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

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:17:23 +0000

“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.

By: Razor X

Razor X — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:34:53 +0000

I’m no expert on the music business, but I think one of the main problems with the major labels nowadays is that there aren’t enough of them, thanks to a series of mergers and consolidations. There’s less competition because most of the power is concentrated in the hands of just four companies. Presumably, an aspiring artist who gets turned down for a contract by Columbia won’t be able to get a deal from RCA or Arista, either since they’re part of the same conglomerate — whereas 20 years ago, when those companies were operated independently of each other — the artist would have had more opportunities to convince someone to give him a chance.

By: Brady Vercher

Brady Vercher — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:03:28 +0000

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.

By: Brody Vercher

Brody Vercher — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:54:33 +0000

CMT is live streaming all of Ingram's interviews.

By: STORMY

STORMY — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:47:50 +0000

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.

By: frozenphan

frozenphan — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:29:45 +0000

We were one of Jack Ingram’s stations this morning. He already sounded burned out.

By: Sam G.

Sam G. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:30:13 +0000

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/

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:24:36 +0000

Since Brooks addressed “Musicians, artists, songwriters,” he was speaking about more than just owning masters. And his point was valid whether you’re talking about major labels or indies, big publishing houses or small ones, etc. It seems that on Stormy’s planet, majors are all evil and indies all heroic, but here on Earth it’s a different story; indie deals can be just as badly structured for artists as major label deals, and indie owners can be venial, abusive and/or outright crooks. Thinking “oh, I’m signing with an indie, I don’t need to worry about the details because they’re sure to treat me right” is another way in which people make excuses for not taking care of business.

By: Leeann Ward

Leeann Ward — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:17:50 +0000

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

By: Stormy

Stormy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:43:51 +0000

But in music they don’t have to actually sign with one of the major labels.