These record companies..

Rodney Shuffler · From: Montgomery, Texas USA (Home of the Bears)

I was sitting around putting some music in my computer and came across a tape I was given some time ago. It was Perfect Stranger, one side was the first album and the other was the second (and as far as I know, still unreleased) album along with some other demos they had done that weren't gonna be on that album.

I helped put that group together, and played on the road with them up until we met Tony Tuthill. He was the fella that put the money in them. I had other things to do (baby on the way) and was dealing with serious burn-out, so I opted out. Richard Raines replaced me, he and I had traded places in the group a few times. Their sound changed a good bit when he came in, but they still sounded great....no better or worse in my opinion, just different.

At any rate, in 1997 I was going to get back in with them, Richard was staying and I was gonna pull off the guitar parts that gave him trouble. He's a great blues guitarist...but the clean country stuff never was his bag. He's not as proficient with the double-stops etc.. as I am....and never was real big on sitting around learning things of the record....even his own. He played on the first one, but Chris Leusinger (sp?) was pulled in for the second album......he didn't play anything hard on there, but it wasn't Rich's style. So, I was given the tapes to learn the stuff. I ultimately decided to stay at home with my family anyhow...but sitting here listening to this stuff irks me.

I know some of the politics that took place in it all; but still......the second album is better than the first and some of the demos that never made it to the disk were incredible....great songs and singing. Overall, I think they topped their first effort well.

These record companies play with people and it makes me sick.......and, we never get to hear a lot of great music for the love of money.

In the end, I know I've made good decisions concerning my playing.....I'm glad it's not me in this boat....but they're friends I know and grew up with and I hate it for them.

Any similar experiences?

------------------

Emmons S-10 P/P

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

Rodney,

I know what you mean. I have a brother who did a solo album which was released by United Artists. My brother is a pop musician, not a country musician. In any case, although I thought my brother's music was great, they decided to terminate his contract because his CD's weren't selling well.

You're right -- money makes the world go around. Regardless of whether or not it's a bad thing, it does appear to be a basic truth.

I think the problem is that things have changed since the 50's when record companies would do a lot of promoting of their artists. Back then, there were relatively few really good artists around. So, the record companies promoted the ones they had and that helped sell even more records.

Nowadays, at least in my opinion, there are a great many talented musicians around. So, the record companies simply pick a bunch of artists who seem to have potential, then put their CD's out on the market, then wait and see what sells without much promotion. If your CD sells, you're a star -- if it doesn't sell, you're back out on the street. It's a less risky way for the record companies to make money. That is, they don't have to put up large sums of money to promote this or that artist. They just throw a bunch of music at the wall and see what sticks.

On the up side, more artists have a chance to get their foot in the door, so-to-speak. On the down side, just because you get a contract doesn't mean you're going to make it.

Rodney Shuffler · From: Montgomery, Texas USA (Home of the Bears)

I think that first album sold well over 100,000.....but the label had someone else coming up the charts that they wanted to promote. "You Have The Right To Remain Silent" was goin' up fast.....and got pulled at #4.......because another artist on the same label was being given competition by that tune. Funny how all that political crap works ain' it?

Jason Odd · From: Stawell, Victoria, Australia

I know what you are saying guys and things are pretty screwed for the average artist, but I don't think things were ever any better.
In 1929 with the stock market crash, hundreds of artists, blues, hillbilly and pop were quite simpy dumped by labels, escpecially blues artists, which I suppose is partially due to the fact that the labels were white owned and figured the bulk of their customer base was white and dumped what they called Race Records back then.
Soe of the finest blues artists never recorded again, or had to wait untilthe early 1960s to record for various indie labels, not majors like in their youth.

Throughout the 1940s and right into the 1960s there were a lot of labels that were founded, but lots of them were shonky spin-offs, cash-in labels, overnighters, and so on.
A lot of black singers and pickers were shafted out of song rights.

Sun Records dumped it's blues roster and country actsto go rockabilly, while labels like King and Sun only issued albums ontheir acts,after they had signed deal with other labels.
Even a pop singer likericky Nelson who changed labels in the early 1960s had to watch his old material be continually reissued on albums that bore similar titles to his current hits!

I could go on for days, how various labels underpromoted acts, signed others as write-offs, did nastylittle swaps, how somegreat indies were swallowed up for a corporate takeover and so on.
It comes down to a simple thing, business is business for the suits they treat a creative process (music) as a commodity.
Gonna be trouble, no matter what.

