Record Companies

One thing Ive never understood is how a record company can own the material that a band puts out. Then sometimes an artist wants to be able to something new with the material sometimes years later and then has to buy their work back but cant because the record company charges too much for if. Shouldnt it be the artists property, they created it.

Ive heard of record companies letting band go, then releasing special editions of their work even know the artist isnt with them anymore. I think thats dirty

Don't know much about the industry, but from what I've read over the years in interviews in CCM and HM magazines, the labels are ruthless, money-hungry, and powerful. The ones that aren't that way, end up folding and leaving many artists in predicaments where they have unfinished albums or their album rights were sold to another company.
No wonder there were tons of artists beginning their own labels in the late 80s and 90s. Even then I've read some pretty bad experiences with small artist owned labels.
Seems like a pretty ugly business.

Usually the artist unknowingly signs the rights away.  This is due to inexperience and not realizing that record labels' #1 priority is making money.  You make money for them they are your best friend.  You quit making money or start making less money, they cast you aside.

Again, sounds like a pretty ugly business

I've heard it explained that record companies can be like pimps. Draw the conclusions that you will, but it sounds about right to me, sadly…

Kind of like how Intense Millennium was able to "buy" the entire Intense/Frontline Catalog with no band input. And reissue those albums with little or no band input. I am glad the did the remasters/reissues but I don't think there was much band involvement other than Sacred Warrior Rebellion. I know someone in Roger's camp showed up when the artwork for Human Sacrifice and Once Dead was revealed and they weren't too happy about it. I don't know who got payment from those releases but it was more than likely KMG because they owned the catalog. And IMR only had the rights to release them on CD not as digital files.

I believe Def Leppard has a lot of control over their music because they refuse to let the record company release their songs as digital files. They have re-recorded a few tunes and those are the only songs available as downloads (other than the Mirror Ball Live album). I know it took forever for AC/DC and The Beatles to show up as digital files too so I bet they have a special deal worked out with those online services..... Which reminds me, Michael Jackson bought the rights to all The Beatles catalog... So who owns all of those now? His estate?

That also explains why a lot of bands are re-recording their "hits". I know in 1996 when Styx released Greatest Hits II Dennis DeYoung had a new song pulled from that release because he didn't want UMe to have control over his song. It was later released on the next studio album when they signed to another label.

Back in 1994, Metallica signed a contract with Warner Music Group which stated that they would own all of their music and videos effective November 30, 2012. Now that they own EVERYTHING in their catalog, they founded their own label and reissued all their albums.

The music business is a business first. By owning the rights they control if the music gets played and where.

I remember reading somewhere that in the case of Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer, the payments for radio play are something like 8,500 times what the singer/songwriter got paid for the record.

Traditionally, the songwriter only gets paid 7.5 cents per play.  With streaming, it is way less.

How do the labels own the artists' work?  Under US Copyright law, any creative works done for hire are considered the ownership of the person paying for the work to be done.  So, when you get a label that signs you and puts up front money for you to record with, promote your product, make the product, etc., they own the rights to publishing of that work.  That's an industry standard.  Sometimes artists can renegotiate or buy their masters back, but that doesn't happen with most new artists.

Because the label owns the recorded work, they can release it however they want and whenever they want.  The artists will get paid based on the level of recoupement from each individual project.  If the percentage they are to get is less than the label spent on making that project, then the artist will be mighty hungry as they won't get paid.  It's a hard life for a musician who isn't selling millions of copies of their record.

The band does retain their own PERFORMANCE rights, though, to any work they wrote and recorded for that label.  They can make money off of concerts, t-shirts, and other merch.  That's how many bands survive even today.  The band can, like Stryper, re-record their songs and then have ownership over the new versions.  They will traditionally do this to regain control of their songs and give the band/artist the ability to license their music for movies, video games, etc.  Without the redone versions, these artistic outlets would go to the label for rights thus pushing the artist out of the money loop.

