Mojo presents...Leonard cohen
I agree with your question on this, Paula. It's inconceivable to me, as well. However, with all I've heard regarding the exploitation of artists by "their" record company, unfortunately, the answer may have already been provided via the number of this particular posting of yours, #666 
. This scenario sure lends understanding as to why some artists [finally or from the git-go] create and record on their own labels, eh?
~ Lizzytysh
. This scenario sure lends understanding as to why some artists [finally or from the git-go] create and record on their own labels, eh?~ Lizzytysh
Hi all (that's for those who know me "from another place" and eveyone else that doesn't).
Firstly an apology to Jarrko as I was a tad abrupt if not downright rude on this subject at "the other place" (a.m.l-c). Life ain't hot at the moment Jarrko which is why I was tetchy but I'm normally better than that. Sorry.
Anyhows, to add to this.
There are only 3 (not lots) of the Mojo introduction series so far. LC, Byrds and Mott The Hoople. All on Sony. And Leonard's is the only one that's a double CD.
As far as Leonard's input goes. As I understand the thinking behind the Mojo compilations it is a critic's choice as to the introduction and emphatically not the artiste's. Sony were obviously happy to licence the tracks to Mojo and - this is a complete assumption - without Leonard having any say so, this probably a requirement from Mojo. After all, they want to show how they, the critics, think the work has progressed down the years; choosing what they believe to the arttiste's best work. Don't forget, the artiste in question often is not the best judge of their own work.
BigAl
Firstly an apology to Jarrko as I was a tad abrupt if not downright rude on this subject at "the other place" (a.m.l-c). Life ain't hot at the moment Jarrko which is why I was tetchy but I'm normally better than that. Sorry.
Anyhows, to add to this.
There are only 3 (not lots) of the Mojo introduction series so far. LC, Byrds and Mott The Hoople. All on Sony. And Leonard's is the only one that's a double CD.
As far as Leonard's input goes. As I understand the thinking behind the Mojo compilations it is a critic's choice as to the introduction and emphatically not the artiste's. Sony were obviously happy to licence the tracks to Mojo and - this is a complete assumption - without Leonard having any say so, this probably a requirement from Mojo. After all, they want to show how they, the critics, think the work has progressed down the years; choosing what they believe to the arttiste's best work. Don't forget, the artiste in question often is not the best judge of their own work.
BigAl
A quick comment here....I have to disagree with this frequent tendency on this board that I have noticed of making the record company (in this case Sony) as some sort of mercenary villain or something. And if it is a profit-making venture it does so by providing an outlet for artists to make their work known on an international stage. This is a symbiotic relationship......artists like Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan are very fortunate they have a big company promoting their work internationally...not every deserving artist is so lucky. So yes, I don't see it as such a crime or a big deal at all.
This is only my opinion.....partly flawed no doubt.....in case folks wanna go ballistic about it.
This is only my opinion.....partly flawed no doubt.....in case folks wanna go ballistic about it.
Kush ~
You're absolutely right about the many deserving artists who cannot get the ear of the big companies, nor the marketing that they bring, even if the artists record on their own label.
My opinion of the [self-serving] big companies comes from reading so many exploitation, horror stories, where the artist ends up with virtually nothing financially, including the rights to their own songs. Also, with the way the companies insist on transforming the artists and their styles, according to what the company thinks will, and wants to, sell. Even with regard to Leonard's The Essential, it would seem that Master Song should have been included, simply because Leonard wanted it, without us ever getting involved [if that was the true scenario surrounding the selection of So Long, Marianne].
~ Lizzytysh
You're absolutely right about the many deserving artists who cannot get the ear of the big companies, nor the marketing that they bring, even if the artists record on their own label.
My opinion of the [self-serving] big companies comes from reading so many exploitation, horror stories, where the artist ends up with virtually nothing financially, including the rights to their own songs. Also, with the way the companies insist on transforming the artists and their styles, according to what the company thinks will, and wants to, sell. Even with regard to Leonard's The Essential, it would seem that Master Song should have been included, simply because Leonard wanted it, without us ever getting involved [if that was the true scenario surrounding the selection of So Long, Marianne].
