an open letter to the music industry (on transparency)

Dear The Music Industry,

Hi. How's it going? I know you get a bad rap, but I want to start off by saying, thanks for all the music! We all know you are far from perfect, and some parts of you--ok probably a lot--have strayed into full-on evil territory way more than any of us would have liked. But overall, I know that you have dedicated your lives to discovering and fostering and bringing us new and exciting music, and though I've never met you in person, I can only assume that anyone who would do that must be pretty cool. Which is why I would like to help you. So, inspired by a post by Lower Dens frontwoman Jana Hunter on the economics of the music industry that has been making the internet-rounds lately, here are a few thoughts that I think might help us all out.

don't let everyone think you're this guy

Since Spotify finally opened its, uh, doors(?) here in the US, I have seen many people jump ship from both piracy and purchasing to instead legally streaming all their music, and since it's all legal and stuff, it must be better for the artists, right? Well, Lower Dens frontwoman Jana Hunter has come correct with an in-depth examination on how the advent of streaming services (and the internet) has effected musicians' ability to actually make a living off their music, and it's not super pretty. I.e. the Spotify cut is tiny.

But that's not really what I want to talk about. Because while Hunter covers a lot of ground on the economics of music, there was one thing that I found particularly interesting. When adressing the common perception that "Record companies rob artists of profit more so than streaming," she replies that:

A common independent deal is the 50/50 deal, wherein a label pays for everything up front, and then recoups (takes back via profits) their costs, after you which you and your label split the remaining profits. If your record costs $40k, and your record makes $100k, you get $30k. If Spotify paid you for an equivalent amount of plays on their paid subscription service, you’d get $1250.

Which is, like, good to know! Really! 50/50? Sounds like a pretty good deal for everyone involved. Were people less able to pull the "but all the moneys just go to the labels brahhhhh" argument, maybe they'd actually pay for more music. Or at least be less fucking self-righteous about it. But here's the thing:

How the hell is anyone supposed to know this?

The gist of Hunter's message is that with technology constantly reshaping the landscape of music industry, we, the listeners have to act as a self-regulating force that guides said shaping into something that is mutually beneficial for everyone involved. Which is absolutely true. But the fact is, the actual economics of the music industry have been basically hidden from us, the fans/consumers, for its entire history. Of course most people don't understand the the economic implications of what they're doing--because how could we beyond very general statements about the industry as a whole, which, who knows what that means? "Sales declining? Thats probably just like, manufactured pop stars can't sell 20 million generic albums anymore, right? Not the music real heads listen to right?"

"only sellouts ever made money anyway, man!"

In a followup post, Hunter sums up her message to listeners as follows:

A lot of people responded to 10/25 post and others with an almost confessional breakdown of their personal habits. “I spend x hours on spotify, go to x shows a month, and spend x amount on records,” and then drew various conclusions about their contributions to music. I hope that that sort of thing helps to put in perspective something about your relationship to music, and I’d really only respond to it by saying that if you don’t consider the flip-side, the musicians’ income, then you’re not seeing the end of that equation, and not getting a real picture.

And again, I say this is absolutely true. But again, maybe part of the reason no once considers the "flip-side, the musicians' income" is because that information is for the most part unavailable to us. I don't say this to attack Hunter or anything--on the contrary, her post goes into great detail on exactly this, which is exactly what I'm saying.

fans not privy to economic data

But the music industry, indie or otherwise, needs to do far, far better than a few stray tumblr posts by artists on how much money they make from selling music in different formats. Shit like this (warning, pretty violent 'cause it's the Boondocks) doesn't work, and actually exacerbates consumer resentment instead of building the listener-artist/label connection we need. Instead of vague platitudes or attacks, give us real data! People aren't stupid--I mean, this is the generation that's basically figured out how to topple the entire media industry. They can handle percentages.

Listeners need to give far more consideration to the needs of the artists whose works they take part it. But understanding is a two-way street, and  it is the musicians' and labels' responsibility to trust the people they depend on for livelihood enough to actually provide them with information on how their industry actually works. And don't just release it, publicize it! If someone is deciding on whether to buy or stream or download an album, maybe they could know exactly where that money goes, or how much it cost to make, or how badly the artist probably needs it to keep going. I dunno exactly, these are all just random ideas. But we need to try them, and many more, and we need to figure out a better level of economic transparency than the current standard of "none". Because it is only with a real understanding of the dynamics of their relationship with the music that consumers can begin to cooperate with artists in reshaping those dynamics into something that will better serve us all.

and hopefully we'll never have to worry about product placement

--h.s.t.