Trent reznor - reznor urges musicians to ditch labels

[dj_who]

i totally agree with this. screw the labels.

here is the article.

link: TRENT REZNOR - REZNOR URGES MUSICIANS TO DITCH LABELS


Rocker TRENT REZNOR is urging all musicians to follow in his footsteps and ditch their record labels.
Reznor's band Nine Inch Nails broke away from their deal with Universal in 2007, after a tempestuous relationship with the music giant.
The singer describes the experience as "liberating" - insisting big labels make too much money from musicians and are completely out of touch with the industry.

Reznor says, "Anyone who's an executive at a record label does not understand what the internet is, how it works, how people use it, how fans and consumers interact - no idea. I'm surprised they know how to use email. They have built a business around selling plastic discs, and nobody wants plastic discs any more. They're in such a state of denial it's impossible for them to understand what's happening.

"One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything' - like I did. When we found out we'd been released (from their recording contract) it was like, 'Thank God!'. But 20 minutes later it was, 'Uh-oh, now what are we going to do?' It was incredibly liberating, and it was terrifying."
And Reznor adds that musicians should be exploring other ways to sell their own music, rather than relying on labels: "As an artist, you are now the marketer."

[cooker]

Its a choice like rather if you want to work with a bank or not. You can either focus on your music and leave the crap business stuff to the label (but there is still huge responcebility) or get your hands on everything and try to do your best.

Its rather easy for a well known band to do that but not the same for everybody. I totally support unsigned artists but I'm not sure if they can manage everything by themselves, thinking that most of them are young...

[Animus]

Originally Posted by dj_who

"One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh!

He is so right on with this statement.

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by dj_who

...when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule?

Guess he missed out on his Steve Albini class. tutt

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by cooker

Its a choice like rather if you want to work with a bank or not.

Not really. In the record industry's hey-day, I'd say it wasn't a choice at all. If you wanted to make a living that is.....

Now, absolutely, with iTunes, Amazon, etc....

I think now, more than ever, all music besides pop-rock/country radio sh!t is "niche market". We're living in a niche world now........if you do something halfway decent, or in some cases, not even that good, someone will be into it, and they'll be able to access it if you put it out there.

Very exciting time to be alive, between this and the real threat of nuclear holocaust, or bio-terrorism.

[Infernal Device]

I agree, BUT, "ditch the record label" comes from the man who became famous through label marketing.

He makes it sounds like he was just reading it years after he signed it.

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by Animus

He is so right on with this statement.

I disagree. I still can't figure out if Trent is brilliant or if he is the biggest idiot in the world. Apparently Trent forgot about the TEAM of people who helped him achieve what he has today. Those people need to get paid too.

I remember when I had a job servicing stores in the valley. I would drive around all day listening to KROQ and they would play NIN at least once EVERY SINGLE HOUR. I guess Trent thinks he was on regular rotation purely because he is such a badass.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by DontLetMeDrown

I disagree. I still can't figure out if Trent is brilliant or if he is the biggest idiot in the world. Apparently Trent forgot about the TEAM of people who helped him achieve what he has today. Those people need to get paid too.

I remember when I had a job servicing stores in the valley. I would drive around all day listening to KROQ and they would play NIN at least once EVERY SINGLE HOUR. I guess Trent thinks he was on regular rotation purely because he is such a badass.

So if you got a mortgage through a bank and after you paid it off the bank still owned your house you wouldn't mind that? How on earth do all those bank employees live by letting people keep their house after they have paid for it? Let's face it. The major labels are a bunch of loan sharks that conveniently had a monopoly. There are other options now available with the internet and the record execs don't understand that. I think Trent realizes his success was due to his contract but I think he is promoting change and trying to break the label's stronghold. Most bands can make more money self releasing even though they would sell far less.

[Dean Roddey]

"One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything'

To be fair, the labels, with whom he signed the contract, doesn't sell the CDS for $18.98. They sell them to other people who sell them for $18.98, or whatever it happens to be. Unless I've been lied to by people who work in the industry, they say that the label generally gets a few bucks per CD. Anyone who sells a product knows how it is. You make something, and then by the time it gets to the customer, depending on how big the channels are, it can be a number of times more than what you got for it.

So, if the label gets $3 or $4, then 80 cents is a pretty nice chunk of it, given that the labels provided the up front money. Obviously if you are already a big act you have a lot more heft to throw around. But, if you are anyone, in music or business, coming to someone else to get your dream finananced, then you accept the fact that they will make more than you will in the end.

