I can say that I didn't see any "anti-competitive" shelving of records
at the four major labels that I worked at over my decade in the biz. In
fact, I think that it is a very common misconception that the practice
occurs often, if at all. There are also some managers and lawyers who
tell artists that this happened to cover their own butts.
Usually when a project gets shelved, it's because someone has looked at
the label's total marketing budget and has decided that there will have
to be some records that they won't release. When they make that
decision, they're assuming that the marketing spend would outweigh the
financial benefit of releasing the record.
On rare occasions I've seen cases where the project was shelved because
of ego clashes between an artist and a high-level executive. It
happened with Sophie B. Hawkins and Columbia because she refused to take
banjo out of a single. And it happened with Anita Baker and then new
Elektra president Sylvia Rhone because Anita wouldn't let Sylvia remix a
song for radio.
Because in Patty's case the label is Interscope I am not at all
surprised by this move. Since they swallowed up Geffen and A&M, they
have been doing this alot (e.g., Aimee Mann whose situation turned out
great and Courtney Love from Hole who is in the court battle of her
career). Because the person who originally had the vision for the
artist no longer works there, there isn't anyone sitting in the meeting
to defend the record when the label is making those "marketing spend"
type cuts or when there's a need to trim the roster to make way for new
signings. Also because Interscope is a totally hits, "wanna be cutting
edge" kind of place, I could see that they don't think Patty fits their
image - they're home to Dr. Dre, Eminem, Limp Biskit and Beck.
Unfortunately, Patty does not have major catalog like Blues Traveler,
Sting or Bryan Adams to leverage for better treatment.
It's common practice for major labels to hold the master of the
unreleased record. They want money for it - at least what was spent to
make it and whatever the artist may have outstanding in terms of an
unrecouped balance.
The true measure of whether or not Interscope is being malicious will be
if they refuse an offer from another label to buy Patty out and buy the
master. So if Madonna or anyone else wanted Patty they would have to
write Interscope a check. How big that check is (beyond costs) directly
reflects the animosity between the label and the artist.
Brenda
n.p. - TechTV
Kate Bennett wrote:
>
> unfortunately madonna's label did the same thing to a local band here named
> summercamp...don't know the finer details but i do know they were so excited
> to get a contract with maverick & recorded & the label has been sitting on
> it for years...the band was on a role & was completely stopped...i have
> heard of this practice being done intentionally too (to keep down the
> competition)...a band signs a contract & the label refuses to release
> anything...the band can't do anything musically cause they are under
> contract...instead they spend years in litigation...if they can afford it...
>
> patty must be devastated...i know her many fans are....
> ********************************************
> Kate Bennett
> www.katebennett.com
> sponsored by Polysonics www.polysonics.com
> Discover the Indies at Taylor Guitars:
> http://www.taylorguitars.com/artists/awp/indies/bennett.html
> ********************************************
