What They'll Never Tell You About the Music BusinessI'm reading it as research for the book I'm writing. Now you see... I've always heard, and believed, that the music industry was shitté. But now I believe it is The Devil. It's, like, Satan personified. I didn't believe in demonry til I read this book. Not I understand why a black artist would go around with the word Slave written on his cheek in protest of his record company.
And this book isn't a shocking tell-all. It's a fairly dry and practical manual for artists and their teams on how the industry works, and how to run their personal businesses well. But the basic, dry facts of the case speak volumes.
In the music industry the artist pays for almost EVerything. The company foots the bills in the beginning, but you pay it allllll back from your royalties, while they start reaping profits from the first sale. This doesn't happen in other entertainment industries. An author might pay for some of their promotion costs, but she won't pay to actually, say, print the book. Musicians pay back the recording costs, mastering, fabricating the CDs, much of the promotional costs, tour costs (which are huge), and video costs.
But here's the bit I love. If the album's royalties aren't high enough to pay back the advance you were given, then the company starts taking the money off the royalties of... your NEXT album. This does not happen in the book industry. This doesn't happen to actors and directors.
It's like this weird combination between investor and banker. If you give someone a loan, then you have the right to get every penny back. If you're an investor, then you're a partner, and you share in the losses. But record companies are basically both--they invest, but they don't bear as much risk as a normal investor.
That's just one example. There are innumerable examples of how these companies, which are rolling in it, try to make the artists pay for more and more. It's ridiculous. The industry is full of supposed music lovers, often right up to the CEOs. How can these people claim to love music, and constantly screw over the musicians? It's ludicrous.
It reinforces my feeling that I like being part of the book industry. People in books LOVE BOOKS, and they LOVE THE AUTHORS. You can see it in the long hours and shitty pay. The agents believe in their authors and work long hours for little pay; the editors fight for their favourite books, champion their authors, working long hours for little pay. Not matter how big the publishing houses become, or the retail companies become, they are not rich, and don't spend their time scheming to get another penny out of the creative people without whom there'd be no business.
Oh la oh la. Digital music is probably the best thing that's happened to music in a longo time-o, if it ends up--block your ears--fucking over the vampires.
Ridiculous.
11 comments:
I heard a little of this from a couple friends who are musicians. Michael Hart had a contract for a while but soon learned that this changed practically nothing - except to lose his profits if he was successful. He still (as you point out) was paying for everything and doing his own promotion, etc. etc... He went "indie."
Yeah, I've always kind of heard stories like this, but I didn't know much about the details.
And I wonder... Do you think the book industry is so much different wrt mass-produced popular fiction very much of the time? And are the people who work in a book store different from the people whose resources drive the industry?
I just can't see why it would be fundamentally different. And when I see the effects of mass production and consumerism (stuff like the cultural obsession with Twilight even though Twilight is *really awful fiction*), I'm very suspicious of claims like this. Sure, specific rules don't travel across industries, but I think capitalist excess must transcend artistic medium at some level. And I don't see how it's possible that any medium is all that much more "pure" than the others... I mean, I once met this woman who earned a living by writing up shite for the Sweet Valley series, and I didn't get the impression that it was all about loving literature.
"And are the people who work in a book store different from the people whose resources drive the industry?"
I realized this was unclear. What I mean is: Of course, they're different. There are probably a lot of book geeks in book stores (according to your accounts at least. personally, most people I've known who've worked at huge bookstores were teenagers looking for a slightly more tolerable minimum wage job than fast food. I'm willing to believe book industry culture is less cynical in Canada, though, if you say so. This seems plausible since there's also a better social safety net, and it's possibly easier to avoid getting sucked into a job that one despises--at least a little easier. One need not just jump into Some Job Anything that Furnishes a Paycheck Goddamnit just to avoid lapsed health insurance.).
But my point was: Okay, so you work with book geeks at your store, but... None of those people own any of the major publishing houses or decide what becomes the Next Big Thing or have any significant power over the industry as such. So, how can you really know it's so fundamentally different from the music industry? I mean, I know you've researched the letter of the laws/rules, but beyond that?
I kinda feel like it can't be escaped, though of course it's encouraging when people are able to step out, exercise some sort of autonomy, and do their own thing (I think that's one reason I've found Lady Gaga so intriguing. She's not the typical young pop starlet, even though of course she can only exist in conversation with/in response to/as product of the industry.). And I'm sure there are communities within these industries that are better (certain "indie" communities, your bookstore, the close community of writers that I've become familiar with in North Carolina, for example).
But I still think the book industry pretty much operates under the same kind of consumerist logic. I mean, hell, *academia* increasingly operates under this kind of logic.
