On The Record

  • You won’t get me I’m part of the union

    October 8, 2008 @ 9:58 am | by Jim Carroll

    It’s just what the world needs right now as capitalism as we know it comes cap in hand to governments worldwide looking for a few bob - an union for rich rock stars to moan about their lot. Featured Artists Coalition made its way into the world at last weekend’s In The City conference in Manchester and more than 60 acts have already put their hands in the air to say yes to the idea of forming an union to campaign for the protection of their rights.

    Not surprisingly, the bulk of the artists who have already paid their union dues are acts who are well established. It’s always the way - the ones who’ve already made their cash are protecting their necks. There’s Radiohead (the band who became rich megastars thanks to the support and patience of EMI Music, who initially signed the band in 1991 when they called On A Friday and were way worse than they are today), Robbie Williams (the gombeen who declared “I’m rich beyond my wildest dreams” when he signed a £80 million deal with EMI in 2002, but who has gone from seeing angels to seeing aliens in that six years), Richard Ashcroft (you could probably purchase Iceland with the money record labels have wasted on him and his band over the years), Travis (yeah, they’re still around, probably still wondering about the rain) and many others. U2’s application must have got lost in the post from Amsterdam.

    On FAC’s website, they have a whole list of demands and aims. These loosely translate into getting more cash from record companies. They mention “digital distributors and others” in their manifesto, but it’s really the record labels they’re after.

    Ah, the record labels. The same record labels who took a punt on those bands when they didn’t have a clue what they were doing and guided them to where they are today. The same record labels who presented the bands with contracts outlining what they would get and what was expected in return, contracts the bands and their representatives (who seem to be behind the setting up of FAC) then paid a lawyer to read through and explain to them. Lets be blunt here - the bands knew what they were getting into when they signed those contracts. They were, I assume, all adults and took proper, precise, independent legal advice and didn’t just go with the lawyers their managers recommended because they were (a) cheap or (b) mates of the manager. That never happens. Oh no. Bands have brains. Bands think things through. Bands would never sign a contract and then bleat about it when the penny drops that they’ve actually agreed to do stuff. It would be like someone getting a loan from a bank (used to happen pre-’08 when banks had cash reserves) and then expressing surprise at having to pay the money back.

    Interestingly, there’s no mention of live promoters or agents in the ya-boo-sucks list. It would seem that the acts are completely happy with the large cheques they’re getting from that particular quarter and have little to say about how ticket prices paid by their fans have ballooned to pay for these pay-days. Funny, that.

    And if the bands think they have been hard done by conventional record labels, that’s nothing to what they’ll encounter with that rabid bunch of snakeoil salesmen currently working to get acts - and surprise, surprise, it’s acts with established audiences these boyos are after too - into bed with brands. You thought things were bad when your record label wanted you to do a couple of aul’ phone interviews to plug a new album? Wait till you get a load of what these brands want you to do for your big cheque. We won’t start on how the digital pimps will rip these acts off for fear that we’ll be here all day.

    All in favour of an all-out strike, raise your hand.

  • 40 Comments »

    1.
    October 8, 2008
    10:49 am

    I read the list of members and thought it was the line up for the forthcoming Jools Holland Hootenanny.

    Comment by Matt Vinyl
    2.
    October 8, 2008
    11:09 am

    I’m just back from Columbia where I spent 3 months training FAC operatives in guerilla tactics. Of the marketing kind.

    Expect a slew of new anonymous posters engaging in black hat link exchanges to their digital POS.

    Comment by Markg
    3.
    October 8, 2008
    11:13 am

    Bless their little sponsored cotton socks. Puts me in mind of George Michael’s wee huff in the early ’90s, when he decided not to give interviews, make videos or put his stubbly fizog on his record sleeves, because Sony didn’t understand his need to be taken ’seriously’, or whatever it was. Then he had the cheek to blame Sony for not supporting Listen Without Prejudice part 1. Considering his penchant for self-exposure since, it makes him look just a trifle silly. Mind you, he seems to like looking silly.

    Comment by Johnnie
    4.
    October 8, 2008
    11:40 am

    Ungrateful rockers! They’re nearly as bad as bloody employees, always unionising and demanding more more MORE from those kind capitalists who selflessly gave them work

    Comment by Cormac-out-of-Stoat
    5.
    October 8, 2008
    11:50 am

    Cormac - The interweb doesnt do sarcasm but if it did, your comment would be glowing red.

