From what i looked up online 1500 streams equals one album sales. Though i suspect various factors could be at play that can inflate/decrease that number. I don’t know precisely how their math works out but very few artists i listen to whose music i actually bought have i listened to any of their songs 1500 times. There’s a few choice exceptions but mainly its because i’ve been following those artists for an extremely long time.
2 Likes
Who is the “we” in that first sentence?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the current setup of much of the music industry is terrible for artists. Also, I’m married to a professional musician (live gigs not recorded), and she’s seen her fair share of people who think asking her to pay for free is just dandy.
But… at the end of the day, getting paid a wage has nothing to do with skill, talent, or desert. It is a matter of what people are willing to pay - either the public, or the streaming services, or the labels. As it stands, none of those groups is suffering from a lack of artists, therefore there are plenty of artists willing (even if they “shouldn’t” be) to make music at current pay rates. Until that changes - well, why expect anything to get better for artists?
2 Likes
Oh no! We can do better than that (as far as I’m concerned, they had no albums after Diver Down), let’s get that earworm unstuck stat!
(ETA: and while I don’t really care for Hot for Teacher the line “I don’t feel tardy” is stone cold classic. Score one for cultural based conceptions of time)
2 Likes
[quote=“Mindysan33, post:80, topic:104695”]
It’s part and parcel of how the industry is built, like other industries. Record labels don’t exist in a vacuum.[/quote]
Thats not an example or explanation. And BTW if you want to imagine this is at all relevant, see also where bands form their own legal entities and so would also be “corporate persons”. Still, please tell me how these two points are relevant at all to the discussion.
But we are discussing a reality based topic in a capitalist context not an imaginary scenario so again, the relevant aspects of behavioral economics matter.
I’ve done it myself and known lots of others that did. As for the book, well, this really goes all the way back to at least doo-wop, maybe earlier. Cant cite the source for that as I’m away from my books and might not even have the relevant one any more but very probably the idea followed soon on the existence of record pressing companies that werent owned by the early conglomerates.
First time I did it, me and the other people involved just typed up an agreement and did a DBA by getting it notarized. This was on the suggestion of the mom of the girl who played percussive things for that band. Cost about $10 at the time. That band never amounted to squat.
As a tie in to this discussion, I created a topic where the musicians of the BBS can share their musical projects:
5 Likes
Nice idea to do so. I can’t share my work there because I’ve had a long standing personal policy of firewallling off the persona I use for creative things from where I speak freely. I don’t want my raw personality to influence people one way or the other regarding their experience of the creative work.
1 Like
Just a general society.
It has to do with performing labor that others profit from in some way.
1 Like
God damn it, stinkbadgers! 
3 Likes
I shouldn’t have used the word wage - it implies there exists someone, like an employer, who is obligated (legally or morally) to provide adequate compensation.
Musicians produce a good - recorded music - which they sell on one or more (skewed, distorted, rigged) markets. Like any other product, there are supply and demand curves. What I think you’re asking for is to make the price go up by individuals choosing to pay more. But, as long as there are still plenty of musicians willing to produce at today’s generally unlivable pay rates (or until there is a union-like entity or legally empowered body forcing the issue), that won’t happen except among the tiny minority of people who can be bothered to care, and in general that group doesn’t move the needle for the streaming companies or the labels.
Maybe making artists employees of labels (with all that represents) rather than independent contractors would actually help. But then you have to deal with messy problem of copyright and publishing rights. And I’d suspect many artists would feel that it would somehow diminish the independent or rebellious quality of being a musician (which okay, but does it matter if you can’t pay fucking rent?). Do they go to the employer or employee. Most corporations that produced a product which includes some form of intellectual property retain the rights. But universities do not retain rights to most IP. Maybe that model would work for a label (or any sort of company that produces and distributes creative works).
I think that most people assume it’s like the sun rising in the west - it’s just an inevitability of the industry that can’t change. As such, they’re unwilling to make it change. But that ignores that people have sought out alternatives to the label system of distribution and payments (many of which have been discussed here in this thread - independent labels, alternative modes of distribution, the patron model, band camp, etc). If people don’t think something can change, it won’t. But if people work to enact change, they might make something happen (even if the outcome might be unpredictable).
3 Likes
Agreed on all counts, although not sure about “universities do not retain rights to most IP.” At least in the US since the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, university tech transfer offices have made control over IP and resulting licensing deals a revenue source. Unless you meant something different.
I know guys who have that job at Sony Music. They own nothing, they just come in and do the day’s play sheets and thats it. All work for hire.
EDIT this is also how the “Idol” system generally works in Japan. The performers are contracted employees of the talent management agency and get a salary. Not without controversy.
In short, bad idea.
From what I understand it works more like the traditional hollywood star system in Japan?
That’s one label, of course, with particular business practices. Do you think that the business practices of the home country influence the how it works here in the states? I actually used to know a guy who worked for Sony (A&R, I think - it was another parent at my daughter’s school).
I don’t know. There aren’t easy answers. The current system has serious flaws and certainly an employee system has (or would have) serious flaws. But at least in the case of the employee system, there are protections in place (though that’s eroding as more states move to a “employment at will” model).
2 Likes
I know more about the humanities, TBH. anything I publish is mine, not the university’s. But given the increasing value of tech-based IP, I’m not surprised the university would want to retain ownership of it. Creative works are a very different matter though.
