Good luck! I like the flexibility it gives artists about setting costs.
1 Like
Can you stop with the subtle digs at me please. Thanks.
2 Likes
Absolutely. I still buy CDs from artists I really like and use Spotify to fill the gaps, listen to new music I’m not sure about and old music/recommendations, so I’m definitely listening to a lot of stuff I wouldn’t have otherwise listened to. That often leads to album sales, gigs, etc.
In many respects that’s no different to borrowing tapes/CDs or illegal downloads in the old days, and just like with piracy, these figures never take into account exposure and other sales.
1 Like
Interesting aside: Here’s G’n’R’s income breakdown (half-way down the story)
Publishing $0.771 million
Streaming $0.67 m
Sales $0.499 m
Touring $40.4 m
3 Likes
That backs up what i’ve heard over the years. I’m sure its not universally true but artists have a better potential to make money off of touring than through other means.
Though i recall when Guitar Hero and Rock Band were party games some rockers said that they made more money off those games than they ever did in album sales (don’t recall if touring was also included in there too).
Corporations rarely write the contracts, thats lawyer work. At one time I had a lawyer do a template for “me as a label” and at other times used lawyers to review contracts I couldn’t parse on my own when I worked for others.
As for contract enforcement, thats the courts and it works both ways. Both small and big performers/composers/songwriters/etc have taken labels to court over contracts and won.
Here in part is the gold standards I referred to and also the contract issues above. See also the bits about educating yourself oneself minimally by reading up on the industry and its practices and contract enforcement.
As much as I hate to say it, and with a nod to the conversation with @clifyt above, its not that the system is out to screw everyone, but lots of it is just that lots of musicians are really proudly ignorant of the business realities of their profession and are often determined to stay that way.
Even if every salesmen was forced under penalty of death to include a copy of This Business of Music with every guitar and amp starter set, that doesn’t mean Jane or Joe Wonderego is ever gonna read it. Even with all the information available on the Internet and peers to tell them “get a lawyer to read that before you sign it”, you can’t force Martha McDrummyDrums to educate herself.
On the other hand there is still gonna be Jane Angelvoice who does read up and lawyers up and gets herself a good deal.
More money and lawyers can also work in favor of the performer/composer/songwriter/etc. It can really help when you are small and need protection/tour support/promotion/etc and when you are big like Van Halen’s notorious brown M&Ms clause.
Money does not mean evil.
Totally was not about you at all, was about a certain editor here who shall remain nameless (I’ve called them out directly enough times over they years) but often blogs about what @clifyt and I were talking about.
We been talking for years, you know I don’t do subtle digs, I’m about as subtle as stack of bricks.
EDIT above in strikethrough for clarity.
1 Like
Who employs said lawyers (more often than not)? Large labels likely have a gaggle of lawyers, employed to serve the interests of the label, not the artists who might have differing interests.
It can and it has. But corporations are now more powerful because they count as people. They have the upper hand, generally speaking, especially as arbitration clauses are becoming more common across industries.
Just because I disagree with your take doesn’t mean I don’t have some knowledge about the industry and how it operates.
Indeed. But there are plenty of cases of individuals getting screwed, none the less. Ignorance of an industry shouldn’t entitle exploitation. Given that the industry is also based on recruiting young talent - a demographic not known for showing adult judgement, especially in the face of vigorous ego stroking common in recruiting talent.
If said lawyers were employed by the musician, sure enough. But again, larger corporations can employ a stable of lawyers, all specializing in minutia of various kinds of music business contract law. Van Helen’s brown M&M clause was likely written by the label’s lawyers and was meant to see if the venue was paying attention to their riders. Such things protect the label as much as the artists, maybe more so.
I never said it did. I said that larger corporations can be exploitative, again, not a controversial view, given that many corporations do act in exploitative ways.
2 Likes
And who has more lawyers?
Who has the size and clout to be able to push for a better negotiating position?
A massive record label with lots of money that controls access to many, high profile artists that a streaming service wants to have on their service or a single artist or band that no one has ever heard of?
I definitely agree with this - especially the part about getting a lawyer, one who knows the industry and knows what is usual and achievable and what is someone trying it on.
You won’t necessarily get a better deal (because knowledge alone does not equate to a strong bargaining position) but you’ll at least know what you’re letting yourself in for.
4 Likes
Sorry but those two things are unrelated to the topic at hand.
My bad on phrasing. Didn’t mean you but “oneself”. As in reference to performers/composers/songwriters/etc are the ones who need to educate themselves on the business aspects.
Oh I dont dispute that. I’ve seen it with my own eyes in fact. Still, considering the wealth of chances to learn from books or ones peers, even as a youngster myself I found it really hard to give out a free pass for proudly acting stupid.
True but you might be surprised at how quickly those guys back down on a signing deal when they find out that the people the label want to sign have a lawyer of their own. Part of it is just the fact that it makes one look like they are serious about dealing with the label.
Wasn’t the label, it was Van Halen Productions, you can see the original here and absolutely was about protecting the band not the label.
1 Like
The often over looked point is that the label generally wants that artist or band as part of their stable to begin with usually because the label thinks they can make money with them so (related to below) the label’s collective bargaining works both ways.
Absolutely true as well.
I disagree. They are central to it. Music (mass produced sound recordings) function like any other commodity in a market place, meaning that understanding corporations and how they act in the world matters.
Fair enough and I don’t disagree. But when two entities - in this case a large corporation and an individual - enter into a contract, it can’t be assumed that the two parties are equal in knowledge or ability to shape the situation. Acknowledging that should be part of our understanding of how the music business works.
Why gives labels a pass on their bad behavior, especially when they hold more power in the relationship with artists?
