
Sony Terms with Spotify Uncovered in Contract - donohoe
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/business/media/sony-terms-with-spotify-uncovered-in-contract.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
======
randxx
Back in the day, I paid for music when I went to the store and bought a CD.
These days, I pay for music every month of every year, whether I listen to
music from that service or not.

Every week I check out new releases and see albums from bands and there are no
descriptions of either. What do labels really do? Where's the marketing?

There's still enough money flowing from listeners into the music eco-system,
but the player's aren't doing their job.

No sympathy. At all.

~~~
joesmo
I really do not understand why artists sell their work to record labels
anymore. Back in the days, they would in theory get some marketing and
promotion out of it in addition to the all-important distribution. Now that
distribution is practically free and the most successful artists promote
themselves (through touring and other means) what is the point of working with
record labels? Being a musician myself, it is perplexing to me.

Without the record label, the artist can negotiate way better deals and
doesn't have to pay over 90% to record labels that just don't care about them.
Does Spotify not negotiate with individual artists? I wouldn't be surprised
and that would explain a lot of this. Still, there are many other ways of
distribution and promotion that artists could seek out with the 90%+ of the
earnings they're no longer giving up.

As far as I can tell, it no longer matters to most artists' financial standing
if listeners are obtaining their music legally or by piracy since the bottom
line is essentially the same (asymptotical to zero) for all but the most
successful musicians.

~~~
bdcravens
Up front money and access. Studio time is expensive. Imagine working every day
at your crappy job, saving up enough time to put together some tracks,
struggling with getting people to your YouTube channel or getting your songs a
single play on the radio at 3am. Someone comes along with a $50K advance
check, or you can continue to struggle and possibly one day control your
destiny.

Imagine Eminem had remained independent, and never signed with Interscope
(parent of Aftermath). He'd have a following, but not be the hundred
millionaire. Look at Tech N9ne - got in the music game the same time as
Eminem, has his own label, and is reasonably successful. However, he doesn't
get the same venues, only last year got on national television, and struggles
to get the big name collaborations. (His latest album was hyped to have a
collaboration with Eminem after a couple years of trying, and if you listen to
it, it's obvious that it was an afterthought for Eminem, definitely not his
A-game)

~~~
joesmo
This is certainly the way it _used_ to be, but nowadays any musician can buy
enough equipment to get started in any genre even if they're making very
little money. With a few hundred and definitely a couple thousand dollars,
anyone with the will to do it can put together a "bedroom studio" that will
rival any record label in production quality. There is little to no value in
an artist taking $50k in debt (as unlikely as the scenario is to be in the
first place) for production. So that only leaves marketing and promotion,
which allegedly the labels do, but in reality, they only do it for their
highest grossing artists, if that. Or the artist could save up one or two
thousand, buy their own equipment, produce whatever tracks they want, and get
just about as much promotion and marketing from the labels as if they were
signed (asymptotical to zero). So my question does indeed still stand. As far
as your Eminem example, Eminem came out in the late 90's when self-production
was not quite affordable yet and was just starting to reach quality on par
with professional studios. He's also one of the most extremely talented
rappers so comparing him to someone that isn't on his level easily explains
the discrepancy between the two.

------
alexggordon
I know I'm a little late to the party, and I know this is a little off topic,
but I've always wondered why bands didn't function more like companies. I
spent a lot of time recording music in highschool and college, for myself and
others, and something that constantly struck me was how musicians are
essentially companies, but didn't act like it at all.

The goal of musicians and companies is very closely aligned, and I think bands
could learn a lot looking at how companies grow. Conversely, I've always
wondered why no one ever "invested" in a band, just like people invest in a
company.

In my dream world, I'd love to start a Ycombinator for musicians. Essentially,
something where a band could "apply" and investors could take a small share of
the "band" in return for startup capital. I'd imagine that the 3 or 4 months
could be spent organizing the band and recording an album which could be
debuted at a "demo day". The same qualities that go into good founders also go
into good musicians, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, the whole point of this is to say that I understand _why_ record
companies exist, but I think their usefulness in life is diminishing by the
day.

------
empressplay
I have music on Spotify and I get 2/10ths of a cent per play. I've earned
enough to buy a cup of coffee and not much else. I can't imagine anyone trying
to make an actual living that way.

