Terrapin Tables

I don't particularly care for the show, but couldn't you just not sign the contract? I mean, these people are talented, but it is not like they are getting offers left and right. If giving up 1/2 of what you earn is the only way you earn anything in the industry you want to be in, perhaps it is not so bad. "Clarkson from struggling Texas waitress to pop diva" -- I can't imagine she would make nearly as much money without the show (even giving up half). Chances are she would rise to the level of assistant to the assistant manager of that restaurant, if not for this nauseating show.

And I thought this guy's name was Simon Cowell? I am so out of touch, I must have missed something.

i think pat's on the right track. look at it from the show's perspective. if you win, you are guaranteed success, people will buy your album, know your name, etc but what does the show get from it? not to be canceled by fox? so the show's gotta make some money off the winners because the winners are making money off the show. and you don't have to win! from the first show, people got albums, movies, appearances on tv shows, etc. i do think the lifetime contract aspect of it is harsh, but then again, they're going from nothing to huge, and that's the price you pay. what would really be informative is to compare it to the contracts of young artists discovered not on tv. maybe they also have 50% deals and such.

Pat's argument is the usual defense of the contract, and it makes sense - something is better than nothing, to some people. But like the Bible says (you heard me), "what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

What bugs me is the company has control over all endorsements (they pick what, where, and when) and, shockingly, biography - it states in the contract the company has all rights to all biographical material even if it is known to be fictitious. So, in a right-wrong sense, I'm bothered by this. Also, as the "musician" has zero creative input and retains no rights to any outut, the American Idol crap removes the last semblance of art from pop music. Which is what really bugs me.

I didn't care for the idea that they could easily make up bad press about you (slander). I am curious how different this contract is from other record labels. It says that Clarkson and Gay Aiken got contracts with RCA, and that first guy got dropped by them. I can't imagine it is standard contract -- but since they don't give out recording contracts to high school trumpet players, I have no idea. Anyone who doesn't get a lawyer to look at these things, and goes in blind...........should call Kristen for some advice. She keeps the other 50%.

In most record deals, labels work like banks and agents combined. First, they loan the band/artist money to produce the recording. Then, the label distributes and advertises the record, theoretically representing the best interest of the band. Most new bands (read "new" as: no leverage) signed on a major label get to keep about 10-15% of the sales price of a CD...and they still have to pay back recording costs. Do the math - a dollar a CD, and you owe the label anywhere from 100K to, in extreme cases like Michael Jackson, a million dollars. Not an ideal situation.

The big differences between the standard label-signing-deals and the American Idol B.S. are (a) artists on major labels usually retain creative control and therefore produce their own art and (b) artists on regular labels pursue their own merchandising, touring, endorsements, etc., which is where real money is made for the artists. That's why I will download any CD, but always go see bands I like live and usually buy a T-shirt. Bands get about a buck a disc, but about 8 a shirt (assuming it's a $15 shirt). For example, the Rolling Stones make over a hundred million a year touring (thanks to high ticket prices and $45 shirts) and about a hundred thousand from record sales.

No major label deals are kind to the artist...check this out for an incredibly sobering account of what rock bands go through once they've signed on to a major label - I won't go into detail, but the author is very reliable.

I guess the point is, it's incredibly rare for any musician to make money...but though dollars are guaranteed for American Idol winners, it's a horrible path to fortune, and there is no art involved. Just sneaky, thieving businessmen.

I've heard the horror stories of record deals, but have never seen it broken out to the dollar amount like that. No wonder TOOL decided to do their own label and such...

a very interesting quote from chris: "what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" this from the man who said he'd kill a puppy "for a few hundred or so." i also find it very difficult to believe that popular musicians don't make money. i don't think the two that made the movie or the chick who was on tv or the top two from the previous show (btw, that guy ruben can actually sing) will ever say to themselves "well, i've got a mortgage, a car loan, and two car kids, i need a second job" what's more, i don't see musicians being forced into the business. so they don't make as much money as they should for their work, still, it's their choice, like anything else.

I thought it was interesting the way Fuller compared himself to Andrew Lloyd Weber. That' an interesting way to look at it- he's the artist, the voices are just his instruments.

I do think it's shitty the way the contract lets him control those people's lives so much (I wouldn't want that), but those people read the contract going into it. It's also letting them circumvent all the shit that other musicians have to go through to get famous, which they could go through if they didn't want to sign Fuller's contract. And from that other article that Chris linked, unless you're really famous, recording deals take most of your money, anyway, so Fuller's 50% isn't too bad if it covers everything.

Basically, if you want money and aren't concerned about creative control, Fuller's contract is fine. No one's forcing you to sign it, and there are other avenues to being a musician.

Word to R. Kelly.

"This is the remix edition, of the song about pissing."

Word to Dave Chapelle

Rack me, I am out.

"girl you never feel, quite the same, when you get a whiff, of my hershey stains"

Roy: popular musicians often make nowhere near the money people think. The most visible modern case was Wu-Tang Clan, right after their first record. It blew up - over a million copies sold - yet after touring, album sales, etc., each member took home less than $30,000...not too far off from the numbers my link ended up with. Remember that "Cribs" episode where ODB was using food stamps? Not a joke.

And you brought up (I think) the two Idol kids in a movie - they were paid 1400 for that. Not exactly Hollywood numbers. Also, they had no choice but to do it, or they would default on all Idol stuff.

And regarding your questioning of my "soul" quote: you're way off on your equating of the puppykilling with betraying artistic integrity. Getting rid of a dog is much less of a sin, a crime against one's self, a compromise of a soul, however you want to put it, than Idol's required betraying of artistic integrity. They would both involve money for crappy acts, but Idol requires one to subjugate to another and to falsely represent his/herself. Puppie killing just needs ten seconds of hardhearted squeezing. And there are a lot of freaking puppies - real art is individual, completely refletive of it's creator...and therefore unique, and therefore more important, says I, than a puppy.

after being introduced to the mtv show newlyweds (which is HILARIOUS) i remain convinced that musicians, particulary pop stars, can make plenty. i didn't see the cribs episode where odb used food stamps, but i do remember some discussion about it. as i recall the accounts of others, he went to pick up his food stamps in a limo. my guess is that odb, not cribs, provided the limo. as i understood it, it was a joke, a joke against the welfare system. and though i don't match a lot of mtv, i have seen a few cribs episodes myself - some folks in the industry seem to be doing just fine. the one with missy was particularly enlightening, and i'm sure hers isn't even the most lavish one.

as for the wu-tang tour, did they use the 30,000 to pay for food, lodging, travel, equipment, etc? or was the 30,000 after that? my guess is that it was after. if your point is that they don't make as much as the higher ups in the business i say, yeah so? that's true in just about every industry.

i agree, puppykilling and betraying artistic integrity are not the same. betraying one's artistic integrity is as you say more of a "crime against oneself" but that makes me think puppykilling is in an important sense actually worse than betraying one's artistic integrity. a crime against oneself is much less worse than a crime against others.

you see the idol contract as requiring contestants to subjugate oneself. the way i see, it, it's still their choice. that goes for everyone else in the music business too - you don't want to subjugate yourself? you don't want to clear 30,000 after getting to travel the world? you don't want to be adored by millions? you don't want to be on tv? go right ahead, make your music without the record label. just call me the next time a musician with a major record label has to pick up a second job because he's looking at his heating bill and he' afraid this winter will be worse than the last.