"Streaming may be screwing the artists, but the labels have figured out how to make bank off of it." is a funny way to say "The labels are screwing artists."
Great point. Also notice the part early on when Adam implied that artists were making off their CD sales before streaming? Nope, the labels kept most of that money too.
Seems to me that with modern technology making it so much easier and more affordable to obtain the equipment and software to produce high quality music the solution is simple really. Artists should band together and form artists coops/unions basically have a bunch of artists contribute their catalogues to a non profit organisation owned by the artists to negotiate licencing deals for the artists and pay the dividends to their members instead of leaving artists with no choice but to sell their soul to labels that exploit them. Sure would probably need some heavy hitters to get on board so they would have some real bargaining power to begin with but surely this is doable these days it really doesn't take billions of dollars to equip a studio produce music and turn it into a viral success on social media like it once did when a professional recording studio was a massive expensive investment to construct and equip and all marketing was in the hands of traditional media with huge price tags as a barrier to entry. These days I suspect one could produce music to a production quality indistinguishable from what the labels can output with more like £10,000 worth of equipment and software, professional grade condenser mics etc are still not exactly cheap but a decent modern PC with probably £1-2k tops worth of professional standard sound I/O hardware and industry standard software can pretty much replace the entire mixing and editing suite solo.
Yeah isnt it pretty standard for 50 years now that you either become successful, and make a lot of money in the music industry, or you make basically nothing...? the only thing that changed is how many you have to reach, 200k views/listens isnt enough to get big record deals and such anymore. Or did i miss something?
@@DrKlinkist the bar is much higher now. And actually lots of musicians can make a standard living on their music 20 years ago. Now streaming has seriously killed that.
@@lordblazer are you sure about that? 20 years ago cds were still dying and internet downloads were becoming a thing. I dont see how indie music creators could make a living during that era of mostly listening to pop, or one hit wonders, could be wrong tho
Many certainly did, but it depended on a lot of factors and has often been overstated. Back in the days when it wasn't uncommon for popular artists to sell millions of records, the artists who actually had those records (which certainly wasn't the majority of musicians even then) did stand to make substantial income off of album royalties.
Brandon Urie, of Panic! at the disco, said in a podcast that he basically makes no money from making new albums, he makes all of his money from touring, merch and doing private shows for rich clients
Why exactly does the artist get such a small percentage of their own music's profit. The label shouldnt get the majority of the profit, all label did was record and promote/spread the word. Artist sang, worked on, and most likely wrote the song.
If a bigger richer musician complains, he/she is seen as too greedy, a sell out, someone who should learn about the old days of tape trading. Anyone lesser than that, they are called out for not doing it for the music and told to work harder. Its one of the few reasons why people are nervous to talk about this, add in the fact that some people dont know anything about business and how to properly defend or fight (Metallica anyone?)
yea! I remember that and sadly i kinda bought into it because i had no idea what was really going on- i just heard people repeating the headlines without any context and followed the sheep...
The only thing I disagree with on that is her targeting streaming services. I mean, don't they have to negotiate with the labels to be able to legally stream the music? Don't the labels work on behalf of the artists they have on board? Combining those two facts with the fact that the labels have a history of woefully underpaying artists, I think the blame is squarely in the wrong place, and label practices are what need scrutiny, but that is just IMO.
Thank you for doing this. The only time I made a living as a musician was when I got hired for a couple of months with a monthly salary, but though I was primarily hired as a musician, a big part of the work was actually doing youth work. I do have gigs regularly now, but they're just a small part of my income and the money to make art comes from doing other jobs. Many artists actually finance their art themselves without knowing if it ever pays off. It's a gamble really, and the odds are not good.
I am sorry to hear that. This is why this company, MajorKeys Production, was started. We wanted to give back to the artists and bring up artists that would never have a chance with a big company. Our artists are able to pay rent and live comfortably with our help. That is what we pride ourselves in.
The most I've ever made as a musician was $90 and 3 beer tickets. The band made $30 that we split 3 ways and each blew it on beer. Then I found $80 between my tire and the gutter when I was loading my truck.
That is truly sad. At MajorKeys Production we make sure the artists can make enough to pay rent, buy food, and sustain themselves. Our artists know they will never have to go bankrupt. We provide help for them not only in monetary value but in health. We make sure their health comes first.
I was surprised when my hobby band got paid, a bit over 200 dollar and given free food. We didnt even realise we were getting paid for the show until some guy came up to us afterwards.
That is truly the sad truth. At MajorKeys Production we try to give back to our artists and make sure they are taken care of first before anything is done. We need to cultivate the music and keep growing. Music, as well as culture is dynamic but if we take away from artists and they need to sound like each other then the art becomes stagnant and repetitive. Artists will think they need to sound like each other to make some form of income. We want to take away that stigma and get back to the art.
@@majorkeysproduction9236 I'm not here to bash anyone's passion, but I believe if young people knew this is the reality of music, I wonder if they'd pursue it at all.
@@jeffbrehove2614 there are still musicians that make music for music, my dad and I are still practicing music, and no matter how unprofitable the industry is, it doesn't matter to us. I'm sure there are like minded musicians
The rest of this half hour episode was WAY more interesting/informative. Black musicians being relegated to obscurity. And ticketmaater screwing artists & fans outta millions of dollars in "fees". But... How do i share it with ppl? It's not on TH-cam
Or... you know... Do what you want cause a pirate is free, you are a pirate! Yarr har fiddle dee dee Being a pirate is alright to be Do what you want cause a pirate is free You are a pirate!
One word: Patreon. Support your favourite artists directly and help them keep alive as they make your favourite art! Amanda Palmer is a great example of how it can be done :)
@@serenesista you're so right. we need a decentralized network of independent content creators and the groups they form on their own being paid directly by the consumers who wish to see their content. It would be cheap too; pennies for lifetime access, MAYBE dollars for whole discographies, all because each consumer would be contributing DIRECTLY to a creator's much-needed income (and endorsements of products WOULD ACTUALLY BE GENUINE, since the laborers are the ones choosing whose money to accept!); plus, most creators love sharing free samples, free versions, or even posting all their content for free if they're hobbyists just looking for side cash, or people who are big enough to find incomes elsewhere. artists love putting their art out there!! putting media in control of the workers within media is the best way to go about it. but, that's heavily rooted in concepts like social anarchy. us Civilized Humans tend to shy away from the very concept of "anarchy". so good luck fighting corporatization, when our only answer out is killing all possibility for class related power to prevent inevitable "other-side" authoritarianism (just depends on who you're asking, everyone's got a damn opinion on who the bad guys are lol) it would just be nice to live in a world where all labor rights were controlled by the laborers. hah! could you imagine?
This applies to all artists, not just musicians. Writers are even more hard-done by. The average writer (defined as someone who earns at least 50% of their annual income through their writing work) in the UK makes just £10,000 ($13,000) a year from their writing work, well below the legally mandated minimum wage. Most of your favourite authors probably have a part-time job to help make ends meet. Unless you only read celebrity authors, who are the exceptions
xocutievxo Taylor Swift turned down owning her entire back catalog because she didn’t want to work with Scott Scortch, believing her, “best years lie ahead”. Meanwhile she hasn’t written an A-list tune in 3 years. I’m usually on the “T Swift is a brilliant business women bus (like, she convinces you she actually cares about what other artists make )”, but I don’t know wth she is doing right now. The Beatles would have killed to own their back catalog. McCartney was crushed when MJ outbid him.
Fritz Gillis she turned it down because the only way they were willing to let her get them back was that she got one old album for every new album she released with them, she makes an album every two years and had 6 albums out at the time so that would mean she would have to stay with them for 12 years, why tf would she resign with them for over a decade when she’s a songwriter on all her songs so she knows she can just re-record them anyway after the contract ends
Kool Kutey the terms you just listed were not the terms that Scott posted on the Big Machine website when he posted his rebuttal to TS. Additionally, Taylor Swift’s dad sits in the board of Big Machine, and she is a huge reason anyone knows that label at all (her family came from NJ and was like, here’s money, make her famous...after she failed in NY...where she obv prefers anyway). ANYWAY, I like T Swift but she is a business woman and I believe she’s just using her platform to make more $$$. I mean in her 70 questions or wtvr the advice she had for young musicians is to get a good lawyer 😒
I cannot agree with her and other artists that place the blame on streaming services for screweing them out of money though. I dunno, I just find it hard to believe since the labels are the ones they need to negotiate with/pay to be in the legal clear/not get the crap sued out of them, thus, the labels hold all the chips.
@@FritzGillis No, McCartney was not crushed when MJ bought the catalogue. MJ and McCartney were friends. McCartney was the one who told Michael that the money was in owning publishing. When the Beatle's catalogue was up for sale, McCartney didn't want to bid on it. He had more money to bid on it, but for some reason he didn't want it. MJ asked McCartney about purchasing the catalogue, and he told MJ that he wasn't interest in the catalogue and didn't care if MJ bought it. So McCartney screwed himself over, NOT MJ! And while were on the topic of you sympathizing with McCartney, in that Beatle's catalogue was also masters from BLACK artists who who never owned their own masters and couldn't have financial security because of it. When Michael Jackson got the Beatle's catalogue, he gave - not sold, GAVE - Little Richard his catalogue, and he did the same for Sly and the Family Stone. Hmm... I wonder if McCartney would have done the same if he had decided to buy his group's catalogue. I highly doubt it. I am not for conspiracy theories, but MJ was right when he said that a lot of people were absolutely pissed that he bought and own the most valuable and powerful catalogue in the world.
Hey, old punk dad here. It's very doable. I'm shocked how many guys even older than me I see at shows. We just don't jump in the pit much anymore. XD I take my teenage son with me too. All the punk dads I know have at least one kid that ends up getting into it too. When you're raised on it, it doesn't seem all that out there, it just seems like good ol' rock, which is what it is.
@@tomlxyz correction. People don't want 'art' as art doesn't do what science, math, economics or hard labor do. That is fulfill certain types of needs. Yet people need art in the end as art is the only thing that can, in its abstract way, provide you with things you need in life. Art helps you relax, distract, show unique perspectives and views, makes you experience things you've never thought of that in turn helps broaden your life and add color to it. And thanks to art, we are surviving the pandemic as it helps us distract us from the free time and frustration we now have in our hands
@@tomlxyz just as one doesnt need an iphone yet people keep buying them. If you can afford a several hundred dollar phone you can afford 5 bucks for your favourite artist
If you were transported to a world where all you basic needs were met but there was no art, you’d find it unbearable and be begging to go back Art is a need, and a human right
The music industry, the entire music industry is The Big 3 Labels. Sony, Universal, Warner. They control who gets a career in music - and musicians reading this - you don't. that's why music never changes.
