A label invests in these artists and they’re hedging that the artist can be successful and the residual income from the masters is their return on investment.

Why are people against the label keeping the masters if that’s on the contract

If an artist is good and are valuable to the label then they won’t be screwed.

The Weeknd and Chris Brown came from nothing. Signed to a label, showed their worth, became superstars, and now own their masters.

But yes I can see why a garbage artist who doesn’t understand their deal could get screwed

Because they take 100% of the royalties until the investment is made back anyway

This idea that they need to own the master to hedge their bets is stupid lmao where does it come from

The master is just extra money for the label if they hit big
It increased reward it doesn’t decrease the risk

Let’s just put it like this: if I give one of my friends a huge amount of money for their start up to grow, I expect to own a huge part of this s*** because I’m the one that’s risking my money and my livelihood for your dream.

Now s*** is different if you’re a proven asset with no risk that can get that money elsewhere. Then I can just act as a creditor because I’m not risking my money like that.

Labels should definitely give out better deals to artists in precarious positions but y’all are crazy to think that they shouldn’t own anything

Labels are important. Without them the streaming giants become de facto labels. That means 2 companies have a monopoly on the entire category of art. Also worth noting these companies are extremely data driven and have a significantly lower incentive to find creativity or experimentation than most if not all record labels

Weeknd had a ton of leverage when he signed

It’s a lot of big artists who signed when they didn’t have that leverage

And look I get what you’re saying 100%
I don’t think a label who turns an artist in the star should have to pay up everything to the artist
But labels are way way further down the morality line than a lot of people here seem to think

Taylor Swift literally wasn’t even allowed to BUY her masters
Kanye was in a SEVEN album long initial contract

I’m still not getting the issue you’re having.

They invest in an artist and if they get the money back in royalties they’ve broken even. The ROI from the masters is where they make proper money.

The artist has signed a contract which allows this. What’s the issue with it?

Because that’s inherently wrong lmao
The artist made the music why should the label get OWNERSHIP
A lease sure
But ownership?

Not to mention this idea that because an artist signed a deal it’s a good deal? That just ignores how much pressure artists can be under to sign

And you’re a millionaire too (just like most artists) and will be making even more soon as you pay them their investment back. It’s just how student loans work. Or bank loans. No ones gonna make you rich for free

I see labels as relatively essential to many artists’ success.

The value of that is to be determined between the label and the artist in the initial deal. Some artists know business better than others.

T-Pain did a pretty interesting interview regarding this about how he and Chris Breezy handled their business differently and how it affected their careers.

How is it inherently wrong?

The artist wouldn’t be in the position to make the music without the labels backing.

Not to mention the marketing cost surrounding the project.

I’m sorry but of an adult signs a contract because they are too short sighted then they have to live with the consequences.

Music labels gotta eat as well

Except that once you pay that back you’re making 15%

How the f*** is that a fair rate

Not to mention how hard it is for artists to pay it back if the label doesn’t want it to be paid back

That’s such a gross comment lmao

An industry that can only operate if it’s exploiting artists needs to change

If the only way “music labels can eat” is to f*** over hundreds of artists then that’s not a valid business model in my mind

It’s not "inherently wrong" lmao it’s common business logic.

In whatever business you’re in, the partner who puts up with the biggest financial risk will almost always end up with the biggest financial reward

We have fundamental differences.

You call it exploiting.

I genuinely see it as a legal tender being enforced and a situation that is mutually beneficial.

I would hope the labels take one of these people to court and then we can see what wins, a boy who cries wolf and exploitation or a legal contract entered by both parties.

Its not that the labels wouldnt like to make money back.

Its that the investment ISNT going to pay out.

Look at young thug. It doesnt matter how much u invest if these ppl cant market themselves.

Throw yachty with dr dre, invest 3 billion in him

And u really think itll be any different than it was with thug and birdman?

No it’s not

Your argument before is valid if labels are owning a percentage of their masters
But they’re not

It’s outright ownership

A company like Amazon still has Bezos with a huge ownership stake even though he wasn’t the one fronting up the money

I actually agree that in a lot of cases labels should or could own a percentage of masters
I think a lease is more in labels interests but semantics

But there’s leaps and bounds between 10 year contracts that sign away all masters, have huge and aces and costs and royalty rates of 12% and what you’re talking about

I’m sorry but all of your arguments are emotive and not objective lmao.

Talking about the righteousness not looking at facts and legality.

Music labels gotta eat so they can make your next favourite artist.