3 ms·

It’s fine to start looking at the math and there is no doubt that the record companies win out over the bands. But any case that looks only at a successful band

It’s fine to start looking at the math and there is no doubt that the record companies win out over the bands. But any case that looks only at a successful band is a lie. If record companies could only fund the artists that everyone knew 100% would be successful with absolutely well known sales numbers ahead of time, then there would be no issue in paying that band a hell of a lot more. But the deal structures are build around then taking a gamble so if you want to be honest about the math you need to look at 100 artists all getting the same deal, 1 making it and 99 failing. I’m not saying it would change the conclusions that they are getting a raw deal from the RCs, but it would be a fair look at the situation.

nunez 5y ago
but it’s not like the record companies are signing _everyone_. They still sign bands that they think will generate at least some notable amount of profit. American Idol, The Voice, or other shows like this wouldn't exist if that were the case. The issue, at least from my limited understanding of this topic, is that the "pre-revenue" terms artists are given (straight advances, the 360 deal, etc) aren't "pre-revenue" at all. They are closer to being given a 0% APR credit card to be used at management's discretion (studio time, legal fees, touring costs, etc.). This would be like a VC giving a startup founding team a term sheet, telling them that the money being provided to them can only be used for _x_, where _x_ is "whatever I tell you to spend it on". Because VCs are a risky business and, well, without them, startups wouldn't exist. /s I "know" (at least from the courses I've done with publishers) that in the book and course publishing industry, the advance is legitimately pre-revenue, i.e., the money is yours to keep. You only make money once the royalties exceed the advance provided. It doesn't make sense that artists (many of whom don't have the same opportunity for generating significant personal income like us techies do) don't get a similar deal.
- isitmadeofglass 5y ago
  > but it’s not like the record companies are signing _everyone_. They still sign bands that they think will generate at least some notable amount of profit. That doesn’t really change the point. If you want to argue the math of lottery tickets, you can’t just take the single case of the person who wins the jackpot and state “So obviously the lottery is the best investment ever seen”. And arguing, as I am, this that you would need to consider also all the individuals who don’t win the jackpot, can’t be dismissed simply by saying “but everyone who buys a ticket is hoping that their buying the one which wins the jackpot”. Now again let me emphasize, I’m not saying record companies aren’t screwing artists. What I’m saying is that you can’t claim to be arguing the math, if you don’t consider all the cases, but only consider the obvious winner selected after the fact.

nunez 5y ago

but it’s not like the record companies are signing _everyone_. They still sign bands that they think will generate at least some notable amount of profit. American Idol, The Voice, or other shows like this wouldn't exist if that were the case. The issue, at least from my limited understanding of this topic, is that the "pre-revenue" terms artists are given (straight advances, the 360 deal, etc) aren't "pre-revenue" at all. They are closer to being given a 0% APR credit card to be used at management's discretion (studio time, legal fees, touring costs, etc.). This would be like a VC giving a startup founding team a term sheet, telling them that the money being provided to them can only be used for _x_, where _x_ is "whatever I tell you to spend it on". Because VCs are a risky business and, well, without them, startups wouldn't exist. /s I "know" (at least from the courses I've done with publishers) that in the book and course publishing industry, the advance is legitimately pre-revenue, i.e., the money is yours to keep. You only make money once the royalties exceed the advance provided. It doesn't make sense that artists (many of whom don't have the same opportunity for generating significant personal income like us techies do) don't get a similar deal.

isitmadeofglass 5y ago
> but it’s not like the record companies are signing _everyone_. They still sign bands that they think will generate at least some notable amount of profit. That doesn’t really change the point. If you want to argue the math of lottery tickets, you can’t just take the single case of the person who wins the jackpot and state “So obviously the lottery is the best investment ever seen”. And arguing, as I am, this that you would need to consider also all the individuals who don’t win the jackpot, can’t be dismissed simply by saying “but everyone who buys a ticket is hoping that their buying the one which wins the jackpot”. Now again let me emphasize, I’m not saying record companies aren’t screwing artists. What I’m saying is that you can’t claim to be arguing the math, if you don’t consider all the cases, but only consider the obvious winner selected after the fact.