People used to understand that only having a few companies doing something was a bad thing, and bust up the trusts and monopolies. Now they're encouraged. We only have 4 companies running the large meatpacking plants, cattle prices are below break-even, but it sure wouldn't seem like it when you go to the grocery store because ghey are importing beef from Brazil.
William Meyer There are many sites and organizations like Bandcamp that support musicians, but note that they are all marginalized by the same. Big 3 Labels. 1% of musicians make 70% of all the money, and Katy Perry spends $11 million dollars to promote 1 single! Bandcamp cannot compete with that. These 3 marginalize everyone to keep the money. Here's how they do it: they buy them outright, keep them out of the major media so they don't get coverage or reviews, or sue them out of business (Napster for ex.) Their watchdog organization the RIAA does a lot of the dirty work. The system is set up so musicians on Bandcamp or anywhere else except the 9 Corporate Pop Stars, are lucky if they make minimum wage 15K even.
Kind of goes hand in hand, though. If a musician gets picked up by a label offering more money, it’s entirely likely the label will pick the producers they work with, hire a songwriting team, and ultimately have the final say on whether or not they will release the album that’s made. That means the labels have just as much, or likely more creative control than the artist themselves. The labels will release what they think will be most profitable, not what is the most artistically true to the artist’s original vision.
You probably actually mean “the genre of the decade”. It wasn’t selling out when the 80’s was mostly synth, and the 70’s mostly psychedelic rock. You just happen to not like the late 2010s’ genre so you’re pretending it isn’t normal for this to happen. Boo.
That is also what he is saying. The artist is making music that is popular for the generation it may be more likely that their streaming numbers will be higher which in turn will probably help them stand out so that the labels can catch more endorsement deals
Mozart play for Royalty and Nobles, whoever paid his bills, so don't tell me this is a modern effect. Musicians have always been at the mercy of thier patrons.
Thank you! One thing people don't realize or appreciate, is just how different the world was before invention of recorded sound. Once upon a time, musicians could make a living, but not in the way a 21st century person might imagine it. Access to music was a luxury that few people had. If you wanted to hear a song, you either needed to sing/play it, or know somebody who could. If you were a Mozart of Beethoven, some wealthy property owner might sponsor you. If you had a lot of money, one way you could show it off was to have a composer and orchestra play music for you.
@@BedlemTheGoliath well Mozart wasn't the best money manager, by that statement can be said for a majority of us including myself....I think he blew away close to 20 million dollars in today's money....but that's another story....
@@davecarl7142 Have not heard that claim before though honestly would not surprise me especially considering his early age when he first rose to success, people that come into sudden unaccustomed wealth rarely manage it well especially if the windfall comes at an early age. Hell just look at how few lottery winners actually manage to avoid going bankrupt within a few years today despite winning amounts that would easily set anyone up for life from the potential investment profits alone if only the money was managed remotely competently. Any competent financial manager should be able to average incomes in the region of 50-100k per year on each million if only they had the foresight to look at wealth with that mindset and either learn how to manage it themselves or hire someone to do it for them. But no they all let themselves be so overwhelmed by the seemingly large numbers and think it will last forever despite them burning through it like complete idiots only to learn that no matter how large the number a fool can and will spend it, the saying a fool and their money are soon parted really is a truism heh. Not that a million is even as much as people seem to think when they are not used to it, most middle class american families probably blow through a million dollars in less than a decade normally let alone getting crazy because they think they have an endless pool of money heh.
Not really though. How many people do you think would switch from spotify to buying cds again? Or buying one off tracks again? Corporate greed didnt happen. It's in peoples nature to want to pay the least possible. Forgot napster?
Or: Food and Rent > Art Jeez. Don't blame non-existent "corporate greed" for us consumers being unwilling to pay artists fairly for the songs we enjoy. It's like you didn't even watch the video.
@@collectmail3088 did you miss the part where corporations were increasing their profit at the expense of the underpaid and overworked musician? Some of you will do so much just to defend the rich. smh.
@@CoryMck i dont have any interest defending the rich but at some point you have to take some personal responsibility. Us and the rich have something in common: we dont care who gets screwed ad long as we got what we wanted. Executives were screwing over artists even in the record days. The major shift that happened is that consumers now want to pay pennies and listen to songs. Would you pay $ 40 per month for spotify if that meant that the artists get paid well? ( please dont say that executives will eat it up. Just assume artists will be paid fairly)
@@collectmail3088 Translation: I dont have any interest in defending the rich but I will victim blaim the poor. I support exploitation in the name of infinite wealth. That's why I'm changing the subject back again to streaming. I already pay $20/month on TH-cam music, Google play music + Pandora so I don't know what you're talking about. Artists aren't paid anywhere close to the amount of money that they deserve. Spotify could pay better, they don't. Apple music could pay better, they don't.
Everything he said is true (I’m a professional musician). But We only have to sell out that much if we want to be rich off our asses. For most people, the “selling out” we have to do is being open to playing other types of music. Like most people can’t make a living off of just playing jazz. So you’d have to be willing to take that rock gig, or record for that hip hop artist. That’s all. It’s hardly even selling out, cuz you develop an appreciation for those genres as you play them. For me, I had to be open to that and learning a new skill (recording arts). And now I love what I do. I take commissions for recordings from around the world, record myself, and send them the audio file. On top of that, I teach music and gig with a bunch of different genres. That’s the “selling out” I had to do to make it alright. I’m not making millions, but I’m making enough. And I know people that do what I do and make at least 6 figures.
Jeb Atman It’s entirely possible they took from a Music Library available. Happens many times, as it’s more efficient to have a whole library of unreleased songs for different moods than to make an actual song for each production. The Teen Titans Go song “The Night Begins to Shine” is a library song that was so popular from that ten or so second clip that they had to release the full song. Peni Parker’s theme from Spiderverse is still officially unreleased, though there are fan versions.
@@hobihope2981 That's because they didnt take their music off of any of the other streaming services. Why would any switch when it was more convenient to stay with the service they had.
Selling out isn’t just when any artist does an advertisement or endorsement. It’s when an artist does something contradictory to their message for the sake of making more money when they’re already rich. For example, the rage against the machine boys playing Coachella is kind of selling out since they’re supposed to be opposed to large corrupt corporations
I put approximately $10,000 dollars into making an album I made $500 off of. Not to mention the probably thousands of hours I put into it. I basically had to hire performers for it, and it's a quality album musically. You can't get people to play music for nothing, the wide-eyed attitude of the golden age of pop is long past. I've had people boast to me about how much cheaper music is with streaming, not understanding the amount of time and effort it takes to create something worthy of the term "art". Essentially we are all beggars on street corners now, and we are some of the most talented people in the world. What it all boils down to, though, is that people no longer value that which is possibly one of the only things that make life worth living.
@Jeffrey Scott Musicians are extremely talented. I know music teachers that can also teach history, Algebra 2, and even English Lit all because of the music background. Also, this dude put in work to make something of their own. How many people sit at home, unwilling or unable to at least try to produce their own artistic work?
You can live live off your books though, especially if you self publish. But it takes lots and lots of marketing and grinding too have a chance at that.
Do it on the side, I dropped two and a half gs for a studio myself for the personal joy of making music it is very worth it, profit wise it takes a long time
I listen to Spotify about 40 hours a week.. I listen to music all day at work. Not sorry for listening to Spotify, it's an absolutely incredible app (if you have premium). People need to stop blaming people that use streaming services and start asking why artist's aren't making a fair wage for their work
Pretty sure the video said that the streaming services are the reason why musicians arent getting paid fairly. If everyone stopped using the streaming services they'd have no choice but to come up with something new that would hopefully treat bands and singers better but that won't happen
Tim Ratigan using Adam’s line of reasoning on why music streaming isn’t making any of the musicians any profit could be used for why we shouldn’t use streaming services like Netflix and Crunchroll, but yet TH-camrs like Adam still supports those services.
@@darkworker666"Pretty sure the video said that the streaming services are the reason why musicians arent getting paid fairly." But how does that make sense? I mean, the labels, who negotiate on behalf of their artists, are the ones the services need to work/cooperate with in order to be in the legal clear, how can one reasonably put all the onus on the services?
1:15 STOP! WAIT! That's a good thing! The whole point is streaming services like Spotify was to get the industry back UP to 50% of what it was in 1999. If it's at 60%, that means they did it, and then some!
The music industry has always screwed over the people who actually make the music but it's getting so much work if we actually care and value the musicians and their work we would boycott streaming services until musicians get a fair deal
I wish a boycott would work they even have chinese people singing random bs artists it's literally everywhere and billions are spent just to sell two or three songs every month that are all written by the same guy and sung by different people
@@jeffbrehove2614 for her last album before lover, she didn't have it on streaming services when it first launched. If you wanted the music you had to get the full album.
@@KentaSims93 That's just fighting against progress. Things may have been somewhat better for artists back when people bought albums (and even then there were a lot of shitty business practices), but those days are never coming back. Artists need to fight the exploitative industry, not the forward march of time.
Just realized all those cancelled tours from Covid-19 and cancelled music festivals are hurting them even more, so expect music videos more loaded with product placement than a NASCAR driver’s jacket and car.
I hope he talks about the positives of today too at some point in the episode. Kickstarter, patreon, house concerts, home recording producing professional quality, direct distribution options, and self promotion being easier than ever. What is gone is the lottery pay out of a big hit and the big initial payout of a record contract, both of which ended up often destroying musicians or putting them in massive debt. Today being a musician is like any other small business, entirely possible for more people than ever if you have the talent, work ethic, and personality to do so.
The big issue is that the artist who’s independent has to keep working in order to make money. Meanwhile there are artists who haven’t had a hit in 30 years and were 1 hit wonders still collecting royalties from the song, in many cases enough to live off of.
Which is actually a bad thing in some ways. Those royalties are great for the artist, but the artist's music (which, on average is no better or worse than new music) is getting heavy play BECAUSE it won the lottery before the old system was broken. Meaning that the people who benefited from the old system are getting a bigger piece of the pie, and most listeners to streaming services or radio are hearing that song 3 times a day if they stay on the same playlist/radio station. Haha. Thanks for reminding me of this post.
@@JK.Fraser the system was always broken. Up until the late 40s artists rarely got paid royalties. They sold their songs to the label and the label paid them for concerts and that was it. That changed in the 50s (a lot of had to do with the Payola scandal). Things improved with better record deals and lawyers. But over time the labels figured around this and it’s gotten worse in the last 20 or so years.
