https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/producer-payment-delay-967872/

It has always been that way for 90% or more.

When we were being courted by Motown, their last offer was 2 cents per record. Out of those royalties they would take out inflated recording costs, inflated distribution costs, and inflated promotional costs. Our manager figured we would have to sell a million copies of our first single to break even and not owe Motown any money. In those days, a million sales from a first time artist was a rarity.

If your first single went viral and sold over a million, you could negotiate a better deal for the next one.

They even wanted to put one of their staff writers name as co-writers to get have the songwriting royalties, and they wanted all publishing rights.

That's why there are so many one hit or one CD wonders.

Nothing has changed but the technology.

99.9% of musicians make their money by playing live to an appreciative audience.

Insights and incites by Notes

Hmmm....interesting story reference for a song writing bottom feeder like me.

Granted, other than being aware it's a cut throat industry I know little to nothing of how the industry works at that level.
It sure sounds to me like an over-the-top sense of self-perceived entitlement by Motown.
Implementing devious ways to take more from those that actually did all the creative effort/work.

Motown actually thinks that would be an attractive offer?
I'd be embarrassed to offer that deal to an artist that I thought had a song that would have some mass appeal and both could make some buckaroos.

Oh well...what do I know in this context.

Back to it....

Everything remains the same.....

Some of the big bands of the 60's were playing essentially for free with several #1 songs on the radio. Getting screwed by the record company was a given.

Now days with streaming and digital, not much has changed. Songwriters don't get much remuneration.

I have a few songs in film and TV and the royalties were about 12 months behind the airing of the shows.

Way to stay classy, Rolling Stone Magazine.

Why not also suggest it was done on a stolen computer while you're at it?

Motown knew it was a bad deal, but it's motivation was to make as much profit as it can.

Motown (and others) knows there are some artists who want to be famous so badly that they would sign on the dotted line. Motown's second choice did. They were called the Sunliners, but of course Motown wanted to own their name too, so they could fire and hire at will and put 3 or 4 groups with the same name on the road. They changed it to Motown's Copyright, "Rare Earth."

4 acts on the road? Common practice back then. At one time there were 4 Mircales, 4 Temptaions, 4 Platters, and so on. Smokey Robinson joked that if there was ever a Miracles reunion, including the touring acts, they would have to rent a football stadium (it was an exaggeration of course).

The people who didn't make a dime from the major labels outnumber the ones who made money by 99%

The majors monopolized the market so no matter where you went, the deal was pretty much the same for first time acts.

The exception to the rule were people with great connections already, like relatives to the execs.

And if you underestimate artists willing to work for free to be heard, look at all the Open Mic nights across the country where musicians work for free while the venue rakes in the profits. Same thing, smaller scale.

Insights and incites by Notes

"And if you underestimate artists willing to work for free to be heard, look at all the Open Mic nights across the country where musicians work for free while the venue rakes in the profits. Same thing, smaller scale.

Insights and incites by Notes"

.............................................

I would agree completely about the Record Companies ripping people off, but would differ a bit with the above form your post.

Would you not agree that for a young person starting off, or for that matter an older person who has never really performed and both wanting to get a feel of live performing, for both these people the joy of performing in front of an audience may well be far more important to them then receiving any money?

I do agree in part.

But when the venue is a for-profit venue and:

• The owners are getting paid
• The managers are getting paid
• The cooks are getting paid
• The bartenders are getting paid
• The waiters/waitresses are getting paid
• The purveyors to the venue are getting paid
• The janitors are getting paid
• Everybody involved are getting paid except...
• The musicians are NOT getting paid

That's the wrong place to build your performance chops. What does that say about your self-worth? The guy who scrubs the toilets is worth more than the musicians?

So you think a record company ripping of an artist for increased profits is OK, but a local restaurant or bar ripping off an artist for increased profits is not OK?

I'm sorry, I don't see any difference.

Insights and incites by Notes