Is $750k too much to sign just one track?

[alphacat]

It depends on the contract. In most cases it would not simply be giving the guy 750k. They are basically renting him, and pimping him out. If he doesn't meet whatever sales they agreed on, he will end up owing them more than that most likely. It's a slippery slope. I hope he spent a good chunk of that on music lawyers because the companies in question see this as purely a current area to exploit. They don't give a fuck about a scene or music.

Even though the article's a bit dated, it's still totally accurate in describing how these types of contracts and "advances" really work: this is a must-read for anybody who buys music or sells music they make-

Article: Some of Your Friends Are Already This Fucked

[Shum]

No. Though as others have noted, 750k doesn't just buy your track and nothing else.

[kidshuffle]

big ups steve albini

[zeta]

It depends on the contract. In most cases it would not simply be giving the guy 750k. They are basically renting him, and pimping him out. If he doesn't meet whatever sales they agreed on, he will end up owing them more than that most likely. It's a slippery slope. I hope he spent a good chunk of that on music lawyers because the companies in question see this as purely a current area to exploit. They don't give a fuck about a scene or music.

Even though the article's a bit dated, it's still totally accurate in describing how these types of contracts and "advances" really work: this is a must-read for anybody who buys music or sells music they make-

Article: Some of Your Friends Are Already This Fucked

Which parts of it are dated?

[alphacat]

The amounts (they've gone up in all categories) and the timeliness of the acts mentioned; also, doesn't cover the growing trend of labels trying to coax all publishing rights away from the artists, which is increasingly where the money is.

It is still essentially a very accurate breakdown of the whole process though, esp. as regards major label acts.

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

INVESTMENTS

Also found this funny:
"Skrillex, a Gothic icon and Lesbian fashionista whose name is Latin for “Homosexual Satan Wasp”,"
From the christian spastics at
http://christwire.org/2012/02/skrillex- ... n-grammys/

[seckle]

$750k is buying into a brand and movement. the artists own movement. its similar to when nike gives an athlete his/her own sneaker. they want to help propel his/her momentum, and co-brand along with them when they're on a high point, not a low one. the moment said athlete stops winning, or stops being iconic, they're not interested.

the striking difference that not many people are talking about in this thread is the general statement being made by this. it means that these conglomerates, don't want to invest in building artists over time( the traditional point of a record deal), but want to invest in short term high profits. as some have said, the tricky point is that aviici, now have to continue to produce massive singles, which is not always a sure thing...otherwise they face being spun out of the momentum, just as fast as they were signed into it.

[seckle]

INVESTMENTS

Also found this funny:
"Skrillex, a Gothic icon and Lesbian fashionista whose name is Latin for “Homosexual Satan Wasp”,"
From the christian spastics at
http://christwire.org/2012/02/skrillex- ... n-grammys/

whats the jew pic all about?

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

whats the jew pic all about?

the striking difference that not many people are talking about in this thread is the general statement being made by this. it means that these conglomerates, don't want to invest in building artists over time( the traditional point of a record deal), but want to invest in short term high profits. as some have said, the tricky point is that aviici, now have to continue to produce massive singles, which is not always a sure thing...otherwise they face being spun out of the momentum, just as fast as they were signed into it.

[hugh]

whats the jew pic all about?

the striking difference that not many people are talking about in this thread is the general statement being made by this. it means that these conglomerates, don't want to invest in building artists over time( the traditional point of a record deal), but want to invest in short term high profits. as some have said, the tricky point is that aviici, now have to continue to produce massive singles, which is not always a sure thing...otherwise they face being spun out of the momentum, just as fast as they were signed into it.

I would let the industry do worse to me than that for 750K.

THIS IS A LOT O' MONEY 'ERE PEEPS

[BLAHBLAHJAH]

Problem is in thinking $750k is a lot of money when the issue is matter less. Wealth deals in percentages and power deals in control/availability to manipulation

[hugh]

Problem is in thinking $750k is a lot of money when the issue is matter less. Wealth deals in percentages and power deals in control/availability to manipulation

sorry in English please?

