give pause to those who excuse the labels' practices, while exoriating the artist(s), who as you will see, are in way over their heads. Also, it is hoped that this info will help others avoid a few of these pitfalls. Fortunately, today we have the internet. Unfortunately, our pioneers did not have this advantage. Either way, this will be very interesting reading & disgusting at the same time. But first, I'm going to give you a link that will show you the origins of the recording industry, the initial issue of piracy & the first royalties paid. Ironically & fittingly enough, the article is named: "Pirates Of The High Cs" http://www.intertique.com/Pira tesOfTheHighCs.htm To be explored next, the shady accounting practices that most artists were unaware of. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2701 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Since I wrote of the origin of records, I might as well be thorough. it's been long thought that our records were always shellac or vinyl. However, the primary ingredient of the first records were actually made of the fat of cows. http://www.intertique.com/Orig inOfRecords.htm If I'm gonna be thorough, then dammit, I'm gonna be THOROUGH  | ||
Lady Mystique (ladymystique) 6-Zenith Username: ladymystique Post Number: 747 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 216.222.242.142 |
Juice...very interesting points. Sometimes the music world can be so cruel with some even going as far as exploiting these artists. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2704 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
OOPS, this post was supposed to be about shady accounting practices. However, I stumbled across an article on the same site, that shows that even as far back as 1908, the record industry was nasty. This story is about the rack jobbers, Victor, Fair Trade issues & how Edison unwittingly helped Columbia become an early powerhouse. It shows that even then, the record labels employed heavy handed tactics. It also shows some of the nasty battles that even then, was rearing its ugly head on the retail side of music. http://www.intertique.com/A%20 dealer's%20life.htm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2705 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hi LadyM, Trust me, it only gets worse from here. Right now, I'm pretty much tracing the practices all the way back to their origin. I mean, talk about a kangaroo court!!! What's so amazing is that most, if not all of these practices are perfectly legal. | ||
Lady Mystique (ladymystique) 6-Zenith Username: ladymystique Post Number: 751 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 216.222.242.142 |
Yeah because of a little something called "loopholes". BTW, check your email sometime tonight. I have some news for you. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2706 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Will do M'lady Continuing on with this history of the music industry, is an account of one of the first known record "pirates" or "bootlegger", all the way back in 1902. http://www.intertique.com/The% 20talk%20of%20Ohio.htm | ||
Vonnie (vonnie) 5-Doyen Username: vonnie Post Number: 320 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 172.143.134.29 |
Juice, I'm looking forward to reading about the practices that are used by the music industry, especially the recoupable break downs, accounting practices and royalty diversions. The little bit that I know already is quite mind blowing and unconscionable. Congress is still looking into this problem, and hopefully these nefarious practices will be stopped. It is a shame that every ill in our society must be legislated, but so be it. | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 134 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 170.224.224.156 |
Juice, whoa, man, that page was about recording piracy by consumers not the record company(smile!) Listen, we're all clear about the depradations of recording companies(as well as other industries)on the artist, but there are other sides to the story... You've never heard of an artist giving back a damned dime to a record company for an album that wasn't a hit, didya??? I'm sure that some of these artists who recorded albums that didn't do well, such as the early Tempts and Supremes, didn't offer to return any proceeds to the company after they finally got a hit... Do you think, for example, that it cost Motown some money to record these artists, promote these artists, and invest their time and energy in refining their skills? Or was Motown in the business of philantrophy, helping out new artists while they got their stuff together for free??? That is NOT how to run a business... Nothing in life is free, and only an employee thinks that way... That is the problem we're having with this discussion... Who here is a record company owner??? No one! That is why you have taken the side of the artist, because they are the only ones doing the talking... Let's get both sides before proclaiming the artist always the victim... Peace! Isaiah | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 5-Doyen Username: tony_russi Post Number: 278 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.210.43.228 |
Isaiah, you are correct also.Everything to do with the recording process is charged back to the artist BEFORE the artist would get any royalty.I'm sure theSupremes did not get any actual royalties until maybe after the 3rd #1 since Motown had advanced them monies and their previous records had not sold well.The accounting practices are where the shadiness and problems come into play. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2708 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Isaiah, Yes, the article did mention consumer piracy. Here's a quote of that does indeed prove your assertion: "Record piracy was a widespread and recognized, if not necessarily honorable, profession. It was practiced by entrepreneurs large and small, by local dealers whose names will be forever unknown who stole from big companies like Edison and Columbia, as well as by big companies like Edison and Columbia who stole from each other." However, if you look at the last sentence, it clearly states: "As well as BIG COMPANIES like EDISON & COLUMBIA who STOLE FROM EACH OTHER". Piracy wasn't just for the consumer, as you assert & I don't understand how you missed that part of the article. That article indeed referred to piracy by OTHER record companies ripping off OTHER record companies. Here's another quote from the article, which states that piracy was NOT the domain of John Doe, but rather THE RECORD COMPANIES THEMSELVES: "Any small businessman could sit one machine in front of another and record, and probably did, BUT THERE IS NO RECORD of such subterranean activities, which were probably quieted by the THREAT OF A LAWSUIT". Now, the article goes on to state: "The REGIONAL COMPANIES unabashedly STOLE FROM EACH OTHER, while denying it as best they could. �Pirates in this business not only steal ideas, they steal entire records also,� bemoaned the October 1898 Phonoscope. �In no other business is it so difficult to reap the reward received.