Could someone please explain to me how Fred Durst was given a record label to run? How can something like this happen? How did he fool Geffen Records into giving him a vanity label (Flawless) under their umbrella? Does he have naked pictures of a high level executive? What makes him qualified to run anything considering how lame his band was? They could have saved money by hiring a chimpanzee.
2007-10-26 07:42:49 · 22 answers · asked by Rckets 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
Rick W - Sorry but I strongly disagree with your opinion. As much as I like She Wants Revenge, they aren't going to make anyone rich anytime soon. And Limp Bizkit had ONE smash album, exactly how does that make him a huge success? There is no way Flawless Records is selling "tons of records."
2007-10-26 08:42:15 · update #1
Bettie - Legendarily horrible perhaps. Thanks for being a voice of reason.
2007-10-26 08:49:41 · update #2
Moonchild - Wait, let me check....nope, still me. That was a good line. Plus, I'd be too busy with Black Light Burns to worry about the R & P.
2007-10-26 08:53:10 · update #3
Sookie - Maybe everyone meant he's a legendary punchline, that would make sense. So, now we got an eye spinner, a choker and you can add me to the list. My head is spinning around Exorcist style.
2007-10-26 08:55:41 · update #4
GK Dub - I remember hearing about the Interscope deal as well and being equally shocked. The only difference is that Jimmy Iovine must have awoken from the spell he was under and came back to reality. I'll say this much, Durst is clearly a master BS artist.
2007-10-26 09:06:08 · update #5
Fred Durst is a LEGEND?
OMG, my eye is twitching...
2007-10-26 07:48:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 20⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much any successful artist can get their own label if they want to. I could understand if the artist had been in the business for years and knew how the record industry worked, but many artists get their own label just 1 album into their career...Fred Durst, Aaron Lewis, even Trent Reznor. Right when Limp Bizkit's 2nd album was released, I remember reading that Fred Durst was like the vice-president of Interscope (or some major position like that) and my eyes nearly fell out of my head. I thought, "HOW? Of all the major artists on that label, why him?"
I think a bigger question is why Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Ashley Simpson, and Kelly Hogan were automatically given record deals having NO previous musical experience whatsover. Could they sing? No! Could they dance? No! Could they write songs? No! Could they play an instrument? No! Were they already famous and likely to sell records just because of who they were? Yes! It's so sad that so many brilliant, talented musicians will never be heard by the world, and yet these bimbos with no musical background are given record deals just because they're rich and on TV. Sorry, I guess I got off topic.
2007-10-26 14:59:12 · answer #2 · answered by GK Dub 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Huevo is right - it's the equivalent of hiring a celebrity spokesperson, or finding a "brand name" to endorse a product that'll boost sales, and increase interest in the new "acts" that are signed. And all of this is under the bogus assumption that people view Durst as some sort of music visionary. Of course, someone should have informed the Universal Group that the likes of Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach, Korn, etc, would be short-lived and replaced by emo acts ... so what's next? Maybe Pete Wentz and Gerard Way are next on Geffen's "vanity" label list....the chimpanzee remark was classic!
2007-10-28 19:08:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Coming into 2000 and then for 2004, what made people think that George Bush could run a country? Nothing (and I still think he can't) but it's the same kind of position that Fred Durst is in. What the two of them share is name recognition that got them into the place they're currently at. I have a feeling that Durst is more of a figurehead to attract fans and bands that are similar to his style of music (if you want to call it a style). I'm sure Geffen is smart enough to place the appropriate people behind him to make the decisions required to run a record company. It's just a lot easier to attract people to listen to music coming from a label run by Fred Durst as opposed to, let's say, Rick W.
Personally I find Durst to be a tool, much like Bush, and wouldn't listen to a single thing coming off his label. I should also probably see who's signed to Geffen and boycott them too.
2007-10-26 20:19:16 · answer #4 · answered by Huevo 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It was that whole rap-metal craze... They were signing everything, and most of it was pretty awful. It also probably didn't hurt that Durst was in tight with Jonathan Davis. I always thought Limp Bizkit sucked, even by rap-metal standards... There were other bands that were better at it that got lost in the wake of the backwards red hat. I have another great mystery that needs solving... Who told Fred Durst that it would be a good idea to do Behind Blue Eyes?!?! That person should be subjected to wedgies, noogies, and purple nurples for the next 1000 years.
2007-10-26 16:27:23 · answer #5 · answered by ♫ՖքØØķ¥♫ 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Legend? When was this established? In the late 90s any rock band could've been classified as badass as long as they became so-called hardcore and not to mention MAIN STREAM. Most record labels are waiting for a sell-out like Fred Durst.
2007-10-26 15:00:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Fred Durst (solo and with Limp Bizkit) is a HUGE success in the music industry. You may not like his music, but he made tens of millions of dollars for the record industry. HUGE success grants you nearly any privilege the music industry can provide.
You may not like his choice of bands for his label, but I'd bet my house that they're selling tons of records and turning a profit... which is all that the music industry is about.
Thanks for your reply above. There's no doubt that Fred Durst is an industry success. I've been making records for 20+ years, and even with a small success on MTV and a couple movies, you've never heard of me. Durst has made more $$ from selling XL T-shirts than I've made in my entire career doing everything.
I'm sure you've noticed that when modern record companies smell a hit, 20 other clone bands pop up with similar sounding music. With an upstart label like Flawless, the people with the $$ are counting on Durst to bring recognition to the label, and are hoping that the pop-hit lightning strikes again so that they can turn a profit... What better way to "seed" that effort, than have it promoted by a proven industry success???
None, my friend. None.
2007-10-26 14:46:50 · answer #7 · answered by Rick W 5 · 9⤊ 2⤋
Wow. How did that happen?!! He can't even run his own life, how will he manage a label? What I don't get is why Geffen does this, but wouldn't give The Starting Line enough money for them to stay with Geffen.
2007-10-26 14:54:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
The same reason that gets Britney spears to sell any records at all.
Brainwashed masses listen to what music industry force-feeds them and the one with the greater record sells revenue gets the biggest slice of the pie.
If there's enough zeros at the end of the number, and the little spoiled brat wants his own label, he gets it.
2007-10-26 16:08:58 · answer #9 · answered by Ymmo the Heathen 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the greatest mystery is whether "Dark Side of the Moon" was deliberately arranged to match "The Wizard of Oz."
1) Coincidence?
2) Deliberate?
3) Jungian Synchronicity?
2007-10-28 13:50:52 · answer #10 · answered by Todd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, Durst is a legend. He's the king of the douche-bags and his crown is that crappy red hat.
It's already been said a lot, but I agree it's all about the benzos and Limp Bizkut was in the right place at the right time.
****************
I have fallen into an epileptic fit.
2007-10-26 15:38:35 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