Stat Quo: 50 Cent Leaving Interscope Was Smart & Breaks Down The Independent Game

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark Kenneth Jr.
  • Start date Start date
Like I said, stuck in that "gotta have a major label" mindset.

If your goal is to make your art as ubiquitous as possible, why not?
I also see it as a momentum thing, if I happen to have a viral hit song, I could either drop all my own money and resources trying to keep people's attention or sign to a machine that would help me grow and maintain that momentum and marketplace demand on a larger scale than I ever could independently allowing me to focus 100% of my mindshare on my art? Almost all record labels are subsidiaries of larger entities...that means portability which can lead to potential revenue streams. Of course, none of that is going to come for free. Every system has winners and losers, no different than taking a loan for a private university liberal arts degree, then getting mad when you're on the hook for $100k with no means of paying it back because there's no demand for a history major.
In a perfect world, every artist with a vision could personally finance their own success story, make tons of $$$ and have millions of fans and a long, substantive career while thumbing their nose at the "man". Why exactly hasn't that happened yet? Probably because its much smarter and easier to lose on someone else's dime. Like the saying goes," zero of zero is still zero" (maybe I botched that saying, sorry) Why do you think we have venture capital firms?
Also, the "old" system still has its hold and power and I don't see that changing any time soon. There is a reason why, despite all his indie success, Tech 9ine still can't crack radio, despite having a fanbase that continually supports him, him and his partner lamented this fact in a recent issue of The Source (or XXL, I forgot, but someone should be able to find the article or a reference to it). Why would a successful indie like Strange Arts be concerned about the radio at this stage in the game? Because they know that radio play can possibly mean the difference between a few hundred thousand units sold and a couple million while Tech doesn't have to change a thing about his sound. Unfortunately, you still need a major label marketing budget to crack radio.
 
I agree, even though i am a supporter of the indie grind, a major label is a celebrity building machine and there is no way an indie has those kind of resources to build something that strong.

The best bet for any artist is to sign to a major (if you are offered a deal) and work that system for a few years, let them build your celebrity and once they do and your contract is up? You go out on your own... you may lose the radio and all the "big" shit that comes with it, but your brand will be solidified.

That's why someone like 50, at this point in time, is in a unique position. We all need to pay attention to 50 from this point forward. He's either going to capitalize big time or he's going to shrink to the point where he's completely irrelevant.

Jay to a certain extent played the same game... he worked the major system for years and then landed that LiveNation deal.

Link to that Tech N9NE article if you find it, i tried looking for it but can't find it.
 
Last edited:
Cats been saying this for years. I have been posting **** labels on FP since at least 2007 for that reason. Imo the majors aren't a need for anyone with the right work ethic in 2014 or even in 2007 with the internet the playing field has leveled off if you can attract an audience. The hard part these days is attracting an audience because so many people are dope as hell.
 
Why would i give itunes 30% or even 10% to an online distributor when i can keep ALL the revenue for myself?


Simple. Foot traffic.


iTunes gets more traffic than your website. You have to place your product where the traffic is.


That's like forgoing putting your store in the mall that gets tons of foot traffic, in order to build a dedicated store on a random corner where no one knows where it is.
 
On the advantages of being independent



You can put your own music on iTunes. iTunes takes 30% of it. That means essentially they sell it for $9.99. You're getting $7.00. Even if you go through an indy online distributor. Let's say they take 20% and you get 80% of it, you're still winning. So, if I sell a CD... say I just put it on iTunes. I'm getting $7.00 in my pocket for every CD I sell. Whereas if you go through a [major] label, they give you a dollar. Some change? A label is only good at building your brand to where you can go all over the world, and be who you are.