�" Further down in the article, it describes what sounds to my ears, like an early musical cartel. The below paragraph describes, not comsumers, but PHONOGRAPH COMPANIES & how they worked together: "In the early 90s all the phonograph companies were consolidated in a trust nominally owned by a businessman named Jesse Lippincott, and regional territories were established by analogy to the telephone company". This next paragraph illustrates the how & why of piracy, practiced by RECORD COMPANIES: "Lippincott had thought to retain the right to manufacture musical records but hadn�t done so. It wouldn�t have mattered. Edison couldn�t output records fast enough to keep up with demand. And so of necessity the regional companies began to make records, acquiring thereby all the attendant technical expertise and machinery". The article goes to to state the the RECORD COMPANES like Columbia, sought to lock up the industry by buying the patents to duplicating machines, in order to lease the rights, as in the case of Leon Douglass of the Chicago Territory. In the section, "The Golden Age Of Piracy", we learn that the Chicago Central territory was considered to be at the forefront of piracy. That charge was brought forth by Edward Easton of Columbia, which was indeed a RECORD COMPANY. As we learned earlier, the Chicago Central territory fell under the control of Jesse Lippincott & indeed were a collective of RECORD COMPANIES, not consumers. Further, in that section, we learn that one Thomas Alva Edison, was guilty of the same practices, as was Columbia, who "borrowed" songs from U.S. Phonograph Company & was accused of "borrowing" songs from the Ohio Territory. All of these accounts are of Record companies, stealing from record companies. That is clearly stated in this article, the majority of piracy existed amongst the companies themselves. I'm a bit puzzled by your assertion that the article referred to consumers. (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2709 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Tony, That is the point that many seem to miss. It's not so much the contract that you sign that's the problem. It's the under the table crap that really screws the artist. For example, why is it that even still, record companies REFUSE to open their books? One of our greatest labels, absolutely refused to open their books & as a result, NONE of their early hits received RIAA Gold or Platinum status at that time. In fact, some 40 years later, they've finally started to right that wrong & these hits of 40 years ago are FINALLY receiving RIAA certification. Since many keep repeating the mantra of the risk that the companies take, I have a few links about stories that explain some of the tricks employed by the record companies. As you'll see, it's not as cut & dried, or as obvious as many seem to think. As I said, it will cover genres from Pop, Rock, Jazz,etc. I almost started to include the royalty situation in a country like Iran, but that's unnecessary. The point is that these hidden & unseen practices, have been used to screw artists from day one. | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 170.224.224.124 |
Juice, my bad, and I apologize for that... I should of said the small dealers and entrepreneurs were pirating music from the larger companies, and conbined two different thoughts together... But again, how is the record company exploiting the artist in this? Yes, you are showing how cutthroat they have historically been, but how is this in reference to depradations agains the artist? Peace! isaiah | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2710 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Isaiah, There's no bad on your part. What I'm basically doing is laying down the practices of the industry from its inception. What it will show basically is that there ain't nothing new under the sun. Now, this link will deal with the copyright issue. Though from a UK site, it illustrates some of the obstacles a budding artists needs to know about. As you can see, it is indeed a complicated matter & has led to many unlearned artist(s), losing their rights, to those that knew theirs: http://www.generator.org.uk/in fo_copyright.htm | ||
Raymond Ennifer (benlynx) 3-Pundit Username: benlynx Post Number: 50 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 81.77.156.246 |
As juice has stated many times, the article starts from the 1890's. So in answer to Isaiah.. if you read from the first link provided, you should have seen... "Musicians were paid by the round --there was no concept of royalties. (The tenor Francesco Tamagno was the first to receive royalties in 1903.)" So, why weren't musicians paid royalties for 13 years before this? That part alone proves the musicians were being exploited... | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 137 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 216.148.246.156 |
Ray, it proves no such thing... Do you know what their contracts stipulated, or even if there was a contract, or are you speculating that there "should've" been one in the first place??? Why do you assume there should've been a contract for these musicians back then, or even now??? Clearly, this Fancesco Tamagno being the first to be paid royalties, either came forth with that concept because he owned the rights to his recordings, or it was agreed upon by him and the recording company, but that does not mean that musicians should automatically be paid royalties... Ray, do you believe that Gamble&Huff, for example, should pay royalties to artists or musicians for simply performing on a record, and where there is no agreement to that effect??? Do you believe, for example, that the interior decorator should have property rights to your home for coming in a beautifying that home - over and beyond your contract with that person??? Hey, they're definitely adding to the property value, Ray...(smile!) Your home could be worth a lot more after they're finished... Should they benefit from that? What's interesting Ray is that, like I said, there's no guarantee that a song is going to even sell, much less be a hit... But, Ray, somebody's got to pay whether it is or not... That is usually the record company, because the artist is not putting out one dime, correct??? Ray, SDF Forumers, who is going to pay when that record aint no hit??? Think about that, and maybe you'll change your tune... | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 5-Doyen Username: tony_russi Post Number: 279 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.210.43.228 |
As far as I know the muscians and background singers are paid a flat session fee, whether the recording is a hit or even released. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2712 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Ok, here's the first link, giving an artists point of view. Now, although this article covers piracy, it also breaks down who gets paid, who doesn't, as well as questioning the prices of CDs. This article is written by Nestor Louis & though he explains some of what goes on in Salsa music...... The business, is the business is the business! http://www.salsaweb.com/music/ articles/piracy_in_the_open_ma rket.htm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2713 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here, we have an article that shows that some music companies are guilty of not showing due diligence in getting artists their agreed upon royalties. Instead, allowing said royalties to grow in their coffers. Consider the fact, that these accumulated royalties are also drawing interest, not for the artist(s), but rather for the companies! Win/win for the record companies. I wonder if they'll have to pay the artist(s) interest as well? Contrary to popular belief, these are not stupid , or, ignorant R&B artists, or fuzzy cheeked virgins. Check some of the names involved, few dummies are listed there. In this instance, the blame is placed SQUARELY on the big 5 of the industry: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&co ntentId=A2079-2004May4¬Foun d=true More examples to follow! | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 138 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 66.119.34.39 |
Yes, Tony, I understand that as well... I have been told that Philly Internationals MFSB orchestra, for example, were oft paid double scale for their work, and that scale was about $200.00 an hour... Double scale: $400.00 an hour... That's chicken feed, and most of us at this board make 'bout dat - that's why we're struggling by... Fact of the matter is that somebody had to pay that cost, and I am sure Gamble&Huff gladly paid it, because they realized the importance of their musicians to their business... But, somewhere, the company has to get its compensation for all of its expenditures, or there's no use it being in business... I guess the singers could then go back to singing in churches and bars, or whatever, and getting ripped off for less after the company goes under... Sorry, I am not here defending the companies, I am saying that artists aint telling us the WHOLE story... It aint just about the artists, the world don't revolve around the artist... Perhaps when the artists get that through their heads they'll pay more attention to the contracts they sign... Peace! isaiah | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2714 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here we have a judgment granted against Universal/Vivendi Universal, for under reporting sales & screwing artists out of their fair royalties: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ent ertainment/music/2066858.stm | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 140 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 66.119.34.39 |
Good article, Juice!!! I see these artists can consult with, and afford lawyers, though(smile!) Hmmmmm... Peace! Isaiah | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2717 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Even the Bingster, Bing Crosby appears to have been screwed by the companies. Based on a lawsuit brought against Universal (there's that name again), it's alleged that he was supposed to receive a royalty rate of 15% on all songs recorded before 1939 & 7% for anything recorded after that. Lo & behold, an audit revealed that he was being paid a 7% royalty rate for ALL of his music sales, regardless of when it was recorded! Bing surely was no idiot & no dumb kid of the streets. This just goes to show you the sort of tricks employed by the industry. These tricks are just now gaining major attention. You can imagine just how easy it was for our early Soul idols to get screwed. Here's the link from 2001: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ent ertainment/music/1606190.stm (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2718 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
You're right Isaiah. But, remember this. America is a much more litigious society these days. If you get a paper cut from wiping your butt, The Tid-y bowl man will pop out your toilet, with a lawyers 1-900 number for you. Of course, the Tid-y Bowl man will want his 10% finders fee first! These days, lawyers are willing to agressively go after Big Business. They have much to gain....money, prestige, should they emerge victorious against such powerful entities. Unfortunately, back in the day, even lawyers weren't going to take on City Hall for some, pardon the expression, stupid nigger R&B singer. That was the 60s & 70s & you know how the courts ruled against us, even when it came to issues of Civil Rights. Truthfully, those artists were between a rock & a hard place. And who were they to trust? Some fast talking lawyer? The record company? When we speak of alleged ignorant artists of those days, we must remember what was going on in society in those days. Sure, in 2004, we can say how stupid everyone appeared to be....signing over their songs for a pittance, all of that. But, in 1964, '65, '68, it just wasn't that easy for them. When you think back to those times, it's simply not fair for anyone to label them as stupid or the like. It reminds me of the joke about the brothers talking about how they would never be a slave. Remember that joke? Homeboy was talking about how he would have told Massa to pick his own damn cotton, etc. etc, then drive off in his car. Yeah, he would have told massa off & talked shit....until the first crack of that whip hit his ass! He'd have been a smiling, singing, tap dancing cotton picker, once that whip found his ass on a daily basis. I don't say that to trivialize, or make light of slavery. I say that to say that it's very easy to say what we would or would not have done, had it been us. The fact is, we didn't have to make those choices, they did. We sit in the safety of being some 30-35 years removed from what our musical heroes had to deal with. It was their dream, not ours. To put it in perspective, let me ask this question. When you were 17, or even 