From: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org (sheryl-crew-digest) To: sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Subject: sheryl-crew-digest V3 #240 Reply-To: sheryl-crew@smoe.org Sender: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-sheryl-crew-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk sheryl-crew-digest Friday, August 25 2000 Volume 03 : Number 240 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [sheryl-crew] MP3 and Coldplay [Brigitte and/or Michael ] Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents ["Esther Patterson" ] Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents ["Christina Clark" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] MP3 and Coldplay Try Napster, they have a lot of raresongs there. That's also where I found Coldplay. They are playing at this 3-day rockfestival I'm going to (LowLands if you care) and I just was checking out all the artists cause I really don't know a lot of them. I also discovered Keith Caputo. (ex Life of Agony) You'll like him. He's really good! Brigitte ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:52:05 -0700 (PDT) From: King Of Fools Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents >I know of many indie artists who do > experiment and have > creative control over their music because they don't > have the pressure of > major labels to make them sell 10 million records. > And that's exactly why > they're on indie labels, because of the freedom to > create the music that > they love. > > Many people who are on major record labels have > taken heat, especially from > interscope, as to trash good songs, and make "hit > singles". In fact, that's > been happening for a long time (I'm sure Mozart had > pressure from his father > & the royals, being the first rock star and all...), > but it's become more > evident in these last few years because of the > pressure to sell, artists > speaking for themselves, and give in to music that > doesn't even deserve to > be called that. > > There was an artist, I forgot who, who even claimed > that she overheard > Interscope reps. talking about Sheryl's TGS as a > "dissapointment" because it > didn't sell the ten million that bubble gum pop > stars, or rap/metal acts > sell now. It is dissapointing when a record label > can't appreciate musical > talent when they find it, but they've always only > been interested in sales, > haven't they? Well, when it comes down to it, the record labels are a BUSINESS. Like it or not, it always comes down to the bottom line. With the majors, they aren't going to invest that much money in production, manufacturing, distribution and promotion if they can't make a profit. And it's the same thing with the indie labels, but to a lesser degree. Because they don't have as much invested financially in the artist, they don't have to have as many sales in order to at least recoup their expenses. But if one of those indie labels is losing money on an act, you'd better believe they're going to drop them. Any artist who signs to a record label knows what's required of them. And if they don't, then they deserve whatever they get. The days where a major label will nurture an artist are LONG gone. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:27:06 +0100 From: Oliver Schick Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] In which category do you think Sheryl would be Just my 2p ... > Esther wrote: > > >"Independant"... I guess that means she's somewhat of an indie artist. > and Paul wrote: > Sheryl is not an independent artists. > She's a major label act. As soon as the word 'indie' started to be quoted widely and 'indie' artists became successful, they started to need better distribution and their labels hooked up with big distributors, which I think destroyed their independent status to some extent. Only very few labels (if any) now hold out for the 'indie' ethic. And no-one's ever heard of them, as shelf space is monopolised by the bigger boys on the block. The internet? Not a lot of delivering on the promise to level the playing field so far. Just the opportunity to download stuff for free, but with even worse quality than CDs. Technically, I think, Paul is correct. Sheryl is the antithesis of an indie artist. But I think Esther's not totally wrong, either, as Sheryl _appears_ 'independent' in the sense that, if we look at the history of indie, 'indie' ethic was in the slipstream of 'punk' ethic (if that ever really existed ...), which first stressed 'credibility' more than anything else--you had to 'mean it, maaan', in contrast to people who didn't mean it, maaan. 'Credibility' is probably used more in the UK than over in the US, I would imagine, it's more of a UK thing. It just means, really, that you haven't come under suspicion of selling out, i.e., just trying to do what will sell in the current climate, but instead sometimes struggling in obscurity for years. So 'indie' carried on that ideal of credibility, and one of the ways in which you're credible is if you actually have to say something. Sometimes being inspired gives you something to say, and I think that Sheryl, in contrast to most other major recording artists, has been inspired. Some of her songs move me very much, most of all 'Crash and Burn', but also 'Ordinary Morning', 'Riverwide', and 'We Do What We Can' to some extent. Plus she's had a lot of bona fide hits, especially from 'Sheryl Crow', that people actually liked themselves without them being shoved down their throats as much as those of others. She also does things like producing herself now. (Just wondering: Has she not largely been ignored by MTV, though supported by VH1? That may have helped.) So I think she has a little credibility at least, and that may lead to her being filed under 'Independent' in France--perhaps a French idiosyncrasy but I think this perception is explicable. Sorry for being so long-winded, but then, I don't post very often! Oliver. ________________ oliver.schick@kcl.