@@CamaroAmx Because record labels are a lot less necessary. There are way more people making a living as professional musicians now than at any time since the radio was invented, they just aren't getting rich.
In the early cable days (MTV), music videos were so expensive that most bands owed $ for that video beyond their existence. Touring is strictly promotional. No profit from a tour itself (per costs).
He didn't mention that a lot of undiscovered artists make a living playing covers on cruiseships, casinos, and bars, to raise enough money to work on original material/albums. You can make good money playing covers, if you're good. That's where I'm at right now. All the money I make "selling out" goes into creating and songwriting.
then canada must be torrent haven. streaming is a compromise between old record labels and piracy. its just impossible to earn money selling music since distribution is so easy and cheap.
Literally even a passing mention of the booming DIY scene would have made more of a difference than just telling everyone what a simple google search would have.
iTunes Store is Digital Sales it still counts as a sold unit (although they take a mighty cut), whereas Music is a streaming service. One guess as to why Apple now pushes Music over the iTunes Store.
Sorry bud, I'm in my 40s and I'm sitting on hundreds of CDs (plus an embarrassing amount of cassettes and vinyls). Too many to bother trying to burn to my PC. Physical media forever.
Seems like people forgot being a "successful" musician is a lot like being a movie star. There's only so many positions and they fill QUICK. No one sheds a tear for failed actors but if a guitarist strums a chord and doesn't get a mansion, people think there's a problem.
@@DuoXCity Lamb of God is great example of a popular heavy metal band that has sold many albums but really don’t have that much money (see the documentary As The Palaces Burn). Most of the non mainstream artists make about as much as a ok dentist.
4:02 actually Adam in 2017 Diddy had been offered SHARES in the company, not just cut a check for endorsement. But instead now he owns such a nice chunk of the company pie that it pays much larger dividends than what the average "brand deal" would supply you.
Psshhh Artists! They need to “Live”. If they weren’t sell outs they’d live in a box behind the studio. That’s how a real musician does it. What? You’re sayin lot of artists are actually working homeless? Well....
I think that artists should stay independent, focus on developing their fanbase and pay for their own marketing. That way they could their music out there and still own it.
And they’ll never be as popular and make nearly the same amount of money. And the part of how little streaming services pay goes for independent artists as well (and can be worse because the independent artists has less negotiating power).
i dont see why they dont just put regular albums on spotify and if you buy the CD you get the deluxe edition, like how with blu ray movies you get the director's cut
Sounds like he's perfectly OK with the status quo and making excuses for the industry's predatory and greedy behavior. Com'on people... "Problem, Reaction, Solution" Focus on the solutions, not dwell on the problems.
Speaking as a freelance musician, I wish this video title was relabeled "Why Big Music Artists...". There are so many people who are actually working and making a living in the music industry whose goal is not to be a "star" but to simply make a living through (more than likely) some combination of performing, writing music, engineering, teaching, and the many other things that most musicians (the overwhelming majority of average musicians like us) do. The two gigs are very different from each other.
I'm tired of artists complaining about not being paid a fair price for their art. The problem is that creating art and selling it are two completely different skills and most people can't do both. Without the labels to market and sell their product, most musicians would never make a living making music and the ones that do wouldn't make nearly as much.
My bf has a friend who is in a band and they sell merch on sites like Tee Public. I think all artists need to get merch on those sites. I know I would buy some when I can. I doubt that I'm the only one.
I worked in the music industry and he even mentioned the artist I managed. Music isnt so commercial anymore, it is the exact opposite. You can make a track and put it out for free except for a small fee at the register. But that isnt how music is consumed. Music needs demand behind it to sell huge just like a fidget spinner gismo and that kinda press needs money or a really slick viral kickstart and then money to maintain that trajectory. That money comes from Major Record Labels dropping boat loads of advertising money on radio stations. Indie labels can do this but that is done through a process called payolla. Majors get away with haivng their tracks played in markets because of the advertising partnership we talked about. Appearently quid-pro-quo is legal. You cant get people to your concert in a town where they dont know your music and dont know you have a concert. Radio stations play music and people listen to that music so this is the perfect forum for this advertising brand. Touring is still a source for revenue if the artist has music playing in rotation in that market.. New York, LA, Atlanta, Philly. Miami, and etc. The bigger the market is the more money it will cost in advertising. Miami is the 14 largest market and New York is the largest... Then there is the global market and it has its own set of rules based on the region.... For the most part these regions are dominated by what company owns your distribution rights in those areas. The best market for generating sustainable revenue quickly is latin america, they can not consume music fast enough. Not to mention meet and greet fees you can accumulate along a tour. Payole isnt payola down there it is just called THE BUSINESS MODEL and is relatively inexpensive. You can get your music spinning down there for almost nothing for the 6 weeks prior to your concert and make profits to boot. You just need seed money to get it rolling that you can acquire by touring the bar circuit. The longer you do this the faster your popularity grows and this entire process seems a bit more organic to me. Then the internet... All bets are off here, you just need a guy like me to promote you all day long and serch for markets and oportunities to get you noticed by a major record label or spnsor to fund your gigs. Having sponsors are the difference between sleeping in a crowded van everynight or a hotel with a shower. Getting the right sponsor is alwys preferred but rarely happens. But sponsors tend to know thier market and that is why you never see an Anarchist band sponsored by Wachovia! Is a safe bet that everyone has a preference between coke or pepsi. Is it horrible that Pepsi wants you more familiar with their band? Would you rather listen to a road worn band who smells like farts and shag carpet or well rested band who serves Pepsi exclusively at the concession stands. Is it really selling out that the tour bus has a "safe auto" ad on the rear? The point is stop being a douchbag and calling your favorite artist a sell out for trying to make a living. You wanna get mad at someone, get mad at people like the Kardashians and even ole Adam here... This entire business model is predicated on advertising revenue. Think about it, if truTV had to rely on its viewers to phyisically purchase its product would they survive?
Luna Rokeart nah. labels don’t give a big cut of physical sales either, it can be in the pennies. best way is to go to our show and buy merch. the merch can be like a pbs gift if you donate, where it’s overpriced because it’s a tha k you for donating money, or it can be art that we invested a ton of money into making and barely break even or lose money selling to you in the hope of getting our name out there. so just give a tip. or buy albums from the band’s own website or send actual money their way. but always ask the individual bands how they prefer to receive profit.
there is a reason why a lot of artists these days first get big on sites like youtube and tiktok cause they release songs there first they get a cut of the ad revenue that way
call me old school. but I actually buy my favourites artist albums. though still listen to them on spotify and youtube. because its more easy then switch cd's
I do too. We need to go back to buying albums, and I don't mean physical CDs if that is not what one wants to buy. A person can buy digital albums from iTunes or somewhere. Spotify, Pandora, etc play music for free. And even if someone pays a subscription, it's the price of only one album. The Internet has ushered in a time of free entitlement to entertainment. Shows should be free, music should be free, etc. We are used to intangible entertainment to be free now. Truth is that songwriters, producers, bands, and equipment costs, and artist have to pay that cost back to the label. They rely on their fans and supporters buying their music.
Same thing. There's many artists whom I follow on Spotify, and have a great deal on listening to them, yet I eventually buy their albums because I love their music a lot
Even in the 90's the labels were making bank and screwing artists. Most bands wouldn't even recoup their advances and would end up broke after selling millions of records. In fact, only a fraction of artists were ever able to maintain a long term career. In the "heyday" of music sales, artists were intentionally kept ignorant and uninformed on the inner workings of the industry, allowing them to be totally taken advantage of. At least today, we have the tools and information to be entrepreneurs. We're our own labels, own managers, own advocates. I'll take the 2019 music industry over the 1999 music industry any day of the week.
Know plenty of artists who are making a healthy living and haven’t “sold out”. The thing is they’re willing to take work wherever they can (session work, church gigs, bar gigs, house bands, etc.). They also have a healthy knowledge of the business and accept that music is an industry where you need to be versatile, willing, and hard working. Not only that but it seems like unions get a bad rap in this comment section...not true.
"hard working", oh there's that generic term again. It's that thing ALL jobs need but assholes throw into their comments to imply ANY form of failure is 100% the persons fault and circumstance just isn't a thing. This comment amounts to "Well, it doesn't matter record companies are fleecing artists and customers alike, they need to play more churches."
I firmly believe one of the biggest moments of defiance to the music industry was when Slipknot released Iowa, one of the most demented and aggressive albums of all time, after being told to make more hits for their 2nd album
And if you really work hard you can make as much as a dentist before expenses and probably a fast food assistant night manager after expenses. And if you quit or become not as popular, back to that day job for you. Meanwhile the guy who did Mambo #5 in the early 90s (his one and only hit) is still making money off it 30 years without leaving his couch or picking up a microphone. Why? Royalties.
You want to help musicians, go to local and smaller shows and buy merch. A lot of merch sales have far less middlemen. The local support helps out many smaller musicians and regionally touring acts (bands that are likely losing money when playing)
And I've been working on rebuilding my studio so I can make tunes again. To be fair, I was kind of hoping that I could get by on uploading the videos to TH-cam as live performances.
Streaming isn't killing the music industry, when I compare it how I grew up. With cassettes I was able to record music off the radio. Also the play time was very limited. When I got my discman, I had 2 CDs with my music and that was it. I did bought CDs but overall it was about sharing and then getting your mixtape ready. With my first mp3 player that was able to hold 128MB or Music, I mostly ripped CDs into MP3 and threw it on my Player. Then I got internet and illegal download was a thing. Today I pay for streaming and the amount I spend is more than I would have bought physical CDs. With streaming I can change my Playlist very easy and can kick out songs. With bought CDs, I need to get the most songs that I like to hear out of my money and I need to listen to it. Fun fact. In Germany you pay a small fee on blank CDs, USB Sticks, Cassets and so on towards the music labels. A rule of thumb is that you are allowed to make 7 copies of a CD and you are allowed to share this copy with friends and family. Yes we are allowed to buy a CD burn it 7 times and give it away to friends and family and that legal. The problem that I see are the music labels.
I don't have a problem with artists selling out as long as it's done subtly. Ajr did an endorsement of amazon tablets and they still emphasized the art of their music by utilizing their #1 go to instrument which is electronics. Unlike the pop icons like people from Kpop and all that. These people are puppets, tained and honed to be tpys of the entertainment industry to brainwash kids with their dances, fashion looks, incomprehensible and nonsensical songs. It's a recirprocity between huge corporates and ambitious individuals but little to no art is produced. Just money.