4 Likes
Seems a lot like the Korean idol system which as I understand it is even worse (idols are more of less property of the label).
Not the best comparison. If interested read what David Marx wrote here and the followup articles and if really interested, here.
Its actually very typical of all major and semi-major labels here to keep musicians on staff to do backing tracks. Things evolved differently here than in the US so there its more common to just use session players, but if you remember your HHFT the practice does exist in the US as well just not the same way.
As is probably clear by now, I don’t think the current system is seriously flawed. Imperfect yes, but its the result of human choices and people are imperfect.
Oh, one other flaw with the employment system: its not uncommon for musicians here to be employees of their talent agency and this means exclusive contracts. If the agency is not pushing that band or has them on back burner for whatever reason, those musicians can’t really do anything else or at best can be “guest artists” in another project.
Where do you think the KPOP industry learned it from? See also the links above to David Marx if interested, he’s also written on the K-Idol thing.
Equally clear is that we disagree on this issue. But that’s often the case on issues like this, yeah?
Thanks for the links!
4 Likes
Back in town and wish I could have contributed more but this is closing in 2 hours 
Honestly, this is where I realize you know less about the top than you think you do. I’m not meaning this in a bad way…I’m just saying that sometimes we aren’t the experts we think we are. I know I’m not…however musician backstage intrigue? A little more than the rest.
Until VERY recently labels were not involved with tours other than to promote an album. These are generally 6-week or less just to get the album to chart. And even then, they are fronting very little. Over the decade, 360 contracts have been more prominent. 360 contracts involve an entity (i.e., folks like Live Nation or whatever the monstrosity it has become) – where they own the artist, their name, their tour, their merchandising. And when a few artists decided to go all in on this – I believe Madonna and Bowie were one of the first to embrace this – it was because they got HUGE chunks of money up front. And they knew that there was going to be a return.
Labels don’t really care about lawyers for tours except where their liability begins and ends. In fact, a disaster on a tour isn’t going to affect them and it will give a sense of notoriety and thus they welcome disasters.
As for lawyers and otherwise…the big labels all have in-house counsel. The way they get you is to offer another lawyer that doesn’t work in house…which idiots don’t seem to realize that the guy that is representing them is being paid by the people that want to get the best deal. Only a fucking moron would take this…it would be like getting in accident with a drunk lawyer who tbones you and he says OH, YOU CAN’T AFFORD A LAWYER, WHY DON’T YOU USE THIS GUY FROM MY FIRM, I’LL EVEN PAY BECAUSE YOU SEEM PRETTY BAD OFF. The fact is, who ever pays is the client…not the person that they are ‘representing’. And they will tell you this. But if you aren’t listening you will not hear it.
Artists get fucked on this all the time. I had an attorney. He never worked for any of the labels and only worked for the artist. And I had his signature on this. And that he was to represent only my interests and not any side interests. Guess what? I got a fair deal. As a nobody I was making six figures easily. Which is more than I make in academia! Most of the contract you are presented with is SUPPOSED to be negotiated. It isn’t supposed to be one sided. However, if you just sign it…the label is going to take this as well and bleed you dry just like any other corporation will. Which is exactly what @Israel_B was saying. If you go into the music INDUSTRY and pretend it isn’t an industry…jesus christ. You deserve to be screwed over. That said, there were often times I had to load money to friends because they signed shit deals. Had to loan a grand to a friend so he could get a flight to go to the Grammies where he was a nominee. WTF? Looked at his contract at one point and I could see a dozen places where he could have self-negotiated even without a lawyer. And he was far from the last to borrow money in the industry.
I’d recommend my lawyer but he now focuses on patents because he is sick of dealing with artists that sign shit without his knowledge. Or sign and then refuse to avail themselves to laws in LA where you have 72 hours to revoke a contract (especially when labels say TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT – which is illegal because with ANY contract there you have the legal right to take it with you and it is valid for that same 72 hours in which they cannot revoke the offer).
I’ve dealt with a lot of this. My ex was a former Disney orchestra performer, now a touring soloist that is chair of her home orchestra (during the 1/3rd of the time she is actually there). Lots of soundtrack work which was how I originally met her. I’ve done soundtrack crap a little (no full orchestra…mostly shit that I HOPE no one will ever tie to me!), songwriting and touring. It is a hodgepodge about how it all works. Luckily there is a lot of reciprocation if you aren’t doing too high a profile gig or if it is one off…but then again, these one-off gigs are how you get into the unions you want. As I mentioned, these are orgs that are designed to protect people from rising tides. There are a LOT of artists that are amateurs that don’t have the business sense but want to jump in and will ruin it for others. Breaking into any field sucks and expect to pay your dues (and not just as a union member). Get in, put the time in, and you will get your money. BUT if you do something here or there and it isn’t consistent? Expect to get screwed. Why? Because these people don’t want you going after their dollar. Luckily, there are a hundred ways into the industry and just because one is going to block you, you have the right to do something else.
Ok…sorry I didn’t respond to this stuff earlier…too busy hanging with musicians this weekend who were making money!
3 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
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.
360 are starting to be standard offers. Smart people don’t take them. But we are talking about musicians.
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.
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.
Short answer? Yes. Took anything that he could get. When he could have had a lot more.
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.
3 Likes
