□□□ (Kuchiroro) - 00:00:00 short ver.
I'm not really sure what's going on here but what I am sure of is that it is awesome.
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:
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.