Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Incorrect. An artist signs a particular alias to a label (which is why some producers are multi-aliased). That's why a producer can't be signed to more than one label under the same alias- they have to move (as FSOL did from Jumpin' & Pumpin' to Virgin Records).
thats what i said, and some dont sign their alias to the label.
quote:
While they're signed to that label they will have their material released by that label. However, tracks are not sold to a label, they are leased. While they are under lease, the label can release them, license them to compilations and do whatever they're allowed to under the contract conditions they made with the artist. However, unless an artist signs a track to perpetuity (forever), the lease will run out after a certain amount of time and the artist is free to do what they will with it.
And the cost of a remix is deducted from the royalties the label pays the artists.
im sure it all depends on the contract...
___________________
Time exists so everything doesn't happen at once. Space exists so everything doesn't happen to you
Mar-08-2005 18:44
Mortyman
Mr. Morton
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Toronto
I think it should be entirely up to the original artist as to who can remix thier tracks. I always assumed it was that way in teh first place, because when I listen to interviews, artists talk about, for example, Delerium had approached Tiesto to do a remix of Silence... Tiesto did not "just decide" to do this!
I plead ignorance on the subject at hand, but it sounds all to easy if artists asked other artists to remix thier tracks. Then we wouldn't have crappy remixes of classic tracks. Only the best would survive.
Let's say Pulser approached 5 different artists to remix Cloudwalking?
5 remixes would be turned back to Pulser and then Pulser ultimately decides which remixes will be released.
Then Pulser claims it's income from the rerelease of the track and pays out royalties to the remixer?
Who really cares what label? as long as it gets released, the label should have nothing to do with it... besides sales
Originally posted by Mortyman
I think it should be entirely up to the original artist as to who can remix thier tracks. I always assumed it was that way in teh first place, because when I listen to interviews, artists talk about, for example, Delerium had approached Tiesto to do a remix of Silence... Tiesto did not "just decide" to do this!
I plead ignorance on the subject at hand, but it sounds all to easy if artists asked other artists to remix thier tracks. Then we wouldn't have crappy remixes of classic tracks. Only the best would survive.
Let's say Pulser approached 5 different artists to remix Cloudwalking?
5 remixes would be turned back to Pulser and then Pulser ultimately decides which remixes will be released.
Then Pulser claims it's income from the rerelease of the track and pays out royalties to the remixer?
Who really cares what label? as long as it gets released, the label should have nothing to do with it... besides sales
Not how it works Kris
Labels decide who remixes the tracks, Artists get payed for remixes, they cant pay 5 artists to remix a track and end up signing only 2
I know it's not how it works. It's just a way of thinking.
Imagine how competitve of a market it would be things actually worked this way. Always competing to get your remixes released??? One thing for sure.... there'd be a hell of alot better trance out there!
Anyone should be able to make a remix by choice, if only to press to white and use for themselves. Whether artists should be able to make money from their self-motivated remixes is a different matter. Some labels do approach certain artists to provide remixes when they are releasing a track, but ultimately, if the artist had any sense, it is them who decides whether a label can approach an artist for a remix.
