Music production as a living - does not add up! Any thoughts?

[marvel5]

Chris Evans dj gave away £50million to charities saying what he kept £5million is plenty for him to live well.

I wonder why he kept £ 5.000.000 ? I also wonder how many children that would've survived if the gave away like 95% of that too, to starving children?

[tea for two]

Chris Evans dj gave away £50million to charities saying what he kept £5million is plenty for him to live well.

I wonder why he kept £ 5.000.000 ? I also wonder how many children that would've survived if the gave away like 95% of that too, to starving children?

In such matters we can truly only hold ourself accountable nobody else. Thus you I we can only hold ourself accountable nobody else in such matters.

[BWC]

If you do something, not for the money, but because you love it. Then why would it matter to you to give away the same money that what you're doing only for the love of doing it, it brings in?

If you're not prepared to give the money away, it is more or less the same thing that you actually do what you do for money.

I also create music because I love it. However, that is not the same thing that I want to do it for free, for all times. At least not on the level of producing that I'm doing, because it takes time, and I need an income from it if I want to be able to continue with it.

So basically, one could say I'm creating music for the money, while I'm actually loving the creation at the same time. And it must be like this if you simply have no spare time to create money for only fun. I don't have that extra time, I'm afraid.

So you do it for both love and money! ...and one doesn't negate the other. I'd agree that some people have shamefully more than they need, but that doesn't mean that they didn't get there by doing it for love. These are separate issues.

[BWC]

I wonder why he kept £ 5.000.000 ? I also wonder how many children that would've survived if the gave away like 95% of that too, to starving children?

I admire your vow of poverty, but is it your place to judge others for not making the same sacrifice?

[marvel5]

So you do it for both love and money! ...and one doesn't negate the other. I'd agree that some people have shamefully more than they need, but that doesn't mean that they didn't get there by doing it for love. These are separate issues.

Yeah, well I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy.

Personally, I create music because I love it, but also for money. No sane person would ever begin creating music for just the money, that is obvious, since there's almost no money in it (as I'm discussing here).

However, when I hear others talk about music like something that must be done for the love of it, because it's art, and if it was shameful to be wanting to be compensated for it, then I get triggered. Because in most cases, that's only hypocrisy.
There are of course a few making it only for the love of the art, but that's quite few. Even street musicians put out their hats up-side-down.

I admire your vow of poverty, but is it your place to judge others for not making the same sacrifice?

I'm just reacting to the hypocrisy, since I'm more honest myself.

I'm enough honest to say that I want to make money off my music creations, because I simply cannot justify to do it for free. Simply can't. What am I even to say to my family?
"Sorry, but no more income from me, I'll quit my day job. Will work with music full time for free. Sorry wife, sorry kids, but I just love writing music."

That would not be so popular, I think

[BWC]

Yeah, well I'm just so tired of the hypocrisy...

I'm just reacting to the hypocrisy, since I'm more honest myself...

I understand your frustration (I feel it too), and I agree with some of what you're saying. I just think you're getting a little too worked up, and going too far. Frustration tends to lead to confusion, a certain amount of calm is required for logic to prevail.

[marvel5]

And where do you suggest the streaming services get the money from? Most of them are still making a loss. I'd say that the money that the services themselves have been paying (up until Spotify's recent changes) has been fair when you consider that streaming is closer to the equivalent of radio rather than records. The problems are further down the chain with the labels taking a huge cut of streaming revenue from many artists.

But how can the problems be further down the chain, with the labels, if the labels themselves get the money from the streaming services (among other income), then the problems should rather be higher up, like in the streaming services and above, right?

Streaming services>Labels>Artists

If it is as you say, that even the streaming services are making a loss, then of course that is where part of the problem is, not the labels.
I mean, the streaming services will not make more money just because the labels give a larger cut to the artists.

[marvel5]

I understand your frustration (I feel it too), and I agree with some of what you're saying. I just think you're getting a little too worked up, and going too far. Frustration tends to lead to confusion, a certain amount of calm is required for logic to prevail.

