New bands: are they given enough time or too much?
With the changes that have occurred in the music industry in the last few years, I wonder how much time will major record labels give to new bands to progress?
It seems to me that the my daughters generation (she's 15) don't collect the amount of music by a single band as our generation did. When The Cure (for example) brought out a new single I'd buy the 12" (for the extra tracks), the actual cd, second single from the album (for the extra tracks) etc etc. It built up almost a band loyalty. I wanted every track that I could get my hands on from that band. Wheras my daughter (and her friends) tend to buy/download just the tracks that they want. A band is only as succesful as they're last single. Surely if bands cannot rely on a harcore support they're long term chance of success is compromised? From a record company perspective a couple of flop singles and they're set for the scrapheap. I just wonder if any of the "class of 08" bands will be given the opportunity to progress through three or four albums to enable them to record their classic album in 2012?
- More from Steve Hill.
- Login or register to post comments
Another view.
Having never subscribed to the 12 alternate picture disc 12 inch versions in different colours, I have always taken a deliberately cautious view. I will buy the 1st CD and the 2nd, if justified. If the 3rd is any good, I have a dilemma. Am I jumping on their bandwagon, as bandwagoneering product is of successively poor return, by and large? I wouldn't want the band or their accountant to get cocky, putting out any old cack. So, to ensure quality control I will default for a while, until nervousness on behalf of the band ensures that any issue is up to scratch. I hate it, therefore, when the difficult 3rd album is bloody good......
Is anyone else as sure that the Fleet Foxes, say, are at home worrying over whether I will get their next record or not?
P.S. I did tell Jackie Leven this theory once, at the Midlands Art Centre, whwn he was playing guitar for Michael Weston King. I believe he suggested I fuck off.
I blame that dance, me
The artist/producer distinctions got very blurred in the Nineties, with people popping up under different names on lots of different labels.
But, as with everything, that was nothing new - is everybody absolutely rock-solid sure they can remember which songs were the Crystals and which were the Ronettes? And label loyalty is still very big in dance - I have friends who'll buy pretty much anything on Tresor, Ninja Tunes, Poker Flat, or whatever. A few years ago I had a similar brand-loyalty thing going with Moulton Studios - collecting records by half a dozen "artists" who all turned out to be Chris Lum and his pals. That's not very different from Motown, Atlantic, Stax-Volt is it? Have you ever met a diehard Tammi Terrell fan or someone who loved Percy Sledge but not Jerry Butler? As, Mr H rightly says, it's all just Al Jackson, Jr., innit.
A diehard Tammi Terrell fan writes
Only joking.
But any excuse to stick this up:
that film...
Bloody hell! Brilliant!
Record Collecting
is the new philately. Anybody got any swaps? Grab the releases that flop, could be your pension, etc.
I want to contest one assertion here
It always seems to be taken for granted nowadays that in some mythical day gone by record companies used to have endless supplies of patience and cash when it came to subsidising bands in the hope that they'd eventually turn out a hit album.
Well, when exactly was that? As far as I rmember it, most successful bands hit some kind of commercial seam quite early in their career - then spend the rest of their time dining out on it.
People often yearn for the 70s when bands were allegedly given time. I've just picked up a list of rock bands who broke through in the 70s and tried to name their breakthrough record:
Led Zeppelin (first)
Deep Purple (fourth)
Queen (second)
Alice Cooper (fourth)
Black Sabbath (first)
Aerosmith (second)
Genesis (fourth)
Yes (third)
Supertramp (third)
And even before they had a big hit album in each case there was enough of a swell of support to indicate they had a reasonable chance of making it.
Can anyone name any cases of bands having a long relationship with a label and not having any kind of hit until, say, five years had gone by? Can anyone name ten?
R.E.M.
They were a slow burner. They're first top 10 album in the UK (Out of Time) was they're seventh release. They did make no.10 with Document (album no.5) in the U.S.A. but had to wait for the release of Out Of Time to get they're first no.1.
My points exactly
Hate be pedantic but that doesn't answer that question.