What happened was a bunch of top bill artists signed contracts without a lawyer in the 80s. Like many companies record labels put traps in their contracts for people who don't get a lawyer to look them over. These were struck out of contracts by lawyers as a matter of routine. The RIAA was formed around this time, and what they did was use the fact so many of these musically talented but financially uneducated artists signed on with these clauses intact to make it a standard to not accept the contracts without them. The biggest ones that bankrupt artists are a clause on 'advance payouts', which is basically the record label pays the artist a lump sum based off projected sales, the lawyer trash clause is that the artist has to return that advance to cover any shortfall off projected sales. The other is a block of legalese that gives ownership of an artists music to the company. Another fun one is one that gives the label control of the artists tour schedule, which if you look up Pat Benatar's biography her label forced her to tour and shoot music videos throughout her pregnancy.
That’s why Collective Soul, who had a string of top 20 hits in the mid-late 90s had to get their lead singer to remortgage his house for the band to be able to afford to make anther album in the mid-2000s, which thankfully for them was also a hit. Or how TLC had to file for bankruptcy after 3 top ten albums. It costs a lot of money to make an album, music videos and to promote the album. What people don’t realize is the artist borrow money from the label to record the album (it’s called an advance) and use their own money (or borrow money from the label) to make videos. They then get no money from royalties until the debt to the label is paid off (Nirvana didn’t receive a dime in royalties from Nevermind until 6 months after it became a hit and artists are paid royalties quarterly). The more faith the label has in the artist dictates how much the label is willing to lend. The album doesn’t sell? Then the artist is on the hook for paying it back. In many cases the reason artists will tour before an album is recorded (usually right after they get signed) is to mostly build up some money to offset the production costs of the album, plus to gauge how popular the band is to decide how much money the label is willing to risk lending to the band. Kid rock almost went bankrupt until “only god knows why” became a hit. And yes, the artist does get paid upon signing (sign on bonus) that doesn’t have to be paid back but in many cases it’s smart to use some of the money to live off of while recording their debut and to use most of it to pay for recording so the artist isn’t in as deep in debt when the album is done.
I'm at the point where my view is just listen to them, even if it is pirated or downloaded just listen to em, get them in your head real good so you always come back. If you don't come back over and over again to that artist looking for new or better products then as a artist they will have failed themselves.
Who even needs professional artists. If we as consumers weren't so picky about the media we consume, we could be happy with the perfectly fine art that is created by the millions who do it for fun in their free time. There is more than enough great amateur-art to stay entertained for a hundred lifetimes. And these artists create it without any financial pressure and are happy to share it for free with everyone who enjoys it. The fact that people have to pay for experiencing arts is as ridiculous as the fact that people pay for making it.
Welcome to agriculture. A packing plant in Kansas burns, cattle prices drop, retail prices rise, and the packers process 9,000 more head the week after losing the plant, than the week before losing the plant, and clear over 3 times per head more than they paid for it only factoring the box beef wholesale price, and no byproducts.
It's not just endorsements and branding in music videos, artists actually change their music to get more airtime to boost their standing in the industry. Metallica, for instance, used to write epic thrash metal songs that more often than not clocked in over five minutes; few songs from their legendary first four albums made it save for shorter, catchier tracks like "Battery". Their fifth, self-titled album became dominated by more radio-friendly tracks, save for "The Unforgiven", and subsequent albums doubled down, gaining revenue but costing support from fans that had been listening since the '80s. Remember, radio pays labels to play songs, and to keep their programs interesting, stations rarely pick songs longer than four or five minutes and target the widest possible audience within a given genre. Artists try to capture airtime (or at least used to) for revenue and Billboard rankings, and perhaps to sway listeners into buying music.
The thing hes not mentioning is that the music industry is MUCH. MUCH MUCH more open to entry now. And all those 'low paid' artists wouldn't be making anything in 1995
@@boomdos4265 the industry tends to follow trends and rarely risks a lot on trend stetting artists. There is a reason why if a certain band puts out a hit, there will several bands that come out that sound very similar to that artist. Slipknot/Mudvayne, Seether/Shinedown, Taylor swift/Kelly Pickler, Carrie Underwood/Miranda Lambert, beetles/the kinks/the monkees, Metallica/Slayer/Anthrax/Megadeth, Nirvana/Pearl Jam, ect. It happened in the 80s big time. Once one “hair metal” band in LA got signed and had a hit (quite riot), by the end of the 80s the major labels had signed nearly every band on the sunset strip and then found more in New York. Happened again in the 90s with grunge. One band had a surprise hit (nirvana), then every band kinda similar to them got signed (Pearl jam, soundgarden, Screaming Trees, Blind Melon, ect). Happened again with rap in the early 90s as well. It still happens today. If your in a band and trying to make it big, but have a decent fan base, the best way to get signed is wait until anther band from your local scene gets signed and has a surprise hit. You’ll be signed in weeks if your half decent.
Or you bypass the labels and companies and go through patreon or something. Peter Hollins makes something like $10,000 Per video from his patreon donators.
What happens if he stops making videos? Eventually the money runs out as do the views and patreon. Meanwhile Axl Rose made $40 million a year in royalties while sitting on his butt for 10 years. The guy on patreon gets no royalties, he gets donations. Patreon- the go fund me for youtubers. The guy who did Mambo #5 in the early 90s is still getting paid nearly 30 years later. Will Peter still be getting paid from Patreon 10 years from now if he just stops making videos? No....
@@CamaroAmx Who cares? He's his own boss. Gets all the money and doesn't have to share it. And hes not beholden to any contracts. At a certain point "More" Becomes meaningless.
@@jairusstrunk94 my point is in order for artists like Peter to make money, he has to keep working. It becomes no better then a regular job. Meanwhile signed (and formerly signed) artists still make money even when their not working.
Back in the day even The Beatles used to complain because they had really bad contracts and so the way they made all their money was from tours, not from physical music sales.
"Streaming may be screwing the artists, but the labels have figured out how to make bank off of it." is a funny way to say "The labels are screwing artists."
Great point. Also notice the part early on when Adam implied that artists were making off their CD sales before streaming? Nope, the labels kept most of that money too.
Seems to me that with modern technology making it so much easier and more affordable to obtain the equipment and software to produce high quality music the solution is simple really. Artists should band together and form artists coops/unions basically have a bunch of artists contribute their catalogues to a non profit organisation owned by the artists to negotiate licencing deals for the artists and pay the dividends to their members instead of leaving artists with no choice but to sell their soul to labels that exploit them. Sure would probably need some heavy hitters to get on board so they would have some real bargaining power to begin with but surely this is doable these days it really doesn't take billions of dollars to equip a studio produce music and turn it into a viral success on social media like it once did when a professional recording studio was a massive expensive investment to construct and equip and all marketing was in the hands of traditional media with huge price tags as a barrier to entry. These days I suspect one could produce music to a production quality indistinguishable from what the labels can output with more like £10,000 worth of equipment and software, professional grade condenser mics etc are still not exactly cheap but a decent modern PC with probably £1-2k tops worth of professional standard sound I/O hardware and industry standard software can pretty much replace the entire mixing and editing suite solo.
They always were!
Labels were screwing artists back in the CD days, too. The artist barely got anything per CD even in the heyday of CDs.
This should be the top comment.
Her rent is 876 dollars per month
Yeah, that tracks. Minimum.
876 with less rounding.
I was hoping someone did the math on that
I hate that you did that, but I knew someone would.... sigh
I was about to do the math and then realized someone else probably already did it
Trust me Adam, musicians got screwed even when album/cd/single sales were a thing. :-)
Yeah isnt it pretty standard for 50 years now that you either become successful, and make a lot of money in the music industry, or you make basically nothing...? the only thing that changed is how many you have to reach, 200k views/listens isnt enough to get big record deals and such anymore. Or did i miss something?
@@DrKlinkist the bar is much higher now. And actually lots of musicians can make a standard living on their music 20 years ago. Now streaming has seriously killed that.
@@lordblazer are you sure about that? 20 years ago cds were still dying and internet downloads were becoming a thing. I dont see how indie music creators could make a living during that era of mostly listening to pop, or one hit wonders, could be wrong tho
Prince was an example of this...unfortunately.
Many certainly did, but it depended on a lot of factors and has often been overstated. Back in the days when it wasn't uncommon for popular artists to sell millions of records, the artists who actually had those records (which certainly wasn't the majority of musicians even then) did stand to make substantial income off of album royalties.
Open Mike Eagle got an endorsement deal *talking about endorsement deals*
Stonks
Because he needs these endorsements the put food on his table. At least he's humble enough to talk about it
@@jeffbrehove2614 _Didn't say it was a bad thing,_ also, open Mike Eagle is a big name, he doesn't NEED this per say.
@@CoryMck well at least he's open about it. And really I wonder how many kids would be willing to pursue music if the knew this.
@@CoryMck I'm with you.
However, I mainly commented so I could say #Endorsementception
Brandon Urie, of Panic! at the disco, said in a podcast that he basically makes no money from making new albums, he makes all of his money from touring, merch and doing private shows for rich clients
Why exactly does the artist get such a small percentage of their own music's profit. The label shouldnt get the majority of the profit, all label did was record and promote/spread the word. Artist sang, worked on, and most likely wrote the song.
Didn't Taylor Swift make a stand about getting musicians more money from streaming and people called her greedy? Correct me if I'm wrong?
If a bigger richer musician complains, he/she is seen as too greedy, a sell out, someone who should learn about the old days of tape trading.
Anyone lesser than that, they are called out for not doing it for the music and told to work harder.
Its one of the few reasons why people are nervous to talk about this, add in the fact that some people dont know anything about business and how to properly defend or fight (Metallica anyone?)
yea! I remember that and sadly i kinda bought into it because i had no idea what was really going on- i just heard people repeating the headlines without any context and followed the sheep...
The only thing I disagree with on that is her targeting streaming services. I mean, don't they have to negotiate with the labels to be able to legally stream the music? Don't the labels work on behalf of the artists they have on board? Combining those two facts with the fact that the labels have a history of woefully underpaying artists, I think the blame is squarely in the wrong place, and label practices are what need scrutiny, but that is just IMO.
More like it reeks of publicity stunt. She only speaked up when she released her albums and when Apple Music was about to officially launch.
no. She did it for herself.
Thank you for doing this. The only time I made a living as a musician was when I got hired for a couple of months with a monthly salary, but though I was primarily hired as a musician, a big part of the work was actually doing youth work. I do have gigs regularly now, but they're just a small part of my income and the money to make art comes from doing other jobs. Many artists actually finance their art themselves without knowing if it ever pays off. It's a gamble really, and the odds are not good.
May not have made too much, but much respect to true musicians who give it an honest try.
