Rolling Stone and the print media

[renegadeangel]

I have never understood why there was never much mention of Meat's albums or performances in the usual magazines. I can't tell you the number of times I've thumbed through said magazines to read about every other artist but nothing on Meat. Not even a mention that he's on tour. How does this happen?

[Elijah's way]

I've been wondering that for a while myself.

[Sarge]

That isn't something to lament over. It doesn't bother me anymore. You have to accept the fact that the world doesn't necessarily revolve around a particular artist.

Why do you want him to appear in Rolling Stone? Who is "every other artist"? There are a lot of artists who aren't mentioned by certain magazines, so what? Meat Loaf just doesn't seem to belong to the categories they focus on. No problem, just buy/read other magazines. A couple of rock magazines feature articles about him.

[renegadeangel]

Originally Posted by Sarge

That isn't something to lament over. It doesn't bother me anymore. You have to accept the fact that the world doesn't necessarily revolve around a particular artist.

Why do you want him to appear in Rolling Stone? Who is "every other artist"? There are a lot of artists who aren't mentioned by certain magazines, so what? Meat Loaf just doesn't seem to belong to the categories they focus on. No problem, just buy/read other magazines. A couple of rock magazines feature articles about him.

I'm not lamenting over anything. Just noticing the obvious. Rolling Stone was just the first mag that came to mind. For a guy who gives such great performances and sells the albums in the numbers he does, he certainly doesn't seem to get much print.
Which mags are you talking about that featured articles about him>

[Wario]

RS has a problem with him and see him as a springsteen clone. their loss

[A Slice Of English]

I've never heard Rolling Stone refer to Meat as a Springsteen clone. They couldn't be more different in style and substance. They've just both been around for 30-odd years or more.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by renegadeangel

For a guy who gives such great performances and sells the albums in the numbers he does, he certainly doesn't seem to get much print.

Does he sell many albums these days? He is someone who is primarily famous for two records that were released years ago. As for the live performances, he surely still is a good entertainer but there's a lot of competition. There are numerous singers/bands who do awesome shows. Meat Loaf is one artist among many others who are skilled as well. In fact I'm surprised how much print he gets considering that he hasn't had a huge hit for a while now.

Originally Posted by renegadeangel

Which mags are you talking about that featured articles about him

He regularly appears in magazines over here. Here are some mags which feature longer Meat Loaf articles and which I'm having on my desk right now:

CLASSIC ROCK 4/2010 and 2/2012
ROCKS 3/2010
GOOD TIMES 2/2010
ECLIPSED 5/2010
READY2ROCK 3/2010 (Meat Loaf on the cover)

Originally Posted by Wario

RS has a problem with him and see him as a springsteen clone.

Something must have gone very, very wrong during the cloning process.

[Evil Ernie]

This is of no concern to me. They print what will sell and unfortunately our main man isn't as popular as he once was.

An artist in Meat's position doesn't need to worry about putting out a huge hit. He could live 12 lives on the royalties from his past albums alone, so he can make music that he likes without feeling the need to adapt and he can just do whatever pleases him artistically. I love 80's Loaf, but it was an obvious faze and an attempt to be more modern.

I don't worry about magazines anymore. They have been rendered obsolete by the internet. Also, they tend not to focus on artists that I like. So there's no point to me buying or reading them anymore.

[Wario]

faze? Hes now trying to be more modern now

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

This is of no concern to me. They print what will sell and unfortunately our main man isn't as popular as he once was.

An artist in Meat's position doesn't need to worry about putting out a huge hit. He could live 12 lives on the royalties from his past albums alone, so he can make music that he likes without feeling the need to adapt and he can just do whatever pleases him artistically. I love 80's Loaf, but it was an obvious faze and an attempt to be more modern.

I don't worry about magazines anymore. They have been rendered obsolete by the internet. Also, they tend not to focus on artists that I like. So there's no point to me buying or reading them anymore.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

An artist in Meat's position doesn't need to worry about putting out a huge hit. He could live 12 lives on the royalties from his past albums alone, so he can make music that he likes without feeling the need to adapt and he can just do whatever pleases him artistically. I love 80's Loaf, but it was an obvious faze and an attempt to be more modern.

I really don't think this is the truth. Royalties? Those lie with the publisher and song writer mostly I believe unless you make clever deals. And as for the fase, well maybe that was him worrying, quite a bit.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Wario

faze? Hes now trying to be more modern now

Perhaps, but it's not as blatant as his 80's.

With the exception of that horrible "Stand In The Storm" song I think that he's just playing straight ahead Rock.

Even though I would argue that the 2000-2010's don't have a distinctive sound like the 80's did.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I really don't think this is the truth. Royalties? Those lie with the publisher and song writer mostly I believe unless you make clever deals. And as for the fase, well maybe that was him worrying, quite a bit.