~~~
tedunangst
But it's not about the money. Think of the exposure you're getting!

~~~
toomuchtodo
In a sea of content, each piece's value is minimal. I can pick anything to
watch or listen to. Why should I listen to yours?

You're no longer fighting for dollars as an artist, you're fighting for
attention. There are more people out there willing to give their content away
for pennies or free then people who want to live off of the music they make.

Perhaps artists should hop on the basic income bandwagon.

~~~
mikehawkins
Also there are so many other models out there - artists can get dedicated fans
to subscribe to each new piece of content they create on sites like
Patreon.com (founded by a YouTube musical duo tired of the pennies they were
receiving). Pretty amazing - folks contribute a $1 or more for each new song,
for example, as a way to keep artists producing. You'll see folks making a
decent monthly income just off this channel - plus getting some great
connections communicating with their fans.

~~~
bopf
I agree with mikehawkins - if artists are not getting enough from the current
distribution model, why not try out things like Patreon.. anyone here who has
tried that and can share some numbers?

~~~
toomuchtodo
I don't disagree that other options should be tried; I'm saying that they
likely won't work en masse. You'll always find artists who will find patronage
through a small following, but we're not headed back to the era of large
swaths of the music industry making a living off of their music.

Walk into your typical library. Look at all of the books on the shelves. Pick
a random book. Pull it out. Imagine that book yells at you "I deserve more
money if you want to read me!".

Do you pay for the privilege to read that book? Or do you push it back in and
pick from the thousands of other books available? We are awash in cheap/free
content, that's the problem.

~~~
Russwrites
I like the way that services like Patreon can bring fans closer to the
musicians. I'm an indie novelist and while my sales are not nearly high for me
to write books as a career I regularly get tweets etc nudging me to get the
next book out. If this interaction can be improved for both parties so much
the better. Mind you - it may not work with artists/writers with huge amounts
of fans!

~~~
toomuchtodo
How does Patreon compare to doing your own Kickstarter or Indiegogo for
patronage?

------
polack
The model for all these companies are flawed. I think both consumers and
musicians would gain from having it like the radio where non-profit
organizations (ASCAP?) handle all of this. That way all music could be
distributed through all apps and the copyright owners would get reasonable pay
for it.

~~~
fineman
That's actually a really simple model, and works very well everywhere it's
used. It's called compulsory licensing.

~~~
mikehawkins
As someone living in the UK, I'm a huge fan - BBC's compulsory licensing for
TV pays for a wide range of content from TV to radio, all top-notch...
especially Radio 6 - a wonderful way to discover new music free from
commercial constraints.

------
jnks
There's nothing in the contract between Sony and Spotify that's all that
surprising. Even the large looking advance of $45M is only a small fraction of
what Spotify would have paid Sony each year.

If anything, the "unfairness" of the contract terms is a reflection of the
HUGE amount of leverage the record labels have because their content is so
valuable. Is it evil for the labels to attempt to maximize their profit while
minimizing Spotify's?

------
rahimnathwani
Source: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-
spotify...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-
contract)

Only 2 comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9570259](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9570259)

------
Vilestayvile
This why i dont like you. Because youre illuminous

------
Vilestayvile
Even sell your soul to the devil

------
paulhauggis
The only way to stop all of this is when independent companies outside of the
current music industry starts owning the majority of the music and making
better deals with companies like spotify.

~~~
supermatt
The lure of the signing "bonus"...

~~~
bdcravens
It's the equivalent of being broke, eating Ramen, and working 16 hour days at
your startup. Then someone comes along and offers $600K. You know it might be
worth more, but nothing's guaranteed.