I am sorry to hear that. This is why this company, MajorKeys Production, was started. We wanted to give back to the artists and bring up artists that would never have a chance with a big company. Our artists are able to pay rent and live comfortably with our help. That is what we pride ourselves in.
It sucks to hear your favorite artists are struggling. What are other ways we can support artists?
You aren't wrong there, indie self financing is where your stuck if you want to stay out of the b.s and makes much profit as possible
@@starcrafter13terran I appreciate the sentiment but your respect is not gonna pay my rent
The most I've ever made as a musician was $90 and 3 beer tickets. The band made $30 that we split 3 ways and each blew it on beer. Then I found $80 between my tire and the gutter when I was loading my truck.
That is truly sad. At MajorKeys Production we make sure the artists can make enough to pay rent, buy food, and sustain themselves. Our artists know they will never have to go bankrupt. We provide help for them not only in monetary value but in health. We make sure their health comes first.
I was surprised when my hobby band got paid, a bit over 200 dollar and given free food. We didnt even realise we were getting paid for the show until some guy came up to us afterwards.
Ah yes the artists grind. Give up everything, get nothing back.
That is truly the sad truth. At MajorKeys Production we try to give back to our artists and make sure they are taken care of first before anything is done. We need to cultivate the music and keep growing. Music, as well as culture is dynamic but if we take away from artists and they need to sound like each other then the art becomes stagnant and repetitive. Artists will think they need to sound like each other to make some form of income. We want to take away that stigma and get back to the art.
@@majorkeysproduction9236 I'm not here to bash anyone's passion, but I believe if young people knew this is the reality of music, I wonder if they'd pursue it at all.
@@jeffbrehove2614 there are still musicians that make music for music, my dad and I are still practicing music, and no matter how unprofitable the industry is, it doesn't matter to us. I'm sure there are like minded musicians
The rest of this half hour episode was WAY more interesting/informative. Black musicians being relegated to obscurity. And ticketmaater screwing artists & fans outta millions of dollars in "fees".
But... How do i share it with ppl? It's not on TH-cam
Check trutv’s website for full episodes
Or... you know...
Do what you want cause a pirate is free, you are a pirate!
Yarr har fiddle dee dee
Being a pirate is alright to be
Do what you want cause a pirate is free
You are a pirate!
Super hard to obtain this show in Canada, legally.
Black musicians are literally more successful than ever right now.
Black artists are literally taking over the culture in america
One word: Patreon. Support your favourite artists directly and help them keep alive as they make your favourite art! Amanda Palmer is a great example of how it can be done :)
Darcia or you can also buy their music! Especially independent artists. They make 100% of their cut since they aren’t signed
@@kingbronksman7377 Definitely, any avenue that lets us support artists directly is the way to go!
We need an new patreon. They went corporate.
@@serenesista you're so right. we need a decentralized network of independent content creators and the groups they form on their own being paid directly by the consumers who wish to see their content. It would be cheap too; pennies for lifetime access, MAYBE dollars for whole discographies, all because each consumer would be contributing DIRECTLY to a creator's much-needed income (and endorsements of products WOULD ACTUALLY BE GENUINE, since the laborers are the ones choosing whose money to accept!); plus, most creators love sharing free samples, free versions, or even posting all their content for free if they're hobbyists just looking for side cash, or people who are big enough to find incomes elsewhere. artists love putting their art out there!! putting media in control of the workers within media is the best way to go about it.
but, that's heavily rooted in concepts like social anarchy. us Civilized Humans tend to shy away from the very concept of "anarchy".
so good luck fighting corporatization, when our only answer out is killing all possibility for class related power to prevent inevitable "other-side" authoritarianism (just depends on who you're asking, everyone's got a damn opinion on who the bad guys are lol)
it would just be nice to live in a world where all labor rights were controlled by the laborers. hah! could you imagine?
Bandcamp is pretty much a musician's Patreon. It gets a shout-out at the end of the show.
This applies to all artists, not just musicians. Writers are even more hard-done by. The average writer (defined as someone who earns at least 50% of their annual income through their writing work) in the UK makes just £10,000 ($13,000) a year from their writing work, well below the legally mandated minimum wage. Most of your favourite authors probably have a part-time job to help make ends meet. Unless you only read celebrity authors, who are the exceptions
"In 2017, the highest paid musician was Diddy."
That aged like a sour milk
Even if you don't like Taylor Swift she has the balls to stand up and actually help the industry and trying to get artists paid what they are owed .
xocutievxo Taylor Swift turned down owning her entire back catalog because she didn’t want to work with Scott Scortch, believing her, “best years lie ahead”. Meanwhile she hasn’t written an A-list tune in 3 years. I’m usually on the “T Swift is a brilliant business women bus (like, she convinces you she actually cares about what other artists make )”, but I don’t know wth she is doing right now. The Beatles would have killed to own their back catalog. McCartney was crushed when MJ outbid him.
Fritz Gillis she turned it down because the only way they were willing to let her get them back was that she got one old album for every new album she released with them, she makes an album every two years and had 6 albums out at the time so that would mean she would have to stay with them for 12 years, why tf would she resign with them for over a decade when she’s a songwriter on all her songs so she knows she can just re-record them anyway after the contract ends
Kool Kutey the terms you just listed were not the terms that Scott posted on the Big Machine website when he posted his rebuttal to TS. Additionally, Taylor Swift’s dad sits in the board of Big Machine, and she is a huge reason anyone knows that label at all (her family came from NJ and was like, here’s money, make her famous...after she failed in NY...where she obv prefers anyway). ANYWAY, I like T Swift but she is a business woman and I believe she’s just using her platform to make more $$$. I mean in her 70 questions or wtvr the advice she had for young musicians is to get a good lawyer 😒
I cannot agree with her and other artists that place the blame on streaming services for screweing them out of money though. I dunno, I just find it hard to believe since the labels are the ones they need to negotiate with/pay to be in the legal clear/not get the crap sued out of them, thus, the labels hold all the chips.
@@FritzGillis No, McCartney was not crushed when MJ bought the catalogue. MJ and McCartney were friends. McCartney was the one who told Michael that the money was in owning publishing. When the Beatle's catalogue was up for sale, McCartney didn't want to bid on it. He had more money to bid on it, but for some reason he didn't want it. MJ asked McCartney about purchasing the catalogue, and he told MJ that he wasn't interest in the catalogue and didn't care if MJ bought it. So McCartney screwed himself over, NOT MJ!
And while were on the topic of you sympathizing with McCartney, in that Beatle's catalogue was also masters from BLACK artists who who never owned their own masters and couldn't have financial security because of it. When Michael Jackson got the Beatle's catalogue, he gave - not sold, GAVE - Little Richard his catalogue, and he did the same for Sly and the Family Stone. Hmm... I wonder if McCartney would have done the same if he had decided to buy his group's catalogue. I highly doubt it.
I am not for conspiracy theories, but MJ was right when he said that a lot of people were absolutely pissed that he bought and own the most valuable and powerful catalogue in the world.
The dad seems like the archetypical matured punk rocker, a goal I hold for myself after age 30.
Hey, old punk dad here. It's very doable. I'm shocked how many guys even older than me I see at shows. We just don't jump in the pit much anymore. XD I take my teenage son with me too. All the punk dads I know have at least one kid that ends up getting into it too. When you're raised on it, it doesn't seem all that out there, it just seems like good ol' rock, which is what it is.
But hopefully smarter
Spend 5 minutes on the pages of artists who does commissions and you’ll find not paying artists is something people have grown accustomed too.
Thing is that one doesn't "need" art
@@tomlxyz correction. People don't want 'art' as art doesn't do what science, math, economics or hard labor do. That is fulfill certain types of needs. Yet people need art in the end as art is the only thing that can, in its abstract way, provide you with things you need in life. Art helps you relax, distract, show unique perspectives and views, makes you experience things you've never thought of that in turn helps broaden your life and add color to it. And thanks to art, we are surviving the pandemic as it helps us distract us from the free time and frustration we now have in our hands
My pa started telling people "If I wanted to play for exposure, I'd be on the stage with no pants."
@@tomlxyz just as one doesnt need an iphone yet people keep buying them. If you can afford a several hundred dollar phone you can afford 5 bucks for your favourite artist
If you were transported to a world where all you basic needs were met but there was no art, you’d find it unbearable and be begging to go back
Art is a need, and a human right
Summary: Labels take all the money and artists are forced to sell out because of that
I mean I watched the video
The music industry, the entire music industry is The Big 3 Labels. Sony, Universal, Warner.
They control who gets a career in music - and musicians reading this - you don't. that's why music never changes.
People used to understand that only having a few companies doing something was a bad thing, and bust up the trusts and monopolies.
Now they're encouraged.
We only have 4 companies running the large meatpacking plants, cattle prices are below break-even, but it sure wouldn't seem like it when you go to the grocery store because ghey are importing beef from Brazil.
Have you checked out Bandcamp? If anything can break the hold of the big labels, crowdfunding can.
William Meyer There are many sites and organizations like Bandcamp that support musicians, but note that they are all marginalized by the same. Big 3 Labels. 1% of musicians make 70% of all the money, and Katy Perry spends $11 million dollars to promote 1 single! Bandcamp cannot compete with that. These 3 marginalize everyone to keep the money. Here's how they do it: they buy them outright, keep them out of the major media so they don't get coverage or reviews, or sue them out of business (Napster for ex.) Their watchdog organization the RIAA does a lot of the dirty work. The system is set up so musicians on Bandcamp or anywhere else except the 9 Corporate Pop Stars, are lucky if they make minimum wage 15K even.
Interscope?
Domestically yes.
"Trashing the set is so early '70s!". Could not hold back a chuckle.
𝗡𝗶𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘁
I thought you meant “sell out” as in “make pop music that sound like everyone else’s”.
Kind of goes hand in hand, though. If a musician gets picked up by a label offering more money, it’s entirely likely the label will pick the producers they work with, hire a songwriting team, and ultimately have the final say on whether or not they will release the album that’s made. That means the labels have just as much, or likely more creative control than the artist themselves. The labels will release what they think will be most profitable, not what is the most artistically true to the artist’s original vision.
You probably actually mean “the genre of the decade”. It wasn’t selling out when the 80’s was mostly synth, and the 70’s mostly psychedelic rock. You just happen to not like the late 2010s’ genre so you’re pretending it isn’t normal for this to happen. Boo.
That is also what he is saying.
The artist is making music that is popular for the generation it may be more likely that their streaming numbers will be higher which in turn will probably help them stand out so that the labels can catch more endorsement deals
Same
Mozart play for Royalty and Nobles, whoever paid his bills, so don't tell me this is a modern effect. Musicians have always been at the mercy of thier patrons.