The same artists that talk the screw the majors are usually the ones who are struggling financially. Show me some tangible results of the benefits. As corrupt as the old model was there's proof that it worked(rappers bought homes, cars, made millions)I think the marketing effort of the majors often gets overlooked. Sure you can get 7 dollars off each download going the itunes route but the challenge lies in devising a marketing plan that will allow you to reach a significant part of your fanbase. Itunes may be a better deal however for the artist who never made any decent money in the past. There was a group called Infamous Mobb(associates of Mobb Deep) who got a 200K advance for their first album out the gate. Now they're split, each on the independent grind struggling looking for their next hot meal. They' ve all started their own companies, formed partnerships with friends, uploaded songs on the net, made countless videos and have yet to see any financial rewards for their hard work. That little 65K they each got from the advance was the most they've received as a lump sum and that was considered peanuts. If they individually made 65k today off an itunes sales, they'd be more than satisfied. Itunes sales are going so good for Jim Jones in Dipset, that he was recently sued for misapppropriating $200,000 from an investor that was he was supposed to spend on a movie and I thought he was "Balling"
 
Last edited:
If your goal is to make your art as ubiquitous as possible, why not?
I also see it as a momentum thing, if I happen to have a viral hit song, I could either drop all my own money and resources trying to keep people's attention or sign to a machine that would help me grow and maintain that momentum and marketplace demand on a larger scale than I ever could independently allowing me to focus 100% of my mindshare on my art? Almost all record labels are subsidiaries of larger entities...that means portability which can lead to potential revenue streams. Of course, none of that is going to come for free. Every system has winners and losers, no different than taking a loan for a private university liberal arts degree, then getting mad when you're on the hook for $100k with no means of paying it back because there's no demand for a history major.
In a perfect world, every artist with a vision could personally finance their own success story, make tons of $$$ and have millions of fans and a long, substantive career while thumbing their nose at the "man". Why exactly hasn't that happened yet? Probably because its much smarter and easier to lose on someone else's dime. Like the saying goes," zero of zero is still zero" (maybe I botched that saying, sorry) Why do you think we have venture capital firms?
Also, the "old" system still has its hold and power and I don't see that changing any time soon. There is a reason why, despite all his indie success, Tech 9ine still can't crack radio, despite having a fanbase that continually supports him, him and his partner lamented this fact in a recent issue of The Source (or XXL, I forgot, but someone should be able to find the article or a reference to it). Why would a successful indie like Strange Arts be concerned about the radio at this stage in the game? Because they know that radio play can possibly mean the difference between a few hundred thousand units sold and a couple million while Tech doesn't have to change a thing about his sound. Unfortunately, you still need a major label marketing budget to crack radio.

Maybe but maybe they just haven't joined together properly to make the shift happen because too many in the industry are stuck in that same mindset of "have to have a label contract".

Quoting from the Courtney Love letter I posted earlier in this thread:

Record companies have a 5% success rate. That means that 5% of all records released by major labels go gold or platinum. How do record companies get away with a 95% failure rate that would be totally unacceptable in any other business? Record companies keep almost all the profits. Recording artists get paid a tiny fraction of the money earned by their music. That allows record executives to be incredibly sloppy in running their companies and still create enormous amounts of cash for the corporations that own them.
The royalty rates granted in every recording contract are very low to start with and then companies charge back every conceivable cost to an artist's royalty account. Artists pay for recording costs, video production costs, tour support, radio promotion, sales and marketing costs, packaging costs and any other cost the record company can subtract from their royalties. Record companies also reduce royalties by "forgetting" to report sales figure, miscalculating royalties and by preventing artists from auditing record company books.


Recording contracts are unfair and a single artist negotiating an individual deal doesn't have the leverage to change the system. Artists will finally get paid what they deserve when they band together and force the recording industry to negotiate with them AS A GROUP.


Thousands of successful artists who sold hundreds of millions of records and generated billions of dollars in profits for record companies find themselves broke and forgotten by the industry they made wealthy.


Here a just a few examples of what we're talking about:


Multiplatinum artists like TLC ("Ain't 2 Proud 2 Beg," "Waterfalls" and "No Scrubs") and Toni Braxton ("Unbreak My Heart" and "Breathe Again") have been forced to declare bankruptcy because their recording contracts didn't pay them enough to survive.


Corrupt recording agreements forced the heirs of Jimi Hendrix ("Purple Haze," "All Along the Watchtower" and "Stone Free") to work menial jobs while his catalog generated millions of dollars each year for Universal Music.