Maybe I'll have to seek help and treatment after this thread, before blood pressure levels reach far too dangerous levels

[BWC]

If it is as you say, that even the streaming services are making a loss, then of course that is where part of the problem is, not the labels.
I mean, the streaming services will not make more money just because the labels give a larger cut to the artists.

No, the labels* are taking advantage of both sides (up & down the chain), taking too much, sharing too little.

*A general term here for those folks exclusively motivated by the money.

[James Perrett]

But how can the problems be further down the chain, with the labels, if the labels themselves get the money from the streaming services (among other income), then the problems should rather be higher up, like in the streaming services and above, right?

I don't understand your thinking here. The big labels get a reasonable cut from the streaming services (plus they have shares in the streaming services so they also get a cut if the streaming services make a profit) but the artist sees a very small proportion of what the labels get - often less than 15%. Many artists don't seem to understand how the business works so they very publicly blame the streaming services for their poor returns rather than their labels who are the real culprits.

Smaller labels give a much fairer split in my experience.

[marvel5]

You can decide how much you value it, but not how much other people will be prepared to pay for it. And you're not doing it as a business if you're not thinking about the second half of the equation.

I think you're misunderstanding me.
Of course the value, in the end, is what anyone in the end is prepared to pay for it, because that is where it all ends right? But if we skip that step, and you, as a seller, creator, businessman or whatever, set a price that is "fair"(again, lets say you're already through that first step and you know what your creations is actually worth), then that is actually the value of your work.
However, and this is where the equation is broken, as soon as there are people who suddenly start to give away similar products(that you also offer) for free, then of course the value suddenly drops to zero or near zero.

This is true for everything. It can be true for a supercar or a hyper-car.

If someone comes up to you and says: Hey, all Lamborghinis and Ferraris are for free, no matter what model. They are free cars.
You would think that person is completely insane, crazy.
However, if you think about it, that would actually be true as soon a company offers similar cars with similar performance, for completely free.
Suddenly, all supercars and hyper-cars would lose value, it would drop to zero. Free supercars for everyone, no matter how crazy that may sound.

Therefore I rather talk about sanity, than insanity.

People have always given their content away for free, it's advertising, marketing and promotion.

I can honestly not remember that happening in the 70's, 80's, 90's or before? Anyway no way near what is happening today.

If you want to talk about how to make a living in music production, then you have to talk about the world as it is, not as you would like it to be. Which conversation do you want to have?

For sure, we can either cope and live with idiocy, or we can talk about it with the goal to raise the question in search for improvement. Also, I find this topic to be interesting.

This is the same in all artistic fields. Because people will always want to create, and those who are driven to create will do so for non-financial reasons. And they will share their creations for non-financial reasons.

This may be true for some, but not for many. Why do you think the streaming services, distribution services offer monetizing? Because that is what makes it interesting for the creators.

Try to create similar services, which have a model where all the money created, goes to starving children instead. Trust me, as a percentage, very few would use those services compared to those where the money flows to the creators instead.

So anyone going into any kind of artistic business will always have to compete with free content.
So you need a business plan that has a mechanism to deal with that. If you don't have that, you're not in business, you've got a hobby that occasionally pays out some money.

Yes, this is a 100% correct. But with the majority of the creators being (seemingly) too flat about these questions, nothing will happen. It will only get worse.

Can you imagine the music industry, with streaming services, distributors, labels and big record companies starting to suddenly work for free, because it is so fun? Won't happen. Do you know why? Because the people behind it think differently.
They are the type of people who rather exploit the artists for money. It's always been like that. It's never been the other way round, where artists are exploiting the labels, even though they actually would be able to, if they wanted.

Who is actually more powerful, the very few sitting in the top, or the large mass under them? With brains and coordination, trust me, the larger mass is more power. Always have been.
But of course, if one takes into account that if "brains" are missing, then of course, they won't be more powerful, so that's also true unfortunately.
I wish the larger mass could've been "awakened" somehow, but that will probably not happen anytime soon

[marvel5]

But how can the problems be further down the chain, with the labels, if the labels themselves get the money from the streaming services (among other income), then the problems should rather be higher up, like in the streaming services and above, right?

