Unpopular opinion: Mainstream Artists don't deserve full rights of "their" music work

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

23 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

Collaborators tho, are not the same as people who front money for production - that's an important distinction between artists and labels here - labels should and do make profit, sure - I disagree with the notion that they get to immutably make that profit in perpetuity regardless of... anything. That's like if a bank gave you a loan but then even after paying off your loan AND interest you had to keep paying more, forever - that would f*cking suck... and it's a travesty that artists are kinda in that position actually...

 

If she bought the rights  and her record label agreed, it's legally fine, no objection.

I find the bank comparison not appropriate because Taylor did not receive a loan, but an investment in advance that she has not to pay back, and she is not paying back but instead kept receiving royalties (which is positive income money, not debts, not paying back), only making Taylor richer, so she was co-profiting from it together with her label. I suggest co-sharing, lowering the record label ownership to 33%-67% [of which 33% distributed among other persons invloved, who can be part of the record label] and making the artists one higher to 33%.

And it is not in perpetuity, different nations have different laws, in US it lasts between 70-120 years, then ownership becomes public and benefits us, I am unable to tell you how long exactly.

 

 

Edited May 31 by AyeshaErotica

[Lukasson 475]

OP is absolutely right. It turned out to be a highly unpopular opinion.

Forgot how much GGD gives me headaches. I‘m better off spending my time at lpsg I think.

[CautiousLurker 19,250]

2 minutes ago, Lukasson said:

OP is absolutely right. It turned out to be a highly unpopular opinion.

Forgot how much GGD gives me headaches. I‘m better off spending my time at lpsg I think.

Bye gay 

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

5 minutes ago, Lukasson said:

OP is absolutely right. It turned out to be a highly unpopular opinion.

Forgot how much GGD gives me headaches. I‘m better off spending my time at lpsg I think.

Do you mean my statements and logics are right, or that I was just right that it is gonna be an unpopular opinion?

You can be the first to agree with me! I'd appreciate it!

[Pandacadabra 8,582]

This whole thread is unnecessary, you want producers to earn more money on top of the royalties and the money they were paid from working on a song when it becomes a hit. You want the record label who already profit a lot of money from mainstream artists to have a bigger share. And the insinuation that artists arent heavily involved in the production and songwriting henceforth they should receive less is wild. I dont know about you but most artists I support write their own lyrics and arent strangers to producing music, electronic or otherwise. But the artists I know who are NOT heavily involved in creating or writing, earn less than those who do.

[Lukasson 475]

Just now, AyeshaErotica said:

Do you mean my statements and logics are right, or that I was just right that it is gonna be an unpopular opinion?

You can be the first to agree with me! I'd appreciate it!

Unfortunately the latter. Sending hugs regardless ❤️

[Elderflower 381]

[Lukasson 475]

6 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

Bye gay 

Ciao ciao 

[nATAH 47,458]

1 hour ago, AyeshaErotica said:

so you deny that producers produce the music and insist the artist produce it, really?

where did i say that lol

[nATAH 47,458]

16 minutes ago, Lukasson said:

OP is absolutely right. It turned out to be a highly unpopular opinion.

Forgot how much GGD gives me headaches. I‘m better off spending my time at lpsg I think.

king, you are looking so good in your profile picture 

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

3 minutes ago, Pandacadabra said:

1. )  You want the record label who already profit a lot of money from mainstream artists to have a bigger share.

2.) And the insinuation that artists arent heavily involved in the production and songwriting henceforth they should receive less is wild. I dont know about you but most artists I support write their own lyrics and arent strangers to producing music, electronic or otherwise.

 

1.) I wrote in first post lowering the share to 33%-66% for record label and increasing for artist to 33%. This is not an increase for RL, but for the artist.

2.) Fans would love to believe their artist are heavily involved because they can't stand the bitter truth, exceptions exist. It is true that they may be heavily involved sometimes, but often their ideas get rejected and we do not get to know their original ideas because we only see final product. It is often standard that artist is limited to being a vocalist and some co-songwriting.

Why was there a sudden change to EDM in year 2013 and later? Because record label decided it and went with the hype.

If artists were really in charge and heavily involved, we wouldn't have had a sudden change to EDM in 2013 and onwards. Then the artists would have kept some of their older music style or went into other directions. But most major artist became EDM 2013 onwards. The record label set the trend, the direction. If artists had more power and were successfully more involved, music would be more diverse. Instead often artists flow with the hype, give in or trust in their record labels because they promoise it to be a hit.

So far, on GagaDaily we have the notion that record labels are 100% capitalist, while artists are not. Both most mainstream artists are profit-driven, too. And they co-work with their record labels to make somehow mainstream successful music. Artists often have their own ideas, but they are willing to not fulfil their ideas if a record label suggestion is believed to bring more money.

So what I am saying: Artist often refuse to bring in their ideas in favor of mainstream-appealing generic music because this is what prmosises most money and they are interested in money, too. Here record label and artist interests overlap.

Why would Taylor go on a stadium tour if she was not interested in maximizing money? Then she would go to smaller arenas where fans have a better view and it feels more personal.

[Diamond Blood 4,122]

1 hour ago, AyeshaErotica said:

Imo, "her" art is not entirely her art, but also the co-product of producer's input, who have given her successful hooks and mainstream popular melodies. Also, of people who create the artworks for her CDs because Taylow doesn not make the artworks herself. So I think that producers and others also should have control over how their work is used, and if the producers belong to a record label and often they do, sometimes they are independent, then the record label earns co-control over the work. Taylor is the vocalist and (co-)songwriter but not the one who gave the beats to ther music, produced the music electronically, and the beats made her famous in addition to being promoted, which required an investment from the record labels.

You think independent artists don't have producers and photographers and editors lol

ppl that are HIRED and COMMISSINED to do these things

[Bronco 9,769]

Damn. Thatcher & Reagan's love child is spitting nonsense. 

Workers should own the product of their labour. It's really that simple. 
Anyone with money could have invested in Taylor Swift.

And if it weren't for record labels making it so hard for individuals to forge their own path without multi-million pound investment to fund their excessive unearned lifestyles - the cost of producing music would be significantly cheaper for everyone, and the cost of buying that art at a level which allows the artist to live would equally be cheaper. 

Only Taylor Swift & her collaborators could create the music responsible for the success. Without that work, no label/manager etc would have produced **** no matter much money they had. 

[high culture 2,141]

Whatever both parties agree to in the contract should stand. And I think artists have gotten a lot smarter about reading and understanding contracts since Taylor went through this re-records and buying her masters debacle. 
 

If I'm not mistaken, I believe if a contract has the artist owning their masters, usually it's written that the label will get more from merch or concert sales to make up for it.
 

If both sides sign the contract then that's on both of them. 

[Diamond Blood 4,122]

37 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Damn. Thatcher & Reagan's love child is spitting nonsense. 

This took me out