
Courtney Love does the math (2000) - niggler
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/#
======
pashields
The pre-internet version of this is Steve Albini's "The problem with music"
which shows how major labels can end up costing bands quite a bit of money.
Originally printed in Maximum Rock 'N Roll in 1993, but reproduced here on
Negativland's site: <http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17>

It's worth the read if only for the amazing end line: "Some of your friends
are probably already this fucked."

Apparently, he'll be updating it for the digital age soon based this article
from January: [http://www.mhpbooks.com/steve-albini-to-update-the-
problem-w...](http://www.mhpbooks.com/steve-albini-to-update-the-problem-with-
music/)

~~~
kafkaesque
Sorry, I don't make it a habit to plug stuff I submit to HN, but in case
anyone is interested, I submitted Albini's article here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4901063>

I used to do music and a lot of my friends and I discussed the economics of
music a lot.

The funny thing is...some of my friends really _ARE_ this fucked. As in,
literally. I have friends who are signed and tour a little over 50% of the
year all over the world. They get depressed and always ask us to email them to
keep them from getting too depressed or from going out of their minds.

------
jplur
This is off topic, but Salon.com is a mess. The page loads, and I get halfway
through reading the first paragraph, the scroll point jumps around four times,
a big overlay advert opens up, the page jumps down to where I was reading, now
hidden behind the adverts background. Scroll up to the top, close the advert,
a popup window opens for netflix. Close that, scroll back down, start reading
the article but realize I've lost my attention.

I'm not against advertisements, just wish these big sites would devote some
front end development to having them load smoothly.

~~~
sadfasdfa
>>The page loads, and I get halfway through reading the first paragraph, the
scroll point jumps around four times

Experienced the same problems here. I was pleading the gods to please strike
down whomever gave birth to such an atrocity of a design.

------
api
This is the reality anywhere you have gatekeepers. I also have to point out
that for all its talk about leveling the playing field and connecting artists
to fans, the digital world has for the most part been simply replacing the old
gatekeepers with new ones... and often at a lower margin for the artist. Look
at what artists get from Spotify for instance, and Apple is trying to Wal-Mart
the margins even lower.

(Wal-Mart. v. To use access to a massive sales channel as a tool to squeeze
margins away from suppliers, often brutally.)

~~~
crusso
You have to wonder why that is, though. Maybe the gatekeepers provide more
value than they're given credit for in forums like this.

Maybe the artists' roles in producing value is overrated.

Maybe consumers just lack any real sense of discrimination so can't be
bothered to find the good independent artists when the music industry is
throwing a ton of crappy acts their way.

In a world where an over-produced non-talent like Justin Bieber is a huge
sensation, I really wonder how much we can't just blame consumers for not
expecting better.

The Internet has provided plenty of models for "artists" to form closer
connections with their fans and eliminate the gatekeepers. Why hasn't it
worked?

~~~
001sky
_Maybe the gatekeepers provide more value than they're given credit for in
forums like this._

Don't confuse contributed value with value extraction. Completelty different
things. Extraction requires legal/social leverage, which is independent from
anything else. eg. Legal Authority == right to tax. There is no correlation
that gov't "adds value", except insofar as there is/not (over the long-run) an
political revolution.

...

etc.

~~~
crusso
The point I'm making is that extraction is obviously not much of the cost when
there are so many opportunities for artists to connect directly with fans in
this digital/internet age.

The so called gatekeepers seem to be providing some other value proposition
since they don't appear to have much of a monopoly any significant portion of
the system.

~~~
dreamfactory
Well the majors used to own distribution. Also manufacturing where they could
apply economies of scale, and sales channels where they would operate deals.
They also brought an effective monopoly on promotion to the party (street
posters, radio, in-store etc). One of the biggest value adds was that they
would act as a kind of banker, giving an interest free and unsecured loan to
artists to create their first record. (And then there's stuff like putting the
whole piece together with producers, designers etc.)

The role they played was more like a movie studio (where the artist might be
something like a leading actor, as the face of a production). And like movies,
the economic model is a classical publishing one where most productions lose a
ton of money and the whole enterprise is supported by the runaway successes.

The percentages you hear about (e.g. 10-20) are calculated on dealer price and
might equate to closer to 30-40% of profit - and are meant to be easier to
count this way (per unit sold). There were some shocking deals in the 60's and
70's, many of which were exposed in court, but since then most of the real
evil has lain in the complexity of the system and therefore how easy it is to
squirrel money away and make highly questionable deductions e.g. record clubs,
or more recently spotify (often legitimately, within the bounds of a poorly
negotiated contract).

I've read Albini and know he worked in the industry. I think it's good that he
put this out there to make bands think twice but at the same time I think he
gives an extremely one-sided and misleading impression, largely telling people
what they want to hear.