20, did you ever dream of making love to one of our beautiful actresses, or singers? Those gorgeous sisters like Chaka, Pam, Tamara, Judy & others? If you're like most of us, the answer is yes. So, I ask this, if the opportunity had availed itself to you, how far would you have gone to fulfill a chance of a lifetime? In the end, we have to put every thing into context. We have to consider the times & the attitudes toward our people. Sam was both smart & lucky. And frankly, his intelligence & knowledge just might have been what cost him his life, as we well know how "uppity niggers" were regarded in the '60s. So, before we chastize those "silly" kids of the '60s & '70s, we must realize one inescapable fact....They had no champions. They had no Al Sharpton to champion their cause. And Johnnie Cochran wasn't practicing law then either (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 06, 2004) (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 06, 2004) (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 06, 2004) (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2721 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here's a link that shows yet more unpaid royalties: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ent ertainment/music/1796462.stm | ||
isaiah imani (isaiah) 4-Laureate Username: isaiah Post Number: 142 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 170.224.224.92 |
Juice, believe me, I agree with all that you've said here - though White artists, and Latino artists(Fania Records)were cheated as well... That record companies engage in illegal and nefarious practices is public record, and there is no argument about that issue... The issue I have been arguing is that there are two sides to this story... If someone puts a contract in front of your face, you are not obligated to sign that contract, and coercion to sign it is illegal, as well... Juice, the artists signed their contracts, and there was no compulsion to sign those contracts... Whatever their reasoning, or lack therof, they did not have to sign those contracts, and many artists did not... Sam Cooke even tried to school artists like Solomon Burke, Little Willie John, and others, on owning their creative property... They told him he was crazy(smile!) Who? Who's crazy??? Do you see my point here??? If I had not begun to see that there was a dichotomy, that there were artists of the ilk of James Brown, Sam Cooke, Otis Redding, Ray Charles, who demanded that they be paid their rightful share, or took it upon themselves to own their creative property, I would be number one cheerleader on this thread... Some folks take control, and others let others do the controlling - and that's vintage 1950's and 1960's for the aforementioned artists... Those artists who made up their minds that they were going to control their affairs aren't the ones complaining today... Stevie Wonder is not complaining about Berry Gordy, and those artists at Motown who saw Stevie's rise still cannot see why he rose... I doubt they've asked him how he did it... They're focus is on Berry, and how Big Papa didn't take care of them... I know that sounds harsh, but when you get right down to it, that's what this boils down to... Why is it that one artist comes out of this smelling rosy, and the other goes off and committs suicide??? Brother, water seeks it's own level, and it is no different in the recording business as in any other business... Some people handle their business, and others don't... Some make the proper adjustments after being burned, and others sit and sulk, and blame the world for why they aren't a success... I love these artists as much as you do, but part of their problem is about the decison making process, do you agree??? How many of these artists got brought up on tax evasion charges, and lost everything they had... Why??? Whose fault is that??? It is not about ridiculing them for their mistakes, it's about saying, hey, own up that it was YOUR mistake for not looking out for YOUR affairs, period... Do you have to look out for your affairs, Juice??? Do I have to look out for mine??? These artists have to look out for self, and apparently many of 'em didn't... That is not a record company, or any one eles's fault but their own... Why is that so damned difficult for folks to understand??? Peace! isaiah | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 6-Zenith Username: sis Post Number: 704 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.43.206.95 |
Juice - Looking at the article; Isn't Adam Ant the artist who was invited to perform on Motown 25 instead of James Jamerson? I think he is the one performing when Diana went out on the stage uninvited to join him. LOL | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 5-Doyen Username: tony_russi Post Number: 281 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.210.43.228 |
If Juice hasn't answered yet SisDetroit, yes you are right...he was singing(if you call it that)his version of "Where Did Our Love Go". It seemed like he got more camera time then Martha Reeves, Mary Wells and Jr. Walker. I guess he was having his 15min. of fame at the time. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2722 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here's a link to the The Recording Artists Coalition. The article discusses standard industry practices. It explains things such as Californias' "Seven Year Rule", an industry practice that can tie an artist to his/her label for up to 7 years, Royalty Accountings, recoupment & things as such. It shows that even within a legit contract, there can be ways to circumvent it: http://www.recordingartistscoa lition.com/industrypractices.p hp | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 6-Zenith Username: sis Post Number: 705 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.43.206.95 |
