An EDM artist I follow named Kiesza says she left her label and went indie because the label she was at was highly controlling of her songs (about a decade ago) and image. She now produces independently as many of her songs she wanted to do were rejected. There are a few other examples like Charlie XCX who ditched a major label.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
How much do record companies control an artist?
- Thread starter tall_guy1
- Start date
It depends on the contract an artist signs. Major label artists often sign what are called 360 deals that give the label access to one of their revenue streams: Publishing, Touring, Merchandizing. That's where the real money is. Not in recording. If you check the bottom of artist websites, it's possible that the label owns the domain and controls the content. Image & likeness is a big deal these days. Ask college athletes. But the answer to your question is it depends on the contract. Everything is negotiable.
So the way an artist presents himself or herself is also sometimes part of the deal? (Interviews and whatnot.) It seems like artists like Miley Cyrus have changed their image over time, but could be possible due to who is in charge of who.
It could be, depending on contract. Miley has more ownership of her career because of her success. She's top of food chain.
That makes sense. A little known Estonian artist named Kerli was briefly in LA at the beginning of last decade. She started out independently making more arthouse pop, then during the time she was in LA made more broad based electropop before returning to Estonia and making her own music. She was never popular in the US, though The Lucky Ones reached the top of the dance chart in 2013. She said some songs were rejected and image heavily controlled in LA. It is possible Hollywood labels try to throw a bigger net for a bigger appeal than some places in the world and try to create stars rather than have a smaller image.
The labels definitely control what an artist can release. They label is the one doing the releasing, after all.
Not if the artists own their master recordings, like Ray Charles and Prince did.
Typically even if the artist owns the master, the label decides which singles are worked to radio.
In a lot of cases, the artist doesn't get control of his/her masters until about 20 years later. It took Prince a while to get control.
Remember this Indiana guy named Johnny Cougar? When he had no clout his management and record company made him use that name. Many hits later, he could be John Cougar Mellencamp and then John Mellencamp.
One of my co-workers has a cousin who was trying to break into the music business. He's been languishing for about 6 or 7 years, doing a few live performances each year in some decent size clubs here and there but no better - but it's such a competitive industry with seemingly any kid with any interest at all being able to make decent music in their bedroom and publishing directly to Youtube or elsewhere, but I digress... When a music company first got ahold of him, they looked at his music, his hairstyle, number of tattoos, etc. and they came up with a "storyline" and a "suggested look" for him. "You're gonna be the kid that looks like xyz, has an image of xyz and primarily appeals to xyz". They suggested he get more piercings, go with more of a grunge look with his hair and clothes he'd wear, etc. He did as they suggested, but as mentioned, I don't think he gotten far in the business, at least as of now.
My guess is that, for people starting out in the industry, record companies and managers likely have a fair amount of control or at least input. After all, they're also protecting their investment in some ways. Once an artist really becomes "big", I'm guessing they are able to have much more control.
My guess is that, for people starting out in the industry, record companies and managers likely have a fair amount of control or at least input. After all, they're also protecting their investment in some ways. Once an artist really becomes "big", I'm guessing they are able to have much more control.
I've been told that's also what happens to contestants on Idol and The Voice. There needs to be a story they can tell.
This is an older example, but I have heard stories about the Bangles being allowed to only release singles/videos that Susanna Hoffs sang on because the record company thought she was the best looking of the group. Their albums had multiple songs sung by the other members of the group.
She was the best looking. Is it OK for me to thank the label for its video policy?
Another older example - The group Alabama, which had lots of crossover hits and made both the country and Top40 charts, was primarily made up of 3 cousins (Randy Owen, Jeff Cook and Teddy Gentry). The drummer was not related to them and was not in the original group. When they had a falling out with their drummer, Owen made a somewhat controversial statement at the time, explaining that the drummer was never really a core member of the band, and that the long-time drummer they were feuding with only played with them during concerts/touring but not in recording sessions. Randy went on to explain that when they were starting to make it big, their record label thought they need to be a 4 piece group, just like the Beatles were a 4 piece group, so Alabama was kind of forced to include drummer boy in their publicity, on all their album covers, etc.