------
netrus
Previous discussions on HN about that article:

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=courtney+lo...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=courtney+love&start=0)

------
merinid
Kind of old problem. The world has changed. Newer math now, like how much does
Spotify actually pay people. Apparently Lady Gaga got $167 from one million
plays of 'Poker Face'.

~~~
rhplus
A million plays sounds like a lot when the payment is only $167, but compared
to the old method of listening (radio at its _peak_ ) the rate is not
massively far off the mark, assuming you can adjust per listener. The article
below attempts to compare the UK radio PRS royalty splits with Spotify
payments and if I'm reading the numbers correctly the middle estimate comes to
around $300 per spin per million listeners (I'm using the estimate of
£0.0001870 per spin per listener).

[http://davidtouve.com/2011/12/13/uk-radio-versus-spotify-
a-c...](http://davidtouve.com/2011/12/13/uk-radio-versus-spotify-a-comparison-
of-the-value-of-spins-versus-streams/)

~~~
merinid
Super interesting. We could stretch the technical arguments though. The
play/stream is broadcast exclusively for me, sure. But then again, see my
point below about Spotify being peer to peer application. It is, from an
interface perspective, provisioned for me. But really songs are broadcast by
individuals to other individuals. In the long run, this line of thinking is
fun, but not much else. What matters is what it feels like, not how it's
accomplished. And you know what, it's a pretty cool optimization from a
technical perspective - gets my respect.

------
stanfordkid
The artists are a commodity until they are stars, the scarcity at the early
stage is the set of people that can make the system work (promotion,
marketing, producers)... thus they reap all the profits. Artists are not
forced to work with major record labels. Once artists prove themselves _not_
to be a commodity (i.e be stars) they reap great profits and have much more
negotiating leverage over labels. I don't understand this rant.

~~~
singular
> Artists are not forced to work with major record labels.

And what were/are their alternatives? Things are theoretically different with
the internet now, though I'm not sure how well well-paying outlets for artists
have advanced as of yet.

> the scarcity at the early stage is the set of people that can make the
> system work (promotion, marketing, producers)...

I doubt there's a _scarcity_ of these people. Nor do I imagine they reap a
huge profit from their work anyway. And surely the whole point is the quality
of the artists' work, not how well crap can be pushed to preadolescent girls a
la Justin Bieber?

> Once artists prove themselves not to be a commodity (i.e be stars) they reap
> great profits and have much more negotiating leverage over labels. I don't
> understand this rant.

If you read TFA you'll find that this is often not the case, even the stars
get screwed out of vast sums of money.

~~~
beloch
The alternative, for artists, is not to sign with a major label. A lot of
bands go it alone these days, although odds are they aren't the ones you hear
on the radio (see "independent radio promotion"). They can still find an
audience thanks to the internet. Yes, their music gets pirated heavily but, as
Neil Young so aptly put it, "piracy is the new radio". The more their albums
are pirated, the more likely at least some people will check out their live
shows, buy T-shirts or, heck, even albums from their website or at concerts.

As a fan of good music, I try to maximize the impact of every last dollar I
can afford to spend on music. My goal in doing this is to pay as little as
possible to Apple, amazon, or major record labels and as much as possible
directly to artists. That means almost every album I buy is through band
websites or at concerts. I make use of the "new radio" and don't feel the
least bit bad about it because I make a point of supporting the bands I like
in a way that sees far more of my money reach artists than comes from any
"honest" iTunes user. In my view, this is the most ethical route.

The record labels' "war on piracy" is really just a war on competition, and is
a great example of how the letter of the law can be subverted by a greedy few
to defeat the spirit of the law. Even the term "piracy" is very deliberately
chosen to squash this valid new promotion channel. I really wish people would
take a cue from Neil Young and call it the "new radio" because that's a _far_
more accurate term.

~~~
anigbrowl
This is a naive viewpoint. It still costs money to live while you're building
an audience, which was why there was some merit to a record label's advance,
even if the recoupment terms were unfair. Also, you assume (as do many) that
there is a living to made playing live. Not all artists want to play live; not
all can attract large live audiences (eg experimental musicans or people who
make ambient soundscapes, for which there may be a large enough global market
to sustain a living from record sales, but not enough in any single place to
make bookings reliable); not all artists work in a medium conducive to live
performance (composers and film actors spring to mind).

------
vonskippy
12 years since the article was written and what's changed?

Seems like business as usual for the music industry.

All those "We're going to change the world" artists have just stood in line
those 12 years waiting for their turn to get screwed by the recording
industry.

Doesn't feel a damn bit different to me.

~~~
niggler
Very astute observation. Different companies, different "models" with spotify
and rdio and other radio, but the underlying dynamics for the artists really
haven't changed

------
imissmyjuno
Some great insight, but I do wonder if it was ghost-written. Courtney
certainly didn't give up her Prada pants, nor has she fully quit the machine:
in 2004, she released a solo LP on Virgin records, and in 2010 she released
another as part of reformed Hole on Mercury, a Universal Music subsidiary.

EDIT: On the other hand, Kevin Shields of the My Bloody Valentine whom
Courtney mentions has made some great choices by waiting for digital
distribution to mature and self-releasing his long-awaited album. Good work.

~~~
stewdio
See above comment by @pashields. These are Steve Albini’s conclusions that
Courtney is merely riding on—and continuing to get credit for it seems. I
think Albini’s original-original was actually printed in The Baffler before it
was printed in Maximum Rock 'N Roll.