I don't understand your thinking here. The big labels get a reasonable cut from the streaming services (plus they have shares in the streaming services so they also get a cut if the streaming services make a profit) but the artist sees a very small proportion of what the labels get - often less than 15%. Many artists don't seem to understand how the business works so they very publicly blame the streaming services for their poor returns rather than their labels who are the real culprits.

Smaller labels give a much fairer split in my experience.

Maybe I misunderstood?

I mean that the streaming services pay way to low.
But then you replied with that the streaming services are making a loss, and that the problems were further down, with the labels.

But how can the labels be the main problem if the money, to the labels, are coming from (among other sources) the streaming services?

Let's say the streaming services give $10 for X amount of streams. The labels take 50% of this and gives the other 50% to the artist. So label gets $5, the artist get $5.
Please bear in mind we're simplifying here.

So, if this is not enough for the artists, and the artists need $60 for X plays, then it would not matter what ever the labels would do, because you cannot give $60 from only $10 that's available for you.
This means, that the problem is in the beginning, where the product reaches the end user, the listener, with other words, the streaming services (for example).

If they up their payout to $120 for X amount of streams, the label can take $60 and the artist $60.

For sure, I'd like to see a 10/90% deal from the labels where the labels gets 10% and the artist 90%, but that's not going to happen. So this need to be changed at the source.

Something must be wrong at the place in the chain where the end product reaches the end user of the product, with other words, the finished music reaching the listener.

Then they may have to shift the distribution/allocation of the money that streams generate. So some artists doesn't make millions a year, while most make almost nothing.

Because something is really not working with this model.

If you for example distribute new tracks to all these streaming and download services, your music will not come up on any general lists automatically. It will just sit there forever for no one to find unless you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it, which will generate I guess half of that or maybe not even close (I've never tried it myself, but after reading how this is going for others, I will not even bother, because it seems it's just a loss in the end).
Because, if a $100 would generate say $200 dollars, then one could just go at it again and again and double it, and again double it for some time, till they've targeted almost all possible listeners/fans. But it doesn't seem to work like that.

It would've been nice if all new distributed music would be streamed out to random users that likes the same genre the music is. That way, everyone who distributes would have a fair chance to be heard. And if their music is good, then the fans comes automatically.

[marvel5]

And where do you suggest the streaming services get the money from? Most of them are still making a loss. I'd say that the money that the services themselves have been paying (up until Spotify's recent changes) has been fair when you consider that streaming is closer to the equivalent of radio rather than records.

I'd also like to address the following.

If even streaming services are making a loss, then it's even worse! Why do they even bother then? Just close them down, why lose money? Everything will only get worse.

It's like everyone in the music industry is losing money. It's like a black hole that eats money. People pour money at it like there's no tomorrow, but still even streaming services are making a loss? Artists are starving... labels probably too then? (maybe not), since there's only pennies in streaming services.

What else is there? Concerts? How many artist (by percentage) are touring and making a living that way? Can't be many (also, that takes time).

I'd love to see some nice chart where it's shown where the money comes from, how much it is, where it goes, who gets it, and so forth.

[amanise]

Actually, this is all music to my ears really.

Does anyone want to buy my album "90 Seconds to Midnight"?
https://adrianmanise.bandcamp.com/album ... o-midnight

It's very reasonably priced at only £7. You know you want to - buy it for someone you don't like. Easter's not far away.

[Arpangel]

I've known many musicians that have said to me if you don’t make any money from your music why do you do it? At that point I think, I have absolutely nothing in common with you, and you know nothing about the foundations of music making and why, some people do it.

Many? That is surprising - especially for musicians to say it to you. That's a really ignorant thing for someone to say. I have never met a composer/producer who does it for the money. Yes, they might be good and get some breaks and end up making lots of money but that doesn't motivate them. I would have thought this is the last thing someone would go into with the aim of making money!

