Hmm.....I guess Daddy and Dolly (let's call them DD?) may come to the rescue, but what does it say about them approving of this behavior? Daddy seems a little concerned, and not so sure Miss Parton's involved?
I don't think Dolly is involved in day-to-day decisions, but she's certainly got the juice to make sure Miley isn't taken advantage of. As far as what it says about them for approving this kind of behavior, I guess it says whatever judgement your own morality wants it to say.
And just what is she bringing to the table? Got no dog in this hunt, and really could care less....but it begs a question? Why was this behavior not needed by former stars who could sing a bit? Used to enjoy Karen Carpenter (what a great voice) but don't recall her needing this current action to sell records. Put differently, what kind of populace admires this behavior and buys music in support of an average singer?
What she brings to the table is her artistic expression. It's art. You know, art. And it's not about needing it to sell records, it's about expressing your art the way you want to. Picasso painted in the realistic manner during his childhood and adolescence, but then started experimenting with different theories, techniques and ideas in his late teens and beyond, coincidentally not unlike Miley Cyrus has done and is doing (and no, I'm not equating Picasso and Cyrus in terms of artistic ability). He certainly didn't start experimenting because he needed to do that to sell paintings, he did it because he needed to express himself in that manner.
I'm sure there are many fine examples of art, other than that of Miley Cyrus, that you don't care for or don't "get." Karen Carpenter's art is very different from Miley Cyrus, in exactly the same way that Picasso's art is different from Andy Warhol or Paul Gauguin, or Stevie Nicks is different from Ella Fitzgerald or Aretha Franklin.
So she produces, directs, has her own studio, and tells her contract people what she's going to do?
You're describing a one-woman show, which is not what I said at all. She doesn't produce, but she does hire the person who produces her albums, and does so to make sure the producer understands her vision for what she wants to accomplish. She doesn't direct, but she hires the director, for the same reason. She does have her own studio, but that's more for pre-production than for the actual recording, because it's way cheaper to use your own studio for rehearsals and working out the music than it is to pay the record label $10,000 an hour to use theirs. Likely, she is recording the master tracks in the RCA studios, but it could be a combination of several studios.
Peel back the layers, and this industry is just as corrupt and shameful as Hollyweird.
Oh, I've got some really angry stories I could tell about the music industry that would make Hollyweird look tame.
She's really got some weight to be telling these heavy hitters, what she's going to do....and just sit back and enjoy the show? Maybe this poster is so out of the loop, we can't seem to wrap our head around that one. In any believable sense, anyway.
Clearly you're out of the loop. It's not a "my way of the highway" deal from either side, although if it leans one way or the other, it leans in favor of the artist having more power, especially an artist who has established themselves as bankable. A record label signs an artist to a contract because the label wants that artist, and particularly in this Internet Age, the label needs the artist far more than the artist need the label. The contract is not an employment contract, it's a recording contract where the artist agrees to record x-number of tracks or albums, and the label agrees to promote and distribute the music. The level of artistic control the artist retains depends on the contract. But, it's not like you're in a house band and you play what you are told by the label (well, it kind of is like that for some, like boy bands, other groups like that). The label is hitching a ride on your art, for the money payoff, so they let you do pretty much whatever you want, as long as it's likely to make them money. They'll advise, but if you can't reconcile their recommendations with your art, or come to an agreement, you can walk.
Also, when you record a track for a label, the label owns the recording. They don't own the song, or anything else, but they own that particular recording of it. When the recording is played on the radio or a copy is sold in the store, the record label gets paid the royalty, not the artist. The label then pays the artist (and the writers of the song) their cut for the performance (at least that's how it's supposed to work <snort>). The lyrics and music writers get far more money than the performance artist (in Miley's case, she's usually the writer of the song, so she does get paid quite a bit per record). When an artist goes out on tour, with few exceptions, the record label make zero on that. They only time the label makes any money from a tour is (a) if they foot the bill for the tour or (b) any record sales that result from the tour. Often in a recording contract there is a clause that requires the artist to promote the album, either by media appearances or by a tour, or both. But the artist makes the bulk of their money not on record sales, but on tour money. They hook up with a tour company, or gather up their own sponsors, and hit the road. The artist calls the shots on the tour, the staging, how it's presented, all of it. The reason for a record deal for from an artist's perspective is to build a base that enables you to make money on tour.
A recording contract is an agreement between two parties, both of whom want to make you successful. Generally speaking, the advice a record label gives you is for your own good, and most artists will take heed of that advice.
As someone who recorded three albums for Epic records (now owned by The Pure Personification of Pure Evil - Sony Music), I can tell you that I had a considerable amount of artistic control, even during the first album, including selecting the producers (with the approval of the label). The second and third albums I pretty much had total artistic control. What went on the tracks is exactly what I wanted to go on there. The first album we recorded at Columbia Studios in NYC (Epic and Columbia were both divisions of CBS Records, now they're all owned by Pure Evil). The second and third albums we recorded at a recording studio in Cincinnati, because they were a fraction of what CBS charged for studio the Columbia studio time ($40 versus IIRC $900 and change). When you put in 150-300 hours on an album, it adds up.