    As a musician in a band, would you join FAC? Do you consider them to be your peers? Are all musicians in this together?

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    6.
    October 8, 2008
    12:27 pm

    “The Featured Artists’ Coalition campaigns for the protection of performers’ and musicians’ rights. We want all artists to have more control of their music and a much fairer share of the profits it generates in the digital age.”

    That doesn’t sound so bad, though I’m not sure of the specific details of what exactly they’re looking for.. Isn’t the whole ‘digital rights’ thing still sort of a grey area when it comes to bands and contracts with record companies? The big already-wealthy bands listed in the article obviously don’t really need ‘a fairer share of the profits’ but maybe it’s the case that their presence is necessary to give the whole thing the required clout so that smaller bands who do need the money benefit too.

    Comment by dermot
    7.
    October 8, 2008
    12:32 pm

    Dermot - The FAC has been set up and overseen by the managers behind those big acts and so they are acting solely in the interests of the bands and their own 20 percent. I dont think they give a damn about smaller bands (unless, of course, they sign up and start paying their dues and attending union meetings and buying copies of the Socialist Worker - or unless they happen to manage those acts).

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    8.
    October 8, 2008
    12:59 pm

    meh. the rich will always want to stay rich and/or get richer.
    I’m not sure how effective this union will be; it’s reminiscent of the South Park where the boys form a band and promptly go on strike for greater rights etc.. It’s not like any of the acts involved can hold the public to ransom in the manner of say, train drivers.. I just can’t see that many people getting upset if U2 or Radiohead or whoever go on strike - all they’d end up doing is costing themselves money.
    Can’t wait for the benefit gig for this that will surely happen in Hyde Park in the summer with full coverage on BBC interactive and whatnot..

    Comment by Liam
    9.
    October 8, 2008
    1:01 pm

    I’m just re-reading this post and it reminds me of some grammatical arguments I’ve engaged in over the years. The vagaries of the English language become evident when prefacing a noun beginning with a vowel with either ‘a’ or ‘an’. I would suggest that it’s ‘a union’ because rather than it depending on whether its a vowel it depends on whether it has a vowel sound. Therefore it’s a union because union has a ‘y’ or consonant sound. Similarly it would be ‘an hour’ due to the fact that although it begins with a consonant it has a vowel sound.

    Sorry for the digression but is there anywhere that shows the actual grammatical rule for such instances? Or should I just go home and watch ‘Countdown’?

    Comment by Matt Vinyl
    10.
    October 8, 2008
    1:08 pm

    Jim, Billy Bragg one of the campaigners behind this is he not? Funny he’s not agitating for the government to nationalise the record companies.

    Comment by Ivor
    11.
    October 8, 2008
    1:18 pm

    I am as dozy as a Keane fan, admittedly. However, is chasing after the record labels in this manner, given their current state of financial malaise, not just a case of the top 1% of bands out there whipping their collective Efterklangers out for some lengthy al fresco relief on top of the new bands cabbage patch?

    If so, they are beginning to sound like the big European football clubs, who would embarrass an investment banker in terms of their greed.

    Comment by JD
    12.
    October 8, 2008
    1:31 pm

    off topic,but …bon iver last night..fecking brilliant..

    Comment by ciaran
    13.
    October 8, 2008
    2:17 pm

    @9 - you’re bang on Matt, see section 28f of the little, brown compact handbook of grammar by Jane E. Aaron…

    Comment by Liam
    14.
    October 8, 2008
    3:01 pm

    Liam@8 makes a good point. Would anybody really care if musicians went on strike? They’re usually only in our lives physically for about a month every two or three years. They release an album, they play live and then they’re gone. We’ve learned to live without them. If there’s no product coming out (a 2 year+ strike?) then we’ll look elsewhere because we can’t bank on regular releases from our favourite bands anyway.

    It reminds me a bit of that screen writers strike earlier this year. It got plenty of coverage (mostly as celebrity support) but did anyone really care? I don’t even know what the outcome was.

    Comment by Peter81
    15.
    October 8, 2008
    3:23 pm

    Anyone else think that FAC is a bit similar to FAG (Film Actors Guild) from Team America.

