It depends on the genre. Jelly Roll had success in the rock and rap world as an indie artist. But his dream was to play the Opry and have hits on country radio. Why? Because country fans are loyal, and they still listen to radio. So he signed a deal with BMG and has had two #1s in a row, and is selling out arenas. He also lived his dream and played the Opry. He signed with BMG because they allowed him to own his masters. So yes, they get a cut of the streaming, but he gets the songwriting royalty, which is 100% when played on radio. I'd say he's making more per spin than Oliver.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Rich Men North of Richmond #1
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
It depends on the genre. Jelly Roll had success in the rock and rap world as an indie artist. But his dream was to play the Opry and have hits on country radio. Why? Because country fans are loyal, and they still listen to radio. So he signed a deal with BMG and has had two #1s in a row, and is selling out arenas. He also lived his dream and played the Opry. He signed with BMG because they allowed him to own his masters. So yes, they get a cut of the streaming, but he gets the songwriting royalty, which is 100% when played on radio. I'd say he's making more per spin than Oliver.
Well yeah...Oliver only has the one song. And a label giving an artist full ownership of their masters and all the songwriting royalties is...not what you'd call common. The point is that labels (and radio) are no longer the gatekeepers to success as an artist. Even in country. We're past the days where you absolutely must have major label support and absolutely must be played on the radio or your music career is nothing more than playing in a cover band at the Holiday Inn.
Depