One other thing this reminds me of: it is possibly to royally screw up your life by simply signing the wrong contract. Seems to be very common, too.
I've had it happen, too (not life-screwing, but bad contracts): back in the day a publisher sold my J2ME app and I decided I wanted royalty shares instead of a fixed sum. The app sold 20000 times for 5€ each - I got 1000€. The thing is, they didn't actually sell the app. They gave it to a TV company for almost nothing in exchange for free advertising. So my royalties weren't a percentage of 5€, they were a percentage of maybe 30 cents... For the publisher, it was a way to promote themselves.
On the other hand, I see it relaxed: I had been toying with the idea of that app for years, and only when the publisher got interested did I really kick into gear and finish it. So at least I have to thank them for one published/finished project. Also, who knows what the sales would have been like without the TV advertising. And, I almost expected something to go wrong the first time I did something like this, so I chalked it up as a learning experience.
This kind of thing happens a lot. A favorite trick is to "bundle" your app with some useless add-on, and then split the revenue between your app and the add-on, halving your royalty. The way to get past that is to have a minimum royalty per unit, and a minimum aggregate royalty per quarter.
I was even vaguely aware of this possibility, but of course the publisher refused to agree on a minimum royalty per unit. Somehow I still agreed on the contract - engineers and negotiation... They actually mentioned the bundling option as an argument, but it was supposed to be a long tail thing for later on.
At least I insisted on having a fixed share (percentage) of the actual sale price, because I had read before that it is common to have so much losses by accounting that there is nothing left to have a share from. It didn't occur to me that they would give away the app for free.
Of course it is almost impossible to disentangle: they could have given the app away for free to some other company, but actually have some shares in that company. Maybe I should have evaluated the value of the advertising they received and demand a share of that.
You beat me to it. However, to give Courtney Love her due I would simply add that it's not really a direct rip. She was certainly influenced and inspired by Steve Albini's rant, but she expanded upon it and added a lot of material.
I saw this in MRR, though it's only one part of a longer piece from The Baffler published around the same time.
The Baffler version had more ranting on the aesthetic side (rather than business side). Lots on production/producers and vintage microphones (alluded to in this part where he uses "punchy" and "warm").
It's getting worse. Record companies are beginning to add clauses into contracts entitling them to a percentage of all future live performance revenues. They won't just own the recordings, they'll own a share of every time you play the songs.
I started a business in my early twenties to address everything she mentioned in this speech.
It failed.
If artists are slaves to the system, then it's a very good system. In my experience there's still a strong Stockholm Syndrome between artists and "the industry." Many young musicians still think they will sign a deal, get fronted a million dollars, and go right on tour across the country. It's a real shame, but I couldn't convince them to sign with a small company focused on leveraging the Internet and file sharing.
I came close, but they all ended up wanting that "shot."
I still have ideas after some years about how to do it now... but it's a matter of hearts and minds. The idea of the mythical "record label," is still deeply ingrained in our culture. If you can convince the artists to go grass-roots rather than over-night success then you might have something. If there are any artists (or interested parties) reading, get in touch.
How much did you know about the industry? Did your company know any promoters or booking agents? Could you get a band that signed up to do business with your company an opening slot on a tour? Could you get them a write-up in a music magazine? Did you know where to send them when they got kicked out of their practice space?
See, that's the thing. Music isn't just distribution of content on the Internet. There's a lot of other shit going on.
I do know a lot about the industry. I was an audio engineer and session musician at the time myself. I knew people and had lots of friends in various places. That wasn't the problem.
I said "levaraging the Internet and file sharing." That's an intentionally simplistic description of what I was up to. There was much more to it that I just didn't feel the need to go into to make my point.
Yeah. A lot of punk, folk, and electronic bands are DIYers and that's been around for a long time. Bands like Fugazi are a great example of finding success outside of the mainstream industry.
I have friends who run indie labels and they do pretty good for themselves.
But the kind of success Courtney Love is talking about doesn't happen on a DIY budget. She wants to get a better deal for artists at her level, but I don't see that happening. There's no one for her to negotiate with and that gives the majors a lot of leverage. The kind of fame that artists who want to be on the same level as Courtney dream about costs a lot of money. Majors are the loan sharks who have that kind of money.
Could there be a major label that doesn't give its artists such crappy deals? I like to think so, but it's a hard problem. One I've tried to solve once and failed (ah, youthful ambition)... but one I'd take another stab at if I get the chance.
Not to aim at the credibility or truthfulness of her words, but I'm rather surprised Courtney was able to write something that long, let alone with such proper grammatical and vocabulary choices. I thought she's always on crack.
EDIT: I just watched the video of herself getting another tattoo while smoking and miming the lyrics to her new single "Skinny Little Bitch". I stand by my words.
I'm continually amazed how many people think rock stars' stage personas are their actual personalities.