    Next you’ll see Bono and Thom Yorke working with Kim Jong Il

    Comment by knwd
    16.
    October 8, 2008
    3:24 pm

    The screenwriters strike ended up affecting every major TV show and every Hollywood film in pre-production at the time. In the end they got their deal of a small cut from the download/DVD sales that they were looking for, which cost a hell of a lot less than the advertising revenue and film-stalling costs incurred because of the delays.
    A major band going on strike for a while wouldn’t see as many people losing as much cash, I don’t think. And i don’t ever want to see U2 so feck it, go ahead and let them strike.

    Comment by adam
    17.
    October 8, 2008
    4:23 pm

    According to their site, any musician can join up for free. If it’s a case of artists banding together to try to get a proper benchmark set for the digital ownership and profits arising through digitial sources for *all musicians* in the future, then I’m in favour of it.. Whereas if it’s just certain rich musicians looking after their lot, as the tone of Jim’s article very much makes it out to be, then I’d be with the prevailing negative sentiment on it..

    Comment by dermot
    18.
    October 8, 2008
    4:39 pm

    @13 - Liam, I thought you were taking the piss until I googled Jane E Aaron. I’ve got to get myself that little brown handbook now.

    Comment by Matt Vinyl
    19.
    October 8, 2008
    6:58 pm

    m83 supporting kings of leon WTF????

    Comment by petee
    20.
    October 8, 2008
    7:08 pm

    Radiohead and Coldplay on strike? Oh bliss. Can I suggest the Arcade Fire join them.

    Comment by gardenhead
    21.
    October 8, 2008
    7:14 pm

    Gardenhead - Coldplay? Oh no, Coldplay are not part of this one. Whatever else you might say about them, they at least realise that they would not have sold 2 million copies of their insufferably awful and dangerously bland album without a record label behind them.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    22.
    October 8, 2008
    8:34 pm

    Coldplay? Oh no, Coldplay are not part of this one. Whatever else you might say about them, they at least realise that they would not have sold 2 million copies of their insufferably awful and dangerously bland album without a record label behind them.

    Didn’t Martin say he didn’t give a fig (becasue he’s far too polite to say that he doesn’t give a fuck) about the effect on the EMI share price when his band failed to deliver their last album (X&Y) in the expected financial quarter?

    Comment by Ian
    23.
    October 8, 2008
    9:52 pm

    my mistake. must have been wishful thinking. I had scrolled down the comment section and by in that space of time my brain tricked me into thinking you mentioned ‘em Jim.

    Comment by gardenhead
    24.
    October 8, 2008
    10:32 pm

    Ahem, if I could just interrupt this exceptionally boring discussion for a second…..yes,Ciaran@12 - Bon Iver was amazing last night. Near flawless performance and the audience were so quiet and respectful, which you very rarely see. ‘Re:Stacks’ was the highlight for me, just him and his guitar without his band. The new song he played hints at a rockier direction and bodes well for the album number 2. Have very little time for male acoustic singer-songwriters-the proliferation of them in this country has put me off them for life- but this guy is truly exceptional…

    Comment by Quint
    25.
    October 9, 2008
    8:34 am

    Re Bon Iver - I think i’m suffering from Bonny Iver live overload because I thought the gig was only alright and not a patch on the one in the same venue in June.

    Only one new song and three covers to flesh out the set? Meh, he needs to say no to all those big cash offers (3 Irish shows in 6 months - who does he think he is, CSS? And the Stadium, the venue of last resort, for him in December? Wouldn’t like to be the soundman at that one) and head back to the woods again and kill some deer.

    That said, “Blood Bank”, the new song, was fabulous and the Talk Talk cover made me realise just who they’ve reminded me of for an age.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    26.
    October 9, 2008
    9:45 am

    for me, FAC always was and always will be the catalogue system for factory records… tony wilson set up ‘in the city’ as well…

    Comment by Ally
    27.
    October 9, 2008
    10:07 am

    Have very little time for male acoustic singer-songwriters-the proliferation of them in this country has put me off them for life- but this guy is truly exceptional…

    Aside from Skinny Love which he uses a resonator for doesn’t Justin play everything on an electric guitar?

    Anyways, this point of view which I hear a lot baffles me, “Damien Rice/Dempsey is shit so I can’t listen to Elliott Smith records.”

    I thought the gig was only alright and not a patch on the one in the same venue in June.

    And I still say that that previous gig wasn’t as good as I was hoping it would be (though if my experience is anything to go by expect a load of comments here from babies bitching at you for your dissenting opinion) based on the boots I’d heard before. That being said I am a little disappointed that I left it so long and missed out a ticket for last night, especially considering how good the recent Shepherd’s Bush bootleg I’ve got was.

