The End Records - Fortune Small Business article
- Thread starter MetalAges
- Start date
spare us the workers of the world unite speech where there is no wealth and everyone is equal so therefore no wealth exists... we all like money because we like to buy things we like... and we all have bills to pay & have other responsibilities such as family etc.... well at least the few of us who are adults, have responsibilities and have to work for a living... this isn't a utopian society as much as that is a wet dream for you... and if your not on your own yet then your going to be in for a rude awakening when you are and i doubt very much you will choose a career behind a counter saying to people: will you like fries with that sir? ...
Ok Mrs. Moot! Why should being in a band not be a career?
This statement is absolutely idiotic. You obviously have no idea how much time that goes into record making and touring when you are in a band. It's not possible to be in a successful band and still keep a career on the side.
A job won't give you time off any time you want to be in the studio or go on tour. So you have no choice but to make music your career in order to do it for real. Or else you can be a hobby band, play local gigs on the weekends, etc.
Just because you tried to be in a band and couldn't make a career of it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a career. Being a musician is a job just like any other job. You need to make money to pay the rent, bills, feed your family, etc.
If the musicians didn't have the option of having the music be a career, they would not be able to do the music AT ALL! Somehow I don't think that's what you really want. You are just misguided and confused, and perhaps a bit wet behind the ears about the realities of life.
Um, I would imagine most successful metal musicians have day jobs. Darkthrone (have you heard of them?) managed to do alright with jobs on the side, are they not a "successful" band? I think you are are the "misguided and confused" one if you think a band needs to work full time at music or else not make it at all. Ideally, a music should not be a career - the profit motive should be removed altogether. Having said that, it's nice to be able to cover your expenses.
Yes some bands have dayjobs but i'm sure if they could be financially successful from their music alone they would be doing music full time... they do not have a dayjob because they are making a statement about making music a career or not... and there is nothing wrong with making a career out of something you love... in this case music... this can be applied to anything else other then music such as art... should a painter not profit from the sales of his or her artwork/paintings? ... should a writer not also? ... or let's choose something else that combines art and a dayjob type of thing.. how about a mechanic that restores classic cars... perhaps even paint it with flames or something.... should he not profit from something he clearly loves to do? ...
I find it sad that you find placing the creation of art alongside the provision of goods and services a valid comparison. Having said that, the statement they are making is that they have been creating music for twenty years despite not being able to make a living off of it - did you read the post I was replying to? The profit motive *should* be removed because it would drive away the bands that are interested in music mainly as a career. Unlike bands such as Darkthrone, who make music because they love doing it regardless of the level of cash flow it gives them.Yes some bands have dayjobs but i'm sure if they could be financially successful from their music alone they would be doing music full time... they do not have a dayjob because they are making a statement about making music a career or not... and there is nothing wrong with making a career out of something you love... in this case music... this can be applied to anything else other then music such as art... should a painter not profit from the sales of his or her artwork/paintings? ... should a writer not also? ... or let's choose something else that combines art and a dayjob type of thing.. how about a mechanic that restores classic cars... perhaps even paint it with flames or something.... should he not profit from something he clearly loves to do? ...
I find it sad that you do not think that people should not make a living off of what they love to do. For the most part musicians get into music because they love to create and play music. Making a living at it is just icing on the cake. And I wouldn't say I made a comparison but merely said the making a living off of one's "art" whether it be fine art, music, writing, restoring classic cars (and this is a artform imo not just a "good and services") can both be a love and a living at the same time. As long as they do not let it affect their creativity then I see nothing wrong with money being derived from their hard work. In other words Yes a career. You have to have a love of music to make this a career in the first place much like any other career. You have to love what you do.
One great example imo whether you are a fan of theirs or not is Slayer. Let's be realistic, their albums from the very beginning are not mainstream but they kept at it never changing their style and still being extreme compared to the mainstream and today they are a successful band making a living at what they love to do : Music.
As for Darkthrone since you brought them up. You & me are not Fenriz and can or cannot say what he thinks or doesn't think about such issues. I've read his interviews in magazines and for the most part it is just PR imo. But like i said earlier do not think he would stop making music just because it sells and gives him a comfortable living to be "Troo" or "Kult" or whatever word is used to describe your views on this. If all a sudden the mainstream became interested in BM and Darkthrone sold a million albums without changing their style would they be any less in my eyes and would i stop buying their albums? No. Would I look down on Darkthrone for selling a million records because the world decided this music genre is the "it" thing. Not at all. I would pat them on the shoulder and say " good for you guys". I personally could care less if they make a living off of it. If they do, great for them if they don't .. oh well... just keep trying. But it would not in any way affect whether I would listen to them or not.