I’d suggest that this tells us something about how a label thinks about it’s talent. But we’re also in a situation where labels hold far less of the cards than they used to, because people do have other options. If labels are less likely to exploit artists now, it’s because more people are educated and have options other than the big label deal.
Indeed. Any idea when they incorporated as an organization to represent VH and what it’s relationship to WB was/is? Or when they formed it during their career. The rider originated in 82 and it was the late 70s when they got signed. I’m guessing it’s post deal with WB. But protecting the band does indeed protect the label too. The two aren’t always mutually exclusive.
Oh, of course. I’m not arguing that labels are inherently a bad thing. I just wanted to counter your argument that individuals/bands have just as much ability to bargain with streaming services as corporations do.
Equality of arms is still an issue though. If the label can hire hordes of lawyers to swamp you in paperwork and irrelevant side arguments (that still have to be dealt with) when all you can afford is one overworked solo attorney, well it’s going to be harder for you.
Also, if they back down from demands just because you turn up with a lawyer, I think that should tell anyone that they know those demands are a rip-off. Why should that be ok?
Ah, beaten to that point by Mindysan33, I see.
3 Likes
I’m thinking of the scene from Pretty Woman when Vivian asks Edward what he does for a living…
This is my point too. How does streaming compensation for 1Million listens compare to radio compensation for 1Million listens? How much is an artist/writer reimbursed in a market with 10Million people on a popular radio station with a 10% listening audience? Until they show this comparison, their argument holds very little weight. The Internet is the new Radio.
1 Like
From what you are talking abut I get the feeling it might be apples and oranges with songwriters and musicians.
One of the issues at play here, is that within the union there are different player conferences which won hard fought battles over the years to ensure that the players who do the work are the ones who negotiate the contracts. This works great for things like orchestras, which have a clear membership, but the Recording Musicians Association has insisted on terms that have resulted in work either going to Seattle, London or Prague, or simply being done non-union (and RMA people do these too, but very hypocritically try to punish non-RMA or those RMA that aren’t politically connected enough for doing them). You only get to vote on the contracts, if you’ve done a certain number of hours. But the RMA makes sure no one else gets enough hours (they call this weeding out the “amateurs”), so no one else gets to vote for contracts that might result in more work. These days I hear most composers’ contracts stipulate non-AFM. There could be hundreds more musicians working at decent wages- but the RMA decided the huge July checks for the few must be protected at all costs, at the expense of everyone else making a middle class living (and at the expense of other AFM benefits, If RMA would give up backend and bring the work in-union, musicians would get a host of other benefits out of it like pension and health and welfare payments).
I don’t really have a dog in the fight as I have only ever been on the periphery and the scene is such a cesspool I was never that interested in to begin with; I have rarely met a person involved who either didn’t brag about their July check or completely hates the work. I just can’t stand to see a union take peoples’ money and loyalty and then actively work against them.
3 Likes
Can you explain how either corporate personhood or collective bargaining actually apply here?
Thats how all business works, thats how life itself works. Theres whole fields of behavioral economics about buyer/seller relationships after all. Heck even most animal & human mating strategies are covered by this.
At no point in my life would I ever give labels a free pass but also I don’t really see it as about power entirely either. Here in this thread I’ve only pointed out the need for the party of the second part to educate itself. Thats not the same as giving a free pass to the party of the first part.
I should have been more clear that I was talking about the 80s & 90s. But again in any negotiation, when one side views the other as serious, things do change.
Honestly even back then I don’t know if the level of education was any different. Most young (and sadly even older) musicians I still talk to have what looks like the same rate of stars in their eyes. And as for options, those existed back then too. Walk away from a deal, start your own label, etc.
I don’t know the specifics but in general from what I have seen & heard, a band’s legal entity/entities are arms length from labels. At the smaller scale this legal entity manages revenue splits, touring and other business side things. It may be a separate management company or it may be the band themselves or a hybrid of both. At the larger scale, it would make sense that a completely separate touring management company would exist separately from the band’s legal entity because at that point the needs for contract management, logistics, insurance and other matters is enough to justify the separate entity.
A touring disaster is far more likely to tarnish the band or venue’s image than the label. Even short of a disaster, something like a major show cancelation, I’m betting no one blames the label.
I didn’t mean to imply that, mea culpa if something I wrote looked that way.
As far as hordes of lawyers, if things get to that point, they are really screwed up. Like Lou Reed^1000th screwed up. Plus those lawyers aren’t free for the label. Why throw good money after bad as it were?
So how many times do I need to stream an album to pay an artist the rough equivalent of a CD purchase?
I can’t for the life of me work this out.
1 Like
Nice Evan Dorkin cover, too.
It’s part and parcel of how the industry is built, like other industries. Record labels don’t exist in a vacuum.
I disagree on that point. Capitalism is not a force of nature, but a human construct.
It’s not ENTIRELY about power, but is mostly about it. I think we agree that the party with less power in the relationship needs to educate themselves, but that doesn’t mean the industry can’t be criticized or held accountable.
That should tell you something about how much they actually understand about the music business. Education (again, we agree here) helps, but it’s not going to change the uneven structure that empowers large corporate entities over other players.
Sure, plenty have done that. A good book on how that actually unfolded over the 80s and 90s is here:
This is all interesting to know. I’m guessing not all artists have this, and the ability to build such structures (or maybe even the necessity of such structures?) come from the success of the artist in general. Prince is probably a great example of that - he came into the industry as a youthful wunderkind of sorts and eventually built himself into an independent cultural powerhouse that could operate on his own terms - but I suspect that only was really in the aftermath of his struggles with his label.
Also, since you’ve mentioned VH, I’ve had Hot for Teacher stuck in my head! UGH!
Maybe not. I suppose that would depend on the nature of the disaster.
1 Like
