Does the record company make more money than the artist? That’s unfair to me.
The people making the art, should be paid the most.
Does the record company make more money than the artist? That’s unfair to me.
The people making the art, should be paid the most.
> The people making the art, should be paid the most.
Why? There's a fair market value for the art. There's also a fair real world cost* for distributing and advertising, set by the market (the people working those positions need to eat too). It's trivially easy to go negative, if you try to market something that isn't popular.
If it weren't a net benefit for the artist, they wouldn't go under a label, or stream on a certain platform. They're not being forced to. They do it because it results in more money in their pocket.
>There's a fair market value for the art
Fair ain't got nothing to do with it. Markets don't give a shit about 'fair'.
Fair from the perspective of the person doing the work. I'm using the dictionary definition of "fair" here: A fair exchange is an interaction or agreement where both parties feel they are receiving something of equal value for what they give, resulting in satisfaction and balance rather than resentment or guilt. I'm not using the "living wage" definition, which is a phrase that's not related to the definition of the individual words that it uses.
If they didn't find the compensation fair, for their effort, they wouldn't do the work, and would do something else instead. You want to see positions that that are at the boundary of "fair"? They have incredibly high turnover rates, because people think "this isn't worth it" and quit. Where I am, fast food is a great example of this, where the companies weren't paying wages people wanted to work for, leading to unsustainable turnover, labor shortages, then pay increases.
Too true. For clarification, unhinged "free market" is how you end up with capitalism, try the the same with the "fair market" you get communism.
With unhinged free market you get monopolists and no free market.
With streaming, distribution costs are effectively zero. There is marketing but only up front. Nobody’s marketing 1970s rock bands anymore but they still get a lot of listens.
> They do it because it results in more money in their pocket.
more than zero can still be too little money in exchange for the labor provided and the profit produced.
If the value that others get from it is not worth the effort that someone puts into making it, then we say it's unsustainable. You can't make people give you money, to cover the cost of something they don't want. And, that goes for the entire chain of human effort that is from the artist to the listener.
There's a team that maintains the internet connection so the author can upload. * maintains a storage array/metadata catalog to hold the song. * creates the algorithm to recommend the music to people. * creates ads to recommend the service to people. * ...etc
If any part of this chain finds their effort not worth the value they receive, the whole chain stops. The point before it stops is the market value of that service. Someone charges more than the market value? Then someone else, who finds the effort worth the cheaper pay, will do it (ok, besides monopolies that have captured the government, but they're not really relevant in this case).
If you think it's possible to do what you want, then put the effort into starting a service! You don't want to? Well, nobody else does either, because what they get in return will not be worth the effort.
We live in a society.
and yet, artists are paid fractions of pennies for the privilege of allowing their music to be streamed while streaming company owners make millions and millions of dollars and put that money into machines that kill children. some society.
Or, the reality is that everyone in the chain of effort wants, and deserves, a bit of money in their pocket, for their efforts. If that chain means nothing comes out the other end, it doesn't mean there's a problem with society, it means that the tech isn't there yet to make the chain shorter/cheaper. I'll leave that advancement to you! You can do the right thing, the thing nobody else wants to do, and make the service that solves this issue. As others have said, distribution costs are near zero, so, it must be easy!
If I buy a machine, then hire a worker to make a widget. And I sell that widget for $20 but pay him $10 is that fair? The machine, shipping, sales, marketing, inventory arent free.
I'm a pretty dyed in the wool anarchist, and I'd say most leftists would say, "of course costs for capital should be considered in prices." The objection is when your costs are $5 for non labor, $10 for labor and you sell the part for $20. Where's that excess value going? Maybe once the costs of the machines are paid off, the workers should all get raises, right?
I don't know a ton of the specifics for music, but I am not sure if I agree your statement is always true. A lot can go into producing and distributing music, and I don't think it is fair to say the artist should always make more than all the other people who work on making the music happen combined. It isn't just a 'company' making that money, it is all the people working behind the scenes, all the investment in equipment and things, etc. I would need a lot more info on cost breakdown before I say the blanket statement of "the artist should make more"
This is often the case where one side is an expert at contracts and business and the other side is an artist.
I went to a show recently and the band was performing old material and they stopped to make a big deal about how they finally won back their music after 10 years. Famously Prince and Taylor Swift also went public with their disputes.
Good for them, but they signed the contract that locked up their rights for a decade. It seems weird to get too upset at the label for what you thought was a good deal at the time.
In the world we've built, mainstream success isn't defined by ability or quality, but rather polish and marketing reach. Marketing works because the average human is pretty shallow.
Would it be different if we started over? Maybe.
It seems like no one understands what a record deal is. Or an advance. Or publishing rights.
No one needs to sign a record deal. Or take an advance (which is a loan).
It’s like VC money. There are plenty of threads here which recommend not taking VC money and bootstrapping instead.
And yes, some artists self fund, self publish and self-upload. I’m not defending Spotify or streaming rates, just saying platitudes don’t seem sufficiently nuanced or informed.
I agree. The networking, distribution and expertise is a huge leg up in most cases. Not everyone can vulfpeck.
Why?
That's the way they feel. Why do you think it shouldn't be that way?