Latest on MJJC

Record companies not letting certain artists have any creative input in their music?

analogue

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8,333
Points
113
I've been hearing things said about this and i just wanna know if anyone can tell me if it's true or not?

I've heard that record companies actually won't let certain artists have any creative freedom over their music because the record company feels that if the artist has any creative input it may affect record sales. If this is true it wouldn't surpise me one bit.
 
I've heard about this many times too and it's probably true, even though I'd like to have proofs of such.

But that's a good thing for both sides: record labels want to sell, people (most of them) want the same "quality-questionable" "music" and most "artists" from major labels aren't creative, so things are good the way they are for them.
 
I don't see any Control esque albums coming out soon then :lol:
I doubt most of todays 'artists' want creative input anyway, too much work for them...
 
Yes, that seems to be the case sometimes. Emilie Autumn, for example, was signed to one of the mainstream labels--but dropped them after they told her to make her music more mainstream. She's now signed to a small label, but has pretty much all the artistic liberty she could think of, and that's why her songs are powerful and beautiful.

Michael never played that game either, interestingly enough. Despite being a mainstream artist, he marched to his own drum, and that's one of the things which sets him apart from other famous mainstream artists. However, the fact that he was unwilling to conform to the stereotypes that Hollywood seems to glorify in film and music, shows that he was above being manipulated to earn money for the label. Whenever Michael changed his style of music, he did it on his own terms, not on what's popular.

I'm sure others have undergone things like that--for example, Ke$ha actually has a good singing voice and a great ability to write songs. You wouldn't guess it with all the autotune she does. Her demos and unreleased material, however, are a mix of good, meaningful songs, and more pop-oriented stuff [which seems to be what she's doing at the moment.]

The same can be said for Gaga, Rihanna, and others who sold out their music in favour of generic, thoroughly unoriginal dance/pop music. Most people don't realize it, but Gaga is nothing more than something thought up by the music company--the same can be said for Rihanna (with her 'bad girl' image), and others. To that kind of people, however, fame is more important than anything else, which is why their work sounds so plastic and soulless.
 
It's always been that way. This was one of the problems Prince had with Warners and he started writing "Slave" on his face and started going by the "Symbol" name. He said Warner's owned and had a CONtract with "Prince", not "Symbol" or "The Artist". That's why he usually releases his music independently now. Back in the 1960's, John Lennon had a hard time with The Beatles label when he wanted to release the "Two Virgins" album with Yoko Ono. In the early 1980's, Neil Young's label sued him, because they claimed he turned in a uncommercial album in to them. For the most part, record companies have the last say on what they release (especially the majors), since they are spending their money on it. There's not really any such thing as true "artistic freedom", unless the act is releasing their music themselves like Ani DiFranco. In a lot of cases with pop acts, the record label picks the producer, songs, etc. That's why you'll see a lot of the same people (Neptunes, Timbaland, Babyface, Mutt Lange, etc), until their sound loses popularity.
 
its true. alot of artists are having issues with their labels bc they dont have any creative freedom or the label just doesnt seem to care about their artists they just care about money and record sales. they all seem to think they know what the people want which if you ask me is just pure BS. just bc they sell records doesnt mean they know what ppl want. all we want is good quality music. one my favorite bands who i have talked about alot here and they are in my avator and in my siggy (hehe) Hanson had some major issues with their label Island Def Jam. back in the early 2000's Hanson struggled like crazy to write and record their album Underneath. they did everything they could to get the record done but the label just didnt see it their way at all. so over those years Hanson had their experince documented in a AMAZING documentary they I truly recommened you watch called "Strong Enough to Break" uoi can see it for FREE on Itunes. just search Hanson and it should come up or you can try youtube. it shows just how much the music industary has changed how record companies really treat their artists. its very interesting to watch. when it finally came out they toured colleage campuses and showed it to students and answered questions. they were forced to leave their label finally and go independent and the underneath album was their 1st indie record and went to #1 on the billboard indie charts. if you want to know about whats going on then watch that documentary and im just saying that bc im a big hanson fan im saying it bc it really is a eye opener to anyone who is curouis or wants to study music or get in to music. i believe U2 also did a documentary about their label troubles but i dont remmeber what its called. if your interested in the documentary and need help finding it let me know and i will help you out. :)
 
Last edited:
It's sad how record companies won't let artists have alot of creative freedom in they're music. I guess that having an artists do something different to what people are used to hearing on the mainstream charts is seen a huge risk taker to the record companies and most of the time they sadly don't want to take that risk.