    Only one new song

    That’s odd because they’ve got at least two new ones in their arsenal. They played another one called “babies” in Copenhagan recently (have it up on thrillpier).

    Comment by Ian
    28.
    October 9, 2008
    11:18 am

    As a musician in a band, would you join FAC? Do you consider them to be your peers? Are all musicians in this together?
    Are you nuts? As a musician in a band with neither critical nor commercial success after 21 years in existence, I hate successful musicians even more than I hate music journalists!

    Comment by Cormac-out-of-Stoat
    29.
    October 9, 2008
    11:19 am

    Ah no … obviously this is a fight among the victors over the spoils, but if you take a look at http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/our_campaign.html what the artists are demanding seems fair enough, so I hope they’re successful. From a practical perspective this could mean a couple of quid extra a year for my band from the likes of IMRO and RAAP, and in our world any income at all is precious

    Comment by Cormac-out-of-Stoat
    30.
    October 9, 2008
    11:39 am

    Bon Iver = CSS, etc.? Please. Let’s not start the backlash so soon.

    The man has given us two superb shows (June > October, agreed) so let’s just try to enjoy him without cynicism (or preconceived expectations), eh?

    Comment by Fasty
    31.
    October 9, 2008
    11:44 am

    Bon Iver = CSS, etc.? Please. Let’s not start the backlash so soon

    What backlash? I’m just pointing out that he’s playing three Irish shows in six months on the back of one album - he has a while to go to matching CSS’s 8 gigs in 12 months record.

    Thing is, as he moves up to bigger venues, there is a need for new material to bulk out the show. It was interesting that the people I spoke to afterwards who thought it was only alright were the ones who had seen him in June - whereas the ones who were raving about it hadn’t seen him before.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    32.
    October 9, 2008
    11:50 am

    That’s a very true point. I wrote a wee bit about that myself. He only has a small catalogue to go through so trying out new things with it (to stop the monotony of repetition) meant that some of the songs lost their delicate force, if you get me. Still, the fact that the gig (even with this new treatment of the material) was still very good highlights the strength of his talent.

    I suppose I hate him even being in the same sentence as CSS. The dial on my irk-o-meter went haywire.

    Comment by Fasty
    33.
    October 9, 2008
    11:54 am

    Apologies for yanking yer irkometer

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    34.
    October 9, 2008
    12:37 pm

    Jim,
    Typical cynical journalists response. Did you read the press release? It’s not about money. Or big acts. It’s about artists rights getting ignored particularly in the digital carve-up that is going on.
    It’s about artists work being shut away by copyright owners (record companies) so that artists can’t make a basic living.
    It’s about self-releasing artists being cut out of pan-industry deals to the sole benefit of major labels.
    It was launched by the managers. It will sink or swim dependent on the artists willingness to be involved and take some responsibility for their work. If they don’t it will fail. 500 artists have signed up in 5 days. If you don’t have the big artists then no-one would take any notice but it is about artists, young and old, successful or starting out working together. They will set the agenda - we have suggested some things that our artists have talked to us about. If they want to change it and take aim at the venues that take 28.75% commission on merchandise sales forcing up the price of T-shirts then they can. Or take aim at touts buying up tickets and ripping off fans then they will.
    Such lazy journalism.
    Jon Webster MMF London

    Comment by jon webster
    35.
    October 9, 2008
    2:39 pm

    looks like you hit a nerve Jim..
    how could we be so blind as to see that it isn’t about money?? Thanks for clearing that up Mr Webster.. We all know that Unions are the last bastion of socialism, and never, ever have the fiscal interests of their members at the heart of all their agendas..

    Comment by Liam
    36.
    October 9, 2008
    3:37 pm

    Thought the Bon Iver gig the other night was outstanding..was absolutely spellbound throughout..

    Couldn’t make it to the one in June, but that gig must have been pretty f**ckin unreal to make the gig on Tue night look just ‘alright’ in comparison..

    Loved the added layers to ’skinny love’ & the primal scream at the end of ‘The Wolves’ and tbh it went above the expectations I had for the gig.

    Jim, will be interested to see what kind of new material Lykke Li has for her second show here in the space of 6 months, because as good as the first show was, she also apologised for only playing 9 odd songs because she was a new artist.

