When you write a standardised test, you're working for the test company. When you translate a novel, you're working for the publisher. When you write "Hey Jude", you're working for yourself. You created the song by yourself, and it's your song, and the record company is providing a service for you. The power dynamic is backwards. They should be serving the artist, not the other way round. If record companies go around hiring artists to make music for them, we should fear for the quality of music.
So what's the difference between a jingle writer, or a sound track artist, and a 'musician'? They all write music, they all sell it to a company who makes a greater profit off of it, why? Because they can't sell a jingle for nothing, they can't make a sound track for a movie they don't own and own the music. So why does a musician assume they're special in this industry?
No upstart artist can afford to make 2 million+ albums for a debut hit, so they'd never sell 2 million albums and they could never be a hit, so they'd never chart and never get the free advertising and air time that hits are given, which means they wouldn't be getting the huge tours with stadium concerts. Artists inevitably as a performing artist make their money from their live performances, which the recording industry aims for. The more fans at a concert mean more record sales, which means more money in the record companies pocket, which means the artist gets more advertising, gets to charge higher ticket fees and make more money from their touring.
Given that so many big artists have established their own labels, they must be making their money somewhere. Although too many of them seem fully occupied with boohoo crying that they're rich and famous, but not nearly as rich nor famous as they deserve.
A jingle writer or a sound track artist is basically creating something 'on spec.' Also, you can bet that good jingle writers charge a lot more money than bad jingle writers.
Recording artists (who incidentally are 'musicians', although some rather loosely) contract with the label to promote and distribute their record. The record company pays them an advance on future earnings as a way to sweeten the deal to get the artist to sign with them instead of another label. They aren't paying them to make the music, but rather just paying upfront some of the money from the sales of the album.
Most artists do not make money off of album sales (even big-name artists). They make money off of ticket sales, merchandise (e.g., t-shirts), and licensing their songs for commercials, movies, etc. After they have become very successful, they are in a position with more power to negotiate better contracts (I struggle not to say fairer). Or, sometimes they create their own label and release their music themselves. Usually, though, when an artist has their own label it's really a "vanity" label that is under the major label.
I think big artists (and little ones) have every right to complain about a system where they can sell ~200mm albums and come out of the process bankrupt (the article mentions TLC and Toni Braxton as examples of this). They created ~$2 billion of gross value and probably netted upwards of $1 billion for the record label. The label certainly took a risk on them and should be compensated for that, but shouldn't the artist as well? I'm not arguing that the artist wasn't naive or poorly informed when signing the contract, but they have every right to complain that the contract terms were onerous and others should think carefully before negotiating. Even Apple re-negotiated their deal with AT&T once they had a hit.
Also, you are completely wrong that no upstart artist can afford to sell 2+ million albums for a debut hit (I realize you say 'make', but contract terms aren't changing because it suddenly became cheaper to sell albums digitally). One example of the top of my head is the band Train. They created their first album on their own for very little money and it was certified platinum. With advances in recording software and digital distribution, record labels are starting to look very obsolete. Especially when they charge you for the actual expenses of their promotional campaigns out of your royalties.
No, they don't. The record companies enter into a contract with the recording artist to promote and distribute their next album or X albums. It's more like the artist is hiring the record company. It may seem like the record company is paying the artist, but really they are paying an advance on royalties. This is much the same as how an author may get an advance for agreeing to allow a publisher to publish their next book.
The advance is in some respects like an investment in a startup; the record label fronts some money to the artist to help pay for recording, living expenses, promotional expenses, etc. in exchange for a large percentage of the profits from record sales. If the record doesn't sell well, the artist isn't under obligation to pay the advance back (although it might carry over on the ledger if they owe more albums to the label). The size of the advance is based on the popularity and expected likelihood of success of the record. To continue the analogy with authors, I think Sarah Palin was advanced $7 million on her last book; most tech books authors receive an advance of 4 or 5 figures. This makes sense based on just the size of the market for each book alone.
Anyways, that was a long digression, but the record companies certainly do not hire artists to make music for them. The artists hire the labels to promote and distribute their music. Most artists have already written and created demo recordings of the songs before they even sign with a label.
Maybe the contracts they sign match up with what you say, but the reality is that in many cases the record companies go out and find 'talent' which they then mold into 'stars'. I'm talking specifically about the artists who have other people write their songs for them, etc.
The problem I have with what you said, is the artist knows what they are getting into day one. It's sort of like buying a house that has a leaky roof and then complaining that the previous owner sold you a house with a leaky roof. Yeah the contract might suck, but I have a hard time feeling very sorry for you if you knew about it before you signed on the dotted line. If they didn't know then they are stupid to not have had a lawyer read the contract. If the power dynamic is backwards, as you say, then you should be able to write a better contract. If you can't then distribute yourself. With digital distrobution become a more popular method of getting your music out there, I'd think that the roll of Big Record would begin to diminish.
