 |
UNSIGNED BY WHO?
1 April 2005
For some reason a lot of music web-sites still make a clear division between signed artists and the
so-called unsigned. But how is that defined? Am I considered signed because I make my releases through a
label, or am I considered unsigned as this label is independent and partly owned by me?
What I can't understand is why so many Independent web-sites (especially in England, it seems to me) do that. That's not promoting
good music regardless of who makes it, that's just dancing to the big record companies' tune. I'm sure they love this division.
Imagine what could happen if "unsigned" artists got the same exposure as new signed ones do (established artists are out of this
struggle), surpass them in popularity, and maybe even sell more copies than they do?
That’s why gigs should be less like theatre and more like football games. 90 minutes, two halves, a break, and perhaps some extra
3-4 minutes for the time wasted on changing strings or tuning the guitar. A bit of planning in advance - just in general and in
relation to the circumstances (home or away) - and then leaving the rest of it to chance, improvisation, inspiration, and sometimes
the lack of it.
If you consider the fact that while an unsigned artist can live pretty well with just selling 10,000 copies a year
(1,000 downloads a month on iTunes can bring in a monthly salary of more than $7,000), the signed one will need to sell a
lot more to even see a penny, or worse manage to pay back the loan from the record company (take the example of The Beta Band
who split-up, owing more than half a million pounds to their record company, and that's a band who was featured on the successful
film 'High Fidelity').
What would happen is that the artists will have the upper hand. They wouldn't need to rush into signing degrading contracts.
The record companies as a result would have little control on what people listen to and no control on the artists output, or salary.
As a matter of fact, in such a scenario, a lot more artists would probably be able to make a decent living out of their art.
Surely we're all in this for the artists and not the execs, aren't we?
|
|
|
