Eww- all this is swell, except, having seen Ms. Merchant's outrageous diva-hood in a restaurant ("Is this CRUELTY-FREE hummus?") guarantees she'll not be receiving any of my dough...

A lot of people in music (and other artists) are poor managers, and even poor at recognising good managers. However, how good are the labels really? They have good people surely, yet most of their products don't sell well, according to their own claims. So I think there probably is a market for a non-label label, a management team that isn't a label per se. (How many real labels own pressing and silkscreening plants? They outsource too. DIY, Y, because .. well, why not?)

If you're a successful artist like Merchant (and there are many who are more successful), why wouldn't you do this yourself?

You obviously can afford a manager, so managing relationships with manufacturers, stores, concert venues, merchandising, etc. should be no more of an annoyance than it is now, right?

If you're Springsteen, why not do this? If you're Sting, why not do this?

If you only need to sell 50K units and be profitable vs 1.5mil to break even, why not do it? If you can release more records a year that sell fewer units each, but allow you to create more and promote less, why not do it?

I mean, what would it take? Let's pretend we're a celebrity called "wondering" (just an example). What services can we use that are already online? Who will print our t-shirts and tchotchkes? Where can we publish our info for free or next-to-nothing as often as we want to? Hmmmm...

Ultimately, does it come down to laziness?

Is there a growth industry here for Net-based recording labels? Or production/marketing/distribution teams that can cater to artists needs at much less than the dinosaur costs?

Just a thought about the statement about music videos and getting them into regular TV rotation ("That's where most of the exposure for an artist comes from these days.") I wonder, is it?

The way things are run now, isn't this all a bit circular? The big acts get the PR, get their songs pushed onto radio, often by paying for the privilege, and get their videos on. But do they get big because that happens or does that happen because they get big? I think there's a lot of unquestioned assumptions in the music industry now (and most others, publishing certainly, but music seems the most stuck). Is the music video really that influential for new artists? is radio? and if so, is it because they are the best avenue or because they are the avenue that big labels use? If you only try one route, how can you say it's the best route.

For me, I rarely listen to either the available radio or watch videos because when I do, I end up sitting through so much junk to hear something good. Selling to me needs getting a sample of the music to me (which is how most people get into new music and artists) and that isn't going to happen through channels I've learned to avoid because they don't produce. Music videos on TV are one of those failed channels.

Naturally, I think, the answer is the net. One of the reasons large companies are suspcious of the net is the same as one of the reasons power companies are suspicious of solar power -- it works really well on a small scale, as well as a large scale (solar probably works better on a small scale, individual setup). They're afraid of losing control, which of course is why they're lashing out.

Edited by author 03-14-2003 04:50 PM
Great to see current Natalie info on a non-Natalie Merchant site. I saw the folkie tour she did a few summers back and it was great. Oh, and it should be noted that this isn't going to be a pop album. It's going to be an album of traditional folk and gospel music based on the folk tour she did. While I like to think it was by choice, she was probably forced to release it herself because no label would release it. More power to her for giving her fans what they want even if the labels wont. That's why she's so great.

TV Bookigs: Letterman loves Natalie (he even had her play two nights in a row for Motherland). She probably wont have any trouble getting on his show whenever she wants.

Aimee has started a revolution!

Not having your records released by a major label is not the same thing as not working with a major management company or a major booking agency... According to Pollstar, Natalie Merchant is booked by CAA which is one of the largest agencies in the nation. I imagine she's still repped by a major PR firm, too. CAA would book tours through (possibly Clear Channel owned) venues; the PR company would handle bookings to television for promotion. We'll see how this all pans out as time goes on, I guess.

I screwed up on the story submission (sorry Cory) and didn't attribute the quote to Todd Dominey.

http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/000827.php

Thanks for putting the link in Cory!

wrt SNL/Letterman: Aimee Mann has been independent for years and has been on Letterman (not SNL) to promote her records.

ernie: not since 1993!

Also, I wonder how easy it is for someone in her position to get booked for TV appearances like SNL or Letterman without the backing of a label.
Will she be able to get booked in Clear channel controlled venues?
Will managers who work with label defectors (there will be more) still have the same juice in the industry?

Is she some sort of Maniac?

Cool, cool. What about music videos? What if Natalie had a music video produced on her own -- would MTV/VH1 seriously consider putting it into rotation? That's where most of the exposure for an artist comes from these days. Maybe the Canadians with MuchMusic and the British music video channels would be more open to this.

This would change the dynamic of everything -- if a popular musician not only cut out the major label in terms of distribution of their work but also when it came to music videos, the major means for promoting new music.