What about Gretchen Carson: huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/jon-stewart-calls-out-gre_n_385158.html ? Do you think she's dumb too?
The truth is the world can be incredibly hostile to smart people, and it's particularly hostile to smart women... particularly in show business. It's a supremely smart woman with a very sharp, dark sense of satire who creates a persona like courtney love in response to that hostility.
Also, I know you probably think your doubts come from her drug use, but i'm pretty sure you only doubt her because she's a woman. Would you question Tom Waits if he put out that article? Do you often question the authorship of Salon articles? How carefully have you checked your sexism here?
Meh. I don't consider myself sexist but I had a similar reaction as the author of the comment you replied to.
This is the first time I've read something this profoundly insightful and moving about the music industry, and Courtney Love is the last person I would have expected to see as the author.
It's also interesting how people try to establish causality for drug use with lack of mental ability.
Drugs are no good for sutpid people - the ones that get most out of them are smart people. For drugs to get the most effect being smart helps a lot.
I find it a big problem with heroin users. Anyone who knows some knows how elaborate schemes they create to acquire drugs. Also talking to addicts when they are sober (high they don't make any sense mostly) knows how complex personalities they are.
Being stupid helps one from acquiring a drug habbit IMHO. While being smart only multiplies ones problems if one manages to get into drug usage.
Courtney Love is ridiculously smart. She definitely has done a shit ton of drugs, though - and this fact alone rips apart a bit of her argument. But the ridiculous smart part then reconstructs it - leaving us at some stanza where we need a substantiated second opinion for this to really have any credence.
I'm trying to find some citation but I really can't - all I know is that I've heard her speak before and been impressed by her immense vocabulary. Similarly, this speech reinforces that former impression.
Looking at her Twitter stream, though, reinforces the drug use - and also, her very unique personality:
This is HackerNews is it not? Land of VC opportunity?
Hunter S. Thompson was dead-right when he said "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." It seems to me the jet-black reputation held by the music industry provides a business opportunity for an enterprising person on HN.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that no one has set up a distribution clearinghouse for artists which is paid for services rendered rather than treating artists as work for hire.
Someone should set up a record company which provides services and maintains a meticulously honest and above-board reputation:
1. The Artist owns his own work.
2. The Artist is presented with various options, none of which are permanent. For example, he can enter into a limited-time exclusive distribution agreement with the company in return for studio time to produce the work and a fixed rate of return on proceeds. No advances are provided. If the artist has produced the work himself, the amount of exclusive time may be decreased or the return may be increased to compensate.
3. The company does not require managers, lawyers, or engineers. However it may make recommendations to the artist as to how to find good ones on his own. If the artist wishes, the company can provide them for him, again for a cut of the rate of return.
4. The company also can also arrange for the artist to go on tour but again does not require it: it's an option available. The artist has an up-front negotiated rate on the proceeds.
5. All contracts are simple, honest, temporary, modular, and cover exactly and only the particular item the Artist is essentially purchasing from the company (record distribution and studio time, touring, etc.).
Obviously the hairiest issue would be dealing with distribution firms. But that particular business is changing very quickly, and indeed distributors may be entirely gone in ten years. The time is ripe, gentlemen.
Can someone explain, then, how the transient scale period happens where an artist goes from not being able to eat to being worth 400 million dollars, like 50 Cent? Is that when they suddenly become successful enough to create demand -- that it creates some kind of wealth atom bomb? Or is it not that simple?
Endorsements. He made a big chunk of that from getting a share of Vitamin Water when they were trying to appeal to more men. Ironically, he probably made more from that than any of his records.
Taste is subjective, sure. But he just talks. No emotion or interesting tempos like other rappers. Even the music is like a 30 second sample repeated for 3 minutes. Painful to listen to.
The other big earner which wasn't mentioned here is publishing income. Now this only works if you're the songwriter but having an enduringly popular back catalogue can be worth a lot of money. David Bowie famously sold bonds on a ten year income that was worth $55 Million.
On a smaller scale, I can't find a source right now, but I remember the NME carrying an article about Lee Mavers who wrote 'There She Goes' and that single song earned him yearly royalties of around $50,000.
So you can imagine, all you need is a small back catalogue of well known and well played songs and the residual income can be pretty good.
You have to hope you can become popular enough that when your initial deal runs out you can dictate terms to the record company and not the other way around. Or that you can use fame to generate revenue from other sources.
'Writing and recording "Hey Jude" is now the same thing as writing an English textbook, writing standardized tests, translating a novel from one language to another or making a map. These are the types of things addressed in the "work for hire" act. And writing a standardized test is a work for hire. Not making a record.'
