Apple has 123,000 employees. $27B distributed among that many employees would be $220k. That’s probably close to their average salary, so it sort of checks out.
Yes, I’m aware. the lesson the majors took away from punk was cooption. It was easier to let artists making music that might not appeal to the mainstream retain their independence via subsidary labels (Trent Reznor’s label Nothing was a subsidary of another label, which was a subsidary of Interscope, and both of which were ultimately owned by Universal Music group).
Yep. Not at all an uncommon story.
I want to say that the average income for working musicians today (meaning pop musicians, not people in other fields like the classical world, etc) is about $33,000… In many places that’s at or near the poverty line. This includes many people who have had what people would consider a successful career in music, too. Keeping in mind that some of the top paid artists make tens of millions a year (U2, Metallica, Bruno Mars, Jay-Z/Beyonce, etc), that’s quite a spread to get the average being that low.
Now I wonder if that number (12%) takes into account people who are using mechanisms such as Patreon or Band Camp to be more fully independent (not having a label at all to deliver content to their fans)?
But yeah, the thing is, none of this is a new problem in the music industry. What year did Albini write his famous essay about the music industry? The late 80s or early 90s sometime?
I do think part of the problem is that many people don’t understand the nature of the labor in the first place and how artists on majors (or major indies) get renumerated in general or the role that publishing rights plays in how an artist can profit from their work. The music industry is a pretty mystifying process, because all most people see is the glamour, not the variety or type of work that goes into songwriting or performing (which isn’t always done by the same person).
5 Likes
The singer for one of my favorite bands, Shearwater, has been on tour with his side-project, Loma, for the past few months, mostly in Europe. About a month back he sent out an email plea to his mailing list for help, explaining the realities of being a musician, even a moderately successful indie one, in 2018: tours that either barely break even or lose money, albums that barely recoup the costs of studio time, and reliance on merchandise to keep a tour running. He revealed that he’d been personally funding the entire tour and had maxed out all of his credit cards.
Shearwater fans raised $30k in less than 48 hours to pay off his touring debts and help him pay rent.
And this is a fairly successful, critically lauded indie group. Being a musician isn’t an easy gig.
5 Likes
does that amount include all the free exposure that they are getting ?
1 Like
Does he have a patreon account going?
1 Like
No, he shut his GoFundMe down after a week and said he hopes to never have to beg for money again. That said, he’s writing a novel and starting a new album (they’re signed to Sub Pop) so maybe he’ll let his fans take a more active role after seeing how well that went.
1 Like
We’re just talking about creators here. That 12% of industry revenue going to musicians doesn’t include money going to marketing or promotion or manufacturing. Likewise for Apple the sales and manufacturing and business folks should be excluded. If 1 out of 10 of those Apple employees are the ones actually creating the products, then the base salary should be between $2 and $3 million and that’s just to match the 12% that musicians get.
1 Like
I don’t understand this view of patreon. Why is it begging if you’re providing a product or service?
That’s awesome. A fine label.
1 Like
Sorry, I didn’t mean to infer that. He was only referring to a GoFundMe to ask for money directly. He hasn’t made any comments about a Patreon at all. I just meant that he hasn’t set anything up of that nature. Patreons are great but I know from experience that they can be extremely time consuming to maintain and fulfill.
No worries! I just know it’s a common belief.
I personally don’t see that as begging either. But of course, YMMV… or his!
That’s interesting to know. Like other forms of independence from labels being extremely time consuming (which explains why many artists still want to end up on a label to deal with the business need), seems like there is a tax on time to independent production.
1 Like
1993:
The interesting thing is a few years back he released a follow up:
2 Likes
Assignment of work is a good thing when used properly. I’ve written jingles and arrangements and even sold one song outright for some TV show that never aired. Graphic artists sign away their work all the time.
It’s a good way for artists to make money.
The problems arise when the agreements are one-sided, like producers getting co-author credits on all the songs or artists being forced to sign away rights to future works.
The only reason those kinds of abuses don’t happen (much) anymore is that the unions lobbied hard to get the practices outlawed.
2 Likes
From what I can tell, the unions are OK for those that have them, but for everyone else, it’s open season. And very little movement toward expanding union protections.
True. That’s the way the nation has been going for the last 40 years. Not many people realize that Hollywood is one of the last union strongholds in the US. And it doesn’t seem to be hurting the entertainment industry.
1 Like
Sure, collaboration means that artists need to relax their IP rights to make stuff happen. But couldnt all these same synergies happen, without the artists surrendering all their claims in a Faustian bargain? I mean, cut out the middle man abuses, and you could still get things done, right?
And even then, none of the exploitation was remotely new.
2 Likes
Not really. Let’s say I pay an artist to design a logo for my company. Normally, they assign all the right to me and the deal’s done. If the rights revert back to the artist after twenty years, I would have to renegotiate with the artist to continue using my company’s logo. That’s not reasonable or good.
It’s the same thing with the song I sold for that TV show. Under this copyright reversion idea, if the show had been a success and had entered syndication, the company would have to renegotiate with every artist who did music for every scene. It would be too hard/expensive and no one would ever see the show again.
If, however, the works entered the public domain after 24 years, they and everyone else could use those songs and shows freely.
Indeed. Much of my family has been in the biz (print and music mostly) so I’ve definitely seen this first hand. Pretty much every aspect of the entertainment industry is predicated on exploitation - from the employees to the talent to the consumer. Everybody is getting screwed except for the people up top and the lucky few that managed to play the game and win.
2 Likes
I sometimes come across a software title that cannot be legally copied, even though the rights holder is long gone. Under a more reasonable system than the one we have now, there would be the kind of license where it belongs to the company only as long as the company is doing business. And once the company goes out of business, those properties can no longer be collected on. So your logo would be yours for life. As long as your company lived.
Yes, my version would keep the Atari brand from being resurrected. And that would be fine by me. (good thing I’m not in charge, right?)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
