It seems to becoming a trend, popular bands ditching their record labels.
Bands such as Radiohead and NIN have been quoted as saying they’re doing it for the fans, as it would drop the prices of CDs and downloads.
In a concert in Sydney last September, NIN front man Trent Reznor reportedly described his then record label Universal Music Australia as "greedy f***ing assholes" because of the price of his earlier records.
"One way or another these mother f***ers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that's not right."
The way I see it, economically speaking of course, if you aren’t signed to a label, you don’t have to pay the label for their services. Being signed to a record label is key to increase and ensure a band’s popularity. According to AandR.com, A&R reps (label reps) are responsible for finding, signing, and developing new talent as well as helping guide their careers. Once their career is stable, why pay them? And with the new technology featuring I-Pods and mp3 players, you can just throw it online and drop your distribution company as well. That’s less money the band has to spend.
Ironically, Nine Inch Nails made $1.7 million by putting their album online as a free download.
Yes, I do understand that it does benefit the fans. They don’t have to pay as much for music and you don’t have to go through the process of ripping your CDs onto your computer.
But my question is, are bands dropping their labels for the love of music or for the love of money?
For info on contract/label/BS head to http://www.musiclaw.info/