Courtney Love does the math (2000)
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.
A direct rip of Albini's much better "The Problem With Music" (1993 in MRR, IIRC):
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.
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.
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?
10 points just for mentioning David Foster Wallace.
Long read, but worth it... I don't have much comment -- it sounds pretty much spot on.
This is spot on, and it is appalling that so little has changed in 10 years since. Luckily, things are slowly changing.
Maybe I'm a little confused but...
'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.
A much better piece about the same issues:
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.
undefined
undefined