Tony Russi - Thank you! | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2723 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Isaiah, You are correct about that. But, just as an apprentice must pay his dues, so must these artists. Unfortunately, when most of these artists are looking for a break, they sometimes had to make a deal with the devil. It's true that they didn't have to sign anything, but if they wanted to get a chance, they had to do so. For most singers, it was the only game in town. They could either sign, or give up their dream & go to work like the rest of us. Now, even James didn't have an easy go of it. In fact, if his label head had been more prescient & less stubborn, James might have never gotten that opportunity at all. If Ralph Bass at King Records hadn't fought James tooth & nail over the release of the "Live At The Apollo" LP, his story might have been radically different & I'll explain why. For those who know this story, forgive me. There may be some who don't. When James confronted Bass with the idea of recording the LP, he was continually rebuffed, as Bass saw no market for LPs, in particular, a "Live" Black LP. James got exasperated with Bass & finally decided to finance it himself. After recording it with his own money, he was smart enough to know that it belonged to him. When the LP blew up, not just on R&B stations, but Pop as well, James gained the upper hand. What must be remembered is that King was on the verge of severing ties with James several times, as James had endured several dry spells after Please, Please, Please. However, that "Live At The Apollo" LP gave James the upper hand from that day forward. I would argue that if Bass had been smart enough to finance the LP, HE would have had the upper hand & would have tried to tie James up with a crazy ass contract. James believed in himself & was out on the road, seeing just how much juice he had. Mr Bass was guilty of underestimating James & his value. Not only that, but in addition King was not a huge label. They were still an indy & had nowhere the clout of an RCA, Decca or Columbia. Had James signed with such a label & their myriad of lawyers & the like, the institution known as James Brown could have been decidely different. We always refer to the fact that Sam Cooke had his own publishing & label. The truth is that for all of that James had unpredecented power as a Black entertainer. While Sam indeed had his own label SAR, his releases were not especially sucessful. I do believe that he eventually would have made inroads, he died before he could have done so. James was fortunate enough to be an innovator musically, in the right place at the right time & for working with a very short sighted label owner. That worked to James advantage & he took that ball & ran like James Brown did. When you speak of Ray, Sam, James & Otis, you're not just speaking of the average artist. You're speaking of visionaries, hell, you're speaking of genius!!! Regardless of their initial station in life, or their book learning, these men were geniuses. They understood the worth & potential of what they were creating. They understood their music & the fact that their music was commerce, a business & they are to be applauded for all times. I would say that the average artist(s), just didn't have the same grasp on things. Brother, I can never argue with you regarding the fact that many of them simply pissed it all away. Even an astute man like James almost lost it all, with the radio station losses, tax situations, etc. You mentioned Fly Williams in the other thread & I feel you 100%. Yes, I remember most of the brothers balling in places like The Colisseum in Breevort Projects & in BRC. Just a few years ago, I saw Fly walking on Mother Gaston & Blake, not looking very well at all. You are so correct when you express your dismay at that. There's more wasted musical & athletic talent, walking the streets of Brooklyn, than there was on the sporting fields, or on the music charts. I know of the artist(s) who have drank, smoked, shot & snorted their money away. The ones who blew it with irresponsible & self destructive actions. I know that all too many spent their money like it was water & were fiscally irresponsible, as regards their obligation to the tax man, or their other business necessities. Those folks have nothing to complain about & no one to blame. On this, we are of one accord. But, I can't exonerate the labels from their culpability. Even when artists sign what they believe to be a fair contract, there are the shady games that the companies have always played & that's what I'm focusing on. Not the few labels, who play legit. But rather, the large percentage of labels who deal from both sides of the deck. That is my focus here. I decided to look into this because, on several occasions, I have seen many others give the labels a pass on their practices. It happened when we discussed Motown & almost any other label. Remember the shouting matches? Well, I felt that shouting matches serve no purpose. I figured that it was time to really examine just what happens when you sign a contract & what the real story is regarding recoupables & accounting practices. Some of the examples that I've found to present here are extremely eye opening & illustrates that, there's more to it that the ignorance of artists. There's the formerly secret practices that leads to a large part of the misery. While acknowledging that labels do incur risk, it shows that said risk is not always as much as we think it would be. Then when you think of the labels who charge an artist for all costs, then gives out countless records as free goods, records which were usually resold, thereby cutting the artist out of additional royalties. Now remember, the artist was already charged for ALL costs, including promotional AND production costs. The giving away of these free goods put no money into the pocket of the artist, that money was diverted elsewhere. Those free goods were not factored into his royalties. Now, the artist had to sell even more, just to break even. This doesn't even factor in the company selling records at a discounted rate, or the deals that they cut with the various record clubs. To add insult to injury, as the ARTIST had already been charged, he ended up screwed not once, not twice, but three times. By whom?? By the record company, fair contract & all. Somehow, I find this to be a bit shady & one sided against the artist. (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 06, 2004) | ||
Raymond Ennifer (benlynx) 3-Pundit Username: benlynx Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 81.77.182.46 |
"Ray, do you believe that Gamble&Huff, for example, should pay royalties to artists or musicians for simply performing on a record, and where there is no agreement to that effect???" this is where the u.k. differs slightly from the usa.. as soon as the musicians are asked to perform, and they agree to perform.. that is a contract in itself. u.k. laws allow for verbal/oral contracts. so, my answer to your question, is.. yes, as far as i am concerned, as they were asked to play the music, they agreed with that request as the music was recorded.. there is a contract.. an analogy: should we pay the postman? after all, he's just delivering the mail.. it's already been collected, then organised in the sorting office.. but, without him.. you get no mail.. | ||
Raymond Ennifer (benlynx) 3-Pundit Username: benlynx Post Number: 54 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 81.77.182.46 |
