Would you let your talented & beautiful minor child sign a record deal?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Let’s say you have a 14-year-old child who sings like Orpheus, dances like Terpsichore, and looks like a budding Aphrodite (or Adonis, if your prefer). Improbably enough, though, this child has never shown any interest in music as a career; she or he wants to be an astrophysicist, an archeologist, or whatnot. While performing in a school play the child is disccovered by a record executive who approaches you with an offer for a contract, the terms of which will be enough to pay for the child’s college and grad school, at a mininum. A thorough and expert background check verifies his bona fides.

Do you agree?

If no, why not? If no, does your answer change if the child is older? Does it change if the child wants to be a musician anyway?

If yes, why?

2

If the kid doesn’t want to do it as a career, I wouldn’t push it so far as to sign a contract.
I might point out the idea that such a move would pave the way to the career of choice later on. I’d still lean against it because of the bullshit crap that happens in the entertainment industry that can wreak havoc on a child’s psyche.

I’d also want more information on the agent, specifically the track record of his former underage clients after their careers ended.

3

First of all, only if the child says “Yes,” without persuasion on my or the record executive’s part. It’d be a horrible thing to force a child into, and would seem like the quickest way to ensure a painful VH1 special demonizing the angelic child star’s money-grubbing family.

The rest really depends on the contract. It seems to me that most major labels take the lion’s share of profits and that the actual performer only gets a small royalty, from which is subtracted the costs of production, reproduction, and marketing. Many or most bands or musicians signed to record deals don’t actually make a profit from the deal.

But even if the kid is going to make a significant guaranteed profit (not an advance on profits), it’s going to depend on the length. Record an album? Sure, that’s not going to take that long or necessarily interfere with schooling. A nine-month world tour? Few adults can handle that, let alone children. The acceptable time commitment would increase, naturally, with the kid’s interest and age.

4

Do you even let the record exec TALK to the kid? Because my inclination is to say “No, you may not speak to my child outside of my presence, and if you attempt to do so even once I will cut off all negotiations forthwith, and also bite you.”

5

My husband toured internationally with a musician who was 14 at the time. According to him, her parents were really driving the whole show; while she had been interested in and agreed to recording and touring, her parents here overbearing, weirdly overprotective (for instance, the rest of the band, who were all adults, were forbidden from having alcohol ever. Even in their own hotel rooms. I’ll leave it to you to decide how much they respected that particular rule.) and just generally awful to deal with.

Assuming the child is successful – or even just really devoted – recording and touring are adult-level activities that take maturity and drive that simply isn’t (generally) developed enough in a minor. It forces the kid to miss a lot of the social and educational growth that the rest of the kids their age are getting. I like to think I’d be an awesome parent, but I don’t see how a healthy balance can be struck between the kid’s talent and the expectations that become heaped on wunderkind from the rest of the world. The kid has all the talent, but doesn’t get to control the outcome, and in many ways SHOULDN’T control the outcome, because he or she doesn’t have the maturity or even legal status to do it.

P.S. The musician my husband worked with burned out and disappeared for awhile, but is now working on her own stuff again, this time as an adult, without her parents’ interference.

6

As long as my child wasn’t against it, and everyone involved understood I’m going to be the “dad from hell”. I would, but there’s no way I’d let my child become some arrogant, self-entitled prick. At least no more than any other person her age.

7

Presupposing it is a girl. I couldn’t see myself with a son for some reason.

first, I would have to know what kind of contract … if it is for a single record with one or two videos to go along with it, I would consider it. Anything more than that, no.

Secondly, the kid would have to agree. I would obviously know that my kid wants to be an archeologist, and may like singing and dancing around but not want to do it in public. I don’t care if she is better than Shirley Temple, if she doesn’t like performing in public, I for one is not going to force her. If she decides it would be a neat way to get the money for school, then I am OK with that. Beats picking string beans for migrant money in the summer.

Third, I would have to have some form of control over the process. I have seen to many little girls tarted up to look like whores and dancing like strippers on youtube videos of wannabe stage mommies trying to get their kids image out there trying for a contract. My little girl is not a slut. I would not want her singing slutty songs, or violent songs [like the forms of rap where they are always talking about shooting, rape and stuff like that] There is a lot of good music out there … how about some classic motown? or classic rock? Imagine having a new Billie Holiday or Mahelia Jackson, or Mama Cass Eliot?

8

I’d be very careful about the contract, and I’d want to be involved heavily, but you know, with care and provisos, I don’t see it as automatically a bad thing.

I mean, I danced professionally for years and loved it. However, there was no contract involved.

I don’t know. It wouldn’t be an easy decision, that’s for sure.

9

You have to look at it two ways, first of all is the child really gifted?

I’m from the old school of thought that people with gifts need to share them with the world. If you’re hitting high notes like Minnie Ripperton, you should have that gift developed.

The OP brings up another important point, money. It’s very expensive for a child to go to college. In my day, kids didn’t get much help from their parents for college. My parents were dead by the time I got to college and it was very difficult to go to school, maintain a flat and a job and a car all at 16 years old.

Had I had access to money there is no question that I would’ve gone on to MUCH bigger and better things. I am very intellegent and capable of so much.

By 16 a child needs to start learning, “Hey you are going to have to make choices and those choices you make will cost you or reward you.”

