Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
MusicBlob » 2007: escape from (music) majors
Share:
by djbatman | October 17, 2007 at 01:13 pm
491 views | 15 Recommendations | 3 comments
Videos
What's happening with the "old economy" of major music labels? In the last few weeks apparently everyone from Radiohead to Madonna to Nine Inch Nails seemed in a rush to escape a rapidly declining system; MusicBlob's Nicola D'Agostino investigates:
Here’s the draft of a timeline of artists or band that recently left major music labels to start releasing or distributing in first person or chose to give away their work or just to side with new industry players.
In the following list you will find dates, names, sources (a small percentage of them may be my pieces in italian) and details of the decision, deal and/or move with (possibly) some additional info or updates.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
djbatman
Pescara, Italy
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 13:44 on October 17th, 2007
It speaks volumes that the those with relatively long preexisting careers are switching to a new paradigm... whilst I'm not really a fan of Madonna's music, she's always been at the cutting edge of the business side of the music business- if she's making a jump like this, then it's likely for a good reason. Since the true payoff to the artist is in live revenues, it makes sense (at least to this music-biz n00b) to get the music itself into the hands of as many potential concertgoers as possible.
at 13:57 on October 17th, 2007
djbatman, thanks for posting this. I have a few questions though:
- Wasn't Madonna on her own label, Maverick? She left her own label?
- I believe Trent Reznor and NIN's contract was ending anyway; he didn't leave a label so much as decide not to return. May seem like semantics, but its important to be clear.
at 14:45 on October 17th, 2007
Kaitlin:
1) she was on Maverick which was tied to Warner (which on the Sire label also controlled her older releases). She basically sued Warner which was apparently making a mess with payments due to Maverick, then Warner sued back Maverick; and in the end they settled when she sold her stake in the company. So now Maverick is basically dead and a part of WMG, and Madonna is with Live Nation. Not that I like them particularly: personally, I suspect they are basically another nice corporate scam (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Nation#Controversy; their patent was one of the first victims of the EFF campaign "Patent Busting Project" - http://w2.eff.org/patent/), but this for sure means something, just like Jordan pointed out. It is not a coincidence if you think that Warner Music is against DRM-free digital tracks and also the major label seriously risking to go out of business sometimes soon if cd sales keep declining and they do nothing serious with digital music.
2) I believe you are right (though there is still a remix album still coming out on Interscope/Universal in november), I think what Nicola D'Agostino meant with the original post is that many known artists now may go on without a major; I suspect many contracts will not be renewed; many artists already had not contract since the cuts made basically by all majors in the last few years were not only among their staff but also in terms of artists and contracts.
Even Radiohead had completed their contract with EMI with an album released in 2003. So while they kept touring and working, they had no label for the stuff they were producing.
I wonder if NiN would have looked for a contract renewal if Universal hadn't put out the Year Zero album in Australia for something like $30...