3 ms·

Why don't musicians just decline to license their music if they get tiny share? Can't they create some sort of union that would give them bigger negotiating pow

Why don't musicians just decline to license their music if they get tiny share? Can't they create some sort of union that would give them bigger negotiating power? Or just sell the music on the internet? I wonder why market mechanics don't work here.

tomp 14y ago
Because they usually licence their music before they become famous. Contrary to popular belief, music labels are NOT (for the most part) middle-men (i.e. content distributors). In reality, they are INVESTORS. They bet on a number of artists (providing them with managers, tour opportunities, studios, promotion), and only a small number succeed. It's actually quite reasonable for them to expect a huge payoff (= a large cut of the profits) from the ones who do.
- netfire 14y ago
  The current model seems unnecessary with the internet though. Seems like artists, if they are good, should be able to become famous selling their music direct to consumer through some distribution service like iTunes without a long term contract. Once someone has made a name for themselves, it would seem perfectly reasonable for a label or a venue to approach them about doing a concert or a tour and taking a cut of the proceeds. Perhaps the problem is that bands or artists want to fast-track their road to fame. In signing with a label, it seems like they are giving up a lot to get there faster. The question is, can artists who are willing to work their way up more slowly or organically able to, or are certain doors closed because they aren't signed with a label?
  - tomp 14y ago
    Distribution and getting listeners/fans is only a part of the problem... Getting a studio and a professional to edit your music is the real cost that new artists have to deal with. I have a friend that makes music on a computer!!! and he's been wanting to produce a professional recording for more than a year (needs $$$ for studio/editing/mixing/I-have-no-idea-what).
    - netfire 14y ago
      I guess it depends on what kind of music you are recording, but do the first songs you release to potential listeners have to be professionally edited or mixed? As long as its recorded using somewhat decent equipment, it seems like that would be enough to get something together to release.
      - jlarocco 14y ago
        The problem is that professionally edited and mixed music is the norm. Nobody's stopping bands from releasing poorly edited and mixed music, but it adds another hurdle to overcome.
    - Morg 14y ago
      Not that expensive, I have many friends with bands and records and I can tell you a "good enough" studio is dirt cheap nowadays, you can get pro sound for a few K at most - still takes a lot of editing work though.
mikecane 14y ago
‘South Park’ Creators Win Ad Sharing in Deal http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.htm... “People always ask us, ‘You own it, right? No? Why’d you sign that deal?’ And I have to say, ‘Because I was sleeping on my friend’s couch.’ ”

tomp 14y ago

Because they usually licence their music before they become famous. Contrary to popular belief, music labels are NOT (for the most part) middle-men (i.e. content distributors). In reality, they are INVESTORS. They bet on a number of artists (providing them with managers, tour opportunities, studios, promotion), and only a small number succeed. It's actually quite reasonable for them to expect a huge payoff (= a large cut of the profits) from the ones who do.

netfire 14y ago
The current model seems unnecessary with the internet though. Seems like artists, if they are good, should be able to become famous selling their music direct to consumer through some distribution service like iTunes without a long term contract. Once someone has made a name for themselves, it would seem perfectly reasonable for a label or a venue to approach them about doing a concert or a tour and taking a cut of the proceeds. Perhaps the problem is that bands or artists want to fast-track their road to fame. In signing with a label, it seems like they are giving up a lot to get there faster. The question is, can artists who are willing to work their way up more slowly or organically able to, or are certain doors closed because they aren't signed with a label?
- tomp 14y ago
  Distribution and getting listeners/fans is only a part of the problem... Getting a studio and a professional to edit your music is the real cost that new artists have to deal with. I have a friend that makes music on a computer!!! and he's been wanting to produce a professional recording for more than a year (needs $$$ for studio/editing/mixing/I-have-no-idea-what).
  - netfire 14y ago
    I guess it depends on what kind of music you are recording, but do the first songs you release to potential listeners have to be professionally edited or mixed? As long as its recorded using somewhat decent equipment, it seems like that would be enough to get something together to release.
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      The problem is that professionally edited and mixed music is the norm. Nobody's stopping bands from releasing poorly edited and mixed music, but it adds another hurdle to overcome.
  - Morg 14y ago
    Not that expensive, I have many friends with bands and records and I can tell you a "good enough" studio is dirt cheap nowadays, you can get pro sound for a few K at most - still takes a lot of editing work though.

mikecane 14y ago

‘South Park’ Creators Win Ad Sharing in Deal http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.htm... “People always ask us, ‘You own it, right? No? Why’d you sign that deal?’ And I have to say, ‘Because I was sleeping on my friend’s couch.’ ”