Afterall who are we to tell them not to make a living off of their music. They have families, bills, and other responsibilities to pay.You and me aren't going to pay their responsibilities. Think of your own career in your own life. Do you do it strictly because it pays you or do you also do it because you love what you do? As long as they do not whore themselves and stick to their style of music without changing for the sake of $$ (Ulver comes to mind who did this)more power to them.
I don't recall saying that. I'm sure we'd all love to live in this magical utopia where we can all get paid to do what we love (watching TV? Masturbation? Killing babies?), but this is not the point. The point is that removing the profit incentive would be a positive thing because it would remove the artists who art interested in music as a career instead of an art. Seriously, read the post I was replying to, read my reply, and tell me you aren't wildly misrepresenting my position.
The problem being that as the money rolls in, suddenly the artists don't need to work hard and make sacrifices, suddenly it becomes easy, the artist becomes complacent and starts producing a mediocre commodity - music that wouldn't stand on its own were it not for the strong marketing campaign behind it (yes, there are exceptions).
How is restoring classic cars and art form? Explain.
Wow, Slayer is your shining example of musical integrity? I think somewhere between the Beastie Boys, Ice-T and Sum 41 collaborations, Hot Topic marketing tie-ins and Ozzfest they could probably be accused of being in it for the money a bit more than is "ideal". And I find it hard to believe you can't see a change in style somewhere between Hell Awaits and God Hates Us All. But let's not get into that whole discussion.
Please read my posts and respond to them, instead of pasting what appears to be your generic anti-elitist rebuttal.
I'll wait.I don't recall saying that. I'm sure we'd all love to live in this magical utopia where we can all get paid to do what we love (watching TV? Masturbation? Killing babies?), but this is not the point. The point is that removing the profit incentive would be a positive thing because it would remove the artists who art interested in music as a career instead of an art. Seriously, read the post I was replying to, read my reply, and tell me you aren't wildly misrepresenting my position.
The problem being that as the money rolls in, suddenly the artists don't need to work hard and make sacrifices, suddenly it becomes easy, the artist becomes complacent and starts producing a mediocre commodity - music that wouldn't stand on its own were it not for the strong marketing campaign behind it (yes, there are exceptions).
How is restoring classic cars and art form? Explain.
Wow, Slayer is your shining example of musical integrity? I think somewhere between the Beastie Boys, Ice-T and Sum 41 collaborations, Hot Topic marketing tie-ins and Ozzfest they could probably be accused of being in it for the money a bit more than is "ideal". And I find it hard to believe you can't see a change in style somewhere between Hell Awaits and God Hates Us All. But let's not get into that whole discussion.
Please read my posts and respond to them, instead of pasting what appears to be your generic anti-elitist rebuttal.
1. In the beginning I don't think any musician whatsoever (at least in metal) is in it for the money first and foremost. Like I said that is just icing on the cake. Removing the profit incentive as you call it is not a positive thing because the record labels who release a band's albums need to make a profit in order to survive and not just break even. Same goes with the bands. You take the profit incentive away no one would be able to run a label much less release a band's CD's and if this should happen alot of the bands that you listen to now and take for granted you would not hear or of heard of and enjoy their music. Your view is all musicians should be starving artists and stay as such working shitty jobs for the sake of artform. That music cannot be art and career at same time. I don't buy it. To me they all go into it as art first and then career as well. Not one or the other only.
2. Yes as the money rolls in that happens. But that is the exception and not the rule. Alot or the majority of these bands work just as hard at their "art" after they make money as they did before they made money. If they come out with a mediocre album it's because they lost their creativity for whatever reason such as a new member in the band and not the classic lineup being in place etc. Let's use fine art as a example. French Impressionism being my favorite. Monet was a starving artist and then became successful. He worked just as hard after he became successful and came out with his most brilliant paintings even though he was making money. Did he compromise his art for the sake of money? nope. He painted what he wanted to paint and in the style he wanted to paint it and didnt care what others thought or whether they bought his paintings or not. The money was just icing on the cake for him and he was making a living doing what he loved.