    Comment by Bob Nando
    37.
    October 9, 2008
    5:17 pm

    OOOOOOOHHHH. That shook you Jim. Having just read their Charter and Aims on their site it very much sounds like they’re trying to close the stable door now that the horse has bolted. All the things that they outline in their charter i.e.

    • artists should retain ultimate ownership of their music
    • all agreements should be fairly conducted and transparently accounted
    • rights’ holders should have a fiduciary duty of care to the originator of those rights and must always explain how any agreement may affect how their work is exploited.

    are the very things that managers should be doing for their artists in the first instance. If they haven’t been doing this for their artists up to this point I would question the worth of having such managers in the first place.

    In all businesses, where two parties enter into a deal with eachother, it behoves both parties to carry out what is called ‘due diligence’. It appears that managers have not been doing their job properly. Such lazy management.

    Matt Vinyl FFS Dublin

    Comment by Matt Vinyl
    38.
    October 9, 2008
    5:37 pm

    jon - thanks for your comment. Naturally, as you can appreciate, I disagree with most of it.

    Significantly, I note that you have not addressed the substanial point of my post - everyone went into these deals with labels (lets leave the other stuff aside - after all, I did in my original mail) with their eyes wide open. As Matt points out above, “due dilegence” of a sort was surely done. To cry foul now is what irks me. It’s a bit much for artists who have become hugely successful and very rich on the back on these labels to now decide that those deals were wrong.

    It’s not about money. Or big acts. It’s about artists rights getting ignored particularly in the digital carve-up that is going on.

    Artists rights? Surely such rights were part and parcel of existing contracts? Yes, such contracts have always had unfair clauses - as a former record company employee yourself, you will be aware of some of these (remember the one for breakages? Different packaging formats?) - but such contracts also always gave acts big cash advances in return for the act signing over rights to the label. It’s how capitalism works - at least, it did until recently. Obviously, future deals should take changes in how music is consumed and distributed and monetised into account - and surely new deals (what few are going around) do address this. Again, the deals that are going around will be better for the established act - is the union going to be able to change this?

    It’s about artists work being shut away by copyright owners (record companies) so that artists can’t make a basic living.

    Don’t artists make more cash their days from live gigs, merch, synch etc? And what is the percentage of acts who actually turn a profit for their labels again - is it 5%?

    It’s about self-releasing artists being cut out of pan-industry deals to the sole benefit of major labels.

    I hope FAC will also be looking at a similar situation which happens with airplay royalties from the various collection agencies.

    Such lazy journalism.

    “Lazy journalism”? Please, Jon. As someone who used to be a journalist yourself, you surely know this term is always flung at those journalists who, unlike the vast majority of press I have read about the FAC, have not simply just cut and pasted the spin from the press release.

    Comment by Jim Carroll
    39.
    October 10, 2008
    2:32 pm

    Hi Jim,

    Just re: your comment “everyone went into these deals with labels … with their eyes wide open”, it wouldn’t matter how open their eyes were if they didn’t see the boom in digital sales coming and have explicit parts of their contracts to deal with this channel.

    I’ve heard of many acts caught out by this and receiving tiny royalty payments from digital sales. To give FAC some credit at least they’re trying to address this issue. That’s not to say I don’t agree with your inevitable truth that the big acts will be the ultimate winners.

    Personally, if I were in a position to sign now the deal I would want would be to retain ownership and license the music for a limited period, a la Daft Punk, DFA Records, Tracey Thorn etc. For a start up act like myself though this would be patently unfair on the label, as they would be effectively be providing the seed capital for my act, and in a few years if I were to become successful, I would reap the rewards (after the licensing deal ran out). It’s no wonder then that the only acts to get deals like this are well established b(r)ands already.

    It’s interesting watching the market evolve and seeing what the future holds for labels as an idea full stop. In the meantime, there will no doubt be running battles between acts, managers, and labels, and to a lesser degree promoters, managers, and agents as they try to force live fees through the roof.

    Comment by Phil Boyle
    40.
    October 10, 2008
    4:07 pm

    Don’t artists make more cash their days from live gigs, merch, synch etc?
    Maybe in a small, geographically concentrated market like Dublin/Ireland, but in Europe and the US touring the costs of moving about are several times higher, particularly as fuel costs are hitting them harder in the Merica. There are still a lot of bands around who tour in order to promote a record rather than the other way around, and the popular perception that artists don’t need record sales really affects them.

    Comment by Dave

    Leave a comment


    • (will not be published)


Search On The Record

 
Close
E-mail It