The only way to stop all of this is when independent companies outside of the current music industry starts owning the majority of the music and making better deals with companies like spotify.
It's the equivalent of being broke, eating Ramen, and working 16 hour days at your startup. Then someone comes along and offers $600K. You know it might be worth more, but nothing's guaranteed.
I have music on Spotify and I get 2/10ths of a cent per play. I've earned enough to buy a cup of coffee and not much else. I can't imagine anyone trying to make an actual living that way.
It wouldn't be your only source of income if you did try to earn a living as an independent musician. Look at Oddisee, an indy rapper and producer from Brooklyn, as an example. It's a full time job but he's doing it. He sells music, streams it on all the streaming platforms, tours, produces and cameos on other's work.
In a sea of content, each piece's value is minimal. I can pick anything to watch or listen to. Why should I listen to yours?
You're no longer fighting for dollars as an artist, you're fighting for attention. There are more people out there willing to give their content away for pennies or free then people who want to live off of the music they make.
Perhaps artists should hop on the basic income bandwagon.
Also there are so many other models out there - artists can get dedicated fans to subscribe to each new piece of content they create on sites like Patreon.com (founded by a YouTube musical duo tired of the pennies they were receiving). Pretty amazing - folks contribute a $1 or more for each new song, for example, as a way to keep artists producing. You'll see folks making a decent monthly income just off this channel - plus getting some great connections communicating with their fans.
I agree with mikehawkins - if artists are not getting enough from the current distribution model, why not try out things like Patreon.. anyone here who has tried that and can share some numbers?
I don't disagree that other options should be tried; I'm saying that they likely won't work en masse. You'll always find artists who will find patronage through a small following, but we're not headed back to the era of large swaths of the music industry making a living off of their music.
Walk into your typical library. Look at all of the books on the shelves. Pick a random book. Pull it out. Imagine that book yells at you "I deserve more money if you want to read me!".
Do you pay for the privilege to read that book? Or do you push it back in and pick from the thousands of other books available? We are awash in cheap/free content, that's the problem.
I like the way that services like Patreon can bring fans closer to the musicians. I'm an indie novelist and while my sales are not nearly high for me to write books as a career I regularly get tweets etc nudging me to get the next book out. If this interaction can be improved for both parties so much the better. Mind you - it may not work with artists/writers with huge amounts of fans!
Blame for what exactly? A song doesn't warrant listeners or revenue just because it exists, "make something people want" doesn't just apply to developer-entrepreneurs.
The model for all these companies are flawed.
I think both consumers and musicians would gain from having it like the radio where non-profit organizations (ASCAP?) handle all of this. That way all music could be distributed through all apps and the copyright owners would get reasonable pay for it.
As someone living in the UK, I'm a huge fan - BBC's compulsory licensing for TV pays for a wide range of content from TV to radio, all top-notch... especially Radio 6 - a wonderful way to discover new music free from commercial constraints.
Back in the day, I paid for music when I went to the store and bought a CD. These days, I pay for music every month of every year, whether I listen to music from that service or not.
Every week I check out new releases and see albums from bands and there are no descriptions of either. What do labels really do? Where's the marketing?
There's still enough money flowing from listeners into the music eco-system, but the player's aren't doing their job.
60 years worth of content, where significant amounts should have been public domain already, had not said industry corrupted copyright law to make copyright perpetual, making it go against its very own intention.
I really do not understand why artists sell their work to record labels anymore. Back in the days, they would in theory get some marketing and promotion out of it in addition to the all-important distribution. Now that distribution is practically free and the most successful artists promote themselves (through touring and other means) what is the point of working with record labels? Being a musician myself, it is perplexing to me.
Without the record label, the artist can negotiate way better deals and doesn't have to pay over 90% to record labels that just don't care about them. Does Spotify not negotiate with individual artists? I wouldn't be surprised and that would explain a lot of this. Still, there are many other ways of distribution and promotion that artists could seek out with the 90%+ of the earnings they're no longer giving up.
As far as I can tell, it no longer matters to most artists' financial standing if listeners are obtaining their music legally or by piracy since the bottom line is essentially the same (asymptotical to zero) for all but the most successful musicians.
Up front money and access. Studio time is expensive. Imagine working every day at your crappy job, saving up enough time to put together some tracks, struggling with getting people to your YouTube channel or getting your songs a single play on the radio at 3am. Someone comes along with a $50K advance check, or you can continue to struggle and possibly one day control your destiny.