I don't have the following or pro sound that most labels are looking for when they sign an artist.  That's partly why I went with Tate.  The other reason is that they offer you ownership of your project completely when the contract per album is ended.  You paid to record it and master it.  The songs are yours.  I even own my insert designs as I had that done, too.  Tate only gets their larger percentage because they have spent time and money trying to promote the project and in printing of the CDs & download cards.  I get a small check quarterly with my sales and a full report of how many units I have moved.  It isn't much, but so far they are on the up and up and I like having the ownership of my music completely.

^ Very informative. I knew if anyone here knew anything about the biz it'd be Alldat - thanks for that

I know Im crazy and in the minority but I think the work for the Lord in this case music, should be a ministry not a business. We followers of Christ shouldnt be doing this the way the world does it. Its in this case should be about the Gospel not bank accounts

It's very interesting to know more about how it goes with record companies.

If the company is run by followers of Christ or proclaimed followers then they shouldnt be treated the bands or solo artist because when they do they are breaking the commandment to love your neighbor and more importantly they are committing murder in their heart by treating a fellow brother and sister like that. Its about the Gospel not record sales...

Rich, I have to agree AND disagree with you.

Yes, artists who are about the ministry have to think about the ministry first.  However, if they aren't making money, that ministry will DIE.  All that gear that a band NEEDS to do concerts is dang expensive and requires continuing monies to maintain as the time on the road wears it down.  If a band has people to help them with their music, like a sound man or stage hands to set up their gear, then they have to be paid.  You really just don't want anybody handling your gear that doesn't know how to set it up like you need.  You've gotta have money to pay them as well.

How do you get the band and gear to a show?  A van, truck with trailer, or bus.  Those cost money.  The fuel and upkeep of those vehicles cost money...and lots of it.  If you have a bus, you've got to pay that driver that has his CDL. 

You've got to have product at your shows to sell.  That costs money to make money.  The labels can't give you CDs for free as they make no money.  If they are making no money, then you will not be on that label long.  The ministry dies.

So, if you want to have much outreach at all, you almost NEED the business in order to get your music and MINISTRY out there before people.  Sure, there are indie bands that manage without the labels.  However, you will notice that many of them still don't get radio play, don't play larger halls that are sold out, and many times suffer from loss of production value with their music.  Why is that?  Because the labels can get a lot of this going for you that you cannot do for yourself.  If you are not signed to a major label, chances are that the ministry isn't paying enough to support you and your family so you have to work a full time job.  When you balance music, family, work, church (in no particular order, folks), friends, etc., you don't have enough hours in the day to run your music ministry by writing music, recording, self promotion, tour manager, stage hand, merchandiser, etc. as the ministry needs.

So, when you look at the big picture, you will have to suffer a bit with the ministry aspect if you don't get involved with the labels.  Neither is a guaranteed way to make a great living.  However, being on a major label, who is in it for the money, you won't get some of the chances to play before people and be on the radio.

Labels have to be about the money as well.  It takes a lot of people to do the work for the artists that needs to be done.  Those people have to get paid.  It costs a lot to record and album and to shoot videos.  Someone has to put up that money.  Those CDs you sell at shows?  It costs a lot to have thousands of those printed at one time.  It costs just to put your music on iTunes.  Everyone out there is out for their slice of the pie.  However, he workman is worthy of his hire.  If a company is investing in your music, both of you deserve to profit from it.  With the amount of money that people are paying to legally listen to music shrinking, everyone is tightening their belts.  You will see less and less bands on the store shelves.  Oh, that's already happened.  You will see tours with more artists so that they can draw more people.  Oh, that's already happened.  Unless someone comes up with a new plan to market and sell the music (that's the business side), then the Christian music scene will become smaller and smaller.  If you can't afford to be in a band, you won't be. 