Florence Ballard from the Supremes ("Where Did Our Love Go," "Stop in the Name of Love" and "You Keep Me Hangin' On" are just 3 of the 10 #1 hits she sang on) was on welfare when she died.


Collective Soul earned almost no money from "Shine," one of the biggest alternative rock hits of the 90s when Atlantic paid almost all of their royalties to an outside production company.


Merle Haggard ("I Threw Away the Rose," "Sing Me Back Home" and "Today I Started Loving You Again") enjoyed a string of 37 top-ten country singles (including 23 #1 hits) in the 60s and 70s. Yet he never received a record royalty check until last year when he released an album on the indie punk-rock label Epitaph.


Think of it this way: recording artists are often the writers, directors and producers of their own records. They write the songs, choose the producers and engineers who record their music, hire and oversee the photographers and designers who create their CD artwork and oversee all parts of video production, from concept to director to final edit. Record companies advance money for recording costs and provide limited marketing services for the music that artists conceive and create. In exchange, they keep almost all of the money and 100% of the copyrights.


Even the most successful recording artists in history (The Beatles, The Eagles, Nirvana, Eminem) have been paid a fraction of the money they deserved from sales of their records. This is a very big and very important project and we're in the early days.

Here's what we're looking for:

1. Artists who are willing to speak to the media to publicly lend their support to the idea that recording artists need an organization that represents our interests in Washington and with the record companies. We also would like you tell your managers and attorneys that you support this cause and that you expect them, as your representatives and employees to do the same.


2. Anyone who can tell us specific stories about how artists have been ripped off by record companies like the ones I told above.

We're going to have to educate the public and the media and Congress and the only way we'll do that is by giving them examples they can relate to. NOW is the time for action. Artists like Garbage and N*SYNC have have joined me in questioning bad contracts and have also gone to court to change the system.
Record companies have merged and re-merged to the point where they can no longer relate to their artists. Digital distribution will change the music industry forever; artists must make sure they finally get their fair share of the money their music earns. We need to come together quickly and present a united front to the industry.

Your managers and attorneys will probably tell you not to rock the boat and not to risk your "relationship" with your record company by taking a stand. Most attorneys and managers are conflicted. Almost all entertainment law firms represent both artists and record companies. Lawyers can't take a stand against record companies because that's where they get most of their business. Even the best managers often have business relationships with labels and depend on record companies to refer new clients.


Think about Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam's stand against TicketMaster. Everyone knew he was right and yet no other artist took a public stand against a company that we all knew was hurting our business because our managers and attorneys told us it would be a bad idea.


Attorneys and managers are your employees. Make sure they know how you feel and that you want them to publicly support the idea that the terms of recording contracts are unfair and cover too long a time period. You also want them to support an organization that will negotiate health and pension benefits for all recording artists.
Artists have all the power. They create the music that makes the money that funds the business. No one has ever harnessed that power for artists' collective good. And remember something equally important: Actors had to fight to end the studio system that forced actors to work for one employer and baseball players had to strike to end the reserve clause that tied a player to one team for his entire career. Even though "experts" predicted economic disaster once actors and athletes gained their freedom, both the film business and baseball have enjoyed their greatest financial success once their talent was given its freedom.
 
Maybe but maybe they just haven't joined together properly to make the shift happen because too many in the industry are stuck in that same mindset of "have to have a label contract".

Quoting from the Courtney Love letter I posted earlier in this thread:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm curious to know if she's made any changes in her career business wise and how has she fared financially since this revelation.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know if she's made any changes in her career business wise and how has she fared financially since this revelation.

According to her discography she has only released one album since that letter was sent out in 2000, this would be "Nobodys Daughter" which was released in 2010 as a digital download only...the irony being that it lists Mercury as the label responsible. This is not to say that contractually she has not made better deals since the letter but nothing conclusive because at the time of that letter she was in a bit of a spiral.
*edit* Also released Americas Sweetheart in 2004. Kind of an interesting story to that album
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Sweetheart_(album)

I think the letter simply vocalizes the issues within the industry and what should be addressed, since that letter came out the world has changed in this respect. Many artists have left their labels, home studio equipment is as simple as a good computer, mixing board, monitors, mics and some software to get quality recordings for digital release.

