4 ms·

If I correctly understand you to be saying that record labels and artists have aligned interests? I don't think most artists would agree. Not due to any techie

If I correctly understand you to be saying that record labels and artists have aligned interests? I don't think most artists would agree. Not due to any techie meme. It's a musician "meme", or rather ~50 years of history of labels screwing the vast preponderance of musicians. (Short version: Paying tiny advances, followed by no royalties due to creative accounting of supposed expenses.) It might be the case that a few platinum artists have more in common with their labels. As might a bestselling author like Gladwell with his publisher.

IBM 12y ago
The poster boy that has been held up by techies for years was Trent Reznor, who went independent in 2007. He's since signed with Columbia Records for An Omen and Hesitation Marks. The next NIN album will be with Interscope. The labels provide him value, as they do for many artists. http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-labels-destroy-angels-radiohead/ http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-...
- nitrogen 12y ago
  It seems more likely that he provides enough value to them that they're willing to agree to his terms.
  - supergauntlet 12y ago
    Why would he sign with them if they provided him no value? Your reply doesn't disprove the point.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      They provided him value, but only because he provided them more. Just because one superstar with leverage gets value from the labels doesn't mean every artist does.
res0nat0r 12y ago
Why then do artists continue to sign deals with labels?
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  Because denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
- Crito 12y ago
  Because they are young and naive, or short-sighted, or believe that they will become one of those few platinum artists. The last probably accounts for most of it. I forget the exact saying at the moment, but it is something about everyone in America believing that they are destined to be a rich person, and make decisions/vote in a way that would only be in their best interests if they were rich.
  - IBM 12y ago
    If you actually believe that this is what has sustained the business model of record labels for all this time then I don't know what to tell you, you certainly don't understand their business and what they do. Why did Trent Reznor sign with Columbia afer releasing music independently for many years? It's because they provide value to him. http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-labels-destroy-angels-radiohead/ http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-...
    - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
      Because Trent Reznor is a big enough name, he can control the conditions of the contract. He also has proven he is willing to go without the studios if need be, which, for a known artist, is a huge bargaining chip. Using him as a shining example is to be incredibly naive about how contract negotiation works. Nobody is saying that recording studios do nothing (just handling distribution is big), just that they suck out far more value than they provide for the average artist.
      - 12y ago
Turing_Machine 12y ago
"It's a musician "meme", or rather ~50 years of history of labels screwing the vast preponderance of musicians. " Oh, a lot longer than that. Since day one for the recording industry, and much longer if you count the sheet music publishers of the 19th Century. Scott Joplin got a whole 1% royalty on the sheet music for his songs. Died in poverty. Stephen Foster got paid about a hundred bucks a song. Died in poverty. Inserting yourself between the money and the talent has a very long and sordid history.
- jws 12y ago
  ~50 years of history of labels screwing the vast preponderance of musicians I think you might be looking in the wrong end of that. The preponderance of musicians screw the labels. They sign a contract, chew up a bunch of production and marketing money, then fail to make music that enough people want to pay for the up front costs. Then the musicians don't have to give back the up front money after making some complete floater of an album. Now, the one percenters of the music world, you know, the acts from the '60s through '90s that 1 out of 3 people actually remember. Lots of them think they should have gotten richer, and lots of them did sign contracts that had they known their label would make them a one percenter they never would have signed. But that isn't the preponderance of musicians. That is just the musicians associated with the preponderance of a label's revenue.

IBM 12y ago

The poster boy that has been held up by techies for years was Trent Reznor, who went independent in 2007. He's since signed with Columbia Records for An Omen and Hesitation Marks. The next NIN album will be with Interscope. The labels provide him value, as they do for many artists. http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-labels-destroy-angels-radiohead/ http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-...

nitrogen 12y ago
It seems more likely that he provides enough value to them that they're willing to agree to his terms.
- supergauntlet 12y ago
  Why would he sign with them if they provided him no value? Your reply doesn't disprove the point.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    They provided him value, but only because he provided them more. Just because one superstar with leverage gets value from the labels doesn't mean every artist does.

res0nat0r 12y ago

Why then do artists continue to sign deals with labels?

ArkyBeagle 12y ago
Because denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Crito 12y ago
Because they are young and naive, or short-sighted, or believe that they will become one of those few platinum artists. The last probably accounts for most of it. I forget the exact saying at the moment, but it is something about everyone in America believing that they are destined to be a rich person, and make decisions/vote in a way that would only be in their best interests if they were rich.
- IBM 12y ago
  If you actually believe that this is what has sustained the business model of record labels for all this time then I don't know what to tell you, you certainly don't understand their business and what they do. Why did Trent Reznor sign with Columbia afer releasing music independently for many years? It's because they provide value to him. http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-labels-destroy-angels-radiohead/ http://www.spin.com/articles/trent-reznor-david-byrne-major-...
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    Because Trent Reznor is a big enough name, he can control the conditions of the contract. He also has proven he is willing to go without the studios if need be, which, for a known artist, is a huge bargaining chip. Using him as a shining example is to be incredibly naive about how contract negotiation works. Nobody is saying that recording studios do nothing (just handling distribution is big), just that they suck out far more value than they provide for the average artist.
    - 12y ago

Turing_Machine 12y ago

"It's a musician "meme", or rather ~50 years of history of labels screwing the vast preponderance of musicians. " Oh, a lot longer than that. Since day one for the recording industry, and much longer if you count the sheet music publishers of the 19th Century. Scott Joplin got a whole 1% royalty on the sheet music for his songs. Died in poverty. Stephen Foster got paid about a hundred bucks a song. Died in poverty. Inserting yourself between the money and the talent has a very long and sordid history.

jws 12y ago
~50 years of history of labels screwing the vast preponderance of musicians I think you might be looking in the wrong end of that. The preponderance of musicians screw the labels. They sign a contract, chew up a bunch of production and marketing money, then fail to make music that enough people want to pay for the up front costs. Then the musicians don't have to give back the up front money after making some complete floater of an album. Now, the one percenters of the music world, you know, the acts from the '60s through '90s that 1 out of 3 people actually remember. Lots of them think they should have gotten richer, and lots of them did sign contracts that had they known their label would make them a one percenter they never would have signed. But that isn't the preponderance of musicians. That is just the musicians associated with the preponderance of a label's revenue.