if a contract is to be signed.. some guidelines to help... Ten Important Points about Managers and Management Contracts http://www.stormpages.com/supp ortbands/managementcontract.ht ml Recording Agreements: Part I. http://www.stormpages.com/supp ortbands/recordingcontract1.ht ml Recording Agreements: Part 2 http://www.stormpages.com/supp ortbands/recordingcontract2.ht ml | ||
Raymond Ennifer (benlynx) 3-Pundit Username: benlynx Post Number: 55 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 81.77.182.46 |
COPYRIGHT http://www.stormpages.com/supp ortbands/copyright.html | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2724 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
More alleged royalty misdeeds. This time courtesy of The King Of Pop, Rock & Soul: http://www.rollingstone.com/ne ws/story/_/id/5936680 | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2725 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
After obviously finding fault with the way labels calculate royalties, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill, that would make labels give accurate accounting, as per royalties owed: http://199.249.170.183/bb/dail y/article_display.jsp?vnu_cont ent_id=1883484 Obviously, there IS a problem with the way the companies do business. It's one thing for an artist to sign a bad contract. It's quite another for a label to purposely fudge their accounts. That's called FRAUD & they've been doing this for years! | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2726 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
More company bullshit. This is an article that shows you exactly why many artists can get screwed over. The RIAA has been claiming that sales are down due to piracy & P2Ps. However, we discover the way that they play with their own sales gauge, "Soundscan". I call this one, "WHEN A 13 MILLION INCREASE IN SALES BECOMES A LOSS". Reports from Soundscan states the following: 1st quarter of 2003 - 147 million units sold compared to.... 1st quarter of 2004 - 160 million records sold. That would indicate that sales actually increased by 13 million units, right???? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! According to one Cary Sherman of the dreaded RIAA, sales fell by 7%. Now, how could this be, when Soundscan indicated a 13 MILLION increase in sales? I wonder why, don't you??? Let's see what happens, WHEN A 13 MILLION INCREASE IN SALES BECOMES A LOSS!!! Here's the catch, follow the bouncing ball if you can..... Whereas, Soundscan reports actual units SOLD, the RIAA reports a sale as....UNITS SHIPPED TO THE STORE!!! In order to grasp the stupidity of this all, you have to read this article. This is so filled with double talk, that it's damn near criminal. This is creative bookkeeping at its best. If anyone remembers the days of Disco & the fiasco that happened with Stax Records, you'll remember that companies were flooding the marketplace with massive quantities of records. I'm sure that some of you remember records that were touted as having shipped "Platinum" & played up, as though that was some great feat. However, many of those records though SHIPPED Platinum, did not SELL Platinum, or Gold either for that matter. Some of them didn't even sell TIN, cardboard either. Then, came the massive returns back to the company. Many of those Platinum SHIPPED records, either ended up in cut out bins, or destroyed. In the case of Stax, after being reacquired by Al Bell, with a loan from the Union Planters National Bank, released no less than 20 new albums, in the span of ONE WEEK!! Talk about oversaturating the market. This story will show you some of the hidden tricks of the trade that are employed. All with the intent of keeping monies in the pockets of the labels & out of the artists. http://www.mosesavalon.com/mos upposefr.htm (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2727 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
This article gives some insight into some of the arguments used by the RIAA, in attempt to shoot down the proposed bill, that would make it law that they report royalties accurately. This is kinda funny, yet ridiculously stupid at the same time. You can link to their entire statement from this site: http://www.mosesavalon.com/mos upposefr.htm This article can can be found in his archive, dated June 2003 | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2728 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Yet another record industry scam, that takes yet more money out of the pockets of artists & songwriters. Earlier, I mentioned the record clubs. Remember, two of the largest record clubs are owned by label conglomerates. This article is from the may 2003 archive. Let's see what the courts had to say to them about their practices: http://www.mosesavalon.com/mos upposefr.htm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2729 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
This article, from the Feb 2002 newsletter, explains how the RIAA is trying to jerk even music publishers! This article tells about a deal attempted to be cut by the Harry Fox Agency. Talk about the fox watching the hen house: http://www.mosesavalon.com/mos upposefr.htm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2734 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
This installment comes from the Dec 2003 installment. It discusses the issues involving health care payments to artists, od the deficiencies thereof: http://www.mosesavalon.com/mos upposefr.htm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2735 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here's an interesting one. Moses has provided us with a "Royalty Calculator". It's quite interesting for the prospective artist. So, your record went Gold, huh? Don't buy that Mansion & the Lamborgini just yet! http://www.mosesavalon.com/mar c.htm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2736 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here's a Jazz story, involving our own Jimmy Scott. This excerpt touches briefly on some of the industry practices from back in the bad old days: http://www.pbs.org/independent lens/jimmyscott/jazz_commerce. html | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2739 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Bullshit accounting, it's not just for Soul music anymore, nor has it gone away. Here's Courtney Love's breakdown, on the royalties, recoupables, promotional maze: http://www.mindspring.com/~ger ryhem/piracy.html | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2740 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