[seckle]

$750k for one tune is a lot of money in terms of the state of the music industry right now. you don't see rap artists getting this kind of deal these days. the kanye's and jayz's could be in this sort of money, but only a very select few.

even with control/marketing/cobranding factored in...its a lot of money. its also very clever of his manager to leak it out into the press, as it sets a standard for the next deal that they make for aviici, with even more money on the table. entertainment and sports agents leak deal points to the press as standard operating procedure.

[pete_bubonic]

/\ /\

Innit, it's an advert for the guy's manager and for booking agents more than anything else. They could be using any artist from the brostep scene, I don't think the music matters at all to this PR exercise.

[seckle]

/\ /\

Innit, it's an advert for the guy's manager and for booking agents more than anything else. They could be using any artist from the brostep scene, I don't think the music matters at all to this PR exercise.

when i first read the article, the first thing I thought of when they dropped the pricetag, is that some agent is laughing and rubbing his hands together as he's setting up his artist for a brand new seven figure deal, based on one newspaper article. the power these globally read newspapers like NYT have is incredible.

[alphacat]

^ Reiteration equals reification in our media culture... where the human brain can't distinguish between a remembered television episode versus their own genuine memories. Say it enough times and it becomes true.

Also, to state once more: that $750k is NOT going directly into the artist's pockets as profit. It's supposed to cover all kinds of production expenses - and more importantly, the artist had better recoup or else...

@Seckle (re: branding and long term investment by the label) - this 'farm' system of fast turnover acts has roots in the 90's as you may know. Up until then the general tack taken by the labels was to find a proven winner - someone who consistently packed shows, got local airplay and critical love, generally someone who'd vetted themselves against the thousands of less professional/marketable acts out there and come out as a lean, mean performing machine. Those people got the rockstar contracts; everybody else got dick, pretty much.

Punk rock in the late 70's caught the industry off guard because the acts people were into didn't have that proven track record and because the labels have no taste of their own whatsoever they had no reliable indicator as to whether or not a given punk/new wave act was "good." This made them nervous. When the next underground sound to be hunted by the majors turned out to be rap, they tried a little bit smarter approach but were still largely in the dark and eventually wound up washing all the flavor out of it and turned it into soulless R&G/hip hop crossovers. And then... grunge happened. Never mind that it wasn't even a real movement - here was a ready-made testing ground for the labels to catch up on this stuff and find out exactly how to capitalize on post-AOR popular upstarts without risking too much in the process. They figured it out pretty well too.... which leads us up to today, and the OP.

Nothing has changed as regards the industry and how they view music & musicians (which is that they are both commodities: fuck 'art', whatever that is.) A major record label is like an oil company - they both exploit natural resources. In the case of the oil company, it's petroleum deposits; in the case of the record label, it's angry young men and women with guitars/turntables/whatever.

The difference in how they're doing biz now versus 30 years ago is pretty parallel to the differences between investment banking & speculation back then and now. Bigger, more corrupt, more ruthless, less polite.

[seckle]

@Seckle (re: branding and long term investment by the label) - this 'farm' system of fast turnover acts has roots in the 90's as you may know. Up until then the general tack taken by the labels was to find a proven winner - someone who consistently packed shows, got local airplay and critical love, generally someone who'd vetted themselves against the thousands of less professional/marketable acts out there and come out as a lean, mean performing machine. Those people got the rockstar contracts; everybody else got dick, pretty much.

right man. it was back when fm radioplay was so important. where artists were built up from touring and hard fucking work. this is why a&r's were critically important, as they were the ears of the record label, and getting heard at all was everything. it also meant that an a& r signed up who he wanted, and ignored what he didn't, so you have things like grunge happening, where a bunch of a& r's all decide to make one city the focus, and sign everything in it.

similar to factory records and madchester, etc.

the internet has leveled that system into the ground.