Next Big Sound (a/o June 18th):
In February, we ran a depressing article detailing the various ways in which EMI had screwed Kenny Rogers. After an exhaustive listing of alleged abuses spanning decades, Kenny's legal team settled on a sad assessment, one that unfortunately matches our grim picture of big-label accounting.
This isn't just an EMI (or Capitol Records) thing: in fact, a string of lawsuits by major-signed superstars have now etched a pattern of systematic dishonesty, all in the name of lowering one huge cost: the artist. That complements lots of troubling tales about broke - and broken - artists who were simply screwed by smarmy label execs and lawyers (and oftentimes, their own collossal mistakes).
It just seems baked into the system. So why is Kenny Rogers now signing with another major, right down the block? On Thursday, Kenny Rogers proudly announced a brand new deal with Warner Music Group (Nashville), specifically through his old-time label, Warner Bros. Records. "Our history together, combined with the incredible team that's in place now, provides the catalyst for a great new relationship going forward."
Of course, there are reasons why this might make sense, including upfront cash. And, the executives at Warner Nashville may be totally different than Capitol, while the presence of a label frees the burden of doing (or at least overseeing) everything. On top of that, Rogers now has considerable leverage to not only negotiate more favorable terms, but also construct deals that focus on more limited areas (ie, marketing, distribution, etc.)
But this is still Warner Music Group, a company with a legacy of outlandish executive salaries, red-ink financials, and now, some very aggressive cost-cutting. And this seems like a golden opportunity: maybe Kenny isn't Amanda Palmer, but there are plenty of experts that could have shepherded a truly independent, 'DIY' career for this legend. Warner, on the other, seems like an ongoing 'Gamble,' no matter how good it seems upfront.
Steven Corn (BFM Digital) Friday, May 11, 2012
If there was anyone that could go DIY, it would be Kenny. Why does he need a big label? He could self release, go thru a digital distributor (eye wink inserted here), get the same love from his fans and keep the lion's share of the money. All he would have to do is front some manufacturing costs and radio promotion, maybe.
It's arguable that a major label might be needed to get an artist to a worldwide recognition level. But when you already have that, a good manager and a bunch of team members (again, eye wink inserted here) can acomplish the same successes.
I think that the only time an artist like Kenny needs a major label deal is to get a large advance which makes the label essentially act like a bank. If Amanda Palmer can raise $600k+ from Kickstarter, imagine what Kenny could have done. I know that if a meet and greet was one of the bonuses, my wife would have been an early and big investor.
Anonymous Friday, May 11, 2012
I don't know why more artists (and songwriters) don't exercise their audit rights that are provided for in their contracts.
Auditing the record labels (and publishers) is a vital exercise that can reveal these (sometimes veering on fraudulent) underpayments that artists incur.
Business managers need to be more aware of what their artist's audit rights are, and exercise them whenever they can.
If not, you are basically allowing the labels to steal your money. Which, as has been shown, they will do without hesitation.
Keep them honest (at least a little bit).
Visitor Friday, May 11, 2012
Well there's the idea of an audit, and then there's the audit. which has to happen in ten days most of the time. Ten days of shady accounting is going to be impossible to comprehend in ten days with a career as long as kenny rogers. Number two, most contracts stipulate that you can only conduct a personal audit once.
Anonymous Sunday, May 13, 2012
Well the contracts you're reading must be written differently than the dozens of contracts I've read...It's kind of my job.
I've seen the ten-day-audit language in one publishing contract, but I don't think publishers want to press the issue on that one.
Generally, audits are only limited to 2 or 3 year periods, and the stipulation that one statement can only be audited once.
I'm curious as to what contracts you're looking at.
@rick_meyers Friday, May 11, 2012
Glutton for punishment or wise business man?
Technology Has No Morals Friday, May 11, 2012
"plenty of experts that could have shepherded a truly independent, 'DIY' career for this legend."
Ha-Ha-Ha... Paul has become the Mitt Romney of etch-a-skectch journalism. Previously from Digital Music News: "WE NOW KNOW IT'S ACTUALLY WORSE FOR THE ARTIST. THE NEW BOSS in the new model is iTunes and Amazon (also indirectly Google). And THE NEW BOSS is actually more greedy than the old boss." - David Lowery, Cake, (capital letters as quoted in Digital Music News).
Revoke the DMCA Safe Harbor Provision unfairly protecting mega-rich criminal websites is the only really fair answer.
@smilodon Friday, May 11, 2012
Oh, Kenny.. I would have been Your independent friend in Scandinavia.
label addict. Saturday, May 12, 2012
its like meth to a junkie. these old timers don't get the new indie-stry. Good luck, Kenny!
@joshantonuccio Saturday, May 12, 2012
Kenny, you've got to know when to hold 'em, and especially, when to fold 'em (major labels that is)
@joshantonuccio Saturday, May 12, 2012
Kenny, you've got to know when to hold 'em, and especially, when to fold 'em (major labels that is)
© 2013 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us