~ Lizzytysh
record companies
I remember seeing LC talking about recording companies: to paraphrase:
When you are on top there is a limo waiting for you at the airport and champagne in your hotel room...but when your sales slide - you end up taking a cab from the airport and there may or may not be some cut flowers and a cheesebasket in your room.
This always made me chuckle.
It is a symbiotic relationship in some aspects - but mostly parasitic on the part of the record companies - as many artists who are being promoted are still broke and have to tailor their work to suit the dictated trends of the suits in control. Only after an artist has established themselves as an "earner" can they begin to push for a little control.
It is high wire politics at its finest.
T
When you are on top there is a limo waiting for you at the airport and champagne in your hotel room...but when your sales slide - you end up taking a cab from the airport and there may or may not be some cut flowers and a cheesebasket in your room.
This always made me chuckle.
It is a symbiotic relationship in some aspects - but mostly parasitic on the part of the record companies - as many artists who are being promoted are still broke and have to tailor their work to suit the dictated trends of the suits in control. Only after an artist has established themselves as an "earner" can they begin to push for a little control.
It is high wire politics at its finest.
T
its all about light
I noticed the 666 too. That number freaks me out I am glad to get rid of it. If only we could hop over that number.
Kush I have no problem with Sony taking it upon themselves to issue artists material and obviously the artist benefits I would have thought that there is copyright involved though and the artist themselves would have to consent. It might only apply to advertisments. Who owns the song catalogue is it the artist or the record company. I would have thought artist are almost always happy when their music is re-marketed. If for instance an artist objects to their music being used in, say, an advert or to promote a cause to which they object does the record company have carte blanche to make the decision.
I know that if music is used on adverts the user pays a blanket fee for use but if the artist was anti-war or anti-meat would they be able to overthrow the record companies decision? I know that Michael Jackson bought the Beatles back catalogue and has let their music be used for things that certainly Paul McCartney objects to. So do Sony own the catalogue or does Leonard?
Kush I have no problem with Sony taking it upon themselves to issue artists material and obviously the artist benefits I would have thought that there is copyright involved though and the artist themselves would have to consent. It might only apply to advertisments. Who owns the song catalogue is it the artist or the record company. I would have thought artist are almost always happy when their music is re-marketed. If for instance an artist objects to their music being used in, say, an advert or to promote a cause to which they object does the record company have carte blanche to make the decision.
I know that if music is used on adverts the user pays a blanket fee for use but if the artist was anti-war or anti-meat would they be able to overthrow the record companies decision? I know that Michael Jackson bought the Beatles back catalogue and has let their music be used for things that certainly Paul McCartney objects to. So do Sony own the catalogue or does Leonard?
Sony owns the back catalogue.
As Sony is the copyright and master owner they are not legally
obligated to ask for the permission. However, I think they have
promised not only to ask for Leonard's permission but to consult with
him on any track listing and the album artwork and liner notes -
therefore it was quite a surprise...
Jarkko
As Sony is the copyright and master owner they are not legally
obligated to ask for the permission. However, I think they have
promised not only to ask for Leonard's permission but to consult with
him on any track listing and the album artwork and liner notes -
therefore it was quite a surprise...
Jarkko
Well i don't know either Leonard Cohen or Sony people personally so I cannot make such judgments. Sony ( a japanese corporation BTW, whatever happened to all that Zen/eastern spirituality we keep hearing about ? ) is the medium by which I get to hear LC's music and I am quite happy with the arrangement. And I s'pose I contribute to both LC's and Sony employees livelihood by purchasing the CDs. So the extent of my interest is just that much and I have no particular complaints about either.
p.s. A quick internet search reveals the Sony CEO to be Nobuyuki Idei. Perhaps you can take your complaints to him. I guess he is more concerned about profits rather than Roshi and his Zen teachings.