So instead of signing a recording contract, working for three months and getting enough money to go through college for the next four years isn’t worth it to the child. Then it needs to be explained, that’s fine, but you won’t be going to Princeton, but instead you’ll be going through junior college and making Tacos at Taco Bell to pay for that.

And let’s face it working at a fast food resturant isn’t going to be any less a hassle than a recording contract.

The thing is a substantal proporation of people don’t like their jobs, a lot of them detest their jobs, yet they do it anyway, to make ends meet.

Would I push my child, I would not, but I’d make it darn well clear the money and opportunites you’re giving up may never come back and the alternatives you are left with may be just as bad, if not worse.

And if the child is still adament, fine, it’s his/her choice.

You know really money and fame are nice, but they are not the end all. I’m not saying having a health checking book isn’t a good thing, but it isn’t having the money and/fame it’s what you do with it that counts.

10

If the child was genuinely interested in doing it without any pushing, then absolutely yes, with a lot of guidence and a lot of restrictions in the contract, including an escape clause of some sort if everything goes bad. It’s a chance to really alter the course of their life into something special.

If the child isn’t interested in the first place, then it’s a firm no. It’s too stressful and dangerous to do if it’s not something you love. You don’t want your kid to become the next Lindsey Lohan.

11

Why? What if the person with the gift doesn’t care for the activity?

I have been told that I have a football player’s build. phrase it thus because I n’t care for sports and know very little about the game. I’m not simply uninterested in it; I’m actively bored by it. The occasions ,. Let’s say that was true, and let’s say I have – well, had, at this point–the potential to be a truly wonderful quarterback or whatever. Should I have been obliged as a child to participate in an activity which I knew, at the age of twelve, I hated, becuase I owed it to the world to share my “gift” to the world?

12

If they showed any interest in producing music where the appreciation of it depends on their (admittedly great) dancing ability, I’d have mixed feelings about being known as the father of a pop star. I probably wouldnt let him or her sign a contract without giving me personally an extra ohhhh, say, $200,000 on top of anything my child would get. That would assuage the sucky music guilt and inevitable pop star meltdown tabloid stories quite nicely. No 200 grand, they can wait till they’re 18 or play rock music.

13

And throw my mother and you, and she weighs 190lb. And then I’d have her and her mother explain your faults to you in detail. And they wouldn’t be required to stop while you ate, tried to sleep or attempted to use the porcelain throne.

If the child was interested in it and I thought (s)he was able to defend hirself and either parental unit was able to play “the Artist’s Mother-cum-Dragon,” then I’d go for it. Otherwise, no. I wouldn’t make my child go on a stage and dance for a lot of unknown people any more than I’d make them learn anything not required by law which they weren’t interested in.

Since I don’t have kids and don’t intend to, apply it to my brothers and nephews. In no case was “becoming an artist” involved, but for some reason several parents of kids I used to babysit asked me to convince their children to study what the parents wanted (not what the child wanted) and in every case I was able to turn the parents around. I also was able to get Middlebro to be able to choose any major he fancied (in Lilbro’s case it wasn’t a problem, as what he wanted to study was what my parents wanted him to study).

I’m good at caring for people, but I’m good at it because I’ve been doing it almost since I was big enough to stand up without holding onto the furniture. Every time my parents tried to push me into nursing, I felt like puking up my first breakfast. I wouldn’t have been happy as a nurse in a million years.

14

I’d like to add, that even if the child didn’t want to do it, I’d have to think long and hard about it. Being forced into something isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are many things I would’ve missed out on experiencing if I hadn’t been forced.

15

[blurp] excuse me.

16

Even if my child said yes, I’d have to say no. Children do not have long attention spans, and what could interest them highly one week could be held in disdain the next.

17

You’re excused, Counselor. Now do youh have a, ah, point?

18

Absolutely not. I’m not a parent, but I would hope that if I was I wouldn’t be the stage mother type who’d force her child into things she or he didn’t want to do. I’d be happy and proud that my child wanted to pursue a serious academic career and I’d encourage that rather than trying to push an alternate career path…especially in an industry as fickle and cruel as professional entertainment. I also think 14 is way too young to be a pop star.

*I wouldn’t be pushing a son or daughter of any age into a recording contract. I guess if our family was desperately poor I might try to talk the kid into it, but as long as we’ve got a roof over our heads and food on the table then no. If my kid actually wanted to become a performer then that would be a different story. My preference would be that the kid finish high school first, but I *might *consider allowing a 16+ child to enter into a recording contract if it wasn’t going to interfere with his or her education. But not a 14 year old. The kid’s not going to forget how to sing, and will presumably be just as attractive to a record company in another few years.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a 14 year old doing some semi-professional performing like singing at weddings or joining a teen garage band, but I would not want a child that young to have to deal with the pressures of a contract or with the media attention that goes along with that.

19

If the kid wants to do it, I’ll allow it. I’ll also be the child’s agent, so I know the contract is drafted in acceptable terms and all performances/rehearsals will be properly supervised.

20

I’d have the contract looked over with a fine toothed comb. I wouldn’t let them sign anything that might leave them indebted. As long as the record label is willing to assume all of the risk and s/he is able to renegotiate at 18 without preconditions.

As far as the bit about the kid not WANTING to do it, it kind of negates it. If the kid WANTS to then sure, if not then whatever.