The music industry is notorious for its potential pitfalls and dangers that artists often face. One striking example is the case of Pharrell Williams and his hit song "Happy." Despite the song's global success, Pharrell made very little from it due to the insidious nature of his record label's contract. This article will discuss the dangers of the music industry, using Pharrell's experience as a case study, and explain how Big & Tall Records' business model differs, & how much Pharrell would have made if he had gone through Big & Tall Records.

RADIOHEAD: THE INFLUENTIAL BRITISH ROCK BAND HAD A FALLING OUT WITH THEIR LABEL, EMI, IN THE LATE 2000S. THEY ACCUSED THE COMPANY OF CORPORATE GREED AND LEFT THE LABEL TO SELF-RELEASE THEIR 2007 ALBUM "IN RAINBOWS" AS A PAY-WHAT-YOU-WANT DIGITAL DOWNLOAD. THE MOVE WAS GROUNDBREAKING AT THE TIME AND SPARKED A BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ROLE OF RECORD LABELS IN THE DIGITAL AGE.

THE ROLLING STONES: THE LEGENDARY ROCK BAND SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH DECCA RECORDS IN 1963, WHICH INCLUDED A VERY LOW ROYALTY RATE. THEY EVENTUALLY FORMED THEIR OWN RECORD LABEL, ROLLING STONES RECORDS, IN 1970 TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR MUSIC AND FINANCES.

Prince: The legendary musician had a highly publicized battle with his label, Warner Bros., in the 1990s. He accused the company of controlling his artistic output and not paying him fairly for his work. Prince went so far as to change his name to an unpronounceable symbol to get out of his contract.

TOM PETTY: THE LATE ROCK MUSICIAN FOUGHT AGAINST HIS LABEL, MCA RECORDS, IN THE 1980S OVER THE PRICING OF HIS ALBUMS. HE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY TO GET OUT OF HIS CONTRACT AND EVENTUALLY SIGNED A NEW DEAL WITH THE LABEL THAT GAVE HIM MORE CONTROL OVER HIS MUSIC AND FINANCES.

Little Richard: The rock and roll pioneer signed with Specialty Records in the 1950s and received a low royalty rate of half a cent per record. He later discovered that the label had been underpaying him for years and eventually sued for unpaid royalties.

The Dixie Chicks: The country trio had a contentious relationship with their label, Sony Music, in the early 2000s. They sued the label for $4 million in unpaid royalties and sought to be released from their contract, claiming that the company was mistreating them. The lawsuit was eventually settled.

THE BEATLES: THE ICONIC BAND SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH EMI IN 1962 THAT INCLUDED A ROYALTY RATE OF JUST 1 PENNY PER RECORD SOLD, WHICH WAS SPLIT AMONG THE FOUR MEMBERS. DESPITE THEIR IMMENSE SUCCESS, THEY DIDN'T SEE THE KIND OF FINANCIAL REWARDS THEY SHOULD HAVE.

TLC: THE BEST-SELLING GIRL GROUP OF THE 1990S FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY IN 1995, DESPITE HAVING SOLD MILLIONS OF ALBUMS. THEY CITED MISMANAGEMENT AND UNDERPAYMENT BY THEIR LABEL, LAFACE RECORDS, AS CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. THE GROUP EVENTUALLY RENEGOTIATED THEIR CONTRACT AND CONTINUED TO MAKE MUSIC, BUT THEIR EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTED THE FINANCIAL STRUGGLES FACED BY EVEN THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ARTISTS.

Kesha: Kesha sued her producer, Dr. Luke, and Sony Music in 2014, alleging sexual assault and emotional abuse. She sought to be released from her contract but was initially denied by a judge. The legal battle, which lasted several years, greatly impacted her career and ability to release new music.

COURTNEY LOVE: THE HOLE FRONTWOMAN SUED HER LABEL, UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, IN 2001, ALLEGING THAT THE COMPANY HAD UNDERPAID HER AND HER BANDMATES. SHE ALSO SOUGHT TO BE RELEASED FROM HER CONTRACT. THE CASE WAS EVENTUALLY SETTLED OUT OF COURT

tricky ways labels screw artists:

1. 360 deals: Also known as "multiple rights deals," these contracts give the record label a percentage of the artist's earnings from all revenue streams, including live performances, merchandise sales, and endorsements, in addition to music sales. This can significantly reduce the artist's overall income.

2. Controlled composition clauses: These clauses stipulate that an artist will be paid a lower royalty rate for any songs they write or co-write. This can lead to a substantial reduction in earnings, especially for singer-songwriters who create most of their own material.

3. Breakage clauses: Originally designed to cover the costs of physical records damaged during shipping, breakage clauses still appear in some contracts, allowing labels to deduct a percentage of an artist's earnings even when no physical product is involved (e.g., digital streaming).

4. Cross-collateralization: This practice allows labels to recoup advances and expenses from one album by withholding royalties from subsequent albums. This can result in artists not receiving any royalties until all outstanding debts are paid, which may take several albums to achieve.

5. Creative accounting: Labels may use complicated accounting practices to minimize the royalties owed to artists. This can include underreporting sales, bundling albums with other products to reduce per-unit royalties, or inflating expenses to justify withholding royalties.

6. Packaging deductions: Some contracts include clauses that allow labels to deduct a percentage of an artist's royalties to cover packaging costs, even for digital sales where no physical packaging exists.

7. Exclusivity clauses: These clauses prevent artists from releasing music outside of their label deal, limiting their income potential and creative freedom.

