Hmm, this sounds like an "American Iold" kind of deal.
In the old days, it would be a conflict of interest for a manager to
work for both the label and the artist, for exactly the situation you
describe below. The manager has to represent and promote the interests
of the artist, which (suprise!) can differ from the label's.
But that was then, and this is now. What you describe below as what you
think is in the label's interest was true up until the late 20th
century,
but as the major lables were merged into larger corporate entities, the
focus on the bottom line gradually replaced "artist development", and
underperforming artists won't last long at most record labels.
It sounds like that band really needs to find new management in a hurry,
if that's possible. And probably a different entertainment lawyer to
review their contract.
Henry Salvia
http://houstonjones.com/
HiC wrote:
Someone gets a record deal with a major label. Their album gets onto
shelves at the major retailers. They have an initial splash of
exposure - numerous national TV shows that you've all heard of and
other high (and low) profile venues. Anywhere there's an audience big
or small they've been there - including local-yokel parades, minor-
league sporting events, small amusement parks, store openings, etc.
I.e. they haven't been lazy or snooty about doing their bit to make
their career happen.
What I'm told is that their manager has basically abandoned them and
is spending most of their time with some other act. That this manager
hasn't been in communication with the label and the label has put the
artist on the back burner.
What's not clear to me is why the record label would allow this
manager to not actively manage this artist's career since they've
apparently made an investment in recording and promoting the artist.
Isn't there someone at the label who watches and says okay, what's
going on with so & so, what efforts are being made in their behalf, is
everyone doing what they should to make their career happen, etc.
I guess there are issues regarding the relationship between the
artist, manager and the record label I don't quite get. I'm told this
manager was assigned to this artist by the label, so doesn't the
management company in a sense work for the label? Isn't the label in a
position to light a fire under them? Or no? And if they determine the
manager is dropping the ball, wouldn't it be in their interest to find
someone else?
What also strikes me is how vague the management company seems to be
about the whole thing if the situation as described to me is correct.
They don't come out and have a chat with the artist saying why they're
not expending any efforts in their behalf, they just basically quit
communicating with them. They're overseas, don't seem to have a phone
or computer they can get to, which is obviously nonsense. This seems
like kind of a b.s. way to do things.
Thoughts, experiences, etc.?