3. If you do not think restoration of a classic car is a artform and that a classic car is not art in itself then your views on art are black and white only.Those guys take a pile of rubble and create something as beautiful as a 1967 Shelby Ford GT 500 (the car i want if i could afford it totally restored). But I guess you are not into cars and do not see the comparison between a classic car and art (art does not have to be a painting, song or poem).
4. I would hardly think Slayer (or Kerry King) made anything out of a 10 second solo on a Beastie Boyz album and I actually like Ice T in Bodycount <shrugs>. I can't say anything about Sum 41. But point being not much money is made from these collaborations imo. As for Hot Topic, we do not know if Slayer has any say or control over that or their merchandise. As for Ozzfest. Regardless of the shitty lineups on it sometimes Slayer is usually the one band people want to see and leave afterwards. To me a metal festival is a metal festival. Be it Ozzfest or Wacken. Your not going to like all the bands in both these cases but they are both huge festivals regardless. With Sharon in charge I doubt Slayer makes more from it then they do with their own headlining tours. Ozzfest to me is just to expose your music to others who might not of heard of you or liked you before. As for their music on their albums, I never said they sounded the same on all their albums just that their albums are too extreme for the mainstream (I don't know about you but i don't hear Slayer on daytime radio stations like i do Metallica).
4. As for anti-elitist. Your words do not seem to be different then a elitist's words imo.
You aren't making sense, why is profit needed? Why can't bands and labels survive by breaking even? It seems quite possible given that, you know, metal has survived for over three decades with the vast majority of artists and labels only breaking even (or worse).
So would I be correct in assuming that the majority of pop music is to your liking, or at least worthy of your respect?
P.S. A single anecdote will hardly convince me of your point.
What do you think art is? Do you not distinguish between art and craft? Do you also consider barbers, carpenters, janitors (etc.) who can make something beautiful out of rubbish to be artists? Do you realize what an impractical definition of art that is?
They don't make money specifically from doing guest spots and touring with mainstream artists, correct, they get exposure - that's where the money comes from.
"We do not know if Slayer has any say or control over that or their merchandise"? Do you think they just woke up one day and suddenly they had a signed contract and were on a Warner subsidiary?
If you can't see that Slayer has gotten more commercial and accessible on their albums over the years, I can't help you
I think that's called stereotyping.
You aren't making sense, why is profit needed? Why can't bands and labels survive by breaking even? It seems quite possible given that, you know, metal has survived for over three decades with the vast majority of artists and labels only breaking even (or worse).
So would I be correct in assuming that the majority of pop music is to your liking, or at least worthy of your respect?
P.S. A single anecdote will hardly convince me of your point.
What do you think art is? Do you not distinguish between art and craft? Do you also consider barbers, carpenters, janitors (etc.) who can make something beautiful out of rubbish to be artists? Do you realize what an impractical definition of art that is?
They don't make money specifically from doing guest spots and touring with mainstream artists, correct, they get exposure - that's where the money comes from.
"We do not know if Slayer has any say or control over that or their merchandise"? Do you think they just woke up one day and suddenly they had a signed contract and were on a Warner subsidiary?
If you can't see that Slayer has gotten more commercial and accessible on their albums over the years, I can't help you
I think that's called stereotyping.
1. Profit is needed for survival. For a Label as much as a musician. A Label will not survive forever if they just break even. They have bills and employees to pay. As much as we would like everything in life to be free. That is not reality. The End Records is having problems because of increasing expenses. Do you think "breaking even" will just do for them? I'm going to have to guess you never ran a business or you do not live on your own paying bills or have financial responsibilities so you wouldn't know.
2. No the majority of pop music is not to my liking or respect but I do listen to other music other then metal but metal remains my favorite genre for the last 24 years. Alot of people on this board listen to other music that is not metal that can be construed as "commercial". Your point is?
3. If you think a classic car or restoration is a craft and not a art then I can't help you there. To me and many others a classic car is a work of art.
4. Alot of metal musicians do guest spots on other bands albums and tours who are just as popular if not more popular. Anyone here can give you a list of them. Extreme metal musicians. So I guess they are just as guilty in whoring themselves as you consider this practice to be. I can't speak for the Sum 41 and Ice T spots but the Beastie Boys spot Kerry King did back in the 80's I can because i grew up then and read magazine interviews that I think i still have stored somewhere in my messy apartment. But KK said he did the BB's spot as a favor to Rick Rubin. He didn't know who they were at the time.
5. Contrary to belief bands do not have total control over merchandising. You flatter them too much. Alot of them get ripped off by their labels and merchandising is one area that they do.