It's the relationship with the label that's at issue. After REM's fifth album they left their first record company and signed to another. And they may not have had a multi platinum album until ""Automatic For The People" but they had decent sized hits long before that and even their culty early releases spent twenty plus weeks on the Billboard mainstream chart.
Nobody was saying to them "have you ever thought about going back to your day jobs"?
Pink Floyd
Pink Floyd were a bit of a slow burn followed by an explosion, especially in the U.S. They had seven albums released and only one made the Billboard Top 50. (Obscured By Clouds).Then next album (DSOTM) made No.1 and spent 741 weeks in U.S. Top 200 .All on Capitol.
Well not really.
It was more of a case of going from successful to massive. First album had 2 hit singles on it. Second album was no. 9 and Atom Heart Mother no. 1. Saucerful of Secrets only album not to chart in US.
Yes really
First two albums didn't chart in U.S. when first released.( "Piper At Gates Of Dawn" got to No. 131 when re-released in 70's). Third album reached No.153. Not very successful so far. "Obscured By Clouds" (seventh album) was first to break Top 50. Capitol glad they didn't drop them before eigth album.(Success!)
Yes really
First two albums didn't chart in U.S. when first released.( "Piper At Gates Of Dawn" got to No. 131 when re-released in 70's). Third album reached No.153. Not very successful so far. "Obscured By Clouds" (seventh album) was first to break Top 50. Capitol glad they didn't drop them before eighth album.(Success!)
Oh OK
You're just talking about US side of things. I should also correct myself - the two early UK hits weren't on the first album of course.
as ever David, you make excellent points.
The best I can come up with is U2 who signed in early 1980 didn't really trouble the charts outside of Ireland in any significant manner until New Years Day grazed the top 10 in 1983, and they were on album number 3.
Jackie Leven
gets remarkable support from Cooking Vinyl, with a dozen or so records out and not a hit in sight, or, to be fair, likely. The only other lable he has had a recent asociation with was Glitterhouse, and then only because he was/is so goddamn prolific that he arranged a separate deal for his pseudonymous Sir Vincent Lone release. (I note the 2nd SVL album came out back on Cooking Vinyl.)
The record business is a very sentimental business
I know that might not chime with the clichéd idea of a man with a big cigar but it's often true. Executives often sign acts that they happen to like and try their utmost to make them a hit.
In 1991 Warner Brothers boss Rob Dickins signed Terry Reid, who had never had a hit and at the time hadn't made an album for twelve years, because he'd always been a fan. He even got Trevor Horn, who was the biggest producer in the world at the time, to make an album with him. He thought there might be a slight chance of getting a hit. It didn't happen but then again in the record business that applies to most things.
Alan McGee signing Kevin Rowland...
and getting "My Beauty" in return....
Whereupon, the concrete and the clay. . .
beneath his feet began to crumble. . . .
Sometimes
a relationship with a label can sometimes (sadly) be purely financial. As the debt builds up do they cut their losses or gamble on the next album being "the one".
Long gone are the Charismas and Stiffs of this world who would subsidise lesser artists with the hits of Genesis and Costello. We might never see their day again.
I'm sorry, I don't agree
Charisma had a brief period when they put out John Betjeman and Viv Stanshall records. These were obviously very cheap to do in the first place. They weren't particularly "subsidised" by Genesis. They were just chucked out there on the basis that it was worth seeing whether they worked. The same policy led them to sign Monty Python and I'd guess they did very well out of those for a while. If they had been still herding John Betjeman into the studio in his later years that would prove your point but they weren't.
As for Stiff, there was a very brief period when they invested a lot of the money they'd earned out of Madness and Ian Dury in trying to get a big hit out of the Belle Stars or Lene Lovich but it didn't work and they had to sell the company.
And why shouldn't a relationship with a label be purely financial? It's not marriage.
OK Simon Cowell
Nobody expects there not to be a profit element. It's just that some loss leaders can also be cracking good listens. Charisma/Genesis was just an example; having Tony Stratton-Smith as an owner with deep pockets and a sense of the absurd was a boon. JB & VS were cheap but not free.