p.p.s Ok here is the photo and biography of Mr. Idei....this self-serving person who lacks grace & ethics. Apparently he was/is a key figure in Sony's CD/music market establishment. Has a wife Teruyo and a daughter Mari. Likes golf, movies and is fluent in French and English. Just trying to put a human face behind this entity called Sony that everybody seems to dislike so much. Better to know your enemy.......
http://news.sel.sony.com/corporateinfo/ ... i-Idei.htm
) is the medium by which I get to hear LC's music and I am quite happy with the arrangement. And I s'pose I contribute to both LC's and Sony employees livelihood by purchasing the CDs. So the extent of my interest is just that much and I have no particular complaints about either.p.s. A quick internet search reveals the Sony CEO to be Nobuyuki Idei. Perhaps you can take your complaints to him. I guess he is more concerned about profits rather than Roshi and his Zen teachings.
p.p.s Ok here is the photo and biography of Mr. Idei....this self-serving person who lacks grace & ethics. Apparently he was/is a key figure in Sony's CD/music market establishment. Has a wife Teruyo and a daughter Mari. Likes golf, movies and is fluent in French and English. Just trying to put a human face behind this entity called Sony that everybody seems to dislike so much. Better to know your enemy.......
http://news.sel.sony.com/corporateinfo/ ... i-Idei.htm
sony music
I agree Kush, record compaies are a bit of a necesary evil in order for artists to get exposure, however the trend today towards independant releases - internet broadcasting etc...illuminate the frustration of artists everywhere who signed the "first deal" and will be in debt for the next 3 - 5 albums.
I am sure this probably doesn't apply to LC, but he also isn't considered one of Sony's "major" artists (by Sony). I say this only as a label sporting names like J-Lo, and Janet Jackson etc....probably doesn't recoup massive income from LC, sad as that is, and so probably doesn't care if they released some songs to generate more income in his name. It is all about the bottom line in the entertainment industry - yes it is art - but it is that weird zone where art meets business.
A better page to view is the Sony Music Entertainment Inc page, which has a list of the labels that Sony controls. Like any multi-national, they are attempting to monopolize the market and so went about purchasing as many major labels as they could - and with those purchases went the artists signed to them. I don't think LC actually signed with Sony, but one of its sub-lables before it becme a sub-label.
http://www.sonymusic.com/labels/
I have worked in the entertainment industry for about 20 years - and it can be a really sad thing to see a group of starry eyed artists decend from their $350,000 tour bus - about to play in front of 8,000 people - and know that as far as income goes - after costs of recording and touring, they are probably making a little more than a Kwicky-Mart clerk for (at least) the first 3-5 years in the market - provided they have a gold album.
It does depend on the deal that was signed, but in this day and age of manufactured groups - (which were manufactured so as to maximize profits and minimize overhead) - Sony Corporation doesn't really give a hoot what LC thinks about his songs being released without his knowledge half-way around the world.
LC does have the grace and understanding to know though - that there is no point fighting it - there are better battles to be fought. I have seen first hand, brilliant artists shelved* for up to 10 years because they argued with the wrong people at the wrong time.
*Shelved - your album is recorded and very few copies are released so that nobody knows you exist, but the record company holds to its bargin and can't be sued, nor can the artist be released.
My. I seem to have gone off on a bit of a rant. my appologies...but I do feel a bit better.
T
I am sure this probably doesn't apply to LC, but he also isn't considered one of Sony's "major" artists (by Sony). I say this only as a label sporting names like J-Lo, and Janet Jackson etc....probably doesn't recoup massive income from LC, sad as that is, and so probably doesn't care if they released some songs to generate more income in his name. It is all about the bottom line in the entertainment industry - yes it is art - but it is that weird zone where art meets business.
A better page to view is the Sony Music Entertainment Inc page, which has a list of the labels that Sony controls. Like any multi-national, they are attempting to monopolize the market and so went about purchasing as many major labels as they could - and with those purchases went the artists signed to them. I don't think LC actually signed with Sony, but one of its sub-lables before it becme a sub-label.
http://www.sonymusic.com/labels/
I have worked in the entertainment industry for about 20 years - and it can be a really sad thing to see a group of starry eyed artists decend from their $350,000 tour bus - about to play in front of 8,000 people - and know that as far as income goes - after costs of recording and touring, they are probably making a little more than a Kwicky-Mart clerk for (at least) the first 3-5 years in the market - provided they have a gold album.
