Music executive says artists can stay independent if they don't like label terms

[salty like sodium 1,127]

13 hours ago, Jill said:

No they don't. The label executive's the only one in the wrong here. A record label has a much greater capacity to absorb higher financial costs without being significantly affected, unlike an independent artist who lacks the resources or connections that a record label possesses. Also, the promotional opportunities and visibility provided by a record label are simply unmatched. Being signed to a label is essentially the only way to become an established artist. There's a reason why the vast majority of mainstream artists are signed to record labels, and why only a small percentage of them (usually powerful artists) have the means to create their own label and/or go independent and handle their own distribution tasks.

What record labels do is not at all easy, and this person is taking advantage of many people's ignorance on the subject. If record labels present something as complex as this issue in such a black-and-white, oversimplified manner, it's because they simply don't want to treat artists as employees. Doing so would mean incurring additional expenses that they consider unnecessary, which is unfair. While they don't treat artists as employees, they are the ones who primarily benefit from their success.

This is a highly unequal relationship, and this executive portrays it as if it were perfectly balanced.

Oh Jill, we miss you in the white house. #Jill4president

[TortureMeOnReplay 5,940]

15 hours ago, Jill said:

No they don't. The label executive's the only one in the wrong here. A record label has a much greater capacity to absorb higher financial costs without being significantly affected, unlike an independent artist who lacks the resources or connections that a record label possesses. Also, the promotional opportunities and visibility provided by a record label are simply unmatched. Being signed to a label is essentially the only way to become an established artist. There's a reason why the vast majority of mainstream artists are signed to record labels, and why only a small percentage of them (usually powerful artists) have the means to create their own label and/or go independent and handle their own distribution tasks.

What record labels do is not at all easy, and this person is taking advantage of many people's ignorance on the subject. If record labels present something as complex as this issue in such a black-and-white, oversimplified manner, it's because they simply don't want to treat artists as employees. Doing so would mean incurring additional expenses that they consider unnecessary, which is unfair. While they don't treat artists as employees, they are the ones who primarily benefit from their success.

This is a highly unequal relationship, and this executive portrays it as if it were perfectly balanced.

I understand what you're saying, but I find it hard to agree. Why would artists be considered employees? If anything, they are brands. We don't expect Walmart to pay Lays Chips benefits or a "livable wage". It's a business arrangement between different businesses for mutual benefit. The label probably isn't creating a hard schedule for artists, telling them they'll be working 9-5 Mon-Fri. And sure there's probably language in there to deliver projects by a certain amount of time. But most partnerships in general have a deadline. They're fronting millions of dollars to an artist to live and record an album with a lot of connections and resources available to them, why would that be charity? Are banks taking advantage of people by simply providing mortgages? 

[Pennywise 35,869]

26 minutes ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Are banks taking advantage of people by simply providing mortgages? 

Uhh yes. 

[DISZKO 689]

On 2/6/2025 at 3:45 PM, Jill said:

No they don't. The label executive's the only one in the wrong here. A record label has a much greater capacity to absorb higher financial costs without being significantly affected, unlike an independent artist who lacks the resources or connections that a record label possesses. Also, the promotional opportunities and visibility provided by a record label are simply unmatched. Being signed to a label is essentially the only way to become an established artist. There's a reason why the vast majority of mainstream artists are signed to record labels, and why only a small percentage of them (usually powerful artists) have the means to create their own label and/or go independent and handle their own distribution tasks.

What record labels do is not at all easy, and this person is taking advantage of many people's ignorance on the subject. If record labels present something as complex as this issue in such a black-and-white, oversimplified manner, it's because they simply don't want to treat artists as employees. Doing so would mean incurring additional expenses that they consider unnecessary, which is unfair. While they don't treat artists as employees, they are the ones who primarily benefit from their success.

This is a highly unequal relationship, and this executive portrays it as if it were perfectly balanced.

Agreed, I studied music and we had music business classes. Learning about the industry really upset me and made me not want to even try to push into any mainstream direction. Many people called big label’s contracts as the “devil’s contract”. My teachers were musicians, producers and business people from the UK.

 

edit: just to add, the contract is purposely designed to exploit artists

Edited February 7 by DISZKO

[Jill 28,913]

10 hours ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

Why would artists be considered employees? If anything, they are brands. We don't expect Walmart to pay Lays Chips benefits or a "livable wage".

Listen to yourself. You're comparing a human being to a brand of chips. Stop whatever you're doing and think a little about what you just said.

[DISZKO 689]

12 hours ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

I understand what you're saying, but I find it hard to agree. Why would artists be considered employees? If anything, they are brands. We don't expect Walmart to pay Lays Chips benefits or a "livable wage". It's a business arrangement between different businesses for mutual benefit. The label probably isn't creating a hard schedule for artists, telling them they'll be working 9-5 Mon-Fri. And sure there's probably language in there to deliver projects by a certain amount of time. But most partnerships in general have a deadline. They're fronting millions of dollars to an artist to live and record an album with a lot of connections and resources available to them, why would that be charity? Are banks taking advantage of people by simply providing mortgages? 

You need to touch grass

[TortureMeOnReplay 5,940]

5 hours ago, Jill said:

Listen to yourself. You're comparing a human being to a brand of chips. Stop whatever you're doing and think a little about what you just said.

You're calling 55,000 human beings a brand of chips by your logic though. Behind every brand there are human beings. 100s of people are involved in the creation of a singular album. Look at Gaga's music videos and behind the scenes for it. Record deals are brand partnerships, not employment contracts. Because at the end of the day Interscope isn't telling Gaga she will record Mon-Fri 9-5. They're telling her she must reasonably accommodate marketing efforts and that she must wait 6 months between recording projects. That's not creating a rigid schedule for her to do anything. 

[Jill 28,913]

1 hour ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

You're calling 55,000 human beings a brand of chips by your logic though. Behind every brand there are human beings. 100s of people are involved in the creation of a singular album. Look at Gaga's music videos and behind the scenes for it. Record deals are brand partnerships, not employment contracts. Because at the end of the day Interscope isn't telling Gaga she will record Mon-Fri 9-5. They're telling her she must reasonably accommodate marketing efforts and that she must wait 6 months between recording projects. That's not creating a rigid schedule for her to do anything. 

Shut up.