We're not gonna get into this again are we?

EVERYONE involved generally get Royalties. Rory Dodd, Todd Rundgren, Ellen Foley, Max Weinberg, etc ALL get a cut. ML would probably get the biggest cut for being the main performer, but everyone gets some. In the past record companies were able to keep these profits but that is not the case anymore. It's true that they WERE kept from him and Jim (and others) for years, but that has been long resolved and record companies can't get away with it anymore.

It is true that the publishing rights are the juiciest. Jim gets those AND performing royalties.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

We're not gonna get into this again are we?

YOU brought this up.

Background performers on the original album getting royalties? Give me a break. Where is the evidence of that?

Regardless my main point with what I was disagreeing with is that I think part of the reason Meat has kept on working is indeed to make a decent living. I think this high regard of him having so much money that he can do whatever he wants for the rest of his life is embellished.

[allrevvedup]

To get back to whatever topic this is...

I don't think the print media is as much of a focus anymore for bands/artists and even record companies.

One glance through a few hours of twitter can show you as much news, reviews and anything else you want and by the next day, when it's printed, it makes the newspaper look almost redundant.

I don't think an album release by Meat will ever have an 'explosion' again like Bat 1 or 2. It may make some ripples for a short period of time like the older artists tend to nowadays but overall most will try to make sure their hardcore fans are clued in as to what's going on while at the same time hoping to bring in some new fans from a different generation.

I'd love there to be a better platform for music like there used to be and I'd love to see MTV actually play music (would also love to see the biography channel actually show biographical programmes as well) but they don't because they are looking to cater for a different audience.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Background performers on the original album getting royalties? Give me a break. Where is the evidence of that?

Yeah, the way I understand it, the songwriter and publisher receive royalties, but the performers usually get a flat fee and that's it.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

YOU brought this up.

Background performers on the original album getting royalties? Give me a break. Where is the evidence of that?

Regardless my main point with what I was disagreeing with is that I think part of the reason Meat has kept on working is indeed to make a decent living. I think this high regard of him having so much money that he can do whatever he wants for the rest of his life is embellished.

Here is an article from Discovery.Com

http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...s-performances

I don't claim to be an expert, but artists receive RESIDUALS (basically the same as royalties, maybe I misused the word). To my knowledge you get money if they used your performance, likeness or image to sell something.

Remember that Seinfeld Episode where Jerry keeps receiving cheques from a japanese show that featured him in the credits? Each cheque was for a very small amount, but they still give it to him. It's the same sort of thing.

Perhaps a small performer would just get a flat fee, but I would imagine significant guys like ML, Todd (production credits too), Rory or Ellen would receive a decent slice for their efforts.

Of course there are some artists who signed crappy deals and they get nothing or barely anything, but these days that is the exception rather than the rule.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Yeah, the way I understand it, the songwriter and publisher receive royalties, but the performers usually get a flat fee and that's it.

So Jim took home pretty much all the money from BOOH, BOOH 2, Dead Ringer, TEOTH, MLOONAA, IACBTMN, etc...??

If that's the case, than why does an artist tour in support of an album rather than just do a greatest hits show every time? ML hasn't had a significant hit in years, wouldn't he be better off doing a never ending BOOH tour?

Wait... that means that he'd have to give Jim more money in performance fees.

That fiend!!

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

So Jim took home pretty much all the money from BOOH, BOOH 2, Dead Ringer, TEOTH, MLOONAA, IACBTMN, etc...??

Yes, a sizable chunk of it, along with whoever holds the publishing. The record company took home a large chunk as well. Todd may have taken "points" on the Bat album, so he might get royalties from that. Meat probably got/gets some money as the main performer, but people like the musicians, including Ellen Foley and Rory Dodd, probably got a flat fee. Of course, I'm guessing, but AFAIK, that's usually how it works.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

If that's the case, than why does an artist tour in support of an album rather than just do a greatest hits show every time? ML hasn't had a significant hit in years, wouldn't he be better off doing a never ending BOOH tour?

Artists used to (and still may) tour in support of an album often because they were contractually obligated by the record company to promote it. Also, all of the costs of making an album are paid by the artist, not the record company. In the case of a new unknown artist, the record company would advance them the money to make the record, but those costs need to be repaid out of the profits.

There are plenty of artists/bands who do Greatest Hits tours these days. Meat may in fact sell more tickets with a BOOH tour, but he chooses to offer something new rather than go that route.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Wait... that means that he'd have to give Jim more money in performance fees.

Jim gets money when Meat performs his songs, but it's not paid by Meat so much as by the venue in which he performs, via a Performing Rights Organization such as ASCAP or BMI.