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:44:32 +0200 From: Brigitte and/or Michael Subject: [sheryl-crew] Calendar Someone asked about the calendar. No the pic wasn't working. But maybe you could write them and ask. Here's the link again: http://www.brassneck.gemm.com/ Brigitte ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:47:24 PDT From: "Esther Patterson" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents I read this recently, scanning through a Readers Digest: "Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try." - Peggy Noonan It's those who think of it as just a business who are depleting the number of good music acts in the public eye. Though a major label will shoot a talented band down because of lack of sales, you're right, it is less likely to happen in an indie label. "The days where a major >label will nurture an artist are LONG gone." Doesn't that make you the least bit uneasy? Sheryl was nurtured by A&M after an album that didn't cut it - NOT because they didn't hear a single on the album, but because she was capable of so much more, and they all knew it. Countless other great bands had albums that didn't sell great when they started out: Zepplin, Stones, Metallica... even "Tuesday Night Music Club" sat on the shelves for a year before it began to pick up! How many people now, who will probably become as talented as her, won't get to have their music heard worldwide because the lack of care? Your view doesn't give us very much hope for music in the future. EP >From: King Of Fools >Reply-To: King-Of-Fools@geocities.com >To: sheryl-crew@smoe.org >Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:52:05 -0700 (PDT) > > >I know of many indie artists who do > > experiment and have > > creative control over their music because they don't > > have the pressure of > > major labels to make them sell 10 million records. > > And that's exactly why > > they're on indie labels, because of the freedom to > > create the music that > > they love. > > > > Many people who are on major record labels have > > taken heat, especially from > > interscope, as to trash good songs, and make "hit > > singles". In fact, that's > > been happening for a long time (I'm sure Mozart had > > pressure from his father > > & the royals, being the first rock star and all...), > > but it's become more > > evident in these last few years because of the > > pressure to sell, artists > > speaking for themselves, and give in to music that > > doesn't even deserve to > > be called that. > > > > There was an artist, I forgot who, who even claimed > > that she overheard > > Interscope reps. talking about Sheryl's TGS as a > > "dissapointment" because it > > didn't sell the ten million that bubble gum pop > > stars, or rap/metal acts > > sell now. It is dissapointing when a record label > > can't appreciate musical > > talent when they find it, but they've always only > > been interested in sales, > > haven't they? > >Well, when it comes down to it, the record labels are >a BUSINESS. Like it or not, it always comes down to >the bottom line. With the majors, they aren't going >to invest that much money in production, >manufacturing, distribution and promotion if they >can't make a profit. > >And it's the same thing with the indie labels, but to >a lesser degree. Because they don't have as much >invested financially in the artist, they don't have to >have as many sales in order to at least recoup their >expenses. But if one of those indie labels is losing >money on an act, you'd better believe they're going to >drop them. > >Any artist who signs to a record label knows what's >required of them. And if they don't, then they >deserve whatever they get. The days where a major >label will nurture an artist are LONG gone. > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! >http://mail.yahoo.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:13:48 EDT From: XMystery79@aol.com Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents In a message dated 8/24/00 6:59:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, king-of-fools_99@yahoo.com writes: > And it's the same thing with the indie labels, but to > a lesser degree. Because they don't have as much > invested financially in the artist, they don't have to > have as many sales in order to at least recoup their > expenses. But if one of those indie labels is losing > money on an act, you'd better believe they're going to > drop them. > > Any artist who signs to a record label knows what's > required of them. And if they don't, then they > deserve whatever they get. The days where a major > label will nurture an artist are LONG gone. > But there used to be a time when 1 and 2 million sales a year was "enough". Now with artists like Limp Bizkit, the teenie stuff, etc, selling double digit platinum, they're getting greedy. Suddenly 1 million isn't good enough anymore, and artists like Sheryl suffer for not being pop-ish or trendy enough. With A&M she was given some freedom to produce her own music, and a lot of artistic control. On her website, last year's tour diary she wrote the label wouldn't even let her make a music video. Just because it's a big buisness doesn't make it right. Especially when Sheryl had basicially no choice after her label was taken over and they had "new management", so to speak. Most artists are pretty much stuck, to make money you have to be on a label, but you lose a lot of freedom too. - ---------------------------------------------------- Join