In what way is this not a work for hire? (I mean legally it or this would not be an issue) In what way is writing and recording a song some how magically different from creating a map? Or writing some program? Not that I disagree that Big Record is probably raking it in hand over fist while the content creators receive a comparitivly small amount, but I fail to see why music should be in it's own category separate from other works as she stated.
When you write a standardised test, you're working for the test company. When you translate a novel, you're working for the publisher. When you write "Hey Jude", you're working for yourself. You created the song by yourself, and it's your song, and the record company is providing a service for you. The power dynamic is backwards. They should be serving the artist, not the other way round. If record companies go around hiring artists to make music for them, we should fear for the quality of music.
So what's the difference between a jingle writer, or a sound track artist, and a 'musician'? They all write music, they all sell it to a company who makes a greater profit off of it, why? Because they can't sell a jingle for nothing, they can't make a sound track for a movie they don't own and own the music. So why does a musician assume they're special in this industry?
No upstart artist can afford to make 2 million+ albums for a debut hit, so they'd never sell 2 million albums and they could never be a hit, so they'd never chart and never get the free advertising and air time that hits are given, which means they wouldn't be getting the huge tours with stadium concerts. Artists inevitably as a performing artist make their money from their live performances, which the recording industry aims for. The more fans at a concert mean more record sales, which means more money in the record companies pocket, which means the artist gets more advertising, gets to charge higher ticket fees and make more money from their touring.
Given that so many big artists have established their own labels, they must be making their money somewhere. Although too many of them seem fully occupied with boohoo crying that they're rich and famous, but not nearly as rich nor famous as they deserve.
A jingle writer or a sound track artist is basically creating something 'on spec.' Also, you can bet that good jingle writers charge a lot more money than bad jingle writers.
Recording artists (who incidentally are 'musicians', although some rather loosely) contract with the label to promote and distribute their record. The record company pays them an advance on future earnings as a way to sweeten the deal to get the artist to sign with them instead of another label. They aren't paying them to make the music, but rather just paying upfront some of the money from the sales of the album.
Most artists do not make money off of album sales (even big-name artists). They make money off of ticket sales, merchandise (e.g., t-shirts), and licensing their songs for commercials, movies, etc. After they have become very successful, they are in a position with more power to negotiate better contracts (I struggle not to say fairer). Or, sometimes they create their own label and release their music themselves. Usually, though, when an artist has their own label it's really a "vanity" label that is under the major label.
I think big artists (and little ones) have every right to complain about a system where they can sell ~200mm albums and come out of the process bankrupt (the article mentions TLC and Toni Braxton as examples of this). They created ~$2 billion of gross value and probably netted upwards of $1 billion for the record label. The label certainly took a risk on them and should be compensated for that, but shouldn't the artist as well? I'm not arguing that the artist wasn't naive or poorly informed when signing the contract, but they have every right to complain that the contract terms were onerous and others should think carefully before negotiating. Even Apple re-negotiated their deal with AT&T once they had a hit.
Also, you are completely wrong that no upstart artist can afford to sell 2+ million albums for a debut hit (I realize you say 'make', but contract terms aren't changing because it suddenly became cheaper to sell albums digitally). One example of the top of my head is the band Train. They created their first album on their own for very little money and it was certified platinum. With advances in recording software and digital distribution, record labels are starting to look very obsolete. Especially when they charge you for the actual expenses of their promotional campaigns out of your royalties.
No, they don't. The record companies enter into a contract with the recording artist to promote and distribute their next album or X albums. It's more like the artist is hiring the record company. It may seem like the record company is paying the artist, but really they are paying an advance on royalties. This is much the same as how an author may get an advance for agreeing to allow a publisher to publish their next book.
The advance is in some respects like an investment in a startup; the record label fronts some money to the artist to help pay for recording, living expenses, promotional expenses, etc. in exchange for a large percentage of the profits from record sales. If the record doesn't sell well, the artist isn't under obligation to pay the advance back (although it might carry over on the ledger if they owe more albums to the label). The size of the advance is based on the popularity and expected likelihood of success of the record. To continue the analogy with authors, I think Sarah Palin was advanced $7 million on her last book; most tech books authors receive an advance of 4 or 5 figures. This makes sense based on just the size of the market for each book alone.
Anyways, that was a long digression, but the record companies certainly do not hire artists to make music for them. The artists hire the labels to promote and distribute their music. Most artists have already written and created demo recordings of the songs before they even sign with a label.
Maybe the contracts they sign match up with what you say, but the reality is that in many cases the record companies go out and find 'talent' which they then mold into 'stars'. I'm talking specifically about the artists who have other people write their songs for them, etc.
The problem I have with what you said, is the artist knows what they are getting into day one. It's sort of like buying a house that has a leaky roof and then complaining that the previous owner sold you a house with a leaky roof. Yeah the contract might suck, but I have a hard time feeling very sorry for you if you knew about it before you signed on the dotted line. If they didn't know then they are stupid to not have had a lawyer read the contract. If the power dynamic is backwards, as you say, then you should be able to write a better contract. If you can't then distribute yourself. With digital distrobution become a more popular method of getting your music out there, I'd think that the roll of Big Record would begin to diminish.