6. Slayer commercial? Hardly so. Even their "softest" album is alot harder and extreme then Metallica's albums who are definetly "commercial". But I guess you have a different definition of commercial. One makes the Billboard top 10 regularly and the other is lucky to make the Billboard 200. Apples and oranges, if you don't see that then I can't help you.
But I will say if i was in a band and if you ran a label I wouldn't want to be on it because you would not have the financial resources to market the band's album or promote/conduct a tour properly and most likely will go belly up just because you want to break even only.
But anyways we will just be going back and forth like this so we should just agree that we disagree.
Sir, I don't know what you think "break even" means, but I think perhaps you should go dust off your old economics textbook. If a label couldn't pay their bills they wouldn't be breaking even, would they? Oh, and again you compare a band to a business.
Anyway, the main point here is that breaking even - and worse - has worked fine for 99% of metal bands and labels for decades now.Why don't you respect them, if you believe that the profit factor doesn't affect the quality of a band's output? You believe that most artists aren't in it for the money, or does this somehow not apply to pop music?
Yet you won't even attempt to explain why? I guess you are either inept or wrong.OK, give me a list, sounds interesting.
My point is this - who forced them to sign to the label?
What? Your barometer for how "commercial" a metal band is is Metallica, the most popular metal band of all? Here, I'll give you some hints - Slayer's sound changed via cleaner production, increased use of melody, slower songs, less abstract lyrics, simpler song structure, more vocal hooks... I'm not going accusing them of selling out their sound but how can you deny that their sound became more accessible over the years?If you were in a band I wouldn't sign you to my label because all you seem to worry about is how lucrative a career you will have.
Hooray for apathy.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
On a more random note, I'd like to point out that a local label in my area (Saddle Creek), which has some of Wives (for example) favorite indie rock bands on its roster, balances artistic integrity with the need to genertate sales quite well. With such intense competition in the music industry these days, a DIY ethic is not enough to sustain the life of an indie label. Using the example of Saddle Creek, they branch into all forms of media, and also strive to generate revenue from live performances and merchandising. It is imperative for indie labels to be divierse in their marketing strategies, and when done correctly, does not make artistic integrity take a back seat to generating sales. Some "indie" labels (Cenruty Media, Roadrunner) have made the mistake of riding trends and lost thier core demographic, but the need for a business to run in the black does not require the singing of a Nickleback (in the case of Roadrunner). Besides, a successfull indie label with the ability to distribute thier music widely only helps the artists they sign and the fans, for these are always the acts which make a long lasting impact on the music scene at large.
Sir, I don't know what you think "break even" means, but I think perhaps you should go dust off your old economics textbook. If a label couldn't pay their bills they wouldn't be breaking even, would they? Oh, and again you compare a band to a business.
Why don't you respect them, if you believe that the profit factor doesn't affect the quality of a band's output? You believe that most artists aren't in it for the money, or does this somehow not apply to pop music?
OK, give me a list, sounds interesting.
My point is this - who forced them to sign to the label?
If you were in a band I wouldn't sign you to my label because all you seem to worry about is how lucrative a career you will have.
Hooray for apathy.
1. Yes breaking even you would be paying your bills but you would be struggling to do so all the time as The End is struggling and if your expenses go up unexpectedly you have to come up with how to make the difference.I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to lay off the employees who work for me. Most who probably do not have a education to get a decent job. And yes a band can be a business without compromising the music they create much like Picasso was a business with his art, Hemingway with his writing etc.. etc.. Do list the 99% of labels/bands since you bring up that...
2. I don't respect the pop bands who don't create their own music and are just a image such as Kelly Clarke I suppose for a example but there are probably better examples. But I do respect someone like I guess Mariah Carey or Madonna who write some if not most of their own music and do things there way and not let the labels dictate them.
3. As for classic cars since you do not understand and have a narrow view of what art is. Art much like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it is not art to you does not mean it is not art to someone else. The world does not revolve around you or my views, everyone I hope has a independent mind.
4. I'm not going to waste my time with a list but if you are interested I am sure you are bright enough to research it yourself. We don't know any bands circumstances for signing with this label or that label so none of us can say unless were a insider.
5. Cleaner production doesn't constitute being commercial, Slayer is hardly melodic if they were they would be bigger, their lyrics have always had the same kind of themes, their song structures have never been that complex to begin with, etc. If there sound was more accessible their album sales would be bigger and I don't see that. They get huge amounts of fans at their shows but it's because of their past work and never their present work imo.
