Behind the music: When artists are held hostage by labels

Last week, Amanda Palmer declared on her blog: "I am very happy to announce that I have finally been released from my contract with Roadrunner Records." Palmer went on to say that she hadn't been able to release her music for free while signed, but now she was going to do just that in the hope that fans would donate money. "I think that artists should feel no shame while passing the hat around once they've entertained people," she explained, highlighting a tradition that is much stronger in the US than in the UK. I once performed in a small New York venue and was amazed to find $20 bills in the bucket the venue used for audience contributions.
 
My initial reaction to Palmer's blog was that it was unfair to criticise Roadrunner Records for not letting her give music away for free when the label expected to see a return on its investment. But, as I read Palmer's open letter, I related to her relief over being "dropped". She said she was grateful for the label signing her band the Dresden Dolls in 2004, when nobody else would, and acknowledged that this allowed her to focus on music instead of juggling "business-ing and musician-ing". But, she claimed, the label stopped helping the band after the second album was released, and they've since needed to part ways.

There are many reasons why a label goes cold on an act: the person who signed them might have been sacked, leaving them without a champion; they might not have delivered a record that's good enough; or the label might have been bought by a bigger company (which is what happened to me). It's debatable which is worse: being screwed by your label when a record is successful; having your record released without any promotion; or not being allowed to release your music while you sit out your contract. Perhaps the latter is the most frustrating situation for an artist.

Someone I knew was signed to a major label by the chairman, who was sacked shortly afterwards. The artist then went through three marketing teams and A&Rs, as they too were replaced. Eventually, the label decided to release her best song as a third single. However, when the first single was released – two years after she was signed – it didn't chart, so the label didn't release the album (or the third single). It was another year until she was finally released from her contract, having had just one single – but at least the label let her keep the recordings.

Things are a bit different for songwriters, but you can still find yourself in a situation where your music is effectively held hostage. I signed to BMG Publishing ages ago. As it was my first deal and I didn't have any revenue in the "pipeline" (records released that are expecting royalties), so I didn't get the best deal, and there was no clause that said I would get my songs back if they weren't released or pitched by the publisher. But when you're first courted and signed, you don't think that this would be a major problem (see my Lady Gaga blog about "pre-nups").
 
Years later, I parted ways with BMG after they were bought by Universal Publishing. This meant Universal acquired a huge catalogue of songs by writers that they hadn't signed (no wonder they can't keep track of what they own). As a songwriter, you often rely on your work being pitched by your publisher or an independent "plugger", who gets a share of the publishing. If you're not with the publisher any more, it's understandable that you're not at the top of their list of songs to pitch. They may not even have heard the songs they own (as with most media-related companies, they've got fewer people doing more work).

I'm not against record labels and publishers. Like Amanda Palmer, I'm grateful that someone took a chance on me and afforded me the luxury of being able to make music. But to writers and artists, your songs are your babies. It's only fair that you get them back if they're not being looked after. 

During the debate on an extension of copyright for recordings, artist managers pushed for a use-it-or-lose-it clause. If a record label won't make a recording available to the public, it has to return it to the artist so that they can release it. A reasonable request, one would think, yet it is still it met with resistance from many labels. The proposal is still waiting to be approved by EU member states.

With EMI's future hanging in the balance, more artists and songwriters may soon find themselves in a similar situation to Palmer. Already, EMI artists have seen people in charge of their careers replaced more than once in the last few years, through no fault of their own. From what I hear, those artists would not be unhappy if Warner Music bought the label.

Bigger artists often have a "key-man clause" in their contracts, which means they can leave if the person who signed them is let go. But for smaller artists, being dropped may be better than being stuck in a contract with a corporation that cares more about the bottom line than having the conviction to stick with artists, even if they don't see an immediate return.