From what I've read, the average founder of a high tech company that ends up going public will end up owning about 6 percent of his own company. But, many people do that because 6 percent of a large number is larger than 100% of a very small number, and if you have the backing you will be a lot more likely to make it.

This type of situation is nothing like getting a loan. When you get a loan for a house, there is a physical property backing that loan. If you fail, then the bank takes the house and resells it to make their money back (or they used to before the recent ills.) In the case of going to a label or a venture capitalist to get bankrolled, there's nothing backing that loan. they are risking it all. And when that happens, you pay a LOT more for that money. It's always been that way.

Many people claim that the internet changes this, but it's not been much proven yet. People who gained visibility under the label system, via its marketing muscle, can use that visibility to leverage the internet. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that the internet helps the average musician, because it gives you no real advantage over anyone else, it's not a great marketing tool it's more of a delivery tool, and of course it allows the people who like your music to just take it without paying for it very easily.

So anyway, I'm not particularly defending the labels, they are big boys and can take care of themselves. But these types of rants I think are often a little too simplistic and don't take into account what the labels actually did do for their acts, and they seem to believe that the deals that artists get are somehow unusual, when they are not unlike what a business person gets when going to venture capitlists without anything other than some potential.

[bcgood]

Trent makes a valid point, record companies definitely took too much from the artist. The main thing for independent artists now is to figure out a way to get radio play without selling their soul to some corporation. It also sucks that MTV, (you know that channel called music television) doesn't actually play music videos anymore.

[Kyle S]

if everybodys broke, no one is poor.

[DontLetMeDrown]

Originally Posted by Animus

So if you got a mortgage through a bank and after you paid it off the bank still owned your house you wouldn't mind that? How on earth do all those bank employees live by letting people keep their house after they have paid for it? Let's face it. The major labels are a bunch of loan sharks that conveniently had a monopoly. There are other options now available with the internet and the record execs don't understand that. I think Trent realizes his success was due to his contract but I think he is promoting change and trying to break the label's stronghold. Most bands can make more money self releasing even though they would sell far less.

I agree with the majority of what you're saying, just not the entire piece that you quoted earlier. Like Dean mentions, it's an apples to oranges comparisson. The labels are typically dealing with young kids and they are taking a bigger risk.

No matter how you slice it, Trent Reznor's life is a success story. For him to cry about it at this point makes him look like a rich, spoiled brat. His success proves that the system he is bitching about does in fact work.

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by DontLetMeDrown

His success proves that the system he is bitching about does in fact work.

Not really, his success proves that his music has connected with a lot of people, period.

Don't put record labels on a pedestal they don't deserve to be on.

[badmark]

Originally Posted by bcgood

It also sucks that MTV, (you know that channel called music television) doesn't actually play music videos anymore.

Yeah, I don't get to watch much MTV but the times I have, this was the question on my mind too!

[Dean Roddey]

Don't put record labels on a pedestal they don't deserve to be on.

They don't of course. But don't put the artists on one either. How many of the artists that they sign up end up completely pissing away the money invested in them by going out of control in some way or another or breaking up the band over petty squabbles and so forth?

It's a two way street and it seems like the labels are the only ones who ever get any blame. It's two groups of people, who are in a business relationship, with a high amount of risk, with fragile egos and high odds against them, so inevitably there's going to be a lot of stress and wierdness from both sides, I would think.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Not really, his success proves that his music has connected with a lot of people, period.

Don't put record labels on a pedestal they don't deserve to be on.

I doubt there is a bigger fan of NIN than myself on this board. But I do have to agree with many of the members who say he needs to stop complaining about the labels.

The truth is NIN made it. Anything they do from here on out they sell to about 500000000 of their fans... Those fans were made from years of labels putting money on ad's and marketing NIN the right way...

So please you mean to tell me an artist should ditch the labels? I say ok do it, you just better have the bank account ready to be dishing out on internet ad's, banners, etc etc etc... AND IF you make your money back your good, if not, well, rather than a label cutting you off, you can just jump off a bridge and kiss your money good bye... (not that i recommend anyone doing that)

But its just the truth.
There are SOME good that came out of labels... I really doubt any band who is sitting back in their 5.5 million dollar house in the hollywood hills, could ever talk shit about their labels, because without them THEY would not be where they are at today...

The business model has changed, and bands need to be acustmed to that model.

As far as Trent goes, NIN is a brand and can sell anything they put under the sun.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

How many of the artists that they sign up end up completely pissing away the money invested in them by going out of control in some way or another or breaking up the band over petty squabbles and so forth?

