At various points in the past, record labels were the ones taking the big risks and getting the big paybacks, just like any business, fronting the funds for expensive studio time and the people to run them.
And many bands took personal offence at this, and continue to do, despite being the beneficiaries of the whole sordid industry at the time. Now that the costs of production and distribution have dropped in certain areas - there’s still things that you need Abbey Road Studio One and 96 expert musicians for - artists expect a fairer deal.
But who decides what the value was of the label’s work in the first place? If they did all the promotion and legwork to get the artist into the limelight and keep them there, does or doesn’t that work deserve perpetual royalties?
I don’t know why streaming rights and licensing weren’t newly negotiated deals but I guess for artists like FourTet who arrived when they did, downloads and streaming were covered by a ‘digital’ clause.
Labels are full of people who love music and work their nuts off promoting musicians, building their web and social presences, getting them booked onto support slots, playlists, radio shows, festivals, cleaning up after them, and championing them, but labels are also cynical and heartless and will drop an act without compunction if sales don’t happen. I’ve hundreds of brilliant promo albums on my shelves from my days on student radio and nearly all those acts released nothing more.
Given the scale of competition and number of acts, I have no idea how anyone could be a sales success without a central organization coordinating things. I don’t know much about Taylor Swift but is she a huge success without the involvement of a label?
I managed a major territory for one of the biggest digital music distributors in the world. Digital distribution is the bit that gets music into DSPs like Spotify and Apple Music, and processes the resulting revenues.
There are a significant number of very successful artists who do not have a label. We had lots.
Even artists signed to major label deals are often doing a JV with a major after achieving traction themselves - or are doing an “artist services” deal where the label does some things but not others.
Labels are great - but there are lots of artist making a success of things outside the traditional label model.
There are, of course, also lots of artists with amazing music who go nowhere because they can’t market themselves enough to get up the next rung of the ladder.
I guess the sheer numbers of smaller players really adds up, although it must be exponentially harder for artists who are reliant on expensive session musicians and studios for their sound (thinking of a friend who is doing it all her way and topping the jazz charts but boy is it a heck of a lot of work)
I'm noticing a lot of my favorite artists right now who do mixes of other people's work have more and more stuff that when I look at where I can get an HQ copy, it's ending up on Bandcamp more than Beatport these days, which is really cool. Not only is there more of a feeling that they're getting an equitable cut, it's also usually a lot more reasonably priced and gives options like limited edition LPs or cassette tape to get the music on.
Bandcamp is really great, although getting physical copies from outside the UK is still cheaper at the local record store. I also feel that it’s a good way to funnel money to the artist, although I’m concerned that Epic has bought them.
At various points in the past, record labels were the ones taking the big risks and getting the big paybacks, just like any business, fronting the funds for expensive studio time and the people to run them.
And many bands took personal offence at this, and continue to do, despite being the beneficiaries of the whole sordid industry at the time. Now that the costs of production and distribution have dropped in certain areas - there’s still things that you need Abbey Road Studio One and 96 expert musicians for - artists expect a fairer deal.
But who decides what the value was of the label’s work in the first place? If they did all the promotion and legwork to get the artist into the limelight and keep them there, does or doesn’t that work deserve perpetual royalties?
I don’t know why streaming rights and licensing weren’t newly negotiated deals but I guess for artists like FourTet who arrived when they did, downloads and streaming were covered by a ‘digital’ clause.
Labels are full of people who love music and work their nuts off promoting musicians, building their web and social presences, getting them booked onto support slots, playlists, radio shows, festivals, cleaning up after them, and championing them, but labels are also cynical and heartless and will drop an act without compunction if sales don’t happen. I’ve hundreds of brilliant promo albums on my shelves from my days on student radio and nearly all those acts released nothing more.
Given the scale of competition and number of acts, I have no idea how anyone could be a sales success without a central organization coordinating things. I don’t know much about Taylor Swift but is she a huge success without the involvement of a label?