Something I’ve been saying for a while is articulated so much better by David Byrne.
Spotify is paying a lot of money to the “music industry”, it’s just not making it to the artists.
In this day and age, I have no idea why a new band would chase a record deal that will just deprive them of a modest income.
Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/open-the-music-industrys-black-box.html?_r=0
Same old, same old, the music labels rip off the musicians. As David Byrne articulates very well there is hope that musicians may start getting a fair remuneration from the labels for their share of streaming revenues. I suspect it may take a long, long time.
Yeah. Business as usual. I get frustrated at the number of musicians who rage against Spotify and streaming in general as if it is responsible for the lack of money flowing to artists.
Some of today’s bands ought to talk to some of the artists of the 70s to know what being ripped-off is really like. XTC springs to mind.
What’s the story with XTC? Didn’t realise they’d been ripped off.
They settled out of court with ex-manager in the 80s. I don’t think they are able to talk about it.
Who was the manager involved?
XTC sued former manager Ian Reid (I don’t recall exactly what for) who in turn counter-sued for unpaid royalties. This caused all royalties and publishing income to be withheld until the case was resolved. After 5 years without resolution both sides settled out of court.
Speaking as a member of a “new band”, I can’t see a huge advantage in being signed. Sure, labels have more immediate cashflow for upfront recording costs, but studio time is dirt cheap now. We recorded our new EP yesterday and it cost us buttons – admittedly because much of our instrumentation is done in the box beforehand, so we only need a producer for guitars and vocals. But still: buttons.
The only thing we can’t do for toffee is market ourselves. I’ve yet to work that one out. But I can’t see that the advantages of a label outweigh the issues, unless you’re selling proper volume.
Btw: acoustic set at Jagz in Ascot next Thurs evening, speaking of marketing!
I was at Cropredy about a decade ago and was backstage at one point, eavesdropping on an RT interview. One point he made was that labels in the late ’60s were more adventurous in the range of artists being signed, examples made included Hendrix, Jefferson, Fairport, String Band, Dead etc. The other point I recall being made was that record companies were now marketing organisations, not music companies.
On that last point, that’s dead right. All a record company exists to do is to promote artists with a view to getting them on the radio and – ideally – an advertising or soundtrack gig. A&R is now solely about what is immediately short-term marketable. Given that attitude, and given the ability of the small artist to hold down a day job and still bring their recorded output easily to market, it’s not surprising that many of us aren’t nearly as upset with the Spotify model as more established artists are. We’ve all got jobs: we’re not trying to make a living off it.
That’s an interesting point: I don’t need the money, so I don’t mind if others make money with my work while I get nothing.
All artists’ problems solved.
The idea that a person can live off art and nothing else is a result of a tiny blip in cultural history. I don’t really see why I should expect to be able to make a good living from making music just because I love doing it. Obviously it would be lovely, but it’s not realistic.
Not so sure about all what you’ve said. Can’t argue with the first part – a record company is a bank split into (largely) two divisions. Division A exists to give you a chunk of cash, and Division B exists to market you so the chunk of cash can come back, and The Artist gets to keep anything that’s left over. No argument there.
As to how that affects people who make music – your position might well apply to your own particular situation, but maybe it’s a bit of a generalisation.
Lastly, and you’ll go batshit crazy at this, and it’s not meant as a dig or to start a barney or anything, but seriously, read from “it’s not surprising that many of us…” in a Hepworth voice. Scared?
but I can’t help wondering whether the next Glastonbury headling bands of the future can flourish in this brave new world if everyone has to be hobbyists/Semi-pro and bands can only make it if they have someone gunning to get their music onto adverts or some godawful arthouse movie…that to me supports a particular kind of ad-friendly/soundtrack-friendly music and doesn’t leave space for something really special to develop.
My weekly playlist of music Spotify thinks I might enjoy is fast becoming the highlight of my Monday morning. I’m making all kinds of pleasing discoveries, some of which I pass on to family and friends. What I don’t do, of course, is buy any CDs, I just carry on listening to them on Spotify. But if any of my new faves should happen to turn up in Brisbane, I’d probably go and see them. Every little helps, I suppose.
@ivan, not going crazy – just didn’t get it.
Let’s be clear – streaming is here and not going away. My kids regard CDs as relics, or possibly coasters.
So the question is how for artists to get a fair reward from the streaming. I think getting paid for what people actually listen to rather than a share of overall plays is fair, but is not always what we want for supporting less well established artists (remember most new bands start with an advance that they never make enough to pay back).
Rather than streaming I am always suspicious of the labels – read Simon Napier Bell’s Ta Ra ra Boom De Ay for some of the nasty tricks such as still taking allowances for broken vinyl on CDs and returns on MP3s. Or Tim Quirk from Too Much Joy’s blog on “My hilarious Warner brothers royalty statement”, which lists how poorly their digital royalties were being applied to their $400 k un-recouped balance. Oh and every band ever talking about their first contract.
If record companies are just marketing companies – why not just hire a marketing company, and pay by results. Rather than have one company be financier, marketer, and accountant.
Look, I’m rubbish with money and if I was in a band I am sure I would have better (?) things to do with my time, but the artists who manage themselves probably have a better chance of making a living from music.
Oh, and full disclosure – I hardly ever stream anything, so bands are not actually making any further money from me listening to those old Steely Dan CDs
I’m sure I heard Neil Tennant on a podcast say that his label still deduct packaging costs from digital sales royalties. Now that really is taking the piss.