Any retail industry is based on the need to get people to buy more.
But the thing is, there isn't big bucks to be made in books. It's not like movies and music (and even the movie industry apparently doesn't have the same shitty deals as music does.) There's just less at stake.
Between all the blogs and books I've read about and by agents and editors, that's where I've got the impression that there are a ton of people who just love what they're doing. They work 16 hour days, and get paid crap. You don't even make a profit on the majority of books published. You HAVE to love it, otherwise you'd be crazy to do it. I didn't say they weren't trying to make money, I didn't say they were pure--but it just isn't as structurally fucked up as the music biz. Presumably because its development was completely different. It grew up around and attached to the movie industry, which I assume is when the book industry started to fall.
As for the people who work in bookstores--yes they're full of 17 year olds in need of a job. But the majority of the LURV books, and most are in university. You get the usual mix of keeners and cynics, but the one thing most of us have in common is that we love to read. And that's not just my store. The thing is, when you go to get a "crappy minimum wage job" you decide where to start, and people who love books start with bookstores. At least that's what I did.
I don't really understand what you mean that Twilight is the result of mass production/consumerism. The book wasn't pushed by the publisher, it sold by word of mouth. There are lots of people who don't agree with you about Twilight, and it's not cause anyone told them to love the book. You can love a book for reasons other than the writing--I have.
Okay, fair enough. I had no idea that Twilight got big by word of mouth and assumed it was totally a marketing ploy (having seen tons of marketing spreads for Twilight, but I guess that's not how it started).
With Twilight... I mean, the writing is so poor that it reminds me of some of the Evangelical Christian fiction that I read in my youth (not for long, it was so awful). In particular, a certain Armageddon themed book--I can't even remember the title now. But it was about angels and demons and "spiritual warfare" and non-human spirits who walked around thinking about their overwhelming lust and/or purity/righteousness. The Twilight story is creepy at best--and glorifies a dude who stalks the love of his life and the girl who just can't get enough of being stalked. That young people--and so many *adult women*--relate to this is... Eh, creepy? Anyway... Yeah, I know, a subjective opinion, and clearly I'm out of touch with the mass market of book buyers. (Not the first time I've been out of touch with the Majority, of course, and still believed I was right and they were wrong.)
Anyway, back to the main point... With the exception of the rules and regulations that govern this stuff, I just don't see a big difference with music. You saw the movie (or read the book), High Fidelity, right? And you've been to your share of indie music stores like the one in High Fidelity filled with music fanatics, right? Who in music doesn't love music? I am sure there is often just as much passion and commitment in play in the music industry. Otherwise, fewer people would play the game, right? At the end of the day, I honestly just don't have enough faith in any industry not to believe that every Paris Hylton or Heidi Montag has an equivalent in books. (Didn't Lauren Conrad write a fiction book?)
I can buy your claim that there isn't as much money at stake, so maybe abuses aren't as bad. But I don't see it...quite so fundamental a difference.
Also, there *is* big money to be made in books. Certainly not as much as in music, but when you come across a Stephanie Meyer or a J.K. Rowling* or whatever... Yes, there is a lot of money to be made both by authors and by big publishing houses. Okay, so it's not *only* that, but I don't think it's only that in music either.
And I still don't think agents and editors (who of course must be passionate about what they do) are quite the same as stock holders and publishing house owners and all of that in terms of Who Has Power to Drive the Business. At that level of business, I can't see how it's very much different (except that the market is smaller, and the people with ownership in the Twilight and Harry Potter franchises, for instance, have a disproportionate amount of power.).
*And for the record, I'm not completely down on every high earning piece of literature. Harry Potter was not exactly my thing (It always read to me like Roald Dahl but not as clever), but I still think J.K. Rowling is a good/talented writer. And I was thrilled that she got so many people passionate about reading.
I wasn't saying there's a difference at the level of those selling msusic/books/movies. There's just a structural difference in terms of how artists get paid in the music industry, vs film and book.
And if I understand your point correctly, you were just saying that the differences aren't all that great, because they're all taking place within the same market structure.
Yeah, I think we agree for the most part.
Well, except that you are kinder to Twilight fanatics. But as far as the main points of the OP...
:-)
And yes, Lauren Conrad wrote a book, and it definitely sold based on the popularity of her show. Sold very well.
Heidi Montag's debut CD, however, sold only 300 copies in its first week. I know this because there was this great article about tracking down some of the sad souls who'd purchased it and getting them to reflect on their Most Embarrassing Purchase.
I like some of the Lauren Conrad line of clothing sold at Kohl's. Eh, I have no comment on her book. I mean, you know I'm a reader of literary fiction and a snob about it, and that I make no bones about that, so...
Post a Comment