If Meat were to start his own record Label....

[Wario]

What name would you prefer it be? and do you think Meat should start his own label?

I think Masculine revolution is the best. one of Meat's forgotten set list mainstays for five eyars and it rolls off the tongue.

[duke knooby]

not really related to the question... but a couple of songs on the last album have neverland music publishing credited, and lots of the 90's stuff has lost boys music or similar... who or what is neverland music publishing?

[Wario]

Originally Posted by duke knooby

not really related to the question... but a couple of songs on the last album have neverland music publishing credited, and lots of the 90's stuff has lost boys music or similar... who or what is neverland music publishing?

my guess they are publishers that license the music. But they obviosuly dont run the shots.

i was thinking if meat went George Lucas and went independant

[duke knooby]

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

my guess they are publishers that license the music. But they obviosuly dont run the shots.

so how do the publishers get their slice of the album making pie??
what is it they actually do??

[Wario]

Originally Posted by duke knooby

so how do the publishers get their slice of the album making pie??
what is it they actually do??

dunno to be honest Its all guess work. Of the Netherland music thing was calling the shots, meat wouldve had three singles out by now

[Cherry.Loaf]

I like Red pony or midnight the most personally

[Monstro]

I was actually having the conversation this morning on the pro's and cons of Meat releasing the next album either on an independant label or just doing it himself, give him the control.

[Evil One]

But would the extra control be worth losing the money provided by the label. Even though they don't know their arse from their elbow, they still must provide some cash.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

i was thinking if meat went George Lucas and went independant

George Lucas noted recently that he has become exactly what he fought against for years when he was starting out.

Perhaps Meat has no interest to do this.
I know quite a few artists who do everything themselves now, usually except for physical CD/DVD/Blu Ray distribution as that is a tricky thing without having the right contacts. Often artists will outsource that to a famous distribution company and they get a percentage of the cut. There is really no reason Meat couldn't do this if he wanted to in my opinion. He would certainly be more in control of the music and when things get released. There are lots of online resources to help you get this of the ground and to get at least your music distributed easily on Amazon / I-tunes and most other online retailers. Without a record company pushing the record yourself becomes part of the game which will include developing your own online strategy. Meat would need a better website I think and a dedicated webmaster to update it every day around the album release and thereafter and take care of social networking. I think it's quite possible but you need to have the interest to do it properly I think.

Don't forget he has a major interest in acting too, there's only so many hours in the day.

No Red Pony please.

Fire Ball records is good.

[duke knooby]

Originally Posted by Evil One

But would the extra control be worth losing the money provided by the label. Even though they don't know their arse from their elbow, they still must provide some cash.

do they provide cash? or give advances/loans/deals/contacts/sweet f a??

[AndrewG]

If Meat were to stick with the same record company I can't see them willing to spend more than on HCTB. Surely they didn't make much money out of that one?
Sorry I'm just guessing going by the sales figures from Wiki.

[meatfanforlife]

Your welcome for the idea Wario :P

Anyways, like I said in the Apprentice post, I think meat should do it. Many artists have been successful in doing it, and I think if Meat were to do it, he could sign young rock acts as well, like Toby Keith does for young country acts, and mentor them. That would be my dream.....

[Wario]

Originally Posted by meatfanforlife

Your welcome for the idea Wario :P

huh? I didnt even realise you also said something lol.

[meatfanforlife]

Originally Posted by WarioLoaf

huh? I didnt even realise you also said something lol.

Uh huh....sureeeeeeeee

[daveake]

Wario, I voted ~~~~~~~~~ just so you don't feel totally alone

[Sarge]

I already wondered who the other person was that voted for that.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by duke knooby

so how do the publishers get their slice of the album making pie??
what is it they actually do??

Publisher - The publisher is the person (or company) who works with the songwriters to promote their songs.

Publishers usually get either partial or total ownership of the song copyright, known as "assignment" or "transfer" of the copyright. They pitch the songs to record labels, television or movie producers, or anyone else who may be interested in it. They then license the rights to use the song and charge fees. Those fees are typically split 50/50 with the songwriter.


It is a bit complicated, though. There's a lot of info in the series of articles here:

"How Music Royalties Work"

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...-royalties.htm

[AndrewG]

Good thing Bruce Springsteen published his own 300+ songs.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Good thing Bruce Springsteen published his own 300+ songs.

Yeah, but he had to sue for it; Mike Appel, his first manager, owned the greater part of his songs in the beginning. I think Bruce was naive, and had no idea what he was signing with his first contract with Appel. (Legend has it that he signed the contract on the hood of a car.) He couldn't record for three years because of the suit- "Darkness" was the result.

In the end, he had to pay Appel to get his songs back, but he owns them all now, which I believe is rare in the business. Even the Beatles don't have all their publishing- that famously belonged to Michael Jackson.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Even the Beatles don't have all their publishing- that famously belonged to Michael Jackson.

Most of the their biggest hits are owned by Sony/ATV, a joint business owned by the Michael Jackson and Sony, but I think he put up his share in as collateral for a loan with Barclays, who are his largest creditor .. so what happens to his stake in them will no doubt take years to resolve! Isn't it estimated he had debts of around $500m

Caryl

[loaferman61]

I don't think any of the suggestions work. Since they already have Roadrunner Records I think Meat should have Roller Coaster Records.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Most of the their biggest hits are owned by Sony/ATV, a joint business owned by the Michael Jackson and Sony, but I think he put up his share in as collateral for a loan with Barclays, who are his largest creditor .. so what happens to his stake in them will no doubt take years to resolve! Isn't it estimated he had debts of around $500m

Caryl

I have no idea of dollars, but I know he was very deeply in debt. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I think it would be only right if it could somehow go back to Paul McCartney and Lennon's sons. I found this article, admittedly old now:

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...ollection.html

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

I have no idea of dollars, but I know he was very deeply in debt. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I think it would be only right if it could somehow go back to Paul McCartney and Lennon's sons. I found this article, admittedly old now:

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...ollection.html

Thanks I seem to recall at the time of the sale McCartney was only prepared to go to about $10m and Jackson paid nearly $50m, but he used so many assets as collateral for loans when he was trying to get his finances under control a few years ago, I'm not sure just how much of his estate he could actually "will" to anyone .. Still, McCartney still owns the rights to some of the early songs But imo it was a shame they let the rights to most of them pass to a company in which they had no controlling interest which led to them being sold on

Caryl

[daveake]

Originally Posted by Sarge

I already wondered who the other person was that voted for that.

I'm wondering who the third person was!

[AndyK]

I'm shocked. My opinion of someone has just taken a nose dive