Jack Ingram Sets Sights On Record; Smash Mouth Crossover; Patty Griffin’s Gospel

What Garth said should be a “well, no $hit Sherlock, you think we’re that clueless? It is called the music BUSINESS.” kind of statement. Instead he’s a wise country sage for saying it.

Jon’s right.

Everything I’ve heard from James Hand is great… I’m going to have to go shopping for his music.

…also, Rick is gonna be mad. 5 of the top 6 stories today are texas-related…and no mention of bomshel and/or the coppolas :-)

Garth is the quintessential businessman. He’s as cut throat as they come. His vortex and demands got many a good artist dropped from Capitol, so the workers at Capitol could spend more time on his marketing andpromo campaigns.

That Smash Mouth guy was featured (alongside John Anderson, Jamey Johnson, Bill Anderson, Mel Tillis, John Cowan and Ira Dean) on a track on Darryl Worley’s new album.

I’m really looking forward to hearing Gene Watson’s new album.

Another amen to the Garth quote. J.R., I couldn’t have said it any better.

Oh yeah, and I also really like what I’ve heard from James Hand so far.

Boy…Does the Smashmouth guy have the same publicist telling him what to say that Darius Rucker does?? The say the same thing about wanting to make a country record for so long. Give me an F–in break. Smashmouth has been a footnote to bad 90s rock just like Sugar Ray. They had maybe 2 real hits (that both sounded lame) and then were regulated to ba covers of songs for Shrek movies.
THE NEW NASHVILLE FORMUA IS:
I Am Done in Rock….I will go to the morons in the country world, add a banjo or steel guitar to my lame ass rock music and call it country!!
It’s not even about being true to the country music that made this town famous….It is about how lame the music that is being put out now.

Garth means this is why he is going with Walmart instead of I-tunes. Because being paid to create something is important. Unless that something is a t-shirt, in which case it is okay to outsource it and pay kids 10 cents a piece to make them.

Professing not to be sure of what Brooks meant kind of illustrates his point.

It’s very easy for a musician or a songwriter to sign away some or all of the control of his or her music in pursuit of success – but you don’t necessarily have to, and at the very least, you should understand exactly what you’re agreeing to when you sign any kind of deal, whether it’s a recording deal, a publishing deal, a personal appearance contract, whatever. Too many people in that position think it’s somehow “commercializing” or “selling out” or being like a “suit” to do that, or they’re “too busy,” or they “can’t understand” or they’re afraid they’ll lose the deal if they ask questions – the reasons for not taking care of business are pretty much endless. Brooks thinks that at the end of the day, they’re bogus, and he’s right.

What he meant to say was, OWN YOUR MASTERS. Easy for him to say, but it’s a good goal to have.

I even think more business control could inadvertently end up translating to more creative control.

While I can’t argue with artists wanting to have more business control, like anything else, there needs to be a sense of balance. When artists — like Garth, for example — become fixated on breaking sales records, I think it can have a detrimental effect on the music.

It would be nice if more artists owned their own masters; they’d probably do a better job marketing their back catalogs than the major labels do. But aside from Garth, how many country artists have owned the masters to their major-label masters? I can think of two — Kenny Rogers and Crystal Gayle.

Matt,
Have I missed something? Do Razor X and LBT have a thing or something?

Ha. Oops.:) Good for them.

Yeah, but shrinking music sales also means it’s easier to get a licensing deal than it used to be. Less risk for the labels, and the artists keep control over their masters.

Razor,

Little Big Town says hello.

I know they owned the masters to the recordings that they made for Equity. Did they get the same deal from Capitol?

The business model that Clint Black was trying to promote with Equity seemed like a good idea; it’s a shame that it didn’t work out.

I know it’s easier said than done, but when Pat Green first came to town, people turned him down. So, he did everything on his own until he had such a deep following that the labels had to take notice… Whether or not he owns his masters, I don’t know.

I’ve actually come across this very phenomenon in my media classes. Innovative people are being squashed, getting angry, leaving companies and starting up their own ventures that are ultimately successful enough to be bought back by the original company (and/or be more successful than the orig).

Stormy,
That’s true, but it’s idealistic to think that many people wouldn’t or shouldn’t want to sign with major labels.

Random news for the morning: Danny Gokey will apparently be launching a country music career. Super.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/08/24/danny-gokey-american-idol-deal/

A lot of people who once signed with major labels are now gratefully moving to smaller ones where they get to keep more of the money.

And a lot of people who started off with an indie would willingly move to a major. The difference in percentage kept is a moot point if the total yield is larger via a major label. Beside that, promotion from a major would create a higher profile that an artist would capitalize on while touring. I’d say the issue is a little more complex than the simple indies are good and majors are evil mentality.

“I’d say the issue is a little more complex than the simple indies are good and majors are evil mentality.”

You got that right. For instance, many of those artists that Stormy mentions are, when they move to smaller labels, able to bring with them audiences they already grew during their major label stints – and in fact, without those audiences, it’s possible that those smaller labels might not be so interested. And stories of alleged mistreatment at the hands of indie labels as well as majors are endemic.

Really, there are so many variables involved that it makes little or no sense to make blanket statements about what’s preferable; each artist (musician, songwriter, etc.) has to have a strong sense of what s/he wants to accomplish, a clear understanding of what’s being offered in a given instance, what other options are (or might become) available, what the strengths and weaknesses are of each, etc., in order to make the smartest choices possible.

Which was Brooks’ point – treat your business as a business.