Who’s really to blame for exploitation in the music industry?
The future of the music industry has been the topic of innumerable conversations and opinion pieces over the past decade, and with every technological development comes a whole new vision, and a new bogeyman. The technology currently in the crosshairs of the corporate industry are the streaming services that have exploded over the past couple of years.
We used to accept that the labels and celebrity artists were right when they presented their critiques of streaming, but the longer they stay around, the more we see that they may have been trying to dupe us, and that the issues they’ve identified aren’t a result of streaming services, but the (d)evolution of labels into neoliberal enterprises like any other, where profit is all that matters.
The argument we hear most about streaming services is that they don’t pay artists fairly. Their royalty rates are incredibly low, we’re told, and big name artists like Taylor Swift have put their name to the cause to make us believe it. Why would our darling Taylor lie to us? Maybe for money.
It’s nothing new for rich artists to try to restrict the formats through which their music is available to only the most profitable ones, which is exactly why Taylor scheduled her war on Spotify to correspond with the release of her album 1989. By forcing people to buy a physical CD, or even a digital album, she could earn much more than if people streamed it. But is it the fault of streaming services that royalties to artists are so low? The data doesn’t support this popular argument.
The French trade group SNEP did a study with Ernest & Young on the breakdown of royalty payments from streaming, and the results don’t back the story of labels and wealthy artists. They found that after the streaming service took their cut, and taxes were paid, the label took 73% of the remaining payout, disributing 16% to the writers and publishers, and a mere 11% to the artist. There’s little reason to believe these numbers would be vastly different in other territories, which means that there would be a very easy way to increase artist pay: eliminate the label.
This may sound extreme, but labels haven’t always ruled over musicians in the way they currently do and with new technologies artists can connect with their fans and distribute their music easier than every before. A growing number of artists are considering what this path might look like. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, 30 Seconds to Mars frontman Jared Leto remarked that “we’re in a state of transition — the power record labels once had has been eroded, with the help of technology, social media, and new and alternative distribution methods, but there still isn’t a clear new model.”
The transition to a post-label music industry won’t be an entirely easy one, but there are already artists experimenting with new models that show promise. Macklemore was an independent artist when “Thrift Shop” topped the charts, and Amanda Palmer raised more than $1.2 million on Kickstarter to fund her album in 2012. Those are just a couple examples of the new models of success that are emerging are artists increasingly eschew the corporate model for their own independent paths.
There are risks for artists who decide to go on their own that don’t exist for those signed to label contracts, but there’s also the opportunity for much greater reward. It may seem as though the future of the music industry depends on what the labels choose to do moving forward — whether they decide to adopt fairer contracts, or continue down the path toward further exploitation — but the composition of the wider society will play a significant role in setting the incentives for which path artists will choose.
Right now, there’s little support for artists who want to strike out on their own, so rejecting a contract can also mean giving up a stable income while they record their album. However, if we choose to adopt policies that will support not only artists, but also the growing number of precarious workers in other fields, we could incentivize and hasten the transition to an independent music industry, while building a more inclusive society for all.
The truth about label exploitation is becoming increasingly evident, and it’s pushing even celebrity musicians to turn against the industry they benefit from. We’ve been told that piracy was the biggest threat the music industry has faced, from which it’s only now recovering, but the real revolution may only just be beginning, and we have the power to decide whether we want to encourage an independent future for artists or let the exploitation continue.
Want to know more about how labels are exploiting artists, the alternative paths for independent musicians, and the policies that could promote a new music industry? A Music Industry for the 99% will be released on 25 January, and is now available for preorder on Amazon, iBooks, and Kobo.
Paris Marx writes about the growing divide within the capitalist system, the movements for alternative forms of economic organization, and ways of living that challenge traditional narratives. He occasionally makes videos on YouTube, and is very active in sharing news and opinions on Twitter.
Follow on Twitter // Subscribe on YouTube // Follow on Medium
