4 ms·

The record labels do not speak on behalf of any musicians, the only people they serve is themselves

rectang 2y ago
The record labels fight tech, which as an industry is substantially more abusive to musicians than the labels. The Archive provides a valuable service, but if they're gonna die on this hill I'm going to fight them alongside my allies of convenience the record labels.
paxys 2y ago
That's a fantasy constructed by people who want to keep idolizing their favorite musicians. Labels do exactly what the musicians signed with them want them to do. Heck the vast majority of record labels are owned by musicians.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  By number sure but by volume no, UMG/Sony/WMG etc are not owned by Musicians. Indie labels and the occasional hit independent label like Def Row/TDE are small in comparison and usually only include the owning musicians established music, not their beginnings. Bands often have to fight to buy back rights for that kinda stuff. Interscope, Reprise, etc are all owned by the big three. Interscope wasn't even founded by artists. Also labels (like Def Row and Reprise) often sell out to the big three, so even if you sign to one of them when they're independent, that won't mean it'll last forever and you as an artist won't get veto over that.
harrall 2y ago
Musicians choose to sign under a label because it helps them. It’s like paying for a plumber… it’s so they do the boring work for you. There are hundreds of thousands of record labels. Your uncle could be running a record label in his garage.
- SeanLuke 2y ago
  For discussion here, the number of labels is irrelevant: only their market share. UMG alone has 38% of the entire record label market share. Its annual revenue is more than the entire revenue of all independent record labels combined. AFAIK the lion's share of the market is held by the top ten labels, none of whom have the musician's best interest at heart. So yes, it's reasonable to say that labels generally don't represent musicians.

The record labels fight tech, which as an industry is substantially more abusive to musicians than the labels. The Archive provides a valuable service, but if they're gonna die on this hill I'm going to fight them alongside my allies of convenience the record labels.

paxys 2y ago

That's a fantasy constructed by people who want to keep idolizing their favorite musicians. Labels do exactly what the musicians signed with them want them to do. Heck the vast majority of record labels are owned by musicians.

hughesjj 2y ago
By number sure but by volume no, UMG/Sony/WMG etc are not owned by Musicians. Indie labels and the occasional hit independent label like Def Row/TDE are small in comparison and usually only include the owning musicians established music, not their beginnings. Bands often have to fight to buy back rights for that kinda stuff. Interscope, Reprise, etc are all owned by the big three. Interscope wasn't even founded by artists. Also labels (like Def Row and Reprise) often sell out to the big three, so even if you sign to one of them when they're independent, that won't mean it'll last forever and you as an artist won't get veto over that.

harrall 2y ago

Musicians choose to sign under a label because it helps them. It’s like paying for a plumber… it’s so they do the boring work for you. There are hundreds of thousands of record labels. Your uncle could be running a record label in his garage.

SeanLuke 2y ago
For discussion here, the number of labels is irrelevant: only their market share. UMG alone has 38% of the entire record label market share. Its annual revenue is more than the entire revenue of all independent record labels combined. AFAIK the lion's share of the market is held by the top ten labels, none of whom have the musician's best interest at heart. So yes, it's reasonable to say that labels generally don't represent musicians.