In fact we're not telling you so!
Thank you! One thing people don't realize or appreciate, is just how different the world was before invention of recorded sound. Once upon a time, musicians could make a living, but not in the way a 21st century person might imagine it. Access to music was a luxury that few people had. If you wanted to hear a song, you either needed to sing/play it, or know somebody who could. If you were a Mozart of Beethoven, some wealthy property owner might sponsor you. If you had a lot of money, one way you could show it off was to have a composer and orchestra play music for you.
Mozart also died penniless.
@@BedlemTheGoliath well Mozart wasn't the best money manager, by that statement can be said for a majority of us including myself....I think he blew away close to 20 million dollars in today's money....but that's another story....
@@davecarl7142 Have not heard that claim before though honestly would not surprise me especially considering his early age when he first rose to success, people that come into sudden unaccustomed wealth rarely manage it well especially if the windfall comes at an early age. Hell just look at how few lottery winners actually manage to avoid going bankrupt within a few years today despite winning amounts that would easily set anyone up for life from the potential investment profits alone if only the money was managed remotely competently. Any competent financial manager should be able to average incomes in the region of 50-100k per year on each million if only they had the foresight to look at wealth with that mindset and either learn how to manage it themselves or hire someone to do it for them. But no they all let themselves be so overwhelmed by the seemingly large numbers and think it will last forever despite them burning through it like complete idiots only to learn that no matter how large the number a fool can and will spend it, the saying a fool and their money are soon parted really is a truism heh. Not that a million is even as much as people seem to think when they are not used to it, most middle class american families probably blow through a million dollars in less than a decade normally let alone getting crazy because they think they have an endless pool of money heh.
Thrashing the set perfectly fits into mid-nineties theme, cf. Nirvana
Proof the grunge section of music history is often ignored, right along side the 60s folk revival, and Mississippi Delta blues
Jeff Brehove ya too bad grunge is the best in my opinion
Essentially: Corporate Greed > Art.
Not really though. How many people do you think would switch from spotify to buying cds again? Or buying one off tracks again?
Corporate greed didnt happen. It's in peoples nature to want to pay the least possible. Forgot napster?
Or: Food and Rent > Art
Jeez. Don't blame non-existent "corporate greed" for us consumers being unwilling to pay artists fairly for the songs we enjoy. It's like you didn't even watch the video.
@@collectmail3088 did you miss the part where corporations were increasing their profit at the expense of the underpaid and overworked musician?
Some of you will do so much just to defend the rich. smh.
@@CoryMck i dont have any interest defending the rich but at some point you have to take some personal responsibility. Us and the rich have something in common: we dont care who gets screwed ad long as we got what we wanted.
Executives were screwing over artists even in the record days. The major shift that happened is that consumers now want to pay pennies and listen to songs. Would you pay $ 40 per month for spotify if that meant that the artists get paid well? ( please dont say that executives will eat it up. Just assume artists will be paid fairly)
@@collectmail3088
Translation: I dont have any interest in defending the rich but I will victim blaim the poor. I support exploitation in the name of infinite wealth. That's why I'm changing the subject back again to streaming.
I already pay $20/month on TH-cam music, Google play music + Pandora so I don't know what you're talking about. Artists aren't paid anywhere close to the amount of money that they deserve. Spotify could pay better, they don't. Apple music could pay better, they don't.
Everything he said is true (I’m a professional musician). But We only have to sell out that much if we want to be rich off our asses. For most people, the “selling out” we have to do is being open to playing other types of music. Like most people can’t make a living off of just playing jazz. So you’d have to be willing to take that rock gig, or record for that hip hop artist. That’s all. It’s hardly even selling out, cuz you develop an appreciation for those genres as you play them. For me, I had to be open to that and learning a new skill (recording arts). And now I love what I do. I take commissions for recordings from around the world, record myself, and send them the audio file. On top of that, I teach music and gig with a bunch of different genres. That’s the “selling out” I had to do to make it alright. I’m not making millions, but I’m making enough. And I know people that do what I do and make at least 6 figures.
Can we get a full version of that bop in the beginning?
I was thinking the exact same thing.
You mean the "Just make up something generic with a computer for this video" bop?
@@jebatman756 Yes, that's exactly what we mean. OP drop the link.
Jeb Atman It’s entirely possible they took from a Music Library available.
Happens many times, as it’s more efficient to have a whole library of unreleased songs for different moods than to make an actual song for each production. The Teen Titans Go song “The Night Begins to Shine” is a library song that was so popular from that ten or so second clip that they had to release the full song. Peni Parker’s theme from Spiderverse is still officially unreleased, though there are fan versions.
Artists could band together and create their own streaming service, with 100 % of profits going to the artists. Like a music co-op.
You mean bandcamp?
Bey already tried with Tidal, didnt work out too well :/
Hobi Hope THATS what I was finna say
@@hobihope2981 That's because they didnt take their music off of any of the other streaming services. Why would any switch when it was more convenient to stay with the service they had.
Thought jayz did that with tidal?
Selling out isn’t just when any artist does an advertisement or endorsement. It’s when an artist does something contradictory to their message for the sake of making more money when they’re already rich. For example, the rage against the machine boys playing Coachella is kind of selling out since they’re supposed to be opposed to large corrupt corporations
And yet RATM was signed to Sony Music through Epic Records, so yeah, not that enough opposed
I put approximately $10,000 dollars into making an album I made $500 off of. Not to mention the probably thousands of hours I put into it. I basically had to hire performers for it, and it's a quality album musically. You can't get people to play music for nothing, the wide-eyed attitude of the golden age of pop is long past. I've had people boast to me about how much cheaper music is with streaming, not understanding the amount of time and effort it takes to create something worthy of the term "art". Essentially we are all beggars on street corners now, and we are some of the most talented people in the world. What it all boils down to, though, is that people no longer value that which is possibly one of the only things that make life worth living.
talk about being humble lmao.
@Jeffrey Scott Musicians are extremely talented. I know music teachers that can also teach history, Algebra 2, and even English Lit all because of the music background. Also, this dude put in work to make something of their own. How many people sit at home, unwilling or unable to at least try to produce their own artistic work?
lmao I checked out your music/videos and you're lucky you even made $500.00
@@artvandelay6351 Thanks. Tell your friends.
What’s your album called? I’d love to hear it
Could you do one on the book publishing industry? Too many people assume they'll be a best-seller and live off their books.
Yup. As a hobbiest writer, I agree 100%
You can live live off your books though, especially if you self publish. But it takes lots and lots of marketing and grinding too have a chance at that.
Open Mike is pretty open to Adam about how he sees their relationship
The dad is like every elitist fan of film, music, games, animation, and so on all wrapped into one
"Selling out" is not a helpful term. "Diversifying your income stream to adapt to a changing market" is really what is going on here.
Anyone else want a full version of the song? I kinda like it lol
I hate to admit how frickin’ catchy it is. Scrolled down just to see if I was the only one.
@Kent Lol yeah. I listened to it obsessively yesterday. And today I remembered it. So here I am again.
@Leah Ann Mitchell Damn, why so salty? 😂
This is why I dropped my dreams of becoming a musician for a living, and instead went to study design
Do it on the side, I dropped two and a half gs for a studio myself for the personal joy of making music it is very worth it, profit wise it takes a long time
I listen to Spotify about 40 hours a week.. I listen to music all day at work. Not sorry for listening to Spotify, it's an absolutely incredible app (if you have premium).
People need to stop blaming people that use streaming services and start asking why artist's aren't making a fair wage for their work
Ghandi say ok
Pretty sure the video said that the streaming services are the reason why musicians arent getting paid fairly. If everyone stopped using the streaming services they'd have no choice but to come up with something new that would hopefully treat bands and singers better but that won't happen
Tim Ratigan using Adam’s line of reasoning on why music streaming isn’t making any of the musicians any profit could be used for why we shouldn’t use streaming services like Netflix and Crunchroll, but yet TH-camrs like Adam still supports those services.
People used to just illegally download music and then the artists would get nothing
@@darkworker666"Pretty sure the video said that the streaming services are the reason why musicians arent getting paid fairly."
But how does that make sense? I mean, the labels, who negotiate on behalf of their artists, are the ones the services need to work/cooperate with in order to be in the legal clear, how can one reasonably put all the onus on the services?
Adam I'm so grateful for all your ruining. infotainment king, reign forever xD
Nadine Morsch it would be nice if he didn’t distort facts so much tho:(. There r so many videos proving his videos wrong
Dave B wait what? besides maybe exaggerating due to the format, they have sources for every claim
1:15 STOP! WAIT! That's a good thing!
The whole point is streaming services like Spotify was to get the industry back UP to 50% of what it was in 1999.
If it's at 60%, that means they did it, and then some!
The problem is that the artists aren't seeing any of this money. The music execs are seeing it, but the artists are getting screwed.
@@angryretailbanker5103
100% that's the problem. Its not a lack of revenue, it's about how that money is distributed
Yes, the real hit was Napster and the mp3 encoding, not streaming services.
Yeah, I think that he was just saying the game had changed, and so the new rules were in the Labels’ favor, not the Artists’.
@@angryretailbanker5103 Yup...
The music industry has always screwed over the people who actually make the music but it's getting so much work if we actually care and value the musicians and their work we would boycott streaming services until musicians get a fair deal
I wish a boycott would work they even have chinese people singing random bs artists it's literally everywhere and billions are spent just to sell two or three songs every month that are all written by the same guy and sung by different people
That song in the beginning was a low-key bop.
And people give Taylor Swift s*** she's trying to fix this and everybody saying oh Taylor Swift is crazy.
Since when is Swift trying to fix it?
@@jeffbrehove2614 for her last album before lover, she didn't have it on streaming services when it first launched. If you wanted the music you had to get the full album.
@@KentaSims93 Huh.. it kind of makes Kid Rock not releasing "All Summer Long" on streaming more understandable.
@@KentaSims93 That's just fighting against progress. Things may have been somewhat better for artists back when people bought albums (and even then there were a lot of shitty business practices), but those days are never coming back. Artists need to fight the exploitative industry, not the forward march of time.
ChaosDraguss how do they fight the Exploitive Industry then?
Adam is signed to Warner productions. That's the same company who uses bots to copyright small amounts of content to make the dough.
Adam forgot to include TH-cam on his list of online music providers. I can get any song I want for free off TH-cam.
Just realized all those cancelled tours from Covid-19 and cancelled music festivals are hurting them even more, so expect music videos more loaded with product placement than a NASCAR driver’s jacket and car.
