Lifting The Veil On The Music Industry

 Growing up, many who aspired to become musicians have probably heard of the shady stories dealing with the music industry. Yet year after year, artists are seemingly chewed up and spit out by the industry with little to no progress for the next generation of artists. Many artists have attempted to fight against the industry's parasitic nature, including TLC, Dr.Dre, Taylor Swift, Micheal Jackson, Metallica, and countless others. Iconic musician and performer Prince was the most outspoken of the bunch when in 1995, he began writing slave on his cheek before he performed. This cry to the public prompted questioning but did not lead to the significant institutional shift intended leading to many other artists after Prince falling victim to the same pitfalls. So what has been keeping these parasitic practices into play, and how can we avoid them?

  First, let's ask ourselves, how do artists end up in such bad deals, to begin with? When reaching out to new and upcoming artists, labels will (if profitable) attempt to get them into a 360 deal. A "360" is music industry jargon referring to an exclusive contract between a label and an artist. While in this deal, a recording label takes a share of music sales and a percentage from other ventures such as concerts, merchandise, television appearances, or publishing. The goal of a 360 is to recoup what was spent to launch an artist. This practice spiked in the early 2000s, mostly in response to the significant decline in album sales. All the expenses covered by the label in pursuit of building an artist career are recoupable under the 360 deal; those costs are held as a debt against future royalties. These advances must be repaid so for an underperforming artist, this could mean a wall of debt and the end of their career. 

  These business tactics disadvantaged all artists, but Black artists especially. Black artists from less fortunate backgrounds are targeted not only for their cultural influence (R&B/Hip-Hop is the most popular streaming genre in the U.S.) but because they are seen as easy prey due to their presumed lack of resources. More often than not, you'll see a rapper newly signed to a label and begin to splurge on jewelry, cars, and homes, while not knowing that they have to pay their label back. This lack of financial intelligence and counseling is precisely what brands look for when exploiting artists. 

  Streaming music has made recouping for an artist extremely difficult considering that it takes 1500 streams to equate to 1 album sale, which must include at least three but no more than five songs. Profiting as an artist in the streaming era requires two things, a big enough following on social media and a means of touring. These labels appeal to independent artists by meeting those two needs, providing wide-scale promotion to increase the artists' fanbase, which will spike overall album streams, and using their connections to make touring and merchandising as accessible and easy as possible. This business practice remained illusory to most until 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic put the world on a halt. Global music subscribers surged 26.4% to 523.9 million during the Covid pandemic. Although this may have been a win for established artists who already get the support needed from their labels, this struck a severe blow for underdeveloped artists. With no way of touring, which makes up the bulk of their revenue, they could not reach a broader audience to boost streaming sales, causing their project sales to plateau. More significant acts could fall back on their fanbase to stream their music to soften the blow of canceled tour dates, but the situation was different for smaller artists. This is where we see an increase of artists speaking out against their label, claiming they were being given hard times when releasing music. Mostly, this comes from the label viewing the underdeveloped artists as a liability they couldn't recoup.  

  If an artist isn't placed in a 360 deal, they are shelved, and out of the 99.8% of artists signed to a record label are dropped before fulfilling their contract. What is the point of signing an artist if they aren't going to be developed? The simple answer is these new buzzing artists are shelved so that competing labels don't sign them and take away revenue from established artists. Often these artists will be used as "collaborators" on another musician's project, requiring them to crank out songs and melodies for the benefit of all participating parties except themselves. These artists receive writing credits, but in the end, they are left feeling used and disheartened from continuing their careers in music. 

  With all that being said, there are a few solutions in today's era that could help upcoming artists subvert these pitfalls. The first solution is to own your master. When you own your master's, you own the copyright to the original sound recordings of your music—owning your master's grants you the legal right to make money from recordings by collecting royalties and licensing your recorded music to film, TV, adverts, etc. When signing to a label, most artists do not retain their masters as they sign them away for distribution purposes. The second solution is if you want to sign to a label, remember you can negotiate clauses and percentages to make the partnership as equitable as possible. Reading the contract and having a lawyer look over it has been such a staple piece of advice given to artists for decades that it has even become a literary trope. This advice is reasonable, for the toll a 360 deal takes on an artist outweighs the potential reward. The last solution is to remain independent and focus on the quality of your music. Write raw and relatable music so you can attract a fanbase that will support you in future endeavors, build a niche following by networking and try opening up for other small artists or performing at small venues within your budget. Singing to a label is an excellent avenue for specific artists, especially when they are getting big, but there are other options.