It does depend on the deal that was signed, but in this day and age of manufactured groups - (which were manufactured so as to maximize profits and minimize overhead) - Sony Corporation doesn't really give a hoot what LC thinks about his songs being released without his knowledge half-way around the world.
LC does have the grace and understanding to know though - that there is no point fighting it - there are better battles to be fought. I have seen first hand, brilliant artists shelved* for up to 10 years because they argued with the wrong people at the wrong time.
*Shelved - your album is recorded and very few copies are released so that nobody knows you exist, but the record company holds to its bargin and can't be sued, nor can the artist be released.
My. I seem to have gone off on a bit of a rant. my appologies...but I do feel a bit better.
T
its all about light
thank you for the informed comments TC. It's just that I cannot agree with the general tone on this thread. i do not consider big record companies as evil at all - necessary or not. And i do not understand this kind of rants against a corporation....corporations are filled with people like you and me and 160,000+ at Sony. Yes it is about making profit and that makes peoples lives better both materialistically and otherwise. My lifetime of music education and appreciation would have been much diminished were it not for the "big record companies". maybe I do not know enough about the ins and outs of all this but from my perspective I really do not see the big deal about all this. Art meets business is not necessary evil , just necessary the way I see it. Sorry.
p.s. People like to attack faceless entities like Sony, Columbia or for that matter NYU (on another thread). Which was why i brought up a name and personality to represent Sony. While you may be factually correct about the labels, that is again easier to attack....a faceless entity without personality. Ok this my rant for the evening and now I shall stay away from this thread.
p.s. People like to attack faceless entities like Sony, Columbia or for that matter NYU (on another thread). Which was why i brought up a name and personality to represent Sony. While you may be factually correct about the labels, that is again easier to attack....a faceless entity without personality. Ok this my rant for the evening and now I shall stay away from this thread.
Last edited by Kush on Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
No worries Kush, life would be dull if we all agreed on everything.
And please, to clarify - I do not think that the "people" are evil, just the system has grown in such a way that it sort of precludes humanitarian behaviour - to a certain degree.
Yes. Without Recording companies we would not have the wonderful exposure we do to such a broad range of artists. Also - there are people who work at these companies who genuinely love the arts and music - otherwise they would not be doing this...however - as with any massive organization - at some point people stop being people and become figures or numbers.
There isn't anybody I know who wouldn't be thrilled at the chance to have exposure by a major label - but one must be very careful and political, and have an estute lawyer in order to make it work right for them. Perhaps if more private businesses held hands with the arts this might empower artists a little more. But when there is only one hand feeding you - you have to nibble very carefully.
And please, to clarify - I do not think that the "people" are evil, just the system has grown in such a way that it sort of precludes humanitarian behaviour - to a certain degree.
Yes. Without Recording companies we would not have the wonderful exposure we do to such a broad range of artists. Also - there are people who work at these companies who genuinely love the arts and music - otherwise they would not be doing this...however - as with any massive organization - at some point people stop being people and become figures or numbers.
There isn't anybody I know who wouldn't be thrilled at the chance to have exposure by a major label - but one must be very careful and political, and have an estute lawyer in order to make it work right for them. Perhaps if more private businesses held hands with the arts this might empower artists a little more. But when there is only one hand feeding you - you have to nibble very carefully.
its all about light
Actually, Kush, I appreciated the face[s] that you put to Sony. Thanks for thinking in those terms and bringing those details here. I used to view bureaucracies as being merely comprised of individuals, with whom it was possible to reasonably communicate one-on-one. After working in those "structures," I came to see how the individuals tend to become molded, according to the bigger picture. People want to keep their jobs and/or progress, and ethics tend to get chipped away in that process. That is a broad-sweeping statement that actually requires a lot more detail to stand alone. However, that is the jist that I'm going for. Many of the individuals get processed out, in lieu of the bigger picture ~ whatever it may be.