I really want a full version of the song! Love it!
Same here
Sad reality for us musicians still trying to live the dream!
Sadly it's just like how George Carlin put it about the American dream. "It's called the American dream cause you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
@@azathoththe3rd Leave George Carlin out of this discussion
Tell me about it. It's hella depressing sometimes even making music anymore. You have to separate your creativity from the numbers or you'll go crazy.
I hope he talks about the positives of today too at some point in the episode. Kickstarter, patreon, house concerts, home recording producing professional quality, direct distribution options, and self promotion being easier than ever.
What is gone is the lottery pay out of a big hit and the big initial payout of a record contract, both of which ended up often destroying musicians or putting them in massive debt. Today being a musician is like any other small business, entirely possible for more people than ever if you have the talent, work ethic, and personality to do so.
The big issue is that the artist who’s independent has to keep working in order to make money. Meanwhile there are artists who haven’t had a hit in 30 years and were 1 hit wonders still collecting royalties from the song, in many cases enough to live off of.
Which is actually a bad thing in some ways. Those royalties are great for the artist, but the artist's music (which, on average is no better or worse than new music) is getting heavy play BECAUSE it won the lottery before the old system was broken. Meaning that the people who benefited from the old system are getting a bigger piece of the pie, and most listeners to streaming services or radio are hearing that song 3 times a day if they stay on the same playlist/radio station.
Haha. Thanks for reminding me of this post.
@@JK.Fraser the system was always broken. Up until the late 40s artists rarely got paid royalties. They sold their songs to the label and the label paid them for concerts and that was it.
That changed in the 50s (a lot of had to do with the Payola scandal). Things improved with better record deals and lawyers. But over time the labels figured around this and it’s gotten worse in the last 20 or so years.
@@CamaroAmx Because record labels are a lot less necessary. There are way more people making a living as professional musicians now than at any time since the radio was invented, they just aren't getting rich.
In the early cable days (MTV), music videos were so expensive that most bands owed $ for that video beyond their existence. Touring is strictly promotional. No profit from a tour itself (per costs).
The song on the intro was very catchy!!
He didn't mention that a lot of undiscovered artists make a living playing covers on cruiseships, casinos, and bars, to raise enough money to work on original material/albums. You can make good money playing covers, if you're good. That's where I'm at right now. All the money I make "selling out" goes into creating and songwriting.
This is why Pandora is not in Canada, they wont pay a fair amount to artist...
then canada must be torrent haven. streaming is a compromise between old record labels and piracy. its just impossible to earn money selling music since distribution is so easy and cheap.
Literally even a passing mention of the booming DIY scene would have made more of a difference than just telling everyone what a simple google search would have.
4:00 i keep getting jumpscared by mentions if diddy pre-diddler
I just learned more here in like 5 minutes than I did in half a term of school
lol my percy jackson fandom kicked in when i saw ur username
Pay attention in school then you moron
Strange that he mentions Apple Music, but not the iTunes Store and iTunes for Windows, which really killed CD's in the early 2000's
iTunes Store is Digital Sales it still counts as a sold unit (although they take a mighty cut), whereas Music is a streaming service. One guess as to why Apple now pushes Music over the iTunes Store.
Piracy killed the CD and iTunes was the solution.
Man: “it’s so...Commercial!!”
*flips table*
So I guess I can feel proud of being the only person under 60 who still buys CDs. I'm doing it for the artists, man!
I sometimes give vinyls as gifts so there's that.
Not the only one, man, not the only one.
I have a 40+ collection at 18.
@@absentcoder4552 nice!
Sorry bud, I'm in my 40s and I'm sitting on hundreds of CDs (plus an embarrassing amount of cassettes and vinyls). Too many to bother trying to burn to my PC. Physical media forever.
Nice to know about artist, and money, Etc. BUT can we talk about how good that girls voice is in the beginning
y u s
Metal seems to be surviving and profitable for bands. This apparently mostly applies to mainstream
Seems like people forgot being a "successful" musician is a lot like being a movie star. There's only so many positions and they fill QUICK. No one sheds a tear for failed actors but if a guitarist strums a chord and doesn't get a mansion, people think there's a problem.
@@DuoXCity Lamb of God is great example of a popular heavy metal band that has sold many albums but really don’t have that much money (see the documentary As The Palaces Burn). Most of the non mainstream artists make about as much as a ok dentist.
4:02 actually Adam in 2017 Diddy had been offered SHARES in the company, not just cut a check for endorsement. But instead now he owns such a nice chunk of the company pie that it pays much larger dividends than what the average "brand deal" would supply you.
Psshhh Artists! They need to “Live”. If they weren’t sell outs they’d live in a box behind the studio. That’s how a real musician does it.
What? You’re sayin lot of artists are actually working homeless? Well....
This is why I support my favorite band, Fishbone. Buy their music, see them live, buy a t-shirt and hat at every show.
Type of music is it?
I think that artists should stay independent, focus on developing their fanbase and pay for their own marketing. That way they could their music out there and still own it.
Is it me, or is anyone else also addicted to the first 22 seconds of this music video and tune?
Which is why many musicians dont chase labels anymore. Thanks to internet and streaming, musicians can cut out the labels! 👍
And they’ll never be as popular and make nearly the same amount of money. And the part of how little streaming services pay goes for independent artists as well (and can be worse because the independent artists has less negotiating power).
i dont see why they dont just put regular albums on spotify and if you buy the CD you get the deluxe edition, like how with blu ray movies you get the director's cut
Sounds like he's perfectly OK with the status quo and making excuses for the industry's predatory and greedy behavior.
Com'on people... "Problem, Reaction, Solution" Focus on the solutions, not dwell on the problems.
I think half the time hes okay with the status quo, unless is some sjw talking point where their making progress.
Watch the whole episode. He always ends with ways to fix the problem.
DragonKidSlayer3 that’s so wrong you have clearly never actually watched the show
Speaking as a freelance musician, I wish this video title was relabeled "Why Big Music Artists...". There are so many people who are actually working and making a living in the music industry whose goal is not to be a "star" but to simply make a living through (more than likely) some combination of performing, writing music, engineering, teaching, and the many other things that most musicians (the overwhelming majority of average musicians like us) do. The two gigs are very different from each other.
I’m so glad I saw this! I always thought being a musician was the coolest and highest paying job but now it looks like it’s probably a waste of time!
I'm tired of artists complaining about not being paid a fair price for their art. The problem is that creating art and selling it are two completely different skills and most people can't do both. Without the labels to market and sell their product, most musicians would never make a living making music and the ones that do wouldn't make nearly as much.
My bf has a friend who is in a band and they sell merch on sites like Tee Public. I think all artists need to get merch on those sites. I know I would buy some when I can. I doubt that I'm the only one.
How money does he make? Enough to quit his day job? Enough to pay his bills in his own home? Doubtful.
I worked in the music industry and he even mentioned the artist I managed. Music isnt so commercial anymore, it is the exact opposite. You can make a track and put it out for free except for a small fee at the register.
But that isnt how music is consumed. Music needs demand behind it to sell huge just like a fidget spinner gismo and that kinda press needs money or a really slick viral kickstart and then money to maintain that trajectory.
That money comes from Major Record Labels dropping boat loads of advertising money on radio stations. Indie labels can do this but that is done through a process called payolla. Majors get away with haivng their tracks played in markets because of the advertising partnership we talked about. Appearently quid-pro-quo is legal. You cant get people to your concert in a town where they dont know your music and dont know you have a concert. Radio stations play music and people listen to that music so this is the perfect forum for this advertising brand.
Touring is still a source for revenue if the artist has music playing in rotation in that market.. New York, LA, Atlanta, Philly. Miami, and etc. The bigger the market is the more money it will cost in advertising. Miami is the 14 largest market and New York is the largest...
Then there is the global market and it has its own set of rules based on the region.... For the most part these regions are dominated by what company owns your distribution rights in those areas. The best market for generating sustainable revenue quickly is latin america, they can not consume music fast enough. Not to mention meet and greet fees you can accumulate along a tour. Payole isnt payola down there it is just called THE BUSINESS MODEL and is relatively inexpensive. You can get your music spinning down there for almost nothing for the 6 weeks prior to your concert and make profits to boot. You just need seed money to get it rolling that you can acquire by touring the bar circuit. The longer you do this the faster your popularity grows and this entire process seems a bit more organic to me.
Then the internet... All bets are off here, you just need a guy like me to promote you all day long and serch for markets and oportunities to get you noticed by a major record label or spnsor to fund your gigs. Having sponsors are the difference between sleeping in a crowded van everynight or a hotel with a shower. Getting the right sponsor is alwys preferred but rarely happens. But sponsors tend to know thier market and that is why you never see an Anarchist band sponsored by Wachovia!
Is a safe bet that everyone has a preference between coke or pepsi. Is it horrible that Pepsi wants you more familiar with their band? Would you rather listen to a road worn band who smells like farts and shag carpet or well rested band who serves Pepsi exclusively at the concession stands. Is it really selling out that the tour bus has a "safe auto" ad on the rear?
The point is stop being a douchbag and calling your favorite artist a sell out for trying to make a living. You wanna get mad at someone, get mad at people like the Kardashians and even ole Adam here... This entire business model is predicated on advertising revenue. Think about it, if truTV had to rely on its viewers to phyisically purchase its product would they survive?
This is why buying physical copies of albums is the best way to support the artist.
Luna Rokeart nah. labels don’t give a big cut of physical sales either, it can be in the pennies. best way is to go to our show and buy merch. the merch can be like a pbs gift if you donate, where it’s overpriced because it’s a tha k you for donating money, or it can be art that we invested a ton of money into making and barely break even or lose money selling to you in the hope of getting our name out there. so just give a tip. or buy albums from the band’s own website or send actual money their way. but always ask the individual bands how they prefer to receive profit.
It is if the artist has bought and produced it himself otherwise it isn't.
there is a reason why a lot of artists these days first get big on sites like youtube and tiktok cause they release songs there first they get a cut of the ad revenue that way
call me old school. but I actually buy my favourites artist albums. though still listen to them on spotify and youtube. because its more easy then switch cd's
I do too. We need to go back to buying albums, and I don't mean physical CDs if that is not what one wants to buy. A person can buy digital albums from iTunes or somewhere. Spotify, Pandora, etc play music for free. And even if someone pays a subscription, it's the price of only one album.
The Internet has ushered in a time of free entitlement to entertainment. Shows should be free, music should be free, etc. We are used to intangible entertainment to be free now. Truth is that songwriters, producers, bands, and equipment costs, and artist have to pay that cost back to the label. They rely on their fans and supporters buying their music.