Any other record company would just run
from this band. Someone at Mercury must either be sleeping with someone in the band or, or they just have a lot of faith.
From http://entertainment.ie/music/music-news-article.asp?NewsID=22151
Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong Album Pulled
23 July 2008
The forthcoming debut album from UK indie band Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong has been pulled, despite promo copies having already been sent to reviewers.
The quintet were due to release their self-titled album next Friday, but it's now been shelved by the band and their record company.
The band's manager is reported to have said that he suggested that the band should cancel the release because it was recorded 'too early' in their career, and was a misrepresentation of their sound nowadays.
Their label, Mercury, have now agreed to release the re-recorded album - sessions for which have yet to be scheduled - early in 2009. A spokesman for the label said: "Obviously we completely respect our artists' creative decisions. Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong are a great band and we look forward to releasing their first album in the near future."
Spoof
Has to be.
Could be a spoof? I'll stick my neck out and say it's not
It's possible. According to Wikipedia the lead singer played Jamie Chapman (the kid who sucks off Superhans after joining their band?) in Peep Show, so maybe he has a sense of humour.
NME apparently gave the album a good review.
I reckon that
might be Landfill Indie incarnate.
Simple Minds...
Very much an outsider/experimental band, shifting units in four and five figure numbers of their first 4 albums over 3 years. Bit of a wait until New Gold Dream.
But but but
First three records were Arista. Then they went to Virgin. Then they were sucessful. Nobody was throwing more good money after bad.
Someone at Arista
Must've looked at the sales figures for Life in a Day and said "lets can this lot, they're never gonna give us a return" and a more/less (*delete as appropriate) enlightened A&R said "hold on - there's potential there - one more album..."
Also the huge elephant in the room that is Springsteen. How close did CBS come to chucking him after Greetings and The Wild, The Innocent?
Very close, I would imagine
But the fact it that, like most artists, he was probably on a three-album deal with an option to renew and the third album did well enough to make them think he was ripe for promotion to the front rank. Record companies don't fire acts. They just don't take up the option.
What's really amazing is that Columbia have continued paying big money to re-sign him, even thought his sales are modest these days.
Modest?
In the UK maybe, but his last four albums have been in the Top 3 on the Billboard chart, three of them No 1. His weakest seller in the States was The Ghost of Tom Joad, but even that made it to No. 11. Everything else since Born to Run - 14 albums - was a Top 5 hit.
I was surprised too. Not only is that strikingly immodest, I'm not sure anybody could even come close to it as a track record over the last 30 years of the Billboard chart. Can they?
Everybody goes to number one at first
It'a what you do afterwards that counts.
"Born In The USA" is certified fifteen times platinum in the USA.
"Devils And Dust" has not yet been certified platinum.
Given his post 1999 whirl of world tours...
One wonders if the current Columbia deal includes a piece of the live action...?
I shouldn't think so...
...more like pension plan for all concerned.
Strokes, Franz Ferdinand, Razorlight...
and these sorts of bands seem to go from vaguely interesting underground bands to headlining the Reading Festival/Glastonbury Top 10 hits/Pop star status in less than a year.
They then lose the "cred" fans and critical acclaim and end up releasing shite second albums.
I can't see the likes of an REM, Cure, U2 happening in the current climate, bands don't seem to be able to have the chance to build up a decent back-catalogue anymore.
I can't quite see The Ting Tings doing a "Sparks" in 25 years time with a residency playing live all of their 20 or so albums in a row!
Add Nick Cave...
You can add Nick Cave to that list as well. His last album was his fourteenth and most succesful chart success so far in the UK, USA and Australia. Good patience from the same record label (Mute).
That's true
But that's an example from the present-day when the conventional wisdom insists that *nobody* has any patience.
Fair enough.
Yes, that's true. Fair point.
Certainly when I worked at
Certainly when I worked at Mute (briefly in the early 90s), the company had never deleted a release and as far as I know hadn't dropped anyone: it was more or less a given policy of Daniel Miller to stick with his signings as long as they wanted to keep making music.