The bottom line is, recording artists don't make as much money as some people think, unless they also write their own songs, and, in some cases, own their own publishing.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Artists used to (and still may) tour in support of an album often because they were contractually obligated by the record company to promote it. Also, all of the costs of making an album are paid by the artist, not the record company. In the case of a new unknown artist, the record company would advance them the money to make the record, but those costs need to be repaid out of the profits.

I see. So they're obligated to make the record, pay the expenses out of their own pocket, take all the risk, but if it's successful they get almost nothing compared to the composer?

Makes total sense.

Recording artists make money off of their records, perhaps not millions upon million in most cases, but they get something whether they wrote the songs or not. I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that they don't.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I see. So they're obligated to make the record, pay the expenses out of their own pocket, take all the risk, but if it's successful they get almost nothing compared to the composer?

Makes total sense.

Doesn't seem fair, and it probably isn't, but it's true. In fact, copyright laws were started to protect music publishers

In the "old" days, artists for the most part didn't write their own songs, and songwriters didn't perform or record them; the singer-songwriter is a relatively new "invention". Country music still works this way somewhat.

Ever heard of the Brill Building? Many hit records came out of there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Building

The Brill Building approach--which can be extended to other publishers not based in the actual Brill Building--was one way that professionals in the music business took control of things in the time after rock and roll's first wave. In the Brill building practice, there were no more unpredictable or rebellious singers; in fact, a specific singer in most cases could be easily replaced with another. These songs were written to order by pros who could custom fit the music and lyrics to the targeted teen audience. In a number of important ways, the Brill Building approach was a return to the way business had been done in the years before rock and roll, since it returned power to the publishers and record labels and made the performing artists themselves much less central to the music's production.

If simply being the performer is so lucrative, then why did Springsteen sue his former manager for (among other things) his publishing? He was almost dropped from his label, and probably would have been if "Born to Run" didn't sell, because he was so deeply in the hole with the record company. Sure, he has lots of money now, but it wasn't until "Born in the U.S.A." was a monster hit that he had very much at all. And, I'm sure he makes far more from touring than from record sales. I use him as an example, but his situation was far from unique.

I've read that Elvis Presley didn't record anyone's song unless they gave him half of the publishing- why do think that was?

[allrevvedup]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

I've read that Elvis Presley didn't record anyone's song unless they gave him half of the publishing- why do think that was?

I'd read that Celine Dion had a similar sort of deal as she wasn't writing the songs she performed so the likes of Mr Steinman, and anyone else for that matter, had to give up anything up to 25% (i think) to have a place on her albums

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by allrevvedup

I'd read that Celine Dion had a similar sort of deal as she wasn't writing the songs she performed so the likes of Mr Steinman, and anyone else for that matter, had to give up anything up to 25% (i think) to have a place on her albums

With the rationale being that they would sell more copies having someone like Celine (or Elvis) singing the song than they would with anyone else, which in some cases is probably true.

Dolly Parton talked about how Elvis was interested in "I Will Always Love You", but she just couldn't give up any credit. It payed off for her when Whitney Houston eventually recorded it.

[Evil Ernie]

I don't know what to say. ML complained in interviews for years that neither he nor Jim were given any royalties for BOOH from CBS when he should have been. He finally got them 20 years later.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserve...res.magazine67

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-...nger-meat-loaf

I don't know what sort of world you're living in when your name is the primary marketing image of a band (Meat Loaf, Neverland Express, whatever) that has sold 60-70 Million records and you get no money from the sales.

[CarylB]

The music business world Meat and Jim have had to steer a difficult course through

Caryl

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by CarylB

The music business world Meat and Jim have had to steer a difficult course through

Caryl

Absolutely! There is no denying that. It's the case for many other artists unfortunately.

Whether they had to fight tooth & nail to get them, they were and are still entitled to royalties. Any artist is, even as a guest performer.

You have to be given credit though. Sometimes an artist will play uncredited for various reasons. An example is Lorraine Crosby's guest performance as 'Ms Loud' on AFL. As a result of that she was not given any royalties.

I understand that she was hired to do a demo, but that sort of sucks. I'm sure Meat n Jim threw a few bucks her way.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Dolly Parton talked about how Elvis was interested in "I Will Always Love You", but she just couldn't give up any credit. It payed off for her when Whitney Houston eventually recorded it.

She would still have the credit, she just wouldn't be making any more money off of it aside from the sales of her own version. If she sold the full rights that is.

In the end I don't see why an established songwriter/performer like Dolly Parton or Jimmy would ever do that, no matter how much money you make off of it.

Slightly besides the point, but I think that Dolly Parton's original version of IWALY is by far the best.