Same thing. There's many artists whom I follow on Spotify, and have a great deal on listening to them, yet I eventually buy their albums because I love their music a lot
Even in the 90's the labels were making bank and screwing artists. Most bands wouldn't even recoup their advances and would end up broke after selling millions of records. In fact, only a fraction of artists were ever able to maintain a long term career. In the "heyday" of music sales, artists were intentionally kept ignorant and uninformed on the inner workings of the industry, allowing them to be totally taken advantage of. At least today, we have the tools and information to be entrepreneurs. We're our own labels, own managers, own advocates. I'll take the 2019 music industry over the 1999 music industry any day of the week.
Know plenty of artists who are making a healthy living and haven’t “sold out”. The thing is they’re willing to take work wherever they can (session work, church gigs, bar gigs, house bands, etc.). They also have a healthy knowledge of the business and accept that music is an industry where you need to be versatile, willing, and hard working. Not only that but it seems like unions get a bad rap in this comment section...not true.
ZXTMA Smith huh ok
"hard working", oh there's that generic term again. It's that thing ALL jobs need but assholes throw into their comments to imply ANY form of failure is 100% the persons fault and circumstance just isn't a thing. This comment amounts to "Well, it doesn't matter record companies are fleecing artists and customers alike, they need to play more churches."
I firmly believe one of the biggest moments of defiance to the music industry was when Slipknot released Iowa, one of the most demented and aggressive albums of all time, after being told to make more hits for their 2nd album
Merch, patreon, lounge gigs cmon guys
And if you really work hard you can make as much as a dentist before expenses and probably a fast food assistant night manager after expenses. And if you quit or become not as popular, back to that day job for you.
Meanwhile the guy who did Mambo #5 in the early 90s (his one and only hit) is still making money off it 30 years without leaving his couch or picking up a microphone. Why? Royalties.
You want to help musicians, go to local and smaller shows and buy merch. A lot of merch sales have far less middlemen. The local support helps out many smaller musicians and regionally touring acts (bands that are likely losing money when playing)
That’s why Taylor Swift negotiated owning the rights to her own songs that’s a real reason she became a billionaire
Exactly
When you consider all of this is solved with distrokid and a good manager, no one needs a label anymore
I feel like the answer to these are always:
"Because capitalism."
Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.
Honestly a few episodes of ARE is enough to turn anyone into an anti-capitalist
Capitalism is evil! Most of the world's problems are caused by capitalism !
As a Nirvana fan the lady at the end saying that trashing the equipment wasn’t a 90’s vibe didn’t sit well.
And I've been working on rebuilding my studio so I can make tunes again.
To be fair, I was kind of hoping that I could get by on uploading the videos to TH-cam as live performances.
Streaming isn't killing the music industry, when I compare it how I grew up. With cassettes I was able to record music off the radio. Also the play time was very limited. When I got my discman, I had 2 CDs with my music and that was it. I did bought CDs but overall it was about sharing and then getting your mixtape ready.
With my first mp3 player that was able to hold 128MB or Music, I mostly ripped CDs into MP3 and threw it on my Player. Then I got internet and illegal download was a thing. Today I pay for streaming and the amount I spend is more than I would have bought physical CDs. With streaming I can change my Playlist very easy and can kick out songs. With bought CDs, I need to get the most songs that I like to hear out of my money and I need to listen to it.
Fun fact. In Germany you pay a small fee on blank CDs, USB Sticks, Cassets and so on towards the music labels. A rule of thumb is that you are allowed to make 7 copies of a CD and you are allowed to share this copy with friends and family. Yes we are allowed to buy a CD burn it 7 times and give it away to friends and family and that legal.
The problem that I see are the music labels.
I don't have a problem with artists selling out as long as it's done subtly. Ajr did an endorsement of amazon tablets and they still emphasized the art of their music by utilizing their #1 go to instrument which is electronics.
Unlike the pop icons like people from Kpop and all that. These people are puppets, tained and honed to be tpys of the entertainment industry to brainwash kids with their dances, fashion looks, incomprehensible and nonsensical songs. It's a recirprocity between huge corporates and ambitious individuals but little to no art is produced. Just money.
What happened was a bunch of top bill artists signed contracts without a lawyer in the 80s. Like many companies record labels put traps in their contracts for people who don't get a lawyer to look them over. These were struck out of contracts by lawyers as a matter of routine. The RIAA was formed around this time, and what they did was use the fact so many of these musically talented but financially uneducated artists signed on with these clauses intact to make it a standard to not accept the contracts without them. The biggest ones that bankrupt artists are a clause on 'advance payouts', which is basically the record label pays the artist a lump sum based off projected sales, the lawyer trash clause is that the artist has to return that advance to cover any shortfall off projected sales. The other is a block of legalese that gives ownership of an artists music to the company. Another fun one is one that gives the label control of the artists tour schedule, which if you look up Pat Benatar's biography her label forced her to tour and shoot music videos throughout her pregnancy.
I thought artist lived off nothing but exposure and passion or something.
Yeah, because "exposure" and "passion" pays one mortgage.
That’s why Collective Soul, who had a string of top 20 hits in the mid-late 90s had to get their lead singer to remortgage his house for the band to be able to afford to make anther album in the mid-2000s, which thankfully for them was also a hit.
Or how TLC had to file for bankruptcy after 3 top ten albums. It costs a lot of money to make an album, music videos and to promote the album. What people don’t realize is the artist borrow money from the label to record the album (it’s called an advance) and use their own money (or borrow money from the label) to make videos. They then get no money from royalties until the debt to the label is paid off (Nirvana didn’t receive a dime in royalties from Nevermind until 6 months after it became a hit and artists are paid royalties quarterly). The more faith the label has in the artist dictates how much the label is willing to lend. The album doesn’t sell? Then the artist is on the hook for paying it back. In many cases the reason artists will tour before an album is recorded (usually right after they get signed) is to mostly build up some money to offset the production costs of the album, plus to gauge how popular the band is to decide how much money the label is willing to risk lending to the band.
Kid rock almost went bankrupt until “only god knows why” became a hit.
And yes, the artist does get paid upon signing (sign on bonus) that doesn’t have to be paid back but in many cases it’s smart to use some of the money to live off of while recording their debut and to use most of it to pay for recording so the artist isn’t in as deep in debt when the album is done.
I don't think Adam ruins anything I think he clears things up
So what's the best way to support your favorite artist?
Also, do most artists able to make their own music or is that record label?
I'm at the point where my view is just listen to them, even if it is pirated or downloaded just listen to em, get them in your head real good so you always come back. If you don't come back over and over again to that artist looking for new or better products then as a artist they will have failed themselves.
Who even needs professional artists. If we as consumers weren't so picky about the media we consume, we could be happy with the perfectly fine art that is created by the millions who do it for fun in their free time.
There is more than enough great amateur-art to stay entertained for a hundred lifetimes. And these artists create it without any financial pressure and are happy to share it for free with everyone who enjoys it.
The fact that people have to pay for experiencing arts is as ridiculous as the fact that people pay for making it.
Welcome to agriculture.
A packing plant in Kansas burns, cattle prices drop, retail prices rise, and the packers process 9,000 more head the week after losing the plant, than the week before losing the plant, and clear over 3 times per head more than they paid for it only factoring the box beef wholesale price, and no byproducts.
It's not just endorsements and branding in music videos, artists actually change their music to get more airtime to boost their standing in the industry. Metallica, for instance, used to write epic thrash metal songs that more often than not clocked in over five minutes; few songs from their legendary first four albums made it save for shorter, catchier tracks like "Battery". Their fifth, self-titled album became dominated by more radio-friendly tracks, save for "The Unforgiven", and subsequent albums doubled down, gaining revenue but costing support from fans that had been listening since the '80s. Remember, radio pays labels to play songs, and to keep their programs interesting, stations rarely pick songs longer than four or five minutes and target the widest possible audience within a given genre. Artists try to capture airtime (or at least used to) for revenue and Billboard rankings, and perhaps to sway listeners into buying music.
The thing hes not mentioning is that the music industry is MUCH. MUCH MUCH more open to entry now. And all those 'low paid' artists wouldn't be making anything in 1995
Thats what people don't get. We got far more variety in MUSICIANS than we did in the 90s. Although the music they play sounds pretty much the same.
@@boomdos4265 the industry tends to follow trends and rarely risks a lot on trend stetting artists. There is a reason why if a certain band puts out a hit, there will several bands that come out that sound very similar to that artist. Slipknot/Mudvayne, Seether/Shinedown, Taylor swift/Kelly Pickler, Carrie Underwood/Miranda Lambert, beetles/the kinks/the monkees, Metallica/Slayer/Anthrax/Megadeth, Nirvana/Pearl Jam, ect.
It happened in the 80s big time. Once one “hair metal” band in LA got signed and had a hit (quite riot), by the end of the 80s the major labels had signed nearly every band on the sunset strip and then found more in New York.
Happened again in the 90s with grunge. One band had a surprise hit (nirvana), then every band kinda similar to them got signed (Pearl jam, soundgarden, Screaming Trees, Blind Melon, ect).
Happened again with rap in the early 90s as well.
It still happens today.
If your in a band and trying to make it big, but have a decent fan base, the best way to get signed is wait until anther band from your local scene gets signed and has a surprise hit. You’ll be signed in weeks if your half decent.
I don't care if artist take endorsement deals.as long as it doesn't affect the quality of the music.
Or you bypass the labels and companies and go through patreon or something. Peter Hollins makes something like $10,000 Per video from his patreon donators.
What happens if he stops making videos? Eventually the money runs out as do the views and patreon.
Meanwhile Axl Rose made $40 million a year in royalties while sitting on his butt for 10 years.
The guy on patreon gets no royalties, he gets donations.
Patreon- the go fund me for youtubers.
The guy who did Mambo #5 in the early 90s is still getting paid nearly 30 years later. Will Peter still be getting paid from Patreon 10 years from now if he just stops making videos? No....
@@CamaroAmx Who cares? He's his own boss. Gets all the money and doesn't have to share it. And hes not beholden to any contracts. At a certain point "More" Becomes meaningless.
@@jairusstrunk94 my point is in order for artists like Peter to make money, he has to keep working. It becomes no better then a regular job. Meanwhile signed (and formerly signed) artists still make money even when their not working.
Back in the day even The Beatles used to complain because they had really bad contracts and so the way they made all their money was from tours, not from physical music sales.
It almost seems like a starving artist is a cliche. Oh wait, it is.
If only we could boycott those services and buy actual albums supporting the artists
I do both I buy the albums of my favorites and still listen to Spotify