I know one band who personally did this, the singer s my cousins best friend, and I have had a talk with him about the band, and its very sad why these things happen over stupid things... They dont realize its business.

[bexarametric]

To all of you who say "Trent is wrong because it was a label that got him there in the first place". While that may be true, that was 20 years ago. The industry is different now. That was the model that NIN needed 20 years ago. The model is different now. Trent was simply pointing that out. He's right.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by bexarametric

To all of you who say "Trent is wrong because it was a label that got him there in the first place". While that may be true, that was 20 years ago. The industry is different now. That was the model that NIN needed 20 years ago. The model is different now. Trent was simply pointing that out. He's right.

Well the question was "trents telling musicians to leave their labels"

Your right. He did that 20 years ago... But remember this. Without THAT BUSINESS MODEL before, he wouldn't have the forum to speak and say what he does now.

[bexarametric]

Originally Posted by CISUM

Well the question was "trents telling musicians to leave their labels"

Your right. He did that 20 years ago... But remember this. Without THAT BUSINESS MODEL before, he wouldn't have the forum to speak and say what he does now.

Right. I get that. A model that was good 20 years ago did give him his forum.

He's just saying that you do not need that model anymore to get your forum. He's wishes that today's model was around 20 years ago. He's trying to tell artists that you don't have to work for the man anymore.

And while he may owe a little to the old business model about his "forum", I think Trent deserves more credit than his label. He did write the music after all. Record labels give many bands the opportunity to be great. Most don't follow through on that. Trent did. He may have even written better music if todays model were around then.

[Dean Roddey]

Well, to be fair, a lot of people write music, but they aren't known all over the world because they don't have a marketing machine behind them making sure that they are known. So many people in the music world seem to have no idea what role marketing plays in the creation of a national or internationally known artist.

I think that the issue is that it's probably fine now to leave your label if your label already put in the bucks to make you famous. But if you go it on your own from scratch, then you are just one of many million people posting your stuff on MySpace or wherever, with nothing to distinguish you from the other many millions. Yeh, ok, you write good songs and play them well, but so do a huge number of other people.

The difference between Bruce Springsteen and some other guy who may have written just as good songs and played them just as well is that Bruce got a recording contract and his label marketed him heavily. To his credit, he made good use of that, kept his head together, and kept writing good songs and performing them well and seems to be a very well balanced and reasonable guy. But, a lot of other people could have done the same, they just never got that marketing to give them the size market required to be able to just concentrate on their music for the rest of their lives.

You have to have both the good songs and performances and you have to get your name in front of people so that they know who you are. The way that's generally done is marketing. Myspace isn't marketing. I don't think that the internet is a good marketing tool really. It's a good distribution tool, but not a good marketing tool generally.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by bexarametric

Trent did. He may have even written better music if todays model were around then.

I understand what your saying, Trent is basically saying "today no one needs labels", ok cool got it!!!

BUT

Here's the problem, just like the poster before me said "your just one of the millions out there".

See labels gave the opportunity to people and said, "yeah there are millions sitting at home making music, but YOU got it and lets exploit it and make millions", and guess what they did, and in return the bands get millions of fans around the world at their feet.

So tell me, does the model of today work for a new commer? HELL NO

Does it work for bands like,
Metallica
NIN
Radiohead
Janes Addication
Bruce Springstein
Pearl Jam
(and about 50 other artists and bands I can name).
The answer is HELL YES!!!

These artists already got a the chance to make something out of their music and deliver it to the mass's,
I do believe that if your good people will like you, and follow, but you have to be a marketing machine, and i do believe the internet is a good tool because from iPhone apps, to forums, and blogs, one person can attract many, but it just takes time and patiance, rather than a multi million dollar contract from interscop and have them do it in a few months.

[Igotsoul4u]

i think it needs to be a happy medium. It's very possible to make a good album thru independent finances and use the labels marketing machine to push the record. I kind of dig walking in and dropping a completed album on the desk. Keeps the labels out of my hair creatively and allows me to focus on the core creative aspects. It also keeps more money in my pocket in the long run. I single person cannot market like a label can unless they are rich enough. I'm have enough to get an album done with no money coming in but the rest is a bit out of reach.

[T_R_S]

To be a little more fair towards some labels here is an example of a project I worked on.
Label paid the following:
$30,000 Production for CD
$30,000 tour bus rental and driver
$5,000 fuel and tour expenses
$20,000 advertising and promo for band tour
$25,000 2- Music Videos
$4,000 legal fees and visa's for band to tour USA
$6,000 Airline tickets for band members.
There is no way the band could have come up with 100K to do this.
The label did all the booking and helped out with all the immigration stuff etc.
The record sold about 17,000 copies @ wholesale @ $8.00 each to the distributor.
About a 35% return.