When I was in Stressin' several years ago, we played out a couple of times a month.  We didn't have a CD or any product to sell.  Bad decision.  We had to do our own promoting and played anywhere we could.  Bad decision.  We used to joke and say that everytime we did a show that it cost us each about $60 each.  When you consider gas, food (most churches don't feed the bands), and possible new strings, drums sticks/heads, repairs on guitars or vehicles, clothes to look the part, etc., $60 each show was probably about right.  That's $180 WE had to put out every time we played.  We did it for the ministry, and we burned out in 4 years and stopped playing out.

If you are going to do music for the ministry alone, you will starve and burn out.  Period.  If you do not run the ministry as a business, then there will be no bands/artists doing it for long.

It would be an ideal world if artists could do 100% ministry and sprinkle the beautiful Word of God to millions worldwide..... but that stinkin' money thing always prevents this. Without money, you're limited to what you can do in a ministry.  It's one of the reasons so many really good Christian bands never made a 2nd album.  It's the reason band newsletters are filled with pleas to donate "whatever you can".  It's the reason many artists slip over to a secular label... they gotta eat.

I've been told that Keith Green offered his albums for free, encouraging people to donate as they felt led. I also read that his shows were free. If this is correct, I am curious how he was able to make a living.

As far as Kieth Green is concerned, God provided.

If its about money and not the Gospel, theres a problem

Both Keith and Melody were staff songwriters for CBS Records in Hollywood.
They also mortgaged their home to privately finance "So You Wanna Go Back To Egypt".

While the Greens were widely involved in taking in people to help them get off drugs, alcohol and prostitution, they also had many involved in their ministry who did have money, and there were many who regularly donated generously to help them print publications, tracts as well as financing his records.
They lived very modestly, but it would be presumptuous to think that they could do all they did and not have a healthy income. It's been several years since I read Melody's No Compromise book, but in it she talks some about how they got by. They didn't live like rock stars, but because they put ministry first and music second, his giving heart made it so that they pretty much broke even on the costs of making albums. Most of their income came from donations, and yes, God provided abundantly.

That was a different time though too. Today the cost of living is ridiculous and moreso the cost of cutting an album - unless you have someone supporting you, sponsoring you, or you're riding on massive success of previous album income, then there's no way financially that you could cut an album and then proceed to give away thousands of those albums for free. You'd have to have rich parents, or a spouse who made good money to carry you. One option today would be technology. If artists were able to create all their work on computers, and offer digital downloads, the costs of cutting an album and selling it cheap or giving it away would be feasible.

rich71 wrote:

If its about money and not the Gospel, theres a problem

I think you have to be careful here though. For some Christian musicians, playing music is a full time job. If my boss came to me and said "HEy since you're a Christian, we aren't gonna pay you anymore. That way this can be your ministry."

I don't think it's wise to assume it's about money when musicians want to be paid for their work.

Mark Lowry, the comedian, once told a story of a gig he had. He and his crew drove several miles, spending his own money on gas, wear and tear on his van, eating at modest restaurants, then performed his heart out for the crowd. When they took up a "love offering" (I hate that term), he ended up with a bunch of singles and loose change.
He was talking with the Lord and was mad cuz his heart was in it for ministry, but told God he was broke now, and didn't even have enough money to buy a burger on the way home.  He said how is he gonna keep this up without the finances to continue ?
(THIS is ministry - giving your all and getting no financial help in return)....

The story goes on - Mark heard in his spirit that no matter how bad things get financially or any other way, It Sure Beats Hell... he couldn't argue with that one.
So many in ministry entertainment can get by on practically nothing. But if you're gonna make ministry full time, you can't stand on the street with a cardboard sign to sustain your financial needs. Sure God provides, but He's not gonna make money fall from the sky. Full time ministries always have a means of income. It could be compared to a pastor, most pastors stand before their congregation and make pleas for money- some more than others. Missionaries have church sponsors who send them a steady income, no matter how little it may be.
Don't muzzle the Ox when it's working the field, allow that Ox to partake of food while it works, food at the expense of the owner of the field. God's Word even realizes that a minister, no matter how they're ministering, MUST be taken care of too, or like Chris said, the ministry dies. And what good is a dead ministry.

ishmael81 wrote:

rich71 wrote:

If its about money and not the Gospel, theres a problem

I think you have to be careful here though. For some Christian musicians, playing music is a full time job. If my boss came to me and said "HEy since you're a Christian, we aren't gonna pay you anymore. That way this can be your ministry."