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

Jason,

I agree with you that there have always been shady dealings in the recording industry. But, I feel that the average artist who was signed to a major label in the 50's and 60's had a much greater chance of success than the average artist who is signed to a major label today. This is simply due to the numbers and to more efficient distribution channels of today. That is, compared to the 50's and 60's, many many more artists are actually signed by major, reputable, record labels today. However, the numbers or artist who actually end up selling music is roughly the same as in the days past. Thus, you have many more artists today that have been signed by a major label at one time or another, but end up going nowhere in the end.

Like you've said, business is business. The record companies can afford to sign up a whole bunch of unknowns, throw the stuff out on the web and see what sells. It's like farming -- you sow the seeds and see what grows. You cut down the weeds and small stuff and harvest the producers. Business is business.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 19 February 2001 at 05:35 PM.]

Herb Steiner · From: Spicewood TX 78669

Tom, Jason, et. al.
One thing that didn't get mentioned as to why it was easier for an artist to become "successful," whatever that means is this: when I started listening to radio back in the mid-50's, playlists were 100 songs (remember the "hot 100?") and DJ's had discretion to play basically whatever they wanted after covering the hits. Nowadays, playlists are about 30 songs, and those 30 are heavily backed with promotional bucks to the exclusion of everything else. Money talks, talent walks. So, what else is new?

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

Jason Odd · From: Stawell, Victoria, Australia

True Herb, of course labels like Atlantic and Chess were always offering DJs all sorts of 'gifts'.. and we sure all know about the great Payola scandal in the late 1950s.

Now how did Dick Clark walk away from that one with a slap on the wrist??

Anyhoo, Herb has a mighty fine point, the promotional bucks are hard to compete with, especially as half the playlist artists are ones that have charted before and will remain on that playlist as long as they have new product, and of course a label with a big promo budget!! Ka-Ching..$$$ Ker-ching $$ that's the sound of music.

Forget the radio and buy fron an indie.

------------------
The future ain't what it used to be

tim duvall · From: greensburg,pa,usa

I got George Strait's box set and there are two unreleased singles on there ("what would your memories do" and "any old love won't do") that would be major hits even today. I wish I could tell George to release those songs. If anyone else would release them, they probably wouldn't get any airtime because of being "too country", but they are awesome songs. If you get a chance, listen to them.

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

I really liked Perfect Stranger ("You Have the Right to Remain Silent"). Enough to even buy a karaoke tape of that song.

How many other copies of that 2nd album do you think are out there? I'd sure like to pick one up on Ebay sometime.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

Dennis Scoville · From: Indiana

Herb mentioned the following:

"One thing that didn't get mentioned as to why it was easier for an artist to become "successful," whatever that means is this: when I started listening to radio back in the mid-50's, playlists were 100 songs (remember the "hot 100?") and DJ's had discretion to play basically whatever they wanted after covering the hits. Nowadays, playlists are about 30 songs, and those 30 are heavily backed with promotional bucks to the exclusion of everything else. Money talks, talent walks. So, what else is new?"

Good point. I've often wondered if the big record companies clamped down on the radio play lists in reaction to the fact that digital recording technology made it so much easier for bands/artists to make records of their own.

If you combine the possibilities of affordable, high-quality recordings by good musicians, and combine that with promotional factors such as the internet, then you've got a situation that is probably viewed as very threatening by the big record companies.

Putting a strangle-hold on radio seems like a defense strategy that has pretty much become an industry standard for big record companies. There are two ways of dealing with competition; put out a better product or service, or, stifle/destroy the competition.

Maybe I'm a product of growing up in the "grassy knoll" generation, but I think much of what is the big record industry is the business of "telling" people what they are going to like -- and that takes some manipulation and control.

As far as Herb's comments go; just try calling up your local Nashvegas radio station and request some Buck Owens. But don't hold your breath.

[This message was edited by Dennis Scoville on 20 February 2001 at 03:36 PM.]

ajm · From: Los Angeles

To put a slightly different spin on the subject, how many people will go out and buy a record by someone, and then pretend to like it, or say they like it, or think they're supposed to like it just because it's by a certain artist?

I will admit that I am biased towards a couple of acts and will probably always cut them a little slack when it comes to liking them. But I also will admit that IMHO some of their albums just don't make the grade when compared to some of their other works.

I'm not sure of what the real point is here; maybe it's if the record companies tell you to like something or that you should like it, then a certain percentage of the population will obey. And it appears to happen with all age groups and styles, from Brittney Spears to George Strait to ?????

Rodney Shuffler · From: Montgomery, Texas USA (Home of the Bears)

For the record, I didn't buy either record.

I think some of the songs that never got released were great songs....a few songs like "Fire When Ready" that DID get released (I'm probably gonna be sorry I said this, but hey...I can have an opinion) were lame at best. I'm reckoning that PS had very little (if any) control over that. I think they are a really good group; what they do isn't my style at all....another factor in my decision to stay at home.....I'm contrary these days

, I know I'm not gonna get rich so I'm damn sure gonna have some fun.

