How badly do streaming services rip off musicians? A chart, updated

[clifyt]

@anon61221983

Which was what I’ve been arguing. Meaning that they have greater power over younger, less knowledgeable artists, yeah?

This is true of ANY business. I took over a contract with AT&T years ago when they decided ‘the internet’ wasn’t going to be a big thing except in HUGE cities and won the contract for our metropolitan area network – it was my first real business outside of the music industry. Guess what? Got a GREAT lawyer for this. I didn’t know the business side of things, I was just taking a bet that they were wrong. Ended up selling this business back to them a few years later. Guess what? Hiring a good lawyer upfront was key to this.

If you don’t understand that you need to get a lawyer when you are expecting to make millions, you are the person that is at fault, not thing bigger meaner business.

@anon61221983

Sure. I had read that it’s often the in-house lawyers acting on both sides (the label and the artist) in drawing up contracts, but this is mostly the same game, just more underhanded.

In-house can’t legally represent. So they bring in outside. Who are paid by the other. It is easy to make the mistake if you aren’t paying attention. In the end, its the same thing.

@anon61221983

So 360 contracts are in a sense relatively new and probably only offered to bankable stars? I’d guess they don’t give them to some small band just breaking?

360 are starting to be standard offers. Smart people don’t take them. But we are talking about musicians.

@anon61221983

I think this is why things like Albini’s essay matter, because he’s talking about the business end and that’s not something that people outside the system

This is one time I will disagree with someone in the music industry. Steve is angry that he had his way of doing things…where he charged a single per hour fee regardless of who came to his studio. And the contract that he thought was going to be ripping him off would have been worth several million. Then again, I make shit deals because I want paid upfront as well…and there have been a few that I could have made more if I had taken the other way. I have my way of doing things and I played the long game. Worked out overall better.

@anon61221983

You’re friend getting a loan from you to the grammies is a great example of that. I doubt that people who tuned in to watch the grammies realize that people showing up who are nominees aren’t all well off.

This is one of the areas that is shitty. I know with my band (before our album was shelved and I moved on to a more profitable area of the industry) we were offered to go to different events all the time. Guess what? When a label pays for you to go to the Grammys or otherwise…its because they will take it out of your fees – with interest – and it is well documented at a 6th grade reading level in your contract. Can’t read at a 6th grade reading level? I have no pitty for you. My friend was fronting for a well known album that had a lot of folks listening, but no one buying.

@anon61221983

So as his friend, do you know if there was a reason why he wasn’t aware that he could have more effectively negotiate? Was it because he was just largely ignorant, willfully so?

Short answer? Yes. Took anything that he could get. When he could have had a lot more.

@anon61221983

I don’t think we should ignore willful ignorance and you and @Israel_B are entirely correct that artists should be aware and protect themselves. But when it comes to dealing with the major labels, there is at least some mystification happening with how the industry functions. This is why so many artists now a days just figure out something outside the major labels…They are not operating on an honest basis often times. They are absolutely willing to wine and dine a prospect and to pressure them into a deal. When they get push back, they either end up negotiating or dropping the offer, yeah? In other words, labels are taking advantage of ignorance when they are able.

Stealth edit because I barely avoided the deadline – I’m more than willing to take this to another topic though!

As for willfull ignorance…most artists are mid-20s…I believe it was 25 when I first started. Given this, these folks had enough time to get educated. They had enough time to learn the field. They had enough time to not be kids. They are old enough to have died in the military 7 years earlier. They had enough time to finish medical school. They had enough time to be get smart.

At some point, we need to stop making excuses ‘just because someone is a musician’. The labels don’t drop offers if someone walks away for a few days. They won’t even say this. They will do everything they can to get you to stay at the table – but you know what? Having started three business – two in the industry and one I listed above – this is how ALL businesses work. I was told upfront by a lawyer when I started that we had 72 hours. When there was high pressure, I simply asked if I had the 72 hours as provided by law and they said ABSOLUTELY. Did they like it? Probably not. But the idea of a lawyer IS to push their agenda and get the best deal.

I with that society were more about meeting one another in the middle, but we all know it isn’t. I have run my businesses with as fair of contracts as possible. I felt that it was in my best interest to cultivate long term relationships with people and this required trust. So I’m not disagreeing with you that this isn’t very nice – but most people in the industry don’t want to consider themselves nice anyways.

Me? These days I’m happy making a fraction of what I use to be making. I don’t need lots of money and I never felt ripped off in the past. Maybe if musicians didn’t feel they needed to get ‘rich’ in the first place, things would be different. I’ve always strived simply to put in an honest days work and be happy.

So maybe I’m the idiot. Again, willing to take this to a different topic. Sorry for the stealth edit.