[Karmela]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

To be a little more fair towards some labels here is an example of a project I worked on.
Label paid the following:
$30,000 Production for CD
$30,000 tour bus rental and driver
$5,000 fuel and tour expenses
$20,000 advertising and promo for band tour
$25,000 2- Music Videos
$4,000 legal fees and visa's for band to tour USA
$6,000 Airline tickets for band members.
There is no way the band could have come up with 100K to do this.
The label did all the booking and helped out with all the immigration stuff etc.
The record sold about 17,000 copies @ wholesale @ $8.00 each to the distributor.
About a 35% return.

Pardon my question, but would really like to know.

How much did the label make, and how much did each band member make, was it worth everything in the long run?

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by bexarametric

And while he may owe a little to the old business model about his "forum", I think Trent deserves more credit than his label. He did write the music after all. Record labels give many bands the opportunity to be great. Most don't follow through on that. Trent did. He may have even written better music if todays model were around then.

This is really more to the point.

NIN's music would have arguably been just as successful under other circumstances besides just label advertisement, if it was the way things were done at the time.

Complaining about the past or not, the point is, it's a different world with a different set of rules.
I take his message as saying, "Look, embrace the brave new world of technology, it's easier than ever, and you don't need these guys anymore."

The record industry could do a million things to help their own cause, but at this point, they don't seem that flexible, and are probably doomed to fail already. I doubt they'll get a bailout.

[Karmela]

Originally Posted by soundrick

This is really more to the point.

NIN's music would have arguably been just as successful under other circumstances besides just label advertisement, if it was the way things were done at the time.

Complaining about the past or not, the point is, it's a different world with a different set of rules.
I take his message as saying, "Look, embrace the brave new world of technology, it's easier than ever, and you don't need these guys anymore."

The record industry could do a million things to help their own cause, but at this point, they don't seem that flexible, and are probably doomed to fail already. I doubt they'll get a bailout.

I agree with you on this, but let me ask question.

Nine Inch Nails perhaps have millions in the bank somewhere. The new acts today can probably never get that, it is easy now to put yourself out there, but how bout money?

[bexarametric]

For the record. I am not arguing that the old model failed. It was right for it's time.

A recording contract is not the same thing that it was 20 years ago. The debts are harder to pay these days. CD sales are down.

I guess it all depends on how you gauge success. I know an unsigned band that is touring the country with their catchy tunes and it's like a snowball picking up momentum. They keep all their money. An unsigned band that sells 10,000 records makes more profit than if they sold 100 times that amount. It's a stupid formula. Pay everyone from the CEO to the janitor. F that.

I think that bands that are trying the whole "record a demo, send it to the A&R guy in hopes of interest, just to be in a ton of debt to MAYBE make it big" are the "millions of people in the sea" because they have not adapted to the times. They are holding themselves back.

More bands are their own marketing machine these days than ever before. This new era is in it's infancy. It's a transitional time and bands are learning how to live without record contracts.

Bands that have survived from the old era into the new (ie bands that were successful due to the old school record label formula and have benefitted from their successful but dated marketing machine) are just cashing in on this transition. They're ditching their labels nonetheless.

Once the newer era of bands pioneer this new formula (ie the one that no longer requires a big label), this thread's message will become more obvious to some. It's ok if the major labels die. It's time to evolve.

[bexarametric]

Originally Posted by Karmela

I agree with you on this, but let me ask question.

Nine Inch Nails perhaps have millions in the bank somewhere. The new acts today can probably never get that, it is easy now to put yourself out there, but how bout money?

If you write good music that is marketable, then there are more than enough resources out there to shop it to where you can make money. Everyday there are more resources coming about to help the little guy get big (Tunecore, BroadJam, iTunes, CD Baby, Myspace, Twitter). It's only a matter of time.

[planet red]

Management is the new record label.

A band doesn't need a label anymore they just need good management (which Trent has). A fairly big indy label I know are changing to a management/record label. They're going to only release records for bands they manage. Record sales might be going down but bands are still making a lot of money in other ways. This way they can break even on the label side, but make a killing on the backend (percentage of all the bands income).

Eventually there won't be much money left in releasing records, but there will always be tons of money to be made in music.. There will always be publishing, touring, merchandise, endorsements, ect, you'll just need a record to be able to do it.