Jump to content

A Music Single


jman14141414

Recommended Posts

I believe it's the record companies. The artist may or may not have input, but ultimately, the record company puts out what they think will sell.

Way back when, when when you had the flip side on a single, sometimes radio DJs would discover people liked it as well or better. Lots of great singles started out as the B side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CeeCee...you are right on about the B-sides. There have been a lot of hits come from DJ's flipping over that 45. I think artists don't have as much say and they should when it comes to their albums. Not all artists, but some take control and I think they should. It is their music and why shouldn't they be the one to decide what singles come from an album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all artists, but some take control and I think they should. It is their music and why shouldn't they be the one to decide what singles come from an album.

Because the record companies are the legal owners of the single. The song belongs to the writer, lyricist, publisher, the one who bought the rights, whatever, but the artist signed a contract with the record company that is, somehow, the "manager" of the single. They invest their money in promotion so it´s their business...

I´m not saying that I agree at all, there should me more indies around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wonder so many artists fall out with record companies. John Mellencamp is working on his first studio album in a few years due to his contempt for the record companies. He feels he has found one that will repsect his wishes. Funny thing, the record company pushed Springsteen to make a hit album when he was working on Born To Run, and the pushing paid off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the record companies are the legal owners of the single. The song belongs to the writer, lyricist, publisher, the one who bought the rights, whatever, but the artist signed a contract with the record company that is, somehow, the "manager" of the single. They invest their money in promotion so it´s their business...

That makes sense. Thank you guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an exerpted explanation by Roger Clyne, taped by our very own Carl when he interviewed him, and transcribed by me. :grin:

RC = Roger Clyne

SF = SongFacts - Carl

RC: Yeah, it’s a lot harder to be independent. But it’s also more rewarding.

SF: How do you mean? I’m just trying to get a sense for… you know, if you’re a new artist or something and you have the choice, okay, should I really strive to get this major label contract, or should I go independent? What would you recommend?

RC: I don’t want to vilify a whole industry, or even the idea of a major label. They have simply… they have a different agenda, and their agenda is, right now, to respond to stockholders. And the easiest way to do that is to create something that generates profits quickly. It’s harder to do it long term. They have to answer to quarterly meetings and stuff. They have to show growth on the bottom line. And they do that by taking music and selling it. The idea of artist development, consequently, has kind of gone by the wayside, and people are in the business – the major labels are in the business of finding hits. And they’re still doing it. That’s fine, I was in that business for a while. I got… I was fortunate to find that… we were in a major label situation. They actually didn’t ask us to change who we were or rewrite a song or write anything for radio in the beginning...Anyway, where were we? What do I recommend… should I go back to the brief history of what was going on? So major labels are in a different business. They’re in commerce, not art. Artists are artists, they’re not capitalists to begin with. So unless an artist can find a major label vehicle, or even a minor label vehicle, whereby the art leads the commerce, I would recommend that they let their art lead their commerce. That’s the way it works for us, it’s in our manifest now to do that, and it was risky, and it was hand-to-mouth for a long time, and sometimes it still is. But it ultimately has been rewarding. I’ve been in the public eye now nationally for ten years, and still paying the utility bills.

SF: Do you need to sell more records as an independent to make a living?

RC: No. You know, it just depends on what you want to do with your living. I’m walking around a regular suburban household in Tempe, Arizona. I prefer to have my… to be fulfilled by calling rather than by my bank account. My bank account I don’t consider a reflection of my impact or influence on the world.

SF: I guess what I’m trying to figure out is if you get signed to a major label, you hear these stories all the time about how you can sell a million records and still be broke.

RC: Yeah, I did. I’ve never received a royalty check from Mercury Records in ten years. I’m not calling them unfair, it’s just that was the nature of the deal. They get to recoup everything. And everybody, make sure you underline everything twice, because when you show up the Cuban restaurant, and the executives are there, and you’re passing mojitos around, when the credit card comes out it’s your name on the account. That’s just the way it works. So have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day of 45's you had the chance to play a B-side, now when a single is released you get a CD with a couple of cuts of the same song. Usually a radio edit or an acoustic version. No B-side to slip on the radio. But the record company usually ends up sending out the whole CD and then you can pick out another tune. It just isn't the same though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...