~~~
singular
I think that's a little unfair, can't 2 people talk about the same subject
from different angles? Also Steve Albani, while a respected producer, is not a
highly popular musician like Love, it's nice to see an opinion from somebody
in a different position.

~~~
stewdio
What you’re saying is fair enough, but in this specific case if you compare
what the two are saying it is obvious these are not “separate angles” but one
is the original composition and the other is a watered-down version of the
exact same angle. And the result is perhaps not Courtney’s fault—when my peers
say something interesting I love to quote them on it. Just here it seems to
have been done without the credit.

------
polychrome
To deal with the bankruptcy issue, couldn't they form an LLC that signs on to
create the record instead of themselves?

~~~
niggler
The problem is that the corporate veil can be pierced, and it happens a lot in
these types of scenarios.

------
nateweiss
Great piece by Ms Love. Surprised I hadn't seen it before. Thanks for posting.

------
rayiner
"Work for hire" should be abolished, both in creative industries and in
software.

~~~
anigbrowl
I am surprised to see you make such a suggestion. Quite apart from the freedom
of contract issues, think of the transaction costs on a large collaborative
venture such as a motion picture.

~~~
rayiner
There is no freedom of contract issue--getting rid of "work for hire" doesn't
mean employees can't contract to transfer their IP to their employers. It just
means that these transfers must be specific and explicit.

~~~
anigbrowl
Having done a lot of work-for-hire in film and TV, my experience is that it
usually does involve specific and explicit contracts, and disputes are most
likely to arise on amateur productions where business is one on a handshake or
informal basis with no paperwork involved.

I'm no fan of 'submarine contracts' but more often disputes like this tend to
involve someone (such as a camera person) holding the IP hostage as leverage
in a payment dispute. Whether a project will be financially successful is
often a matter of pot luck, so many people just sign whatever comes their way
and don't review the terms unless a dispute arises and the stakes make it
worth winning. For one thing, you can't make people read contract terms
carefully and a lot of creative people don't like reading turgid legalese in
the first place; for another, the ratio of paying producers to wannabe
creatives is low enough that many employment offers may as well be contracts
of adhesion, and until people achieve enough success to get an agent the
attitude is often that it's better to sign a bad contract than to be passed
over for someone more accommodating.

Maybe I misunderstood what sort of work for hire situations you had in mind?

------
edwardunknown
I think we're almost done with this, finally: with a laptop, an Apogee Quartet
and some $1000 ribbon mics (all easily resellable) you can make recordings as
good as any studio, magic mixing board or no. And with Spotify, Rdio etc
catching fire distribution will soon be no problem for the little guys. No
need for big labels and dummy contracts.

 _But we have to make sure Spotify, Rdio etc are transparent about their
payouts_. The big labels are probably making deals to ensure they live on as
gatekeepers to these services and right now they have the leverage. We have to
demand openness so we don't see a situation where Warner gets 5 cents and
smaller labels get 1 cent per play.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Spotify is horrible for artists. In some senses it's even worse than piracy
because listeners think it's far, far better for artists than it really is. At
least with piracy people know the artist isn't getting paid.
<http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/research/augustconcerts2.jpg>

What makes it even worse is that Spotify itself doesn't make money! They are
losing tens of millions of dollars per year, it's crushing all other
distribution models, and artists aren't getting paid. It's basically the worst
outcome for everybody all at the same time.

~~~
edwardunknown
When it catches on with Mom and Dad and the country western Walmart crowd
hopefully people will start making money.

And all we know is _some_ artists are getting screwed. Warner, Universal, EMI
might have made a deal where they get a decent percentage and smaller labels
get peanuts, we have no way of knowing.

~~~
jessevondoom
No way of knowing? Really? None?

For starters, Google:
[https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=major%20labels%20invest%...](https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=major%20labels%20invest%20spotify)

Doesn't take long at all to find out that the deals struck with majors
included not a decent percentage, but actually ownership. Ownership means
access to a revenue stream — good for labels, bad for artists who don't
receive royalties on investment revenue.

Go beyond that one Google search, you can quickly learn that indie labels —
the folks who win more than half the Grammys — don't get the same arrangement.
So the music one their labels actually subsidizes the competition. They're not
all that happy about that.

And lastly: artists. You can listen to them. Plenty are outspoken. For every
Metallica getting onstage with Spotify there are many others essentially
saying that they receive nothing — and that makes sense because the payouts
are designed to work at scale, not at the level most working musicians
operate.

Saying all this without judgement. I think the streaming market could be a
good one for artists if it were more geared to driving direct purchases — but
thinking about it as the answer is a problem. It's the start of exposure, like
radio used to be, not the end goal.

~~~
edwardunknown
See I think it is the end goal and it's going to replace CDs and iTunes really
soon. I personally don't like Spotify but Rdio and Mog are incredible. And to
have the major labels pulling the strings, which sounds like is happening, is
probably a really bad thing.

------
drcode
Don't try to become a rock star if this bothers you. Problem solved.

~~~
showkhill
The right answer - won't stop another 500 HN music industry threads alas.

