Live data from Hacker News

Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

digitalmusicnews.com

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#141

In the absence of significant income from album sales, artists can make a respectable living through touring and merchandising. This path isn't going to work for songwriters. They need to find a different funding model. Perhaps bill artists by the hour? Probably a flat-rate contract for x dollars per song would be more feasible.

Famous artists can yes. If you are a semi-known band with four people playing a twenty date tour playing 400 capacity venues with two local support acts you're probably not making so much.

That's 8,000 people who care enough to come out and see you. So let's say at least 100,000 people need to like you enough that they would at least consider buying the ticket.

$4000 dollars gross in ticket sales per night, 30% to the promoter. $2800 left. If you get 50% of that with 25% to each support act then after commissions to booking agent and manager you're left with maybe $950. You need to pay travel and accommodation costs out of that, and possibly a tour manager. For a four piece band plus tour manager you probably need $30 a head per diem for incidentals of living in the road. Add in food - another $30 per head and you've got $650 left. Hotel rooms aren't cheap. travel isn't cheap.

Sure you can sell 25 t-shirts a night at $20 each and make $15 a shirt. And throw in some CDs - maybe 30 at $10 a pop... you maybe net another $600 a night.

$1250 a day for your hotels and travel for 5 people - maybe you have $600 left after these costs. Oh and you have to pay your tour manager...

Each of the people in the band makes... what - $100 per show?

Can artists really make that respectable a living from touring and merch?

Sure, scale this up, play bigger venues - 2,000 capacity. But then your costs increase - people want a more impressive show, not just spit and sawdust. You need a set, lighting design, all the rest of it.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be, but it seems like he's being well compensated for his effort either way.

Is he? Is he being compensated well when looked at relative to what others have made off of it? It would be interesting to see those numbers.

You can make that argument about any kind of job. Is the CEO who makes $10M a year really worth 100x the marketer who makes $100k a year?

It's all in what you value, and who has the most leverage to get more money for whatever value they may provide. You may not think it's fair that the record company made some large multiplier of what the artist made, but that's just how the business works. If you want to change it by cutting out the record company, it's a lot easier to do that than it was 20 years ago, so I'd say the situation for artists in that regard is better, not worse.

In the end it absolutely does not matter what anyone thinks is "fair". Absent some form of regulation, people are going to extract as much wealth as they can out of a series of transactions, and some people are going to be more advantaged at doing so than others, whether because of talent or for structural reasons.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#143
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other comment was correct that most of the pooled money will go to Bieber, however I feel there's a better way to frame it. Economically speaking, you can imagine if Spotify had 100 users paying 10 GBP each; 99 listened exclusively to Justin Bieber, and 1 to 'Band.' All users listen to music in equal frequency. Though 99% of the pooled money — and if divvied up equally, 99% of 'Band' fan's money — goes to Justin…

>Economically speaking, you can imagine if Spotify had 100 users paying 10 GBP each; 99 listened exclusively to Justin Bieber, and 1 to 'Band.' _All users listen to music in equal frequency._ [emphasis mine] Well obviously not all users listen to music at the same frequency (which i know you are likely well aware). What is the reason that they don't just take each users $10 then dole that out only according to the so…

I completely agree with this solution being ideal, but I think it's a matter of engineering effort and memory. It's not worth the time investment to build a system more complex, and it's a lot easier memory-wise to just pool it all together for allocation.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#144

They are talking about songwriting royalties which are easily less then 5% of the royalties paid out by streaming companies. The vast majority of the royalty goes to the recording artist and their label in this case Justin Bieber.

Right, this is an important point which appears to be have been missed elsewhere in this thread (and was probably assumed knowledge in the original link).

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#145
post #109
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it goes to the labels. The streaming services aren't rolling in the dough.

It also goes to the engineers working on the services. $200,000-$300,000/year to a senior, even if the service itself is losing money (And when it goes bust, you can always find another job.)

I feel like this irony is horribly lost on about half of the commenters here. Creator's job is seen as worthless, but the deliveryman's job value is indisputable.

And yet if Spotify were to pay its engineers scraps, I doubt the voices here would be as supportive.

The only reason the engineers are paid as much is because the companies can't get away with paying less. And just because they can get away with paying musicians less, doesn't mean the musicians should "get with the times". I am not saying every musician should be a millionaire, but there are plenty who collectively carry the multi-billion dollar industry on their backs, but get scraps in return.

On a more general note, when a vulnerable part of the population gets shafted, they shouldn't "get with the times" either. It's a sign of our failure as a society.

I guess it is not surprising that people in a capitalistic society think that the value of an activity lies in how much profit it can generate to the performer of that activity. I guess it's beyond reasonable to expect people to think of externalities and understand them. I guess it's not at all surprising that a bunch of people who claim to be in STEM have a collective amnesia when it comes to understanding that M in STEM is an art akin to music, but with laughable ROI and a far more limited audience (and the number of corporations that hire mathematicians to do mathematics in the entire world is probably... 5? Go on ArXiV and see how many math papers there are by people outside academia, i.e. are the product of the "free" market system).

