4 ms·

I didn't see any mention of songwriting royalties, which can be very significant if they also write their own music. The songwriter/composer of a song (not a r

by alex1 15y ago

I didn't see any mention of songwriting royalties, which can be very significant if they also write their own music. The songwriter/composer of a song (not a recording of a song, but the actual melody, lyrics) gets a performance royalty each time a song is played in "public" (internet and broadcast radio, in the elevator, at a bar, etc). This is the royalty BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC collect. If the song is recorded and sold by someone, the songwriter gets mechanical royalties for each unit sold. If memory serves me correctly, the compulsory rate right now is 8 cents per unit sold. If the song in any form (recorded, sung by a drunk dude, etc) is used in something like a movie or a TV show, the songwriter gets a synchronization royalty. I've seen sync royalties range from $5,000 to $250,000. Songwriters are usually signed to publishing companies. Publishing companies are mostly owned by record labels themselves (or their parent companies). Publishing companies take a cut of the songwriters' royalties, but not as big as the cut record labels take from recording artists. I've seen rates ranging from 10% to 30%. On the other hand, the recording artist gets pretty much whatever the record label decides to give them as described in the recording contract. The label will own the song recordings, not the artist. Recording artists (and record labels) do not get any royalties for public performance. Yes, when a song is played on FM radio, the record label doesn't get a penny. The only exception to this is when the song is played on "interactive" services on the Internet. This is the royalty Sound Exchange collects. In those cases, both the songwriter and whoever owns the copyright to the sound recording (the record label) get royalties. The main sources of revenue for the label are from these royalties, and from selling the sound recording in stores and online. They take a large chunk (60-70%) of this and distribute the rest to the song's recording artist, producer, etc.

ivancdg 15y ago
All of this is true. However, the implication that an outsider might draw from your comment is that, say, the band that wrote the original post might hope to make those kinds of royalties since they (presumably?) wrote the melody and lyrics to the original song. If they sign to a major label and have a hit that continues to rake in those royalties, that is wonderful. If one of their songs is used in a big Hollywood film, and for covers, etc, great. But that's a lot of ifs. Even non musicians know the truth now, they've all read "Courtney Love Does the Math" on Salon. The reality of most musicians, even those signed to major labels, is far from a rosy economic picture. It seems to me that to imply otherwise is disingenuous. Didn't mean for that last part to sound like an attack, it's just that reading your (very well written) comment does not solve the problem of the musicians who wrote the original post.
- alex1 15y ago
  I didn't mean to paint a rosy economic picture. Sorry if it came out like that. I just thought people should know the difference between a songwriting royalty and a recording royalty, and what that means for songwriters and recording artists. I also want people to have an idea of exactly how big of a cut publishing companies and record labels take.
burrokeet 15y ago
the compulsory rate in the US right now is 9.1 cents for songs up to 5 minutes in length, and 24 cents for ringtones. syncs right now go from free to maybe 50k, unless it is a massive song (thing the Beatles) in a massive campaign or feature. the average network tv sync right now is prob around 5 grand all-in, meaning 2.5k goes to the owner of the sound recording copyright (the label or artist) and 2.5k goes to the owner of the composition (the songwriter(s) or publisher(s)). Music publishers can take anywhere from 10% (for an admin deal) to 50% (for a co-publishing deal). Bigger percentages involve advances (recoupable payments against future royalties), but also much longer terms (5-10+ years). Songwriters don't get publishing deals unless their songs are being performed or sold, and there are lots and lots of indie publishers out there, along with the majors as you mention. In many territories outside of the US, artists and master recording copyright owners do get paid for public performance - in the UK for example PPL is one society that pays some of these rightsholders for public performance.
- zcrar70 15y ago
  Just to add a little more detail: > Music publishers can take anywhere from 10% (for an admin deal) to 50% (for a co-publishing deal). Bigger percentages involve advances (recoupable payments against future royalties), but also much longer terms (5-10+ years). Note this is for the publishing royalties only (not performance rights) And on @alex1'- post: > The label will own the song recordings, not the artist. This would depend on the contract, though it's true that in most cases today the label would own the recording. In some cases the artists choose to sub-license the recording to the record company, in which case he/she/they retain rights to the recording. Finally, as is well known now artists often get an advance from the record company on signing a contract. This advance however is deductible from any earnings the artist would receive. Sometimes the advance is used to pay for the recording or equipment or even to finance a tour (the tours are usually not financed by the labels, aside from the 360 arrangements someone else mentioned.) No-one has mentioned the artist manager fees - I'm not sure of what the figures for that are, but I think they range from 10% up to 50% (of the advance) in some very rare cases. In short, in most cases making a living as a musician/recording artist is hard to impossible. Many semi-successful indie bands don't earn much more than a minimum wage job, with perhaps similar long-term prospects. If you make it big, you're rich but anything else is not a great existence. Oh, and the record companies often struggle too (both majors and indie these days.)
leehuffman 15y ago
Labels are starting to collect money outside of record sales. It's becoming much more common for artists to be signed to "360-degree deals", which is what the record companies came up with when album sales started to drop off. They take a cut of everything the artist does - merch, shows, etc.
- ethank 15y ago
  Keep in mind they also finance the tour, publicity, radio tours, promo, websites, fan clubs, etc. A lot of artists that don't need all-rights deals can afford to run all that themselves and so they sign 270 or 180 deals, a la White Stripes, Metallica, etc. Outside of recorded music, most of the other revenue streams are 50/50 splits and non-recoupable.
  - ethank 15y ago
    Don't know why this was down voted, but anyhow.

by alex1 15y ago

ivancdg 15y ago

All of this is true. However, the implication that an outsider might draw from your comment is that, say, the band that wrote the original post might hope to make those kinds of royalties since they (presumably?) wrote the melody and lyrics to the original song. If they sign to a major label and have a hit that continues to rake in those royalties, that is wonderful. If one of their songs is used in a big Hollywood film, and for covers, etc, great. But that's a lot of ifs. Even non musicians know the truth now, they've all read "Courtney Love Does the Math" on Salon. The reality of most musicians, even those signed to major labels, is far from a rosy economic picture. It seems to me that to imply otherwise is disingenuous. Didn't mean for that last part to sound like an attack, it's just that reading your (very well written) comment does not solve the problem of the musicians who wrote the original post.

alex1 15y ago
I didn't mean to paint a rosy economic picture. Sorry if it came out like that. I just thought people should know the difference between a songwriting royalty and a recording royalty, and what that means for songwriters and recording artists. I also want people to have an idea of exactly how big of a cut publishing companies and record labels take.

burrokeet 15y ago

the compulsory rate in the US right now is 9.1 cents for songs up to 5 minutes in length, and 24 cents for ringtones. syncs right now go from free to maybe 50k, unless it is a massive song (thing the Beatles) in a massive campaign or feature. the average network tv sync right now is prob around 5 grand all-in, meaning 2.5k goes to the owner of the sound recording copyright (the label or artist) and 2.5k goes to the owner of the composition (the songwriter(s) or publisher(s)). Music publishers can take anywhere from 10% (for an admin deal) to 50% (for a co-publishing deal). Bigger percentages involve advances (recoupable payments against future royalties), but also much longer terms (5-10+ years). Songwriters don't get publishing deals unless their songs are being performed or sold, and there are lots and lots of indie publishers out there, along with the majors as you mention. In many territories outside of the US, artists and master recording copyright owners do get paid for public performance - in the UK for example PPL is one society that pays some of these rightsholders for public performance.

zcrar70 15y ago
Just to add a little more detail: > Music publishers can take anywhere from 10% (for an admin deal) to 50% (for a co-publishing deal). Bigger percentages involve advances (recoupable payments against future royalties), but also much longer terms (5-10+ years). Note this is for the publishing royalties only (not performance rights) And on @alex1'- post: > The label will own the song recordings, not the artist. This would depend on the contract, though it's true that in most cases today the label would own the recording. In some cases the artists choose to sub-license the recording to the record company, in which case he/she/they retain rights to the recording. Finally, as is well known now artists often get an advance from the record company on signing a contract. This advance however is deductible from any earnings the artist would receive. Sometimes the advance is used to pay for the recording or equipment or even to finance a tour (the tours are usually not financed by the labels, aside from the 360 arrangements someone else mentioned.) No-one has mentioned the artist manager fees - I'm not sure of what the figures for that are, but I think they range from 10% up to 50% (of the advance) in some very rare cases. In short, in most cases making a living as a musician/recording artist is hard to impossible. Many semi-successful indie bands don't earn much more than a minimum wage job, with perhaps similar long-term prospects. If you make it big, you're rich but anything else is not a great existence. Oh, and the record companies often struggle too (both majors and indie these days.)

leehuffman 15y ago

Labels are starting to collect money outside of record sales. It's becoming much more common for artists to be signed to "360-degree deals", which is what the record companies came up with when album sales started to drop off. They take a cut of everything the artist does - merch, shows, etc.

ethank 15y ago
Keep in mind they also finance the tour, publicity, radio tours, promo, websites, fan clubs, etc. A lot of artists that don't need all-rights deals can afford to run all that themselves and so they sign 270 or 180 deals, a la White Stripes, Metallica, etc. Outside of recorded music, most of the other revenue streams are 50/50 splits and non-recoupable.
- ethank 15y ago
  Don't know why this was down voted, but anyhow.