By many, OK, a few, and one in particular stands out, I thought we had a good friendship, obviously not. This guy said that to me, and in his next breath offered to buy my entire music catalogue off of me, he wanted to buy the rights to "all" of my music. I refused.
This guy made music all the time, but it was always in a style he thought was trendy, that would sell, I don’t think I ever heard "him" or music that he wanted to make.
Also, he was always asking me how I did things, in my studio, and would become very agitated, angry if I didn’t tell him, I couldn’t tell him! as most of the time I couldn’t remember what Id done!
A woman, who I had known for quite a long time, one night called up and said to me "you’re not a musician, you’ll never be a musician"
These two people, one day, I told them both to f**k-off and put the phone down, I’ve never spoken to either one of them to this day.

[James Perrett]

But how can the problems be further down the chain, with the labels, if the labels themselves get the money from the streaming services (among other income), then the problems should rather be higher up, like in the streaming services and above, right?

I don't understand your thinking here. The big labels get a reasonable cut from the streaming services (plus they have shares in the streaming services so they also get a cut if the streaming services make a profit) but the artist sees a very small proportion of what the labels get - often less than 15%. Many artists don't seem to understand how the business works so they very publicly blame the streaming services for their poor returns rather than their labels who are the real culprits.

Smaller labels give a much fairer split in my experience.

Maybe I misunderstood?

I mean that the streaming services pay way to low.
But then you replied with that the streaming services are making a loss, and that the problems were further down, with the labels.

But how can the labels be the main problem if the money, to the labels, are coming from (among other sources) the streaming services?

Let's say the streaming services give $10 for X amount of streams. The labels take 50% of this and gives the other 50% to the artist. So label gets $5, the artist get $5.
Please bear in mind we're simplifying here.

So, if this is not enough for the artists, and the artists need $60 for X plays, then it would not matter what ever the labels would do, because you cannot give $60 from only $10 that's available for you.
This means, that the problem is in the beginning, where the product reaches the end user, the listener, with other words, the streaming services (for example).

You are ignoring the fact that artists get far less than 50% with major labels. So, if an artist wants $30 per month from streaming, they either need to have 100,00 streams on a major label or 20,000 on a better paying indie label.

[marvel5]

You are ignoring the fact that artists get far less than 50% with major labels. So, if an artist wants $30 per month from streaming, they either need to have 100,00 streams on a major label or 20,000 on a better paying indie label.

50% is pretty standard. I get 50% from major labels. Then I mean major labels in the absolute top.
Sometimes I am offered even more, 60%, even 70% when I'm not interested while they still want my tracks, although those are more mid sized labels. I could probably squeeze out 60% or even 70% from perhaps even larger labels. Not tried yet though, since I feel it's pennies anyway.

Though, these are all EDM labels and it might differ from labels working with other genres.

[amanise]

You are ignoring the fact that artists get far less than 50% with major labels. So, if an artist wants $30 per month from streaming, they either need to have 100,00 streams on a major label or 20,000 on a better paying indie label.

50% is pretty standard. I get 50% from major labels. Then I mean major labels in the absolute top.
Sometimes I am offered even more, 60%, even 70% when I'm not interested while they still want my tracks, although those are more mid sized labels. I could probably squeeze out 60% or even 70% from perhaps even larger labels. Not tried yet though, since I feel it's pennies anyway.

Though, these are all EDM labels and it might differ from labels working with other genres.

You get a lot more on Bandcamp - but then you get zero sales.

[Arpangel]

You are ignoring the fact that artists get far less than 50% with major labels. So, if an artist wants $30 per month from streaming, they either need to have 100,00 streams on a major label or 20,000 on a better paying indie label.

I think my friend gets about 15% net from his major label, up until the internet got going he was able to live off of his royalties, no more, he's had to take a day job, his royalties have dropped like a stone thanks to free downloads, he's so tired after working he doesn’t want to do any music.

[tea for two]

When there was a movement there were musicians also folk that could offer some skill that felt affinity with the movement that moved to the area village town city where the movement was happening or were already there.
Such as Canterbury such as Harlem, New Orleans, Bristol, Manchester.
When Grime movement happened in Roman Road london those musicians rappers felt affinity with Grime gravitated towards Roman Road.

It's different now, still.

Similarly I would suggest if at all possible health travel distance permitting : gravitating in person towards a current movement that has traction that feel affinity with.
Even if being there 1day in person.
Thereby meeting like minded musicians other folk with various skills, which can quite readily lead to collaborations projects.
Becoming part of that movement.
Gotta bring something of valoo :
tunes, being able to sing rap, play instrument, skills whether daw multimedia legal coding costume set design skills, gear, transport, connections, so forth.

::

During lockdown I stumbled upon a concept for a style which as it is a concept is able to include nearly every genre of instrumentals songs on Earth :
nearly whichever we can think of from a thousand or so genres on Earth :
as long as they adhered to the principles of the concept that occured to me.

Could it possibly take oorrff could it possibly become a Worldwide movement
whereby bringing together untold bands musicians from all around the globe : who knows.

Our best intentions best laid plans can frequently amount to zero.

Although I get concerned aboot things getting misused manipulated once it gets ooot in the World.

[James Perrett]

50% is pretty standard. I get 50% from major labels.

The examples that I've seen quoted from the likes of Alice Cooper imply that the artist sees far less than 50%. People latched on to Alice Cooper's claims and blamed the streamers when it was actually the label that was creaming off 85% of the money.

50% is standard for one of the small indie labels I work with but I always got the impression that they were more generous than many. I don't get involved in the business side of the other labels that I work for so I've no idea what their shares are.

[Drew Stephenson]

Yeah, when I was looking at this seriously 15 or so years ago (maybe 20!) some of the more artist-focused indies were offering 50% (that's what I was on), the majors were 10-15%

[marvel5]

You are ignoring the fact that artists get far less than 50% with major labels. So, if an artist wants $30 per month from streaming, they either need to have 100,00 streams on a major label or 20,000 on a better paying indie label.

I think my friend gets about 15% net from his major label, up until the internet got going he was able to live off of his royalties, no more, he's had to take a day job, his royalties have dropped like a stone thanks to free downloads, he's so tired after working he doesn’t want to do any music.

That is really bad. Why even bother? I could maybe understand if your friend made a 6 or 7 figure income, then sure (though barely even then), but if he need to work to survive, then it's really bad.

What does he have to lose? Just demand 50% or there's no deal.

I think this is part of the problem which this thread is about. Artists are too soft, they're far too naive and put up with working as almost slaves.
15% is like a slave deal. And I guess that if one inspect the agreement more closely, it may get even worse.

[tea for two]

Steve Vai's record label
https://www.favorednations.com/
Steve confounded with Ray Scherr give 50% to the musician afaik. I don't know the breakdown of this 50%.
Here's Steve in a 2023 article saying reasons he co founded the record label.
https://guitar.com/news/music-news/stev ... rd-labels/

::

When street next to london Palladium 2022 june I for a few seconds greeted Steve and his dear Partner with a Namaste, Steve also returned the greeting with a Namaste.
I handed over to Steve a handwritten piece of paper with 10 ideas for a future albuume that Steve could do if he wanted : 10 instrumentals in styles Steve hadn't done before that I felt Steve could do. They weren't conventional styles.
I don't think those 10 ideas will see the light of day. Still I was glad to have handed those ideas over to Steve.

[marvel5]

Yeah, when I was looking at this seriously 15 or so years ago (maybe 20!) some of the more artist-focused indies were offering 50% (that's what I was on), the majors were 10-15%

10-15%? That is really, really bad. It might be true for some genres I guess? For EDM it isn't, at least not in my experience and I don't think they automatically offer me more than they do offer other artists.

10-15% would be OK with me, if I got an advanced on that, that never have to be repaid even if it would not be recouped. The advance would though have to be quite big for me to bite on a bait like that.

And surely, if those 10-15% does guarantee a net income of say at least $2000-3000 / signed track, then why not (provided that the track production time is maximum one month or less). Although I wouldn't allow to be locked to that label only. One always need to have his doors open to other offers, so he can be on several labels at the same time.

A label that offers pennies, let the artist starve and at the same time lock the artists entirely so the artist cannot release work anywhere else, is just a slave label. Never ever sign deals like that.

There's actually a record company, that automatically signs the artist already on the demo submission!!!, would they want the submitted track! This is completely nuts. Never seen anything like that before. You can read the terms yourself (let me know if you want a link), it's more or less a slave contract. Just horrible.