David......To the best of my knowledge, I'm one of the few outside the folks involved with PS to have a copy of that CD....reckon you could hear me if I holler while I'm in Conroe tomorrow?

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

erik · Posted 21 Feb 2001 6:56 pm

Tim, 'WHAT WOULD YOUR MEMORIES DO' was a hit for Vern Gosdin. I have the 45. That might be your answer. George Strait also recorded 'HEARTBROKE' same time as Ricky Scaggs. It's a good education on the effect of production. There's just no comparison... Scaggs ran away with it.

erik · Posted 21 Feb 2001 7:04 pm

oh... and Blake Mevis was producing both Vern Gosdin and George Strait in the early 80s. I think the song you mentioned was written by Barnes and Gosdin - which would explain why the George Strait version was never released. This kind of stuff happens a lot.

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know squat about either the broadcasting industry or the recording industry. But, from what I know about business law, I find it hard to believe that the record companies have enough control over the broadcasting industry to dictate what gets played on the air and what does not.

I tend to think that, while it appears that the record companies are, indeed, calling the shots on the radio and TV, it's not actually the case. I think that the domination of the airwaves by just a few artists is due to a "snowball factor."

That is, when an artist initially becomes popular because of a well-recieved record, or because they wear short, tight leather skirts, then the artist begins to generate name/face/voice recognition amoung the listening public.

Once the name/face/voice recognition is in place, the popularity of the artist can start to "snowball" as long as the artist continues to put out at least minimally acceptable music. In other words, "popularity breeds greater popularity." Pretty soon, you have artists who continue to get more popular simply because they are popular -- regardless of the fact that they put out the musical equivalent of cat vomit.

It's a kind of vicious cycle in reverse -- once the artist's name/face/voice recognition is there, the record company has a bankable asset. Now they start pumping money in -- put the artist on TV, put the artist on worldwide tour, get endorsement deals for the artist, start flooding the market with the artist's CD's.

The radio stations look at the artist in a similar way. If the radio station plays a snowballing artist, they get more listeners because, by playing snowballing artists, the radio station appears to be "hip" or "in" or whatever you want to call it. After all, it's the listening public who gave the artist the name/face/voice recognition in the first place.

The more listeners the radio station has, the more money they can charge for advertising. Of course, the radio stations are going to want to play nothing but the big, snowballing, bankable artists.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 21 February 2001 at 08:08 PM.]

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

Tom Olson · From: Spokane, WA

David,

I agree that my theory may not be true and it may not explain certain things. Like I said, I don't know squat about the broadcasting industry, but I can imagine that there are many factors that come into play in deciding what songs get on a station's "play list." I'm sure that there's no hard and fast formula, but I believe that, for the most part, those factors do not include payola. I don't think a major station or record company would take that risk.

I do think that the station owners and/or management team includes various factors other than pure chart status for developing a play list. For example, the station may decide to play records that fit within a certain "image." In that case, the records on that stations play list must not only be on the charts, but must also fit other critera -- hence the short playlists of many stations. I believe this may explain why some stations don't include some charting records in their play list.

I also feel that the fact that some stations don't play every song on the charts doesn't necessarily shoot down the "snowball" theory. I still believe it can be a possible explaination for why certain artists remain popular despite an apparent decline in, or lack of, artistic development and/or talent.

In other words, in response to your first point, so what if the station doesn't play a record that is a current single? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of current singles. One of the points of the snowball theory is that many stations have extremely short playlists. Every single can't be on every station's playlist -- at least not according to the snowball theroy.

Regarding your second point about advertising time -- if a station plays 8 minutes of advertising every hour, that adds up to 192 minutes a day. Even if the station only charged $100 a minute(which seems pretty cheap to me)for advertising, that station would bring in over $7million in revenue per year from advertising. That sounds like a pretty good chunk of change to me. For a major metropolitan area like Houston, I would think that $500/minute wouldn't be too outrageous. That advertising rate would bring in over $35,000,000 annually for the station that plays 8 minutes of ads per hour. Now you know why there are so many radio stations out there and why having the right playlist is so important -- at least to the owners of the radio stations. I'm certain that anyone who owned a station and had that much money riding on a playlist would make damn sure that every song on his/her playlist was there for a reason -- that reason being to draw the most listeners possible.

Maybe that's why we sometimes hear some really off-the-wall and unusual stuff on college stations and public radio stations. They don't give a rat snot about advertising.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 21 February 2001 at 10:14 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 21 February 2001 at 10:17 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 21 February 2001 at 10:19 PM.]

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 21 February 2001 at 11:07 PM.]