On a wider sense, I think David's initial premise may be suspect: I'd accept that few artists waited until their fifth or sixth albums to have hits: but quite a few in the early 70s were allowed to release several albums without having hits at all. Nowadays they'd be lucky to get the first released without a hit or at least airplay beforehand.
I seem to remember that Zigzag did an interesting article at the time, in which they initerviewed a number of as yet unknown, but signed bands, and printed a table showing their deals (royalty rates and advances included!). I remember thinking when I read this (some years later, in the 80s) that the reason the companies could afford to do this was that the royalty rates sucked. What kept the bands going was a much more economically viable UK live circuit at pub and university level, which meant they could tour without big advances.
What bands suffer from nowadays...
...is media saturation. Coldplay get wall to wall airplay on a level that the Beatles could never have dreamed of. This speeds up the process of us getting bored with them.
How about the flipside:a band being loyal to a label
I am thinking about Depeche Mode in particular.
They have spent their whole recording career with Mute.
And they have been bloody succesful along the way.
Would there be civilised reasons for this such as they actually like being on Mute, have no issues and see no reason to change?
Or are they bound by a watertight contract?
Mute/Depeche Mode
Can't say for definite about their contract, but almost certainly it's 'cos they have a decent deal in terms of royalties; have been well served by the company throughout their career; like the people there, and can't see any benefit in signing to a major, where the people you work with on one album are likely to have moved on by the next, leaving you at the mercy of fate; you could be dealing with a complete tosser you've never met before.
Live Nation makes perfect sense for someone like Nickelback (unlikely to have a long career, currently riding high and able to sell the rights to their services at a premium and bank the cash while the price is right or Madonna (ageing, likely to knock it on the head soon, but in the meantime can capitalise on the name while it's still valuable). If you're at the early stages of a long career, though, there's a lot to be said for not putting all your eggs in one basket: then if the comapny doesn't live up to expectations, or better opportunities come along (e.g. to market your own stuff once you've got established) you're free to take advantage.
Am not sure but dont
Steely Dan fit into that category? First 3 albums were all very good but were not huge sellers, Royal Scam moderately better due to Haitian Divorce but it was AJA that broke them into the big league and caused a huge resurgence in the popularity of their back cataglogue.
Agree with Retro re Jackie Leven and Cooking Vinyl - they were also very supportive of the Oysterband who I doubt ever sold in large quantities. A lot of praise should be heaped on the likes of Cooking Vinyl, Evangeline, Yeproc and Nonsuch for having a belief in the artists that overrides their main aim of aiming money.
By the way Retro I saw Jackie Leven at the MAC solo - he did his 'Sting's dead' routine - did you see that. Are the Sir Vincent Lone cd's any good - typical Leven albums or something completely different?
The first Steely Dan album was a substantial hit in America
The second was a failure commercially but they did increasingly good business from then on.
Sir Vincent Lone
I only have the first, and I am happier for it's signed message to Mrs Path than its content. It is not his strongest and the arrangements are a little flat, if I am completely honest. If his conventional LPs have a hit rate of 70% quality, file this at 40-50%.
I think I was at that MAC show too, if previous postings are correct. Small crescent shaped room and 40 odd punters. Probably very odd. Have since seen him at the Ceol Castle, the outside arena at the MAC and the Glee Club. He is on tour in the autumn and I see he is playing somewhere called Kitchen Garden Cafe on 4/9/08 in Brum. (Where that?)
As I type I am looking at his myspace site, and it is playing a very uncharacteristically chirpy poppy song I haven't heard called Fareham Confidential, appealing to my ears if only in name, Fareham being an unattractive Hampshire town adjacent to the village in which Mr Leven lives, and where my parents retired to, before they shuffled off this mortal.
What about the glam bands?
Weren't Mud, Slade and The Sweet all going since about 1966/7? In fact Bowie and Bolan were too under various guises. Certainly none of them were overnight sensations.