Releasing Music Yourself -versus- Not Unless We Get a Deal (2 Viewers)

[waterfall]

That's mad
An old friend of mine got signed to Polydor, ran up a hundred+ grand bill in Windmill, never got a release, contract terms expired, end of story. No liability on her part, AFAIK (haven't talked to her in years though)

No no, it's very likely she did get off scott free. Like I said, labels can often do the decent thing and admit "right, we heard you, thought were good and would sell records but you didn't, our fault not yours."

I'm talking about a minorit that get stung.

 

[Vinnie]

This thread has turned sillier

 

[waterfall]

Eh? You mean gramatically?

I dunno what he was on about to be honest

 

[Space]

A major label spent the money on the band.
The band didn't succeed commercially.
The major label held the band accountable for money spent and lost.
Court ruled they owed a few hundred grand to label.
Band declare bankrupcy

Legally, especially if you have Mr Burns-esque 10 high priced lawyers, a label may not have to include a specific commitment in the contract where the band has to pay back money regardless of earnings. I'm not a solicitor but they can include something that doesn't explicitly say it but will give them grounds to argue and win the matter later in court should the situation arise.

The fact is, these major label legal types are 10 times more ruthless than any legal advice sought by a young band offered a deal. You can't protect yourself really. You just have to hope you sell a shit load of records or the label does the decent thing.

Sometimes the label doesn't do the decent thing and they drop you. Then take you to court.

And this is why the majority of people here have no interest in a major label deal and just do it themselves.

Personally I'd rather spend my own money on recording/releases and lose that than lose someone else's money and pay the consequences. Obviously I'd rather not lose anybodies money.

 

[waterfall]

This thread has turned sillier

yeah but without it we'd prob be talking about home and away

and i'd have actually got some work done

 

[waterfall]

And this is why the majority of people here have no interest in a major label deal and just do it themselves.

Personally I'd rather spend my own money on recording/releases and lose that than lose someone else's money and pay the consequences.

Good point

 

[billygannon]

A major label spent the money on the band.
The band didn't succeed commercially.
The major label held the band accountable for money spent and lost.
Court ruled they owed a few hundred grand to label.
Band declare bankrupcy

Legally, especially if you have Mr Burns-esque 10 high priced lawyers, a label may not have to include a specific commitment in the contract where the band has to pay back money regardless of earnings. I'm not a solicitor but they can include something that doesn't explicitly say it but will give them grounds to argue and win the matter later in court should the situation arise.

The fact is, these major label legal types are 10 times more ruthless than any legal advice sought by a young band offered a deal. You can't protect yourself really. You just have to hope you sell a shit load of records or the label does the decent thing.

Sometimes the label doesn't do the decent thing and they drop you. Then take you to court.

Hang on. If a label gives a band money to record an album and then the band fails to make a commercial success out of the album, and then the label demands their money back - then technically aren't the label loaning the money to the band?
If that's the case, then the label would have be a registered money lender, wouldn't it?

I mean if you make an investment... say like buying shares... and then the company goes belly up... you can't go to the company and then say give me my investment back. You're the investor and if the company doesn't work, then you risk losing the investment.

Of course, none of this applies if the band happens to be a barber shop quartet

 

[Mitchum]

well tom waits mainly makes money from suing people for likeness right these days doesn't he!!

...and he's done his years of playing toilet venues across USA etc!
Jim O'Rourke doesn't even MAKE music anymore.
...Kate Bush is a kept woman of course. She's spent the last ten years watching Richard & Judy grow old (whilst smoking pot and eating Hob-Nobs).

 

[Space]

Hang on. If a label gives a band money to record an album and then the band fails to make a commercial success out of the album, and then the label demands their money back - then technically aren't the label loaning the money to the band?
If that's the case, then the label would have be a registered money lender, wouldn't it?

I mean if you make an investment... say like buying shares... and then the company goes belly up... you can't go to the company and then say give me my investment back. You're the investor and if the company doesn't work, then you risk losing the investment.

Of course, none of this applies if the band happens to be a barber shop quartet

Isn't an advance just a loan?

Edit: I'm asking the same question as you. I always thought an advance was a complicated loan.

 

[egg_]

there's no "have to" in life, or when making music

But there is "if x is to happen then y needs to happen"

 

[coast to coast]

Here's one band's (the Dresden Dolls) perspective on trying not to go broke while doing music full time. They make the majority of the money from touring.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6885355

I knew someone made the majority of their money from touring. Wilco do also, I believe.

 

[MDR]

My basic understanding of a record contract is as follows:

Label gives band advance of, say, €200,000.

For every €20 made by the band, the band keeps about a euro; maybe €5 goes to the label; the rest on VAT, distribution, mark-up etc.

The band must pay back the €200,000 from the one euros that they make.

That €200,000 covers recording, promotion, videos, tour losses etc. In other words, the band spend their own borrowed money trying to get their career off the ground.

Say the band sells 199,999 copies of their album at €20 a pop. Even though the label has received €999,995 in revenue, the band still owes the label €1.

That €1 debt carries over the the next release. If the band is dumped, the label may or may not drop the €1 debt.

If the band signed a multi-album deal. The label can stop them releasing music with anyone else; the label does not have to accept the albums submitted by the band and can refuse to release the albums until the band submits something the label likes.

Obviously, every contract is different, but this is my general understanding of how it works. The label basically loans you a mortgage where they control what the money is spent on and where it is repaid by your share of the income generated; their share of the income does not count towards your debt.

 

[billygannon]

Jim O'Rourke doesn't even MAKE music anymore.

Didn't he release Mizu No Nai Umi last year? Is that new stuff?

 

[Mitchum]

Ron Perlman should consider growing a beard, just in case

Ever hear of The Sons Of Lee Marvin?

 

[waterfall]

Isn't an advance just a loan?

argh

why didn't i just put it this simply earlier

it's an "advance" of future earnings

if future earnings don't materialise...

 

[Mitchum]

Didn't he release Mizu No Nai Umi last year? Is that new stuff?

Nah...from 1990 I think?!

 

[Vinnie]

I think this much was clear to most alive people. It's the "if" part that was causing the confusion.

argh

why didn't i just put it this simply earlier

it's an "advance" of future earnings

if future earnings don't materialise...

 

[snakybus]

Eh? You mean gramatically?

No. I'm saying you don't "have to" jump through hoops etc to make your own records. Making a living is a separate thing of course, but who knows, it could be possible.

 

[therealjohnny]

Ever hear of The Sons Of Lee Marvin?

I have....now

 

[billygannon]

argh

why didn't i just put it this simply earlier

it's an "advance" of future earnings

if future earnings don't materialise...

It's a loan. If future earnings don't materialise, then the investor has to take the hit. That's the way it works in the normal business world.

That's exactly the same as say... Duncan Banatyne... on Dragon's Den... he gives 50K to some guy who has come up with a new kind of thingymejig. Now, say the thingymejig doesn't sell and the company goes belly up, Duncan Banatyne can't go after the guy to get his 50K back.
I mean... why is it any different for music labels? If it is... well, then bands should just not bother with dealing with them.
Sounds like a load of bollix.