I don't think it's wise to assume it's about money when musicians want to be paid for their work.

Spot on, brother! 

How many churches would argue about supporting their pastors financially these days?  Am I "all about the money" because I receive a monthly paycheck from my church that would barely keep my house paid for, gas in the truck, and the utilities on?  I doubt that most people, if they had to live on this alone, would say that it was enough for what I sometimes have to do.

Many Christian musicians do get paid quite well.  Many more HAVE to work full time jobs on the side to make a living.  So, I guess we can paint with a very bold stripe on everyone and say they are all about the money.

Here's something that we all need to remember when it comes to ministers whether they be behind the pulpit or a guitar/mic: 

1.  The workman is worthy of his hire.

2.  If a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat.

Both are biblical principles.  If the band is trying to make a living playing music, then support them if you like them by buying music, merch, tickets, etc.

If they put out shoddy work, you don't have to support them.  Period.  There will be someone else who can minister to the needs of people who will get the work done.  Support them faithfully as God provides.

alldatndensum wrote:

ishmael81 wrote:

rich71 wrote:

If its about money and not the Gospel, theres a problem

I think you have to be careful here though. For some Christian musicians, playing music is a full time job. If my boss came to me and said "HEy since you're a Christian, we aren't gonna pay you anymore. That way this can be your ministry."

I don't think it's wise to assume it's about money when musicians want to be paid for their work.

Spot on, brother! 

How many churches would argue about supporting their pastors financially these days?  Am I "all about the money" because I receive a monthly paycheck from my church that would barely keep my house paid for, gas in the truck, and the utilities on?  I doubt that most people, if they had to live on this alone, would say that it was enough for what I sometimes have to do.

Many Christian musicians do get paid quite well.  Many more HAVE to work full time jobs on the side to make a living.  So, I guess we can paint with a very bold stripe on everyone and say they are all about the money.

Here's something that we all need to remember when it comes to ministers whether they be behind the pulpit or a guitar/mic: 

1.  The workman is worthy of his hire.

2.  If a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat.

Both are biblical principles.  If the band is trying to make a living playing music, then support them if you like them by buying music, merch, tickets, etc.

If they put out shoddy work, you don't have to support them.  Period.  There will be someone else who can minister to the needs of people who will get the work done.  Support them faithfully as God provides.

Lots of good points alldat. I think another thing to consider is that we are all in ministry if we are believers. Just because I'm not a pastor, teacher or Christian musician doesn't mean I don't evangelize and minister to people.

trogdawn wrote:

rich71 wrote:

One thing Ive never understood is how a record company can own the material that a band puts out. Then sometimes an artist wants to be able to something new with the material sometimes years later and then has to buy their work back but cant because the record company charges too much for if. Shouldnt it be the artists property, they created it.

Ive heard of record companies letting band go, then releasing special editions of their work even know the artist isnt with them anymore. I think thats dirty

The label acquiring ownership of the recordings is usually part of the initial contract a band will sign...typically when they are young, stupid and/or desperate.  Usually a label will give a cash advance to a band to cover recording expenses, so it used to be standard practice for labels to be given ownership of the recordings and was a way for them to make sure they could recoup their expenses even if the album tanked.  Led Zeppelin was an early example of a band who retained ownership of all of their masters and did with them what they pleased.  But they had a monster of a manager in Peter Grant who fought for that for them.
It's basically a business practice and can be done in an ethical or unethical manner, depending on the label owner's own scruples.

I didn't know that about Led Zep, very interesting.