In spite of the RIAAs claims, in spite of file sharing, the industry turned in a record year. BMI reports that for fiscal year 2004, the industry posted sales of $673 million, a 6.8% increase over 2003. The BMI president stated that both revenues & royalty payments were the largest in its history. Yet another lie exposed for what it is. http://arstechnica.com/news.ar s/post/20040903-4156.html | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 1871 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.43.166.140 |
Hey Juice; You've been working hard my brother , and good work it is!! Thanks for all the informative links on the common practice of the exploitation of Recording Artists. S.S. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2742 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Thanks S.S. I just want to debunk the common idea that the industry operates within the letter of the contracts that they sign. They have many ways of circumventing contracts & even the wisest entertainment lawyers have been tripped up by them. This just shows that when an artists signs what appears to be a straight forward contract, the companies can still find way to screw them. Too many damn clauses & too many ways to cook the books. The fact of the matter is that it's not stupid artists that's to blame. It's a one-sided shady business that's to blame. If they were simply content to take their fair share, it would be Kool & The Gang. The fact that the entire industry finds ways to screw artists by circumventing contracts IS THE PROBLEM. I still want to know that if these companies operated within the letter of the law, why do they continually refuse to open their books? I'll examine the problem with auditing later. It's not as cut & dried as it appears to be. (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2743 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Now, let's investigate further the problem that confornts Jazz artists, when it comes to record sales, recoupables & royalties. Contrary to many assertions, this is what usually went down when a young buck was trying to break into the business. It's easy to say that an artist didn't have to sign a one sided contract. The cold hard reality is that they had to, just as our early Black film pioneers had to compromise themselves. When it's the only game in town, how would they have gotten ANY opportunity? One must realize this one truth: had they not signed those contracts, there would be no need for this forum. Who would have heard their music, when there was no other way for them to get it recorded? We can blame these artists all that we want to. The reality is simply that they didn't operate on a level playing field & there was no other place for them to go. Anyway, here's a breakdown of where the money really goes, or rather, why it doesn't go where it should: http://www.jazzbeat.com/html/f reereport.html | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2744 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Recording artist Geraldine Hunt has a very interesting tale to tell about what happened when she elected not to resign with her record label, Prism in the 80s. Consider the fact that Prism was a small indie label. Not an exceptionally nice story here: http://www.disco-disco.com/art ists/geraldine.html | ||
Chi Drummer (chidrummer) 5-Doyen Username: chidrummer Post Number: 251 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 67.175.80.98 |
Juice, That Royalty calculator provides some very interesting insights as to how to construct a more profitable situation for the artist. Would you happen to know the creator of this site and how did you find it? | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2745 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hi Chi D!! I basically hit a search for royalties. The website is mosesavalon.com. I found his information to be very interesting. From what I gather, he does music workshops. (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2746 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here's the case of Sam Moore of Sam & Dave who found himself "Royalty" screwed. Naturally the label tries to claim that they're blameless. Just wait until you read this one. it also includes a sidebar on the mathematics of royalty math. Pretty interesting breakdown of the facts & figures involved. It also shows that while an artist can ask for an audit, why it's often difficult for them to do so: http://www.usatoday.com/life/m usic/news/2004-05-16-royalties -main_x.htm (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2747 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Now this article really cuts to the chase. This gentleman breaks down the process, from the initial signing of a band & the A&R process, down to the ACTUAL costs of recording, touring, promotion & what's left for the band, after everything is deducted. It also points how just how these practices place the act behind the 8 ball & already in debt BEFORE they record their second LP. Even though the act generated a 3 million dollar profit for the INDUSTRY, they actually OWE the label. Check this one out: http://www.negativland.com/alb ini.html (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2748 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here's an article that shows practices that basically amounts to a monopoly. Just wait until you see the various restrictive clauses found in practically EVERY contract drawn up. Some of the technologies, such as broken acetates (which were charged to the artist, under the guise of "breakage fees") no longer EXIST!!! Parts of these contracts are straight out of the days of the grammophone, yet are still used in contract language. The more that I read, the worse it gets. Submitted for your perusal: http://futureofmusic.org/contr actcrit.cfm | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2749 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
To further illustrate the greed & lunacy of these various music organizations & copyright organizations, consider this case. There was an attempt made to SUE THE GIRL SCOUTS. And what grievous crime had they committed?? SINGING SONGS AROUND THE CAMPFIRE! As The Girl Scouts campfire can be considered a public gathering (and the fact that they are an organization), their singing those songs, technically by law constituted a PERFORMANCE!! As such, they were violating the copyright laws & TECHNICALLY, they could have been forced to pay ROYALTIES. Since they never paid royalties for singing around that damn campfire, there was an attempt made to force them do just that...PAY ROYALTIES!!! Maybe they should have read the fine print of their handbooks (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2750 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