The difference, I think, is in the "who fronts the risk" question. The guy writing the standardized test is getting paid by the hour or the month, and makes the same regardless of if the thing sells one copy or a million.
A recording artist (or an author writing a book, in most cases) only makes money if they sell a lot of records. In most cases, they won't see any money until the publisher has sold enough records (or books) to pay for the printing. your 'advance' is a loan, and you've gotta pay that back. In some cases, if your creation sells poorly enough you could end up owing the label or publishing house money.
If you want a job writing English textbooks, I'm pretty sure you just send your resume in to a large resume company. If you have the right qualifications, and you pass an interview, you can start working for peanuts fleshing out a checklist of points into a nice gooey explanation. You have a nice 9-5 job+, with no real creativity required (or even desired).
I think getting a job as a song-writer is a bit different. I guess there's a continuum between a singer-songwriter like Bob Dylan, and a guy who re-arranges the synthetic drum-beat for "Girl from Ipanema, retirement home lobby edition", but there should be a line somewhere. If a song writer isn't a creative professional, who is?
+ actually, a lot of text-book writers are freelancers, but the creativity they are expected to show is said to be quite low: http://www.edutopia.org/muddle-machine
The difference is that creating "Hey Jude" is a completely creative effort, like making a painting or writing a novel. You can't estimate up front how long it's going to take, it takes what it takes. The more you make it like an engineering process the more you remove the part that makes people interested in it. The "soul" if you will.
Creating a map is an engineering process. You take data and translate into another form. A robot could do it. Translating from one language to another is the same thing in principle, but much harder [1].
Writing an English text book is a little more free form but probably what she was getting at is the fact that English doesn't belong to anyone. You're creating a description or view of something that already exists, not a new thing itself.
A program slides even more toward art but at least you're given parameters.
[1] A computer can't do this properly until we have much better AI. The translator has to be able to understand the feeling of the words and then express those in the target language if possible.
The guy hired to write the standardized test is not expected to pay for the spellchecking.
It's a very weird relationship to be sure but in a sense bands hire record labels. Session/studio musicians on the other hand have always been work for hire (see Standing in the Shadows of Motown).
It's interesting - but nobody saw anyone like Apple or MySpace coming along and getting involved in it all. The future back in 2000 looked very fuzzy indeed for all involved in music. They knew it as changing, but had no idea how.
However, you'd have to bet against the record industry going forwards. They no longer have an iron grip over the distribution, which was their great monopoly.
The system is obviously flawed, but the example is not very convincing. $85k a year to do what you love, for alot less hours than a regular job (it doesn't take 2000 hours to make a record), whether the record is a dud or not? That seems pretty good to me.
So give me 85k salary, a half million dollar budget to spend on production, and tell me I need to make a website of my choosing sometime within the next year, which you'll then spend potentially millions of dollars promoting. I don't have much upside in this unless it's a mega-success, but I have no downside and can choose to shoot for the stars or make something important and useful. Is it me or does this sound like a far better deal than most developers have?
Perhaps musicians should stop feeling that being able to sing or play is a golden ticket and anything that blocks them from being a member of the idle rich is the acme of economic injustice.
> $85k a year to do what you love, for alot less hours than a regular job (it doesn't take 2000 hours to make a record), whether the record is a dud or not?
If it takes that little time to make a good record, why aren't there artists or bands churning out dozens of records a year? Surely they can't all be libertine sybarites.
> "It is known that Whistler when asked how long it took him to paint one of his 'nocturnes' answered: 'All of my life.'"
--Jorge Luis Borges, "Gauchesque Poetry", <i>Discussion</i> (1932)
85k before taxes. And no, advances in the music industry are not paid back. You won't see any royalties until they've exceeded your gross advance, but so long as you've delivered the record the company won't come to you and demand repayment.
I've had it happen, too (not life-screwing, but bad contracts): back in the day a publisher sold my J2ME app and I decided I wanted royalty shares instead of a fixed sum. The app sold 20000 times for 5€ each - I got 1000€. The thing is, they didn't actually sell the app. They gave it to a TV company for almost nothing in exchange for free advertising. So my royalties weren't a percentage of 5€, they were a percentage of maybe 30 cents... For the publisher, it was a way to promote themselves.
On the other hand, I see it relaxed: I had been toying with the idea of that app for years, and only when the publisher got interested did I really kick into gear and finish it. So at least I have to thank them for one published/finished project. Also, who knows what the sales would have been like without the TV advertising. And, I almost expected something to go wrong the first time I did something like this, so I chalked it up as a learning experience.