Care2.com's Race for the Rain Forest! Sheryl Crow : If It Makes You Happy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:50:27 -0400 From: "Jonathan D. Martin" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents My record label is still in the business of nurturing young artists, so just because the 6 "major" labels don't do it, that dosent mean it dosent get done. Futhermore, many DIY and "indie" label hold on to failing artists for years, as in the case of the goo goo dolls. They were a bad punk band for nearly ten years before they finally got some recognition and scored a hit. My label, is a punk label so we know all about bands needing their time to make something happen, and as proof I can submit three bands, Endo, Darwins Waiting Room, and Al is Well. All three Florida local bands who stuck to their guns over many years to make thing s happen. Nurtured by young labels like mine. Two of those bands are now signed to MCA and one to Columbia. In conclusion there is a new revolution in music. One in which local bands are gaining early respect and drawing larger crowds without selling out to larger record labels. No matter where you live, people who get paid very little are working just as hard as some of these national / international acts to make something of themselves. Why not go out there and support some local music. You'll thank me later. - -Jonathan - ----- Original Message ----- From: "King Of Fools" To: Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 6:52 AM Subject: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents > >I know of many indie artists who do > > experiment and have > > creative control over their music because they don't > > have the pressure of > > major labels to make them sell 10 million records. > > And that's exactly why > > they're on indie labels, because of the freedom to > > create the music that > > they love. > > > > Many people who are on major record labels have > > taken heat, especially from > > interscope, as to trash good songs, and make "hit > > singles". In fact, that's > > been happening for a long time (I'm sure Mozart had > > pressure from his father > > & the royals, being the first rock star and all...), > > but it's become more > > evident in these last few years because of the > > pressure to sell, artists > > speaking for themselves, and give in to music that > > doesn't even deserve to > > be called that. > > > > There was an artist, I forgot who, who even claimed > > that she overheard > > Interscope reps. talking about Sheryl's TGS as a > > "dissapointment" because it > > didn't sell the ten million that bubble gum pop > > stars, or rap/metal acts > > sell now. It is dissapointing when a record label > > can't appreciate musical > > talent when they find it, but they've always only > > been interested in sales, > > haven't they? > > Well, when it comes down to it, the record labels are > a BUSINESS. Like it or not, it always comes down to > the bottom line. With the majors, they aren't going > to invest that much money in production, > manufacturing, distribution and promotion if they > can't make a profit. > > And it's the same thing with the indie labels, but to > a lesser degree. Because they don't have as much > invested financially in the artist, they don't have to > have as many sales in order to at least recoup their > expenses. But if one of those indie labels is losing > money on an act, you'd better believe they're going to > drop them. > > Any artist who signs to a record label knows what's > required of them. And if they don't, then they > deserve whatever they get. The days where a major > label will nurture an artist are LONG gone. > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! > http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:38:55 -0700 From: Chris Ketchum Subject: [sheryl-crew] SC 2001 Calendar Go to the 2001 Calendars section and check this one out. They only show the front cover, but it looks pretty nice to me :) Scheduled release date is 9/11/00. http://eqsmusic.com/index.html Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:40:48 -0400 From: "Christina Clark" Subject: Re: [sheryl-crew] Re: Independents >My record label is still in the business of nurturing young artists, so just >because the 6 "major" labels don't do it, that dosent mean it dosent get >done. I am curious as to who the 6 major record labels are (not being a smart ass here)? I thought they were: BMG, Sony, EMI & Warner (soon to become one) and Universal. As for the Indie aspect: We can not forget that Sheryl was signed to one of the most successful INDIE labels in the music industry, it was the most successful outside of Geffen. Although A&M no longer exists, as a corporate entity, I still think there are hints of that left in Sheryl. That is what, I feel, has been difficult for her to get used to since A&M was completely sucked in by Universal. She said that business meetings with Herv Alpert and Jerry Moss were once over dinner at a restaurant, then when Universal took over, she was forced to go to business meetings where everyone was serious and in black suits. When you get up into the level of Universal, where they are making and spending soo much money and the bottom line is so incredibly huge, it becomes more about the money then the music. Although smaller companies such as A&M were still about the money, they were musicians, Herv Alpert was anyways, and they cared about the music and they nurtured there artists. So, until Sheryl's contract with Universal expires (lol, or she makes a country album) she will have to put up with it. Christina See Esther, you weren't that far off! ------------------------------ End of sheryl-crew-digest V3 #240 *********************************