More industry BS. So, you paid for a legit copy of your favorite CDs. You have a little diner & you play your music while you work. Sounds like fair usage, doesn't it? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! Unless you're listening to your music through headphones, you're in violation of copyright laws. In such a case, your ass is grass & BMI is the lawnmower!!! Read this account that shows that even after you PURCHASE your favorite CD, it's not yours. It comes with all types of clauses & can be a potential minefield if you don't anti-up to the powers that be. Not only are the artists screwed, consumers are as well. I suggest that you all read that CD cover REAL carefully! These folks are simply greedy & our laws make it all possible. The sad thing is that most of us don't even know it! Read this heart warming story about the joys of music & the benevolent agency known as BMI. What you don't know, may cost you!!! http://www.smokymountainnews.c om/issues/02_04/02_25_04/fr_pl ay_license.html | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2751 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Here are some more ASCAP/BMI tricks. These folks have no shame at all: http://www.woodpecker.com/writ ing/essays/phillips.html This practice even hurts performing musicians. Yep, in my humble opinion, I would surmise that BMI wants to do its part to see that these musicians eat..........ALPO, perhaps. I think that's enough for tonight. Let's see what new & thrilling info I come up with tomorrow (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) (Message edited by juicefree20 on October 07, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2822 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Glad to see my point was made sufficiently | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 1887 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.234.10.241 |
LOL! JUICE! Alpo is right-HA-HA-HA-You crack me up sometimes. S.S. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2826 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Yes Sis, It seems that when you present facts, the silence is deafening. I'm been on this forum for almost a year & I've seen many industry folks trying to blame the artists, talking about how everyone got paid fairly. They even tried to say that the artist signed the contract & should have known what they were signing. Oh, I worked with so & so, or, I know so & so & they were nice, they were good. When we talk opinions, everyone has one. Now, when presented with the tricks that the companies use, within the parameters of a FAIR contract, to screw artists, I don't hear anyone saying shit! That's a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Where are the apologists now & where is their proof to rebut my statements & what I've presented here? Truth has a way of silencing folks, doesn't it? People need to call a spade a spade & stop making excuses for the companies. If anyone should come here with anything to say, I've got another 25 articles, with financial breakdowns to hit them with. The fact is that what I'm presenting can't be disputed & if my industry friends don't find this info to be enlightning, shame on them. Maybe some young kid will learn something from these articles. If even one learns something, the effort was worth it. Maybe everyone would rather argue about their favorite Temptation Bow Wow Baby | ||
Vonnie (vonnie) 5-Doyen Username: vonnie Post Number: 333 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
Juice, I have been reading the links that you have so painstakingly provided. It is a true testament to what some of us have been saying about the business of music. I do know that certain congressman have been looking into the music industries tactics and are trying to initiate reform. However, this is a long drawn out process that will take time to fix, but I have hope that it will help many of the artists who are still alive and have been duped. I will continue reading the links, hopefully, I will learn some tactics to help several of my friends, who are fighting for their royalties. | ||
Morgan (leeway) 4-Laureate Username: leeway Post Number: 108 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.41.236.206 |
Sometimes a person's "need" to be right, begins to outweigh the ability to focus on the issue. Mor-fucious. | ||
Soul Sister (soul_sister) 6-Zenith Username: soul_sister Post Number: 1890 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.234.10.241 |
Hey Juice; I commend your efforts, it's so very important folks see the truth at long last. Ya' know I know, living it for some 40 years or so. Aside from that, Jimmy happened upon the worst of exploiters back in the 50's and still can't get a dime from Savoy, particularly now that they are owned by the Japanese Company, but they keep on releasing his material year after year with new jackets. It seems the theives in the business don't just limit themselves to the good old U.S.A.!! S.S. | ||
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon) 5-Doyen Username: davie_gordon Post Number: 264 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.157.242.173 |
Juice, I can understand your frustration at the lack of feedback on this thread but the problem is that 1. older members have known this stuff for years -maybe not exactly how all the scams and frauds are done but in general terms. Frankly it amazes me that most artists ever see record royalties. 2. the newer ones who haven't followed the business as long as some of us will be bewildered. I will never understand how courts have continually justified the label's stance that the artists pay for recordng costs but at the end of the day it's the labels who own the master recordings. Andrew hamilton once likened this to paying a mortgage and when it's it fully paid up the bank / building society still owns your house. I could take the easy way out and say "well, that's capitalism for you - the US way" but greedy crooks are there in whatever economic system is operating. I wish I could say something other than I support your efforts in drawing forummers attention to these valuable articles. But other than that I don't know what you're really expecting - a chorus of "that's a f*****n' disgrace" isn't really getting us any further forward. I'm wondering who you mean by forummers "in the business" - none of the company presidents, lawyers or accountants are ever going to talk publicly about this, eacept if they're dragged into court and then they'll have batallions of highly paid lawyers raising objections to every question. The people on the forum who work in the business, writing sleeve notes and making up compilations won't be privy to the machinations that go on at management level. As I said I wish I could respond more postively - but after reading most of those articles i don't feel able to. Davie |