None of that is surprising. But that doesn't make victim-blaming any less tiring to see.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#146
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people can have significant financial incentives Of course. People who believe they will be better off leave the commune. Those tend to be the highest producers. What's left are the low producers, and that can't sustain the commune, so it collapses. The next obvious step is to prevent the high producers from leaving, and history shows how that plays out.

I think you are assuming people make their money inside the community. That's far less efficient than having an outside job and enjoying significantly lower cost of living and a low effort social life. Rent, food, house supplies, utilities, cable etc for ~500-600$/month/person + regular parties etc. It's often the low producers without significant retirement savings who have larger incentives. ~100k can be a lot of m…

You obviously are not convinced, so I suggest you join a commune and let us know how that works.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#147
I've got a relative in the music/movie business. He was pretty successful at both, most people in the US over 40 would probably recognize him. He and his family live well, but he still tours; usually small venues, travels by tour bus instead of fancy planes. Small crew, just a manager, sound guy and his wife. I figure he might pull $5K a stop, maybe 2x that depending on the size of the venue. Not bad, but not FU money. He still acts in movies, even some that have not held up well over time. I doubt he makes a ton with those roles either. But he still does them. My mom asked why he still does it, at his age; he replied, "I've got kids to put through school."

I saw him perform for the first time in 40 years, and realized how much he lied to my mom. On stage, he was (as the kids these days say) lit. He clearly loved the music (he still writes and performs new material), but the light in his eyes showed that what he really loved was performing and sharing his music with the audience.

Most musicians can't count on a career lasting 50+ years. The era of singles is gone, and performances are where the next generation will have to make their living.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#148
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but my user name is a big hint. Artist who grew up in South Philly 50-60 years ago and had a hit song so big he still lives off the royalties today.....

Chubby Checker?!

I don't know that Chubby Checker did so well. I saw him at a county fair 25 years ago. He was performing in a tent the size of a large restroom, with only two rows of benches, at about 2pm. There may have been only 3-4 people there altogether.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#149
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are assuming people make their money inside the community. That's far less efficient than having an outside job and enjoying significantly lower cost of living and a low effort social life. Rent, food, house supplies, utilities, cable etc for ~500-600$/month/person + regular parties etc. It's often the low producers without significant retirement savings who have larger incentives. ~100k can be a lot of m…

You obviously are not convinced, so I suggest you join a commune and let us know how that works.

I am speaking from personal experience, so you can not believe me, but that's about it.

Re: Royalties from Writing a Hit Song with Justin Bieber

#150
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also goes to the engineers working on the services. $200,000-$300,000/year to a senior, even if the service itself is losing money (And when it goes bust, you can always find another job.)

I feel like this irony is horribly lost on about half of the commenters here. Creator's job is seen as worthless, but the deliveryman's job value is indisputable. And yet if Spotify were to pay its engineers scraps, I doubt the voices here would be as supportive. The only reason the engineers are paid as much is because the companies can't get away with paying less. And just because they can get away with paying musi…

Victim blaming? These people aren't victims. They're people who picked a profession where it is (and always has been) difficult to find success, both in terms of popularity and material wealth.

I don't see the creator's job as worthless, but I do think I see it as more of a commodity than many creators would like. The biggest hits in music today aren't there because they're somehow objectively the best at their craft. Don't get me wrong, they do have talent, but their success is largely driven by promotion and marketing. There are a ton of largely-unknown artists who could see just as much success if only they'd been able to get their material in front of someone with influence and reach in a better way than the current incumbent successes have done.

> On a more general note, when a vulnerable part of the population gets shafted, they shouldn't "get with the times" either. It's a sign of our failure as a society.

I'm very sympathetic toward people who are actually in vulnerable places. People who can't kick drug addictions, people who are homeless, people who just made one bad decision or just had enough bad luck to end up in a bad place. Creative types are not that. They've chosen to follow their passions to the place they are now. Even older artists simply can't remember a time when their craft was a "gold mine", because that's never been the case.

> I guess it is not surprising that people in a capitalistic society think that the value of an activity lies in how much profit it can generate to the performer of that activity.

I think you give people too little credit. I think people understand that an activity can be very valuable to society but not be lucrative at all. Grade-school teachers are the prototype example of this that pretty much everyone has heard before.

I don't think many people would argue that music and art have low value to society. They're certainly not essentials like housing, clothing, and food. They're not going to push the sum of human understanding further like scientific research. But they're certainly more valuable than some bullshit apps that we talk about here, things like "Yo" that attracted an obscene amount of investment for what I'd consider very little value.

But I feel like you contradict yourself with this point you've made. If you do manage to separate the value of an activity from the profit generated for the performers, you can easily make the argument that no one "deserves" to get paid for creative output. Just because something has non-monetary value, it doesn't mean people will want to pay a lot for it.

Post reply on HN