6. If i were to sign to your label I wouldn't care about being lucrative but I wouldn't want to do anything for free for your benefit. You still seem to think a musician/band should make no $$ for their efforts and work shitty dayjobs the rest of their lives because it might compromise the integrity of their music.
7. Ok back to not playing tennis and bouncing our balls back and forth lol jk.... come on laugh with my hernia...
let some gas out you take life too serious... anyways this discussion is getting boring because we both say the same things over and over.... point is The End is having problems and they need to restructure so they don't go belly up and fire all their employees, bands are left without a label, the fans can't buy CD's cheaper for free shipping etc.. etc..Well, your list would be smaller. 1% of metal bands would be what, around 500? Can you name even close to that many who can live off of their music? I mean, if Darkthrone, one of the most well-known metal acts can't even do it...
I'm getting a vibe of naivete from you.*Why* is it art? What do you even think art is?
You need a definition of art that is actually practical if you ever want to have a discussion about it.Damn, there's no "dodge" smiley.
how big do you want their album sales to be? They are one of the biggest metal bands ever, but you won't even concede that they are slightly commercial sounding? And guess what, their album sales *did* get bigger as they changed their sound. Divine Intervention debuted at #8 on the Billboard charts, which was their highest until Christ Illusion hit #5. God Hates Us All, Diabolus in Musica and Undisputed Attitude all charted higher than any of their "classic" era albums.Well, your list would be smaller. 1% of metal bands would be what, around 500? Can you name even close to that many who can live off of their music? I mean, if Darkthrone, one of the most well-known metal acts can't even do it...
*Why* is it art? What do you even think art is?
Damn, there's no "dodge" smiley.
1. Darkthrone don't do much other then to put out albums...
2. What is art to you then? I haven't heard a satisfactory definition of it from you. And tell why a classic car wouldn't be art?
3. If you want me to give you a example thats ok but I'm not going to waste my time with lists. Hellhammer has done plenty of guest spots though I'm sure he didn't profit from them he got exposure and more gigs.
4. Debuts on Billboard don't mean a thing because those aren't overall sales for the year. To say they are one of the biggest bands in metal is like saying they are in the same category as Metallica in album sales and they don't even come close to it. To say they are one of the biggest metal bands in the underground is more plausible. All the hardcore fans will buy their albums which explains the high debuts but they don't stay there very long.
Yes it should. The only people that would not think that would be lazy musicians that only practice 1,2 hours a day and will never have a decent career or following and never will be more than sub-par musicians. If you are a serious musician and can play ofcourse you are going to want it to be a career/fulltime.
beats working a crappy job thats for sure... and the benefits that go with it aren't too bad... traveling the world and seeing different places, playing for your fans, the chicks (though metal chicks nowadays don't impress me like they did in the 80's ... not all ladies so please don't kill me... lol some of you are still cute), getting free equipment from instrument manufacturers etc...
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Sir, I don't know what you think "break even" means, but I think perhaps you should go dust off your old economics textbook. If a label couldn't pay their bills they wouldn't be breaking even, would they? Oh, and again you compare a band to a business.
I don't give a shit about this arguement but would like to says omething here -
TER wants to EXPAND and provide more for their artists and when they're getting bands like Agalloch, Sigh, Green Carnation, Novembers Doom, Ulver, uneXpect, etc on your label, all bands that are (in relative terms) enormously popular in the scene not being able to make a profit and expand is simply stunting their growth opportunities in fields such as touring and hell - even recording.
A small record company that just puts out a bands albums may be able to survive by breaking even but certainly one that caters to the bands recording needs, touring expenses, etc needs to make a profit to be able to get the bands out there more readily.
Money isn't everything, sure, but it damned well helps things.
OK, so about how many metal bands would you say can live off of their music?
Art requires the communication of ideas on some level, not just making something that looks pretty. That would be a craft. Now I would ask you to explain how restoring classic cars would be art and not craft, but I realize by now that that would be asking too much of you.
And kept those drum endorsements going. More exposure and more gigs equates to more money, wasn't that my point?
Alright, I'm beginning to suspect that you are simply in denial and won't listen to reason, but just for you:
Code:
Slayer's albums, ranked by sales per year:
CI 150000
GHUA 50667
DI 39385
SITA 38765
DIM 32222
RIB 32000
SOH 30789
HA 21909
SNM 6583
HTC 4739