I get it, really I do, it is tough to leave the old mindset of how the industry works, there is safety and comfort in the familiarity with how it works and how the revenue stream is generated. The flipside of this is how everyone in hip hop brags about how their hustle is so good they don't need nobody to make them rich and famous...then sign a shit deal with a label who whores them out when all the tools to do the same damn job are available to them for the cost of a laptop, internet bill and some software essentially. Seems a lot of talk and no walk from some people with a weak hustle.
 
Last edited:
According to her discography she has only released one album since that letter was sent out in 2000, this would be "Nobodys Daughter" which was released in 2010 as a digital download only...the irony being that it lists Mercury as the label responsible. This is not to say that contractually she has not made better deals since the letter but nothing conclusive because at the time of that letter she was in a bit of a spiral.

I think the letter simply vocalizes the issues within the industry and what should be addressed, since that letter came out the world has changed in this respect. Many artists have left their labels, home studio equipment is as simple as a good computer, mixing board, monitors, mics and some software to get quality recordings for digital release.

I get it, really I do, it is tough to leave the old mindset of how the industry works, there is safety and comfort in the familiarity with how it works and how the revenue stream is generated. The flipside of this is how everyone in hip hop brags about how their hustle is so good they don't need nobody to make them rich and famous...then sign a shit deal with a label who whores them out when all the tools to do the same damn job are available to them for the cost of a laptop, internet bill and some software essentially. Seems a lot of talk and no walk from some people with a weak hustle.

That's why I say show and prove to any artist talking the "fuk majors" talk. Creating a respectable income from Itunes sales is way more challenging than it seems because identifying the fans who will make an actual purchase is more complex than it appears. It's similar to trying to differentiate YouTube views from actual fans that will pay for the download.
 
Last edited:
At this point a recording deal with a major label is only mandatory if you're making Top 40 pop music, everything else is on a case by case basis. The more you can establish your career independently the more leverage you have going into any potential arrangement so it makes sense to take an independent approach whether your goal is to stay independent or go major.
 
Last edited:
That's why I say show and prove to any artist talking the "fuk majors" talk. Creating a respectable income from Itunes sales is way more challenging than it seems because identifying the fans who will make an actual purchase is more complex than it appears.

Billy Corgan seems to be doing just fine, in fact he is touring currently and has an 8 hour show coming up in Highland Park.

Trying to find other examples but you could use Immortal Technique as an example of successful and fully independent.
Atmosphere successful and independent....hmmm maybe not looks like Rhymesayers is a subsidiary with Warner
Sage Francis is independent withe Strange famous records and a distribution through Revolver.


I will keep looking around, this is a bit trickier than I thought because of so many subsidiaries you really have to follow the trail a bit to get to the parent company.
 
At this point a recording deal with a major label is only mandatory if you're making Top 40 pop music, everything else is on a case by case basis. The more you can establish your career independently the more leverage you have going into any potential arrangement so it makes sense to take an independent approach whether your goal is to stay independent or go major.

I agree because of the nature of 360 deals today but what about today's stars like 2Chainz, Nikki, Drake, Tyga, Wayne, Wiz etc.... Aren't they all on labels and paid handsomely?
 
Last edited:
I agree because of the nature of 360 deals today but what about today's stars like 2Chainz, Nikki, Drake, Tyga, Wayne, Wiz etc.... Aren't they all on labels and paid handsomely?

And every one of them had a legitimate independent grind/operation prior to doing their deal with a major which backs up my point. The majors have completely lost the ability to create a hip hop success from scratch. And keep in mind most of the labels they are signing to themselves were started as independents (Cash Money, Roc-a-Fella, Def Jam, etc..) so the independent blood continues to flow through the veins of Hip Hop as it did upon it inception
 
Last edited:
And every one of them had a legitimate independent grind/operation prior to doing their deal with a major which backs up my point. The majors have completely lost the ability to create a hip hop success from scratch. And keep in mind most of the labels they are signing to themselves were started as independents (Cash Money, Roc-a-Fella, Def Jam, etc..) so the independent blood continues to flow through the veins of Hip Hop as it did upon it inception

But it's still a catch 22. They all signed with the labels because they knew it was more profitable. So now an artist is faced with the dilemna of remaining independent with smallers pockets and a smaller fanbase or signing a 360 deal. It's like you're damned if you do or damned if you don't.
 
