Caught in the Crossfire  by antiGUY

I had a few different ideas for this month's "what the hell" column and I even began a couple of them but they were topics that were interesting but just not interesting enough to warrant a full column. So I was vexed trying to think of a different spin on one of the topics to make it worth my while to write and the reader's while to read. This morning as I pondered this and what the hell I was going to write this month (that's why it's called "what the hell"), I happened to hear part of a recent interview conducted by our lunatic in chief, Keavin, and that got my mind racing. 

The interview was with the lead singer of a band that I respect and whose albums I consider among my favorites and I knew bits and pieces of their story but I think this interview was the first time anyone from that band really spilled the beans, so to speak, about what happened to them during their career. You see I have a bit of a paradox, I hate the music industry and the way it is ran (as you can tell by many an article here) but at the same time I absolutely love music. We're covered many not so kosher things with the biz over the past few years here at antiMUSIC but hearing this interview just blew me away. 

We've all heard the horror stories of musicians getting royally done in by managers, labels, etc. Even a superstar like Billy Joel got ripped off by his manager (who also happened to be his brother in law).  You know the old stories from the formative years of Rock n Roll where R&B artists were given Cadillac's instead of royalty checks and I know that record contracts to this day, tend to be some of the most one sided arrangements known in modern business. But that's the game that is played and the record companies play a numbers game. They sign a large amount of artists, put an investment in each and hope that a couple will break big and recoup their investment. One or two superstars on a label, pay for all of the baby artists that lose money for the label. I've known about this for a while and that's why new bands usually don't get the best terms when they sign their first deal and it's only after they are successful that they can dictate better deals. I understand why this is done but I still don't care for the practice. 

The story I am going to tell today actually goes far beyond that. I wouldn't be bothering relaying this story if it was simply a matter of a band getting the standard treatment from a manager and label. True, there should be outrage over some of the things that happen in the music business but it's been happening for so long that people have accepted it. The irony of course is that a lot of people look at some successful bands and assume that the members are rich but in reality, they may even have a multi-platinum CD, but the members are still struggling to pay their bills, they haven't made enough money to buy a decent home or to live a modest lifestyle, even though their album have generated millions of dollars in sales! It's not unheard of for a new band to be wildly successful and only the songwriters in the group make money, and only then because they have publishing royalties. The money they should of made from album sales royalties never came and in fact with some, they even owe the label money. That happened with the band Scandal, who had a platinum album in the mid 80's but in the end even after selling over a million copies of their album they still owed the record company money! 

That comes from what are called "recoupable expenses". Anything and everything can be classified as recoupable. What that means is that the record companies will charge whatever money it puts out on the artist's behalf against royalties. When a band signs a deal, they will usually get an advance from the record label and that money is used most times to cover the cost of recording and also to pay the bills for the band while they are in the studio. Once the album is done and in stores that is where the "recoupable's" can really start to add up. The record company has to spend money to promote the album, so with most new bands the money for that comes out of their future royalties. There is also "tour support" and independent radio promotion, which can quickly add up to big money. So it's not inconceivable that the more successful a band becomes, the more they will end up owing to the record company, because more money was spent to make them successful!  That is exactly what happened to one recent band whose debut album sold over five million copies. It cost a lot of money for the promotion to make that album a hit and also to pay the overhead for several tours. I personally heard from someone close to the band (he's in another band on the same label) that when this band finally returned from the road after almost two years of straight touring, the drummer could barley afford to pay his modest rent and standard living expenses. This is after his band had just sold over 5 million albums! 

I don't think the general music buying public knows that this kind of thing still goes on in this day and age, even with major record labels. They assume since a band is a huge success that the band is rich but that's not always the case. Some ask what about their attorney? Why didn't the attorney look out for the band's interest and warn them about signing such a one-sided record deal? To put it bluntly, it's not in a music attorney's best interest to look out for the interest of the band. Say what? It's true, established music attorneys know that really looking after the interest of their clients might jeopardize future revenue they will generate with other bands when they go back to the same record companies to work out new deals. It's in the attorney's interest to do the bidding of the record companies, because they know that once this deal is done they will have to move on to the next band and work out yet another deal with the same people at the labels. If the attorney pushes for favorable terms for the band, then they risk the chance of being shut out by the labels when they come back later with another client. 

I've known about the practices detailed above for quite a while. It's just the way business is done and when looked at from the label's perspective, it's one of the ways they manage to stay in business and still generate a profit because most albums lose money when you take all of the associated expenses into account such as promotion and touring costs. It's up to the few major selling albums each year to help the labels break even and generate a profit. I'll get further into the reason for this in a future rant on how commercial radio works, but let's just say that is cost a tremendous amount of money get a song on the radio and make an album a hit. 

