5 ms·

This shouldn’t be a surprise. The casino always wins. In this case it’s the record labels and powerful executives that negotiate record deals. Check out the las

This shouldn’t be a surprise. The casino always wins. In this case it’s the record labels and powerful executives that negotiate record deals. Check out the last 30 seconds of Black Pinot by Mayhem Lauren and Action Bronson. It’s not a secret there are so many references to how messed up record labels are within songs.

fasthands9 3y ago
Perhaps I have my own bias, but I never quite get why record labels are always considered bad for musicians. From my understanding record labels put up a lot of money upfront and profit, sometimes very much, if the artist blows up. I understand this creates a scenario where of many of the artists that become famous are unhappy, because the option contract seems unnecessary after they've made it, but this seems like survivorship bias. If the record labels weren't good at promotion and production then I think we'd see more self-made artists, which is something Spotify allows.
- shampto3 3y ago
  One way to look at record labels is like an investor, but I think that brings the connotation that if the business fails the investor is simply loses money. In reality, record labels basically loan a lump sum to the artist to pay for producing the product. This loan also comes with a contract to own some/all of the final product. The artist then has to earn that money back in order to pay off the loan before they ever get a share of the profits. It's easy to say that musicians should be more careful with the contracts they sign, but the system is kind of stacked against them if they want to pursue this career. Nowadays, you can make it fairly big (possibly) by doing most things yourself but record labels are still out their signing artists. EDIT: I was incorrect. You don't have to pay back the record label if your music makes no money. I have removed the statement that implied that.
  - gnat 3y ago
    This is correct. It’s as if your startup investor took 70% of your revenue and then wouldn’t even give you the 30% until they’d used it to repay themselves the cost of their investment in you.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

fasthands9 3y ago

Perhaps I have my own bias, but I never quite get why record labels are always considered bad for musicians. From my understanding record labels put up a lot of money upfront and profit, sometimes very much, if the artist blows up. I understand this creates a scenario where of many of the artists that become famous are unhappy, because the option contract seems unnecessary after they've made it, but this seems like survivorship bias. If the record labels weren't good at promotion and production then I think we'd see more self-made artists, which is something Spotify allows.

shampto3 3y ago
One way to look at record labels is like an investor, but I think that brings the connotation that if the business fails the investor is simply loses money. In reality, record labels basically loan a lump sum to the artist to pay for producing the product. This loan also comes with a contract to own some/all of the final product. The artist then has to earn that money back in order to pay off the loan before they ever get a share of the profits. It's easy to say that musicians should be more careful with the contracts they sign, but the system is kind of stacked against them if they want to pursue this career. Nowadays, you can make it fairly big (possibly) by doing most things yourself but record labels are still out their signing artists. EDIT: I was incorrect. You don't have to pay back the record label if your music makes no money. I have removed the statement that implied that.
- gnat 3y ago
  This is correct. It’s as if your startup investor took 70% of your revenue and then wouldn’t even give you the 30% until they’d used it to repay themselves the cost of their investment in you.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]