Okay. Fair enough.
wouldn’t that depend on the nature of the disaster? And perhaps this is more evidence that the current model has serious flaws that should be addressed?
Which was what I’ve been arguing. Meaning that they have greater power over younger, less knowledgeable artists, yeah?
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.
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?
So that’s the key, isn’t it? Having an effective advocate. I’m not sure I argued other wise, though. Just argued that most artists DO NOT have such an advocate
Right, but I’d argue that the preponderance of evidence is that in the music industry it has been overwhelmingly one-sided for much of the history of the industry.
I don’t agree with that, actually. It’s because the music industry isn’t understood as an industry OUTSIDE of the industry. It’s understood as a playground where people are free of the mundane of life. Musicians aren’t seen as people who work “real jobs” (okay, maybe people who work for orchestras, etc). They are seen as people who are living the good life and have somehow beat the system. 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 (especially the end consumer who isn’t a musician, or even some end consumers who ARE) are really fully aware of. It’s the ultimate in commodification, in that the labor behind the product is hidden incredibly effectively. Genius is imagined to be at the heart of a great album, not hard work and years of honing one’s talent at songwriting and playing an instrument. I know you’re well aware that a great musician doesn’t just happen, it takes a while for someone with even natural talent to become an expert at their craft. But I do think you’re assuming that the whole world is aware of this, but they really aren’t.
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. The one’s that are well off got that why by understanding the business and working it to their advantage, not because they wrote the best songs. The public doesn’t get that. You do, because you’re in the business. And since we have an industry that likes to have up from nothing artists, it’s easy for the industry to bring in people who have no working knowledge of the industry AS an industry.
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? Or was it also because our culture sends particular messages about the industry that purposefully elides the way the industry works? It could be both, right? 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.
Again, my point. 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.
