Re: Grammy’s 09

[Gutwrench] This might be true, but the artist’s voracity is exposed on their tours and ticket prices.

The disparity between what I paid in the early seventies and what I would have to pay now is so huge that it can’t be explained completely by record companies withdrawing support. The overhead seems to be greater for some reason, and in certain cases, yes, there is greed (there is inflation too, of course, but I’ve been assuming everyone has been allowing for that all along, mutatis mutandis). It’s hard not to suppose greed has a lot do with what Paul McCartney charges, but I’m not convinced I was being fleeced when I paid about thirty dollars to see Steely Dan in 2007 (about ten times what I would have paid in 1973).

Re: Grammy’s 09

“The percentages are essentially irrelevant when your record company is completely supporting you.”

It is relevent from the standpoint that, at “that time”, and in the early stages of a developing career, the “artist” didn’t make significant money off of recordings. Record companies, in general, at “That time”,weren’t “completely supporting” the “artists”. They had agents that weren’t necessarily linked with the labels or exclusive to the labels.

“You can complain that the salary is too low, if you like, but it makes no sense to me to complain about getting a salary, especially when you’re just starting out and have no idea how well your records will sell (or when you’ve kicked around and realize they’re not going to sell that well). You still get the royalties (with what you’ve been already paid deducted, of course).”

I fail to see where I “complained” about this. I merely stated it was the policy of the company in the early stages of its development. These young artists were happy enough to get to create and perform. Royalties go to writers,as if you didn’t know. Smokey wrote most of his own stuff,but he also wrote and produced others. Marvin wrote quite a bit of his stuff as well,particularly later in his career at Motown. Motown had writing teams and production teams. I was just using Motown as an example in regards to how diverse the policies of record companies operated “then”. The 70’s so many changes as “the suits” began to take control of the labels,but that’s another thread.

“Well, the first rock concert I saw was Jethro Tull for $2.50 a ticket. Jethro Tull’s Aqualung had sold very well the year before and this year they were promoting Thick as a Brick which reached #1 on the American charts, as did Passion Play, released the following year. (This is just one example. I attended lots of rock concerts in these years and saw lots of top groups for approximately the same price.)

When the Beatles and Glen Gould ceased performing before audiences altogether in the mid sixties, they certainly couldn’t be said to have been using records only for promotion.”

Thank you for making my point. Jethro Tull’s album’s success was his “promotion”. If those albums weren’t successful, only his momma, family and friends would have showed up.As to the Beatles, it was a promotional machine that was driven by recordings along with TV appearances.

“I think my contracts say “the Author” or “the Composer”, but I’ll have to check (maybe they only say “the party of the second part"). Anyway, I’m pretty sure that artist in this sense is an abbreviation of recording artist. The idea, I think, is that this kind of “artist”, like a painter or a sculptor--and unlike a performer, produces physical objects.”

That is a contract of a different nature. When one is signing an agreement to “record”, it naturally inplies that one is a “recording artist”.
Notice my use of “In general”. Much depends on the size and scope of the company and the artist. I have seen various degrees of depth in contract agreements. I have seen various details on contract agreements, my own and others. Some contracts just deal with recording and distribution, others have rehearsal,travel, promotional tours etc.
Guess this thread has been officially hijacked. 

Re: Grammy’s 09

“Dukester, I didn’t think the Grammys this year were as lame as some previous years, the all-time low being the “Milli Vanilli” one. A few years back when it was the “Beyonce Awards” that was fairly sad as well.
I found this year was at least more encouraging.”

I wish I could share your optimism,DaveP. I would agree that the “Milli Vanilli” was the “low point” of the awards,but I didn’t see that mismatching the contempory artists with the classic artists was a “step up”. I heard Jamie Foxx was cast as one of The Four Tops. GLAD I didn’t see that one!

For “me”, it’s bad enough that the music lacks imagination or,to “me”, not compelling,but seems every singer thinks “hollering” at the top of their range is “singing”. EVERYONE.at least “I” saw and heard was hollering and screaming. Those that didn’t tried to squeeze as many notes in two of a 4 bar phrase as they could. Could be just me.

My question is, if people aren’t buying music, there aren’t any 45s, how do they determine what’s #1 single or album? What is the barometer? Is it just “air time” on terrestrial radio? Last time I was in NY seemed everyone was listening to an iPod or mp3 player.

For “me” the last time I really thought the Grammy’s got it right was “Thriller”. Before that “Songs In The Key of Life”. Must be “me” because I can’t remember ANY Grammy Awards other than those.

Re: Grammy’s 09

I didn’t see that mismatching the contempory artists with the classic artists was a “step up”. I heard Jamie Foxx was cast as one of The Four Tops. GLAD I didn’t see that one!

Jamie Foxx is one talented cat, I’m suprised to see you player-hate on him. Did you know he studied classical music privately and at the college level? You should watch the bonus video or the ‘making of’ the movie “Ray”, it just might impress you to see his piano capability. Well it impressed me anyways.

Its a pleasure to see a multi talented fella in hollywood. IMO anyways.

Re: Grammy’s 09

[TheDukester] Thank you for making my point. Jethro Tull’s album’s success was his “promotion”. If those albums weren’t successful, only his momma, family and friends would have showed up.

In the first place, there was no person in the rock group Jethro Tull named or ever called “Jethro Tull”. In the second place, from a direct monetary standpoint, it would have made no difference to anyone in the group whether only their families showed up because the economic purpose of the concerts was to promote the records. At $2.50 a ticket, it had to have been.

As to the Beatles, it was a promotional machine that was driven by recordings along with TV appearances.

The Beatles made very few television appearances. In America it was pretty much just Ed Sullivan (for the purpose of promoting their early records) and that just after they hit and long before they ceased performing before audiences. No, the products being sold by the Beatles and by Glen Gould were records, incontrovertibly.

I have seen various details on contract agreements, my own and others.

What contracts do you have (other than contracts to perform)? Why would you have access to contracts to which you are not a party?

Re: Grammy’s 09

I think a lot of the price of concerts these days is the cost of production.  I’m old enough to have seen Cream perform, and there you had just three great musicians playing well. Today it’s not enough to simply produce good music, there has to be a big show around the performances.  In some cases that is justified - a Tina Turner concert I went to springs to mind - but in others it is simply masking a lack of real musical talent.  In other words, a triumph of style over substance.

The “hollering” that dukester mentioned seems to be a modern idiom promoted by talent shows. Simon Cowell should take some blame here as he too often simply looks for theatrical effect. On a recent show of “X Factor” a singer performed Dido’s “White Flag”, a very sensitive and gentle song. Cowell responded by saying that he had never liked the song because “it didn’t have a big moment”.  Presumably he meant that it did not have a moment two thirds of the way through where the key changed, the lights went up, a gospel choir came on the stage, and the singer proceed to shout as loud and as high as possible!

As for the Grammys. Pretty stale and boring in my opinion.  Thank goodness for the pure talent of Alison Krauss.

Peter

Re: Grammy’s 09

I heard Jamie Foxx was cast as one of The Four Tops. GLAD I didn’t see that one!

Too bad. Jamie is the real deal. He was a musician before he was a comedian or actor---his degree is in music (International University, San Diego).  I don’t know him personally, but I know cats who roomed with him in college who have told me about his music prowess.  His portrayal of Ray Charles was no fluke; I do know members of the Ray Charles Band who told me they were blown away at how well Jamie played piano and captured Ray’s vibe.

Re: Grammy’s 09

“What contracts do you have (other than contracts to perform)? Why would you have access to contracts to which you are not a party?”

I’ve been at this for 40 years and access to contracts isn’t a National Security issue. You can see one if you know people who have contracts,by a copy of “This Business In Music” or other legal guides, and I “have” been part of contracts as a member of a couple of groups. For the last 25 years I have had “performance” contracts,but have been asked by friends to look over proposals they were offered.

“In the first place, there was no person in the rock group Jethro Tull named or ever called “Jethro Tull”. In the second place, from a direct monetary standpoint, it would have made no difference to anyone in the group whether only their families showed up because the economic purpose of the concerts was to promote the records. At $2.50 a ticket, it had to have been.”

Well I guess that shows what I know and care(d) about Jethro Tull. I’m sure there are a list of R&B groups and acts that I followed and went to see perform that you have no clue.
“YOU” talked about the success of a couple of his albums. “I” said it was the result of that success that they were able to pack a place. Tickets “were” cheaper in those days. Granted it could have been 6 or one and 1/2 Dozen of the other,but unless an artist wrote and owned the publishing of a record as well as recorded it, he didn’t make that much off of the record.
Now there are cases like “Feelings” and “Mr.Bojangles” where the writer/artist made a bundle. But that was a royalty thing. Only God knows how many people recorded “Feelings” and both songs were played and used for one thing or another for which they also got paid. People don’t “cover” tunes like they used to.

Quiet as it’s kept, you don’t really know all you think you know about this business and you aren’t the only one who knows anything about this business. Hands down, you have the edge on me with science and literature and other subjects. This one I have to long a time in and too many resources for us to go back and forth on. You can play symantics,manipulate intent and redirect all you want. I’ve seen you do it to DaveP and others who have experience and knowledge in a particular area. I won’t play your game.
Then again, I don’t have to prove anything to you.
.....later