From a business point of view i can understand because if you have a formular for making money and that formular is working then it would be a scary thought to try something different because it is a risk and a risk that could make you loose alot of money.

However from a creative point of view i think that's it's awful that business people in suits are sticking they're nose into artists creative process because let's face it. Business people know nothing about music. I also think that alot of these business people want all artists who are in the mainstream to sound simular to one another because they think that the music listener won't be able to except anything different and to me that B.S. Not every music listener is a close minded as these record companies seem to think and i think that alot of people would welcome something that sounds different because it would be a breath of fresh air for them.

So from a creative point of view i hate it but from a business point of view i kinda understand
 
Last edited:
it is sad. and i agree ppl in suits who work in record labels dont know anything about music at all. its all bout money to them not music. that to me is just sad. i get it from a business point of view but they should still allow their artists to be creative and write the songs they want to write bc thats what music fans want. we want to hear good music that is written and played by the artists. mainstream music now days just sucks. its hard to find anyone now days that has any real talent and who isnt manfactured by Disney or Nicklodeon.
 
I've heard that in the begining record companies were run by actual musicians who cared about getting good music out to the public and cared about being creative. Now record companies are run by people who took Business Studies in school/college
 
yeah and that sucks. i personaly think that they should be run the way they used to be. we dont need ppl in suits and with business degress telling us what to like and what we should listen to in the way of music. whats done is done i guess. maybe someday things will finally change. its no wonder alot of bands go independent bc then they run the show and do what they want with their music even of it has to come out of their own pocket. thats why i recommended that documenatary in my 1st post. its a eye opener.
 
After reading all that has been said here i gotta say that i'm gonna make my music indepentandly. I make alot of retro 80's style synth music and you just know that if i was signed to a label they would get me to update the sound and that's something i would despise. When it comes to me making music i like to be the person in charge, i'm happy to take ideas and suggestions from others but the final desision would be mine.
 
^Do that, by all means. Signing on to a major label will mean that you will have to make yourself a malleable slave to whatever popular whim demands--so if you're female, you'd be molded along the same lines as Katy Perry, Ke$ha or Lady Gaga [who are themselves molded and a product of marketing rather than real artists] and if you're male you'd probably be made into a second Justin Bieber or something equally horrific. :bugeyed

Either way, it's not pretty. If you value your creative freedom, go underground.
 
you have to earn those rights. you sign and they invest millions of dollars on your talent and they hype you up.

thing is record companys were a offshoot of film companys as a sideline form of entertainment.

lawyers took the game over, Clive Davis was a lawyer who found a copy of billboard magazine back in the early 60's about a job opening. Clive is musically tone deaf, but being a lawyer and working up talent done made him rich and a very sucessful music head by any means.

even if you write all your songs and or publishing, the record companys still control something on you, because you are using them as a big ole bank loan which you never ever truly pay off.

Usher is a good example of an artist that has had albums,songs and videos rejected and that budget comes out of your pocket,it all adds up.

key is to turn a profit and keep your budget done.

you earn control over time with your success. Michael Jackson garnered much control after off the wall and thriller, however that isn't the norrm.

yeah there are alot more multi instrumentalist musicians than you see.

like Whitney Houston can play the piano, however the record company wasn't pushing that aingle or they sell you on beyonce as a songwriter,producer,etc.. when she is hardle legit at either.

gaga was more norah jones than what she was made to morph into, so much politics involved and the way they put money in your project or not.

they want to clone you and then if you make a 5 year and beyond career,well you are one of the few, because they ain't gonna hold out for you like they use to.

the record companys of yesteryear use to be ran by music folks, but then lawyers,agents,accountants and markerters took over and made the music secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top