8. Long-term contracts: Some record deals can lock artists into lengthy contracts, making it difficult for them to renegotiate better terms or leave a label that may not be acting in their best interests.

9. Option clauses: Labels often include option clauses in contracts, giving them the right to extend an artist's contract for additional albums without the artist's consent. This can limit an artist's ability to negotiate better terms or seek other opportunities.

10. Minimum delivery requirements: These clauses require artists to deliver a certain number of albums or songs within a specified time frame, which can put pressure on artists to produce content quickly and potentially compromise their creative vision.

    examples:

1. Sony Music Entertainment: Sony, one of the largest record labels globally, has been accused of exploiting its artists by using the "breakage clause," a relic from the vinyl era when a percentage of physical records were damaged during shipping. This clause allows labels to deduct a percentage of an artist's earnings to cover these damages, even in the digital age, when no physical product is involved.

2. Universal Music Group: Universal has been criticized for their practice of "controlled composition clauses" in contracts. This clause stipulates that an artist will be paid a lower royalty rate for any songs they write or co-write, which can significantly reduce the artist's earnings.

3. Warner Music Group: Warner has been involved in numerous disputes with artists over unpaid royalties, most notably with Prince. The label has been accused of hiding earnings from their artists and using creative accounting practices to minimize the royalties they owe.

4. EMI: EMI has faced accusations of corporate greed and prioritizing profits over artists' well-being. Radiohead's departure from the label and subsequent self-release of their album "In Rainbows" highlighted the power struggle between labels and artists in the digital age.

5. LaFace Records: This label, which was responsible for managing TLC, has been criticized for underpaying the group despite their massive success. The group's bankruptcy in the 1990s exposed the exploitative nature of their contracts, which left them with very little income even after selling millions of albums.

6. Kemosabe Records: Kesha's legal battle with her former producer Dr. Luke and Kemosabe Records, a subsidiary of Sony Music, exposed the abusive power dynamics between artists and their labels. Kesha's struggle to break free from her contract with the label raised awareness about the lack of control and protection artists have in these situations.

7. Imago Records: Aimee Mann's lawsuit against Imago Records revealed the label's breach of contract, leading to her release from the deal. Mann's fight for her rights as an artist underscored the importance of artists maintaining control over their careers and finances

Now lets assume you’ve been screwed. And now You’ve hired a lawyer to get some of that money back… 

Assuming an average hourly rate of $375 for a decent music lawyer and estimating the number of hours they might work on a case, it's possible to get an idea of the annual cost. Keep in mind that the total cost will vary depending on the specific services needed and the duration of the legal engagement.

If a music lawyer works on a case for 10 hours per month, the monthly cost would be $3,750 (10 hours x $375). Over a year, this would amount to $45,000 (12 months x $3,750). Assuming a music lawyer is actively involved in a case that goes to trial, they may need to dedicate more hours per month to the case. If we estimate that the lawyer spends 20 hours per month on the case, the monthly cost would be $7,500 (20 hours x $375). Over the course of a year, this would amount to $90,000 (12 months x $7,500).

While an artist is dealing with litigation and trying to protect their rights and royalties, it's important to be aware that some unscrupulous record labels may take advantage of the situation. They could potentially use their deep pockets and legal resources to prolong the litigation process, creating financial strain on the artist. This strategy can be aimed at wearing the artist down and forcing them to settle for less than they deserve or to give up their claim altogether.

As the legal battle continues, the label may be collecting and withholding the artist's royalties, further exacerbating the artist's financial hardship. Some labels may even use underhanded tactics, like hiding or underreporting royalties, to minimize the amount owed to the artist. These actions can lead to a significant imbalance of power, with the artist struggling to cover legal expenses while the label continues to profit from their work.

Dude, Big & Tall Records is like, totally excellent compared to all those other gnarly record labels, man. You see, instead of bogarting your earnings and tying you up in bummer contracts, Big & Tall Records is all about spreading the good vibes and making sure artists score big time, dude. No bogus contracts here, my friend! Big & Tall Records is all about giving you the freedom to rock on and be in control of your own destiny. You can like, cancel the agreement anytime, so you won't feel like you're stuck in some heinous labyrinth of paperwork, man.

We’re on a most triumphant mission to bring fairness and justice to the music industry. We’re jamming on a whole new level, showing other labels how to be excellent to each other and to the artists, dude.

So, in a world where most record labels are like total downers, Big & Tall Records is your ticket to an awesome, non-heinous future where you can totally shred and make some serious bank without feeling like you're trapped in a bogus nightmare, man. Party on, dudes!

Dude, like, it's totally gnarly how Pharrell's mega-awesome hit "Happy" had him feeling all bummed out, right? The music industry can be a major downer, with all those bogus contracts and greedy labels snaggin' the righteous earnings that should've gone to the artists. But, like, there's this rad label called Big & Tall Records that wants to help artists like Pharrell score big time, man!

If Pharrell had been rockin' with Big & Tall Records, he'd be all, "No way!" 'cause they would've totally helped him get that sweet, sweet moolah he deserved from "Happy." They're all about being excellent to their artists, giving them control, and helping them rake in the dough without the gnarly legal battles and bogus contracts.

So, next time you're groovin' to the sweet sounds of "Happy," think about how gnarly it would be if Big & Tall Records could help Pharrell get back all that righteous cash he should've made in the first place. Let's party on and support a music industry that's, like, way more excellent to artists, man!