Now we get to the main focus of this article. The interview I mentioned above, really floored me when I heard about what happened to this band. Let me state for the record that I am a big fan of the group and have always wondered why they never had more success. Now I know some of the reasons why.  I won't name the band here for several reasons. One, some people that have heard "of" them have some preconceived notions about them that are totally false and I want people to read the following story without any prejudice going in.  But I will say this about this group; they are one of the few bands' that over the years have released albums that never wore thin with me. Every year there are dozens of albums released that I have access to and typically I'll spin those CD's for a few weeks at most and the set them aside and move on to the next thing. Only a handful of albums each year make it on to my permanent playing lists, so a few years down the line I'm still listening to them.  AC/DC's "Back In Black", Ozzy's "Blizzard", Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and almost everything from the Beatles falls into that ladder category. This band is among that list as well. I could never understand why they never got the credit or success they deserved. They have consistently put out quality music that is better than most of the mainstream "hits". I know that they aren't for everyone but even people who can't get into their music and have heard it, for the most part do respect their talent as songwriters and performers. 

So what happened? "If they are as good as you say they are antiGUY, why aren't they more popular than they are? " I've always attributed that to a number of things, bad timing, bad advise from management, bad luck, bad karma, and a few mistakes on the part of the band. Come to finally find out that, yes some of those things played a part but in the big picture these guys got royalty screwed over. 

Act I: Bad advice and Bad Management. 

On the 8th day, God said "let there be rock" and there were Beatles. A lot has changed in the business since that group of rough and tumble rockers were taken in by Brian Epstein who proceeded to give them the clean-cut mop top look that helped make them an international sensation in the beginning. Of course, as the years progressed the Beatles shed that clean-cut look and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" sound for the legendary image and music of their later career. But Brian Epstein was right in his calculation that a unified slightly mod-look would help put the Beatles over in the mainstream and thus allow them to really hook the public with their music. 

Let's not pretend that image isn't an important part of music. Since the beginning it has played a major role in helping artists succeed. Even the anti-image of the Seattle scene became a recognizable image. The problem with images and rock bands is that trends come and go and if a band is told to latch on to an image that is popular at the moment a couple years later when that image and trend has been replaced with something else, the band is stuck with an outdated image that was used to help make them popular in the past but now hurts them. It's a doubled edged sword because if they don't embrace the popular image trend at the moment, they have a hard time breaking into the mainstream, at the same time by embracing a certain image, they are guaranteeing that in a couple years they will be thought of as old hat and passé.  Most band's have a very limited shelf life because of this, if they embrace an image-or even worse-a sound that goes along with it, they are more or less sowing the seeds of their own downfall.  Sure this year they may be multi-platinum and selling out the Forum and Radio City Music Hall but in a couple years they will be lucky to be selling 20 thousand albums and will more than likely be playing thousand seat theaters or even music clubs. 

What happened with this band and their manager is two fold. One the manager advised them to wholeheartedly embrace the trend in popular music at that point in time, although their music really was quite different than the leading bands of that trend. That's bad enough, but they had to get noticed and unfortunately most record label A&R guys aren't out looking for quality music, they are looking for bands that the label can use to cash in on the trends of the moment. So this band took their manager's advice and adopted an image that was really quite out of character for their music. But what about the music you ask? How can they look the part and still play something different? The manager took care of that as well, he told the two core members of this band to fire their drummer and guitarist and hire new musicians who were more in tune with the trend at that time; in not only looks but in style. Fortunately, even this change didn't compromise the music too much. But it did help seal this band's fate. But this is typical of management and this is not really an exception to the rule. 

The second more sinister thing in play here was the deal the manager struck with the band. Most management deals give the manager roughly 10 to 15% of the band's gross profits. That's the standard but there are a few managers out there who go far beyond that and really put the screws to their artists. Young musicians with stars in their eyes don't really go into these deals with a clear head. They see someone standing before them offering them the universe and the opportunity to achieve their ultimate dream, to become a rock star! Sadly, there are a few managers out there that really take advantage of this and talk these starry eyed dreamers into literally signing their life away.  Who needs a deal with the devil, when you have these sharks in suits swarming around gobbling up bands left and right? 

Many know the story of Black Sabbath, a band that sold millions of albums and soldout concerts at every stop. Unfortunately for Sabbath their management contract more or less gave their manager all of the power and profits, while the manager in turn "took care" of the band. So they are thinking they are millionaires, with fancy cars and homes when in reality their manager owns everything. Ozzy found this unhappy fact out when he left Black Sabbath and was forced to live in Los Angeles hotel room, flat broke and tried to drink and drug himself to death. Ironically it was his former manager's daughter Sharon that helped Ozzy put his life and career back together and launch a far more successful solo career. 

This band was offered a similar deal; their manager would reap all of the profits while promising to "take care of them". When you are a struggling musician, that sounds tempting, here is a guy willing to put some money out to help you live etc until you get that major label deal and become rich. Well in this kind of situation, the manager does risk his money but in the long run he makes out like a bandit once the band breaks because he owns all the rights and is entitled to 75% of the band's gross (not net after all expenses are paid, this money is taken right off the top and in fact after expenses are taken into account the band ends up owing the manager money so they never see a dime).  In this manager's case he took things even further and filed fraudulent publishing claims for the singles to this band's debut album. So where the band's songwriters would have eventually made money from the publishing of these songs if they were hits, they got screwed out of that money as well. 
 
end