So in looking around for independent artists I came across an interesting description of what is an independent...Basically it states that it is an artist not signed to one of the "big 4" (Sony, EMI, Universal and Warner) but in looking at some of the artists labeled as independent they are on labels such as Interscope which to many is considered independent, but they are a subsidiary of Polydor (UK) and Universal which we all kind of knew but ignore.

In tracking through artists association it is pretty slim pickings as to true indys vs those on a sub-label of a sub-label of one of the "big 4".

Like I said a lot of this has been common knowledge for some time but I am kind of surprised at how many I was sure were independents which aren't truly independent at all.
 
As bad as a 360 deal is, I still think signing to a label benefitted every one of the artists I mentioned because they were given a national platform.
 
As bad as a 360 deal is, I still think signing to a label benefitted every one of the artists I mentioned because they were given a national platform.

I think they would have got there regardless of the label, talent is talent and if they have a good grind they can make it there. The difference is whether a person wants to take the elevator to the 12th floor or hike the stairs...either way you gonna get there.
 
The point stands, if you DON'T have a independent foundation underneath you won't have to worry deciding which route is better because you won't have the option at all. And in terms of profitability unless you have privy to an artists recording deal and their financial accounting you can only speculate on their profitability. And while its easy to look at the few success stories that constantly pushed in front of you the reality is the industry is littered with an endless list (keep in mind 85-90% of ALL signed acts end up shelved and dropped) of acts that ended up doing squat after being signed to a major.

If you want to argue that you can't have that Drake/Jay-Z/Macklemore level of success without a major label that's fine but also acknowledge that both Drake and Jay-Z success was borne out of independent entrepreneurial approach.

You don't have to be anti-major to be pro-self-independent
 
Last edited:
The point stands, if you DON'T have a independent foundation underneath you won't have to worry deciding which route is better because you won't have the option at all. And in terms of profitability unless you have privy to an artists recording deal and their financial accounting you can only speculate on their profitability. And while its easy to look at the few success stories that constantly pushed in front of you the reality is the industry is littered with an endless list (keep in mind 85-90% of ALL signed acts end up shelved and dropped) of acts that ended up doing squat after being signed to a major.

If you want to argue that you can't have that Drake/Jay-Z/Macklemore level of success without a major label that's fine but also acknowledge that both Drake and Jay-Z success was borne out of independent entrepreneurial approach.

You don't have to be anti-major to be pro-self-independent

I get that, and yes I know the average dropout rate in the industry (as a whole) is huge.

I am pro independent, always have been and probably always will be, must be the punk rock side of me that comes out a bit heavy sometimes.
 
The point stands, if you DON'T have a independent foundation underneath you won't have to worry deciding which route is better because you won't have the option at all. And in terms of profitability unless you have privy to an artists recording deal and their financial accounting you can only speculate on their profitability. And while its easy to look at the few success stories that constantly pushed in front of you the reality is the industry is littered with an endless list (keep in mind 85-90% of ALL signed acts end up shelved and dropped) of acts that ended up doing squat after being signed to a major.

If you want to argue that you can't have that Drake/Jay-Z/Macklemore level of success without a major label that's fine but also acknowledge that both Drake and Jay-Z success was borne out of independent entrepreneurial approach.

You don't have to be anti-major to be pro-self-independent

I'm just an observant spectator. I saw rappers flaunting their wealth while on majors after working hard. I just dont see the same success with artists on the independent level with the exception of Tech Nine. I'm one of the dudes that say fuk the hearsay, show me results. There's only so far you can go when you have to finance everything inpendently. The bigger issue is do you remain an indepent entity that produces projects with small profit gains forever or do you take it to the next level?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top