Hate Your Label, Not Spotify

Once upon a time recording was profitable.

And then MTV came along and with the advent of the new carrier medium known as the CD, revenues soared. Artists bitched that they were receiving half their royalties as the labels invested in this new format, but that got nowhere, the CD made not only the companies rich, but those who ran them. That was the switch. The Beatles, et al, stole power from the labels, but in the eighties, the labels took it back, because there was just too much money involved. And the more money, the more risk.

But recording revenues have shrunk. Streaming could bring them back. That's the dirty little secret artists are too ignorant to understand. That if everybody's paying, the overall pot grows.

But the problem with artists is they don't see the big picture.

The label is making you famous.

Once upon a time the label not only made you famous, you made a lot of money on recordings if you hit. The evisceration of this model is not the fault of either the labels or Spotify. Those who think Spotify is ruining royalty payments believe 8-tracks and cassettes should have never replaced LPs. Change happens.

And the latest change is that without the money and power of the label behind you, you probably will go unnoticed.

So maybe, despite having such a low royalty payment, that's what you've earned.

I know this is heretical. But the point is no one is preventing you from going it alone. Now, more than any time in modern recording history, you can do it for yourself. You can record cheaply, distribute and get paid. But the truth is most of the people complaining about their indie Spotify payments are known only for this. They're niche artists at best.

And no one who's a newly-minted household name is complaining.

In other words, you give to get.

You give your rights to the label in order to get a chance at fame and riches.

And this has nothing to do with Spotify, and nothing to do with the fact that the major labels have an interest in the company, along with Merlin indies.

There's a high entry price. Just like you can make your own movie and make all the money, but you'd rather be in a blockbuster where you get a huge upfront payment and a profit participation that doesn't pay out.

So if the acts want any change at all, the target is their labels.

As for indie labels, excepting giants like XL, most are worse than the majors. If they don't go bankrupt, their accounting is horrifying. That's why the majors exist to begin with.

So famously disunited artists are not joining up to establish minimum payments, like athletes. They're not lobbying for free agency. They're not improving their lot, just bitching.

If only every artist like Def Leppard, and they're not the only one with this right, refused to let their label put their catalog on digital services.

If only a case was litigated wherein streaming was seen as a license and fifty percent went to the artist.

Instead, Spotify is the punching bag. Just like Ticketmaster is in the concert sphere. Ignorant people are attacking the wrong target.

Then again, the label seems to be the only one investing in you. Managers are not coughing up serious dough, certainly not agents. It's kind of like taking VC money. He who puts down the cash takes the lion's share of the money, especially if the business/act has no traction.

Yes, sell out theatres on your own and you'll get a better deal.

It's called leverage.

Build your own and stop complaining.


--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1

If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25

To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25




--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --