Better to be the best on a Small Label or mediocre on a Big Label?

[rids]

Ok, well, you might be able to tell I'm not signed am starting to think about what labels I want to try to get me signed. (I'll have to look at the pros and cons of signing to a label as well) This might not be the right place to post, but perhaps someone can give me some guidence here.

Just entertain this thought: I was wondering if I were to get signed to a fairly big label, if I would kind of get any sorts of crappy treatment as opposed to signing with a smaller label and being one of the best acts on that label. I like the idea of a bigger label just because it would be more distribution. I think I would be able to hold my own against the big guns, but might get lost in the shadows of talent from other bands.

Any advice?

[kenevill]

if a 'big label' is going to treat you like crap you probably won't be getting very good distro. just play your music and get on with it.

[rids]

Reason being? They'll push the bigger named bands and not distribute your music as much?

I'll definitely play my music, but I'm looking around for labels and am hoping to get some advice.

[zwaps]

Well this question can be answered with common sense.
From your topic I gather you are looking for money? In that case, i'd pick the bigger label and try to improve there, giving me more ways do distribute more stuff.
If, however, for some strange reason, you just want to distribute your art in a way that allows you for maximum freedom in creation of it and you don't particulary care for the money, pick the smaller label, which will treat you better.

[Eganmedia]

I'd be inclined to seek out a label that needed me as much as I needed them. Cosider seeking out a solid independent who can sell your contract to a major when you hit it big. They win, you win.

[Riddler]

Hi rids,

To me personally it seems that it's all a matter of priorities. A smaller label won't have as large a distribution network as the majors, and your budget for production/promotion etc. will most likely be a fraction of what it would on a major. However, you will likely retain full creative control of your record and you won't be working to cruel deadlines. Also, many independant labels are often run as partnership by a couple of guys that started out with similar visions about music, whereas on a major you will be dealing with managers in suits. To me, the thought of working with people who choose to represent music because they feel a connection with it rather than people who represent it only because they feel it is profitable, is more attractive although it depends on your personal goals.

Another point is that although on a major the budget might seem massive and you get a healthy advance, it all gets paid back to the label in the end, and if you don't sell enough records to cover the costs, then you could end up worse off than you started.

There is an article called 'The problem with music' that Steve Albini wrote a while ago, it is a pretty bleak view of the record industry but worth a look... Mercenary Audio - The Problem With Music by Steve Albini
Also Death Cab for Cutie wrote a bit about their ordeals making a record on a major after they left Saddle Creek (I think).
Hanson made a film called 'Strong Enough to Break' that documents the reasons why it took 6 years for their album to be made. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

When Electric Soft Parade made 'The American Adventure' they were signed to BMG and ended up in quite a row. As far as I understand they recorded the album for about £5000 and were really happy with it. The label then listened to it and said, great we think tracks X, Y, Z are the singles, now go and record them properly. The label then spent £100,000 at Abbey Road with Danton Supple recording 'Lose Yr Frown' and afterwards the band thought that the new version came nowhere close to justifying the extra cash spent on it. To cut a long story short, the album didn't meet sales expectations and they then got dropped from BMG. Now they are on Truck Records and are given far more freedom to do what they want. There's a bit written about it here

Hope that is some help,
Tim.

[8th_note]

I guess it doesn't hurt to think about this stuff but unless you tour intensively, have sold 5,000 units of your self released record, have 40,000 Myspace friends, and generate a buzz in the music press, you probably won't have much say in getting a record deal. In the current climate the labels are looking for the closest thing they can find to a sure bet. That means that they want a band who is already successful so they can take them to the next step. There are a few notable exceptions to this rule but your chances of being one of them are about the same as winning the lottery or being eaten by sharks.

As Riddler said, it is a matter of priorities and trade-offs if you actually do end up with a choice of labels. Or maybe you're better off with no label. The band Clap Your Hands Say Yeah has done well on an independent basis. Besides Riddler's excellent links, here's another one to an NPR story about CYHSY that discusses their experience.

CYHSY NPR Story

[Kenny Gioia]

I wouldn't worry so much.

If you're performing at a mediocre level on a major label, you won't be there too long.

My personal opinion is that an independent label is a better place to be at this point in time. Unless, you're a pop act.

But be careful, some independents are even more inept than the majors and sometimes give you an even less portion of the pie. Tis true.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Do whatever it takes to get the labels -- big and/or small to start courting you as an artist, and then get a lawyer who knows how to build deals...and a manager who knows how to build careers. Do you wanna fix the plane or fly it? If you have a shot at that level, let the business people at least ADVISE you on how to do business.

And if the labels aren't trying to sign you, then this conversation is, well, maybe not pointless, but at least...irrelevant, because a) you're off their radar, b) you're not ready, c) you don't fit the mold and would be better off doing it cottage-industry style, where you keep every dollar, or d) you're...ummm...I dunno. How's the music?

[Ol' Betsey]

Old-school distribution is dying just like everything else. Major. Indie. It's all dying.

And yes, I'm sorry to say it IS dying.

I make my living as an artist but also run a record label as well as produce bands but I'll tell ya, I'm always wearing all 3 hats and when I'm talking to one of my distributors that, for instance, distributes The White Stripes and Arctic Monkeys and they say you can now only expect (HOPE) to sell HALF of what they used to sell on ANY release you know things are changing.

Man it is so seriously tough out there all you can do and I mean ALL YOU CAN DO is love what you're doing and hope to make some ANY sort of living.

Oh and go with someone that LOVES what they are doing too!

Not as easy as it seems...

Good luck,

R.

(P.S. Sorry for the caps. Just trying to make a point.)

[Nu-tra]

Screw em all put your stuff up through tunecore or any other digital distributer and hire yourself a publicist.

[quietdrive]

I cant believe this is getting serious replies. This thread may as well read....

"Hey, I'm currently a freshman at McHarbo Highschool in Odessa, Texas. All the girls find me very unattractive since I have acne. But lets assume I ever move to Hollywood and become a rich and famous actor, which playmate do you think I should bang?"

[JP11]

Originally Posted by quietdrive

"Hey, I'm currently a freshman at McHarbo Highschool in Odessa, Texas. All the girls find me very unattractive since I have acne. But lets assume I ever move to Hollywood and become a rich and famous actor, which playmate do you think I should bang?"

Finally a relevant topic worth discussing. I'm going to say whichever is the absolute most recent playmate, fresh in from the midwest, as that one would still be a little naive, more easily manipulated, more easily impressed, less jaded, less used, and hopefully clean and disease free.

Case in point, the girl who was on Howard Stern, became a playmate, and was immediately banged by Paulie Shore (who is an inspiration to the untalented and unattractive everywhere).

[quietdrive]

Originally Posted by JP11

Finally a relevant topic worth discussing. I'm going to say whichever is the absolute most recent playmate, fresh in from the midwest, as that one would still be a little naive, more easily manipulated, more easily impressed, less jaded, less used, and hopefully clean and disease free.

Case in point, the girl who was on Howard Stern, became a playmate, and was immediately banged by Paulie Shore (who is an inspiration to the untalented and unattractive everywhere).

Paulie Shore or Yore? Well, I thought it was the producer, Willy Show? Or was it Fingerz? Yeah I think it was Fingerz "Yo, you da Playmate? Lets bang, yo!"