Imagine Eminem had remained independent, and never signed with Interscope (parent of Aftermath). He'd have a following, but not be the hundred millionaire. Look at Tech N9ne - got in the music game the same time as Eminem, has his own label, and is reasonably successful. However, he doesn't get the same venues, only last year got on national television, and struggles to get the big name collaborations. (His latest album was hyped to have a collaboration with Eminem after a couple years of trying, and if you listen to it, it's obvious that it was an afterthought for Eminem, definitely not his A-game)
This is certainly the way it used to be, but nowadays any musician can buy enough equipment to get started in any genre even if they're making very little money. With a few hundred and definitely a couple thousand dollars, anyone with the will to do it can put together a "bedroom studio" that will rival any record label in production quality. There is little to no value in an artist taking $50k in debt (as unlikely as the scenario is to be in the first place) for production. So that only leaves marketing and promotion, which allegedly the labels do, but in reality, they only do it for their highest grossing artists, if that. Or the artist could save up one or two thousand, buy their own equipment, produce whatever tracks they want, and get just about as much promotion and marketing from the labels as if they were signed (asymptotical to zero). So my question does indeed still stand. As far as your Eminem example, Eminem came out in the late 90's when self-production was not quite affordable yet and was just starting to reach quality on par with professional studios. He's also one of the most extremely talented rappers so comparing him to someone that isn't on his level easily explains the discrepancy between the two.
There's nothing in the contract between Sony and Spotify that's all that surprising. Even the large looking advance of $45M is only a small fraction of what Spotify would have paid Sony each year.
If anything, the "unfairness" of the contract terms is a reflection of the HUGE amount of leverage the record labels have because their content is so valuable. Is it evil for the labels to attempt to maximize their profit while minimizing Spotify's?
I know I'm a little late to the party, and I know this is a little off topic, but I've always wondered why bands didn't function more like companies. I spent a lot of time recording music in highschool and college, for myself and others, and something that constantly struck me was how musicians are essentially companies, but didn't act like it at all.
The goal of musicians and companies is very closely aligned, and I think bands could learn a lot looking at how companies grow. Conversely, I've always wondered why no one ever "invested" in a band, just like people invest in a company.
In my dream world, I'd love to start a Ycombinator for musicians. Essentially, something where a band could "apply" and investors could take a small share of the "band" in return for startup capital. I'd imagine that the 3 or 4 months could be spent organizing the band and recording an album which could be debuted at a "demo day". The same qualities that go into good founders also go into good musicians, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, the whole point of this is to say that I understand why record companies exist, but I think their usefulness in life is diminishing by the day.
33 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 71.9 ms ] threadYou're no longer fighting for dollars as an artist, you're fighting for attention. There are more people out there willing to give their content away for pennies or free then people who want to live off of the music they make.
Perhaps artists should hop on the basic income bandwagon.
Walk into your typical library. Look at all of the books on the shelves. Pick a random book. Pull it out. Imagine that book yells at you "I deserve more money if you want to read me!".
Do you pay for the privilege to read that book? Or do you push it back in and pick from the thousands of other books available? We are awash in cheap/free content, that's the problem.
Every week I check out new releases and see albums from bands and there are no descriptions of either. What do labels really do? Where's the marketing?
There's still enough money flowing from listeners into the music eco-system, but the player's aren't doing their job.
No sympathy. At all.
They hold the rights to at least 60 years of content.
> No sympathy. At all.
For whom?
Yeah. No sympathy.
Without the record label, the artist can negotiate way better deals and doesn't have to pay over 90% to record labels that just don't care about them. Does Spotify not negotiate with individual artists? I wouldn't be surprised and that would explain a lot of this. Still, there are many other ways of distribution and promotion that artists could seek out with the 90%+ of the earnings they're no longer giving up.
As far as I can tell, it no longer matters to most artists' financial standing if listeners are obtaining their music legally or by piracy since the bottom line is essentially the same (asymptotical to zero) for all but the most successful musicians.
Imagine Eminem had remained independent, and never signed with Interscope (parent of Aftermath). He'd have a following, but not be the hundred millionaire. Look at Tech N9ne - got in the music game the same time as Eminem, has his own label, and is reasonably successful. However, he doesn't get the same venues, only last year got on national television, and struggles to get the big name collaborations. (His latest album was hyped to have a collaboration with Eminem after a couple years of trying, and if you listen to it, it's obvious that it was an afterthought for Eminem, definitely not his A-game)
If anything, the "unfairness" of the contract terms is a reflection of the HUGE amount of leverage the record labels have because their content is so valuable. Is it evil for the labels to attempt to maximize their profit while minimizing Spotify's?
Only 2 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9570259
The goal of musicians and companies is very closely aligned, and I think bands could learn a lot looking at how companies grow. Conversely, I've always wondered why no one ever "invested" in a band, just like people invest in a company.
In my dream world, I'd love to start a Ycombinator for musicians. Essentially, something where a band could "apply" and investors could take a small share of the "band" in return for startup capital. I'd imagine that the 3 or 4 months could be spent organizing the band and recording an album which could be debuted at a "demo day". The same qualities that go into good founders also go into good musicians, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, the whole point of this is to say that I understand why record companies exist, but I think their usefulness in life is diminishing by the day.