3 ms·

> The label heads told MPs their cut from streaming was a fair reward for the risks involved in developing artists, recording, marketing and distribution. Smoo

> The label heads told MPs their cut from streaming was a fair reward for the risks involved in developing artists, recording, marketing and distribution. Smooth, but also a juicy lie because: Labels haven't paid for new artist development since Napster was shutdown. New artists learn their craft on their own dime and record their first (or more) album in their bedroom. There is no cost for marketing or distribution with streaming. Recording costs are subtracted from artists' payments by labels. What the label head deliberately left out is that new deals are "360 deals", meaning the whole pie, where the label gets additional revenue streams: streaming royalties, live performance, merch and often Patreon (pays the rent for a lot of artists) payments. Regarding the £37 for 1 million streams, that would take some forensics to unravel. But factors are if Numan doesn't own his masters, what the separate songwriting credits are, and that US streaming services operate with legal rules that disadvantange artists when paying for streaming. The artists who've done well at capturing value are Steve Vai (self-managed, as advised by Frank Zappa) and Joe Bonamassa (dedicated boutique artist mgmt.) It gets real thin after that. Source: I know Youtube music artists and have done the math with them. I tell them not to sign label deals (be their own publisher), and as a result they're all cash flow positive while following their artistic vision - with no lawyer surprises.

kuu 6y ago
If the label doesn't offer the artist anything and they can do all by themselves, don't sign a contract with them. As simple as that, nobody is forcing new artists to join the labels...
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Correct, and that's what I tell artists. But it's not black and white what the whole story is, and it's not simple. Label heads shouldn't be providing false testimony about label benefits to maintain their edge, especially since they even control streaming services like Spotify (I didn't see that mentioned in the article.) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-listing-factbox/factbox-spotify-opens-up-on-ownership-and-clients-in-listing-files-idUSKCN1GD5PX https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-listing-factbox/f... 1) If you're trying to be libertarian, understand that a 20 yo artist doesn't have the legal resources to negotiate a contract against the labels' unyielding armies of lawyers. 2) Also, signing a contract is not the same as enforcing one. Labels don't follow their own contract terms on payouts, so there is no good faith on their part. 3) If your second or third albums don't sell well, labels often just stop answering your phone calls. Yet the artist is stuck in the terms of a zombie contract, and often that will block (end) their career. The Goo Goo Dolls were advised by their first lawyer that, "It's slavery. Don't sign it." After their first multi-platinum album, they still "owed" $300,000. "Free markets" or not, why is that allowed to continue for decades? "The band filed suit against Metal Blade, claiming they had not earned any royalties from their album's sales, which was attributed to a "grossly unfair, one-sided and unenforceable contract" which had been signed by the band in 1987." The Dolls won by refusing to record their next album until there was a contract that wouldn't ruin them. They were ok sleeping together in one van, but not losing money despite massive sales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls

kuu 6y ago

If the label doesn't offer the artist anything and they can do all by themselves, don't sign a contract with them. As simple as that, nobody is forcing new artists to join the labels...

redis_mlc 6y ago
Correct, and that's what I tell artists. But it's not black and white what the whole story is, and it's not simple. Label heads shouldn't be providing false testimony about label benefits to maintain their edge, especially since they even control streaming services like Spotify (I didn't see that mentioned in the article.) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-listing-factbox/factbox-spotify-opens-up-on-ownership-and-clients-in-listing-files-idUSKCN1GD5PX https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-listing-factbox/f... 1) If you're trying to be libertarian, understand that a 20 yo artist doesn't have the legal resources to negotiate a contract against the labels' unyielding armies of lawyers. 2) Also, signing a contract is not the same as enforcing one. Labels don't follow their own contract terms on payouts, so there is no good faith on their part. 3) If your second or third albums don't sell well, labels often just stop answering your phone calls. Yet the artist is stuck in the terms of a zombie contract, and often that will block (end) their career. The Goo Goo Dolls were advised by their first lawyer that, "It's slavery. Don't sign it." After their first multi-platinum album, they still "owed" $300,000. "Free markets" or not, why is that allowed to continue for decades? "The band filed suit against Metal Blade, claiming they had not earned any royalties from their album's sales, which was attributed to a "grossly unfair, one-sided and unenforceable contract" which had been signed by the band in 1987." The Dolls won by refusing to record their next album until there was a contract that wouldn't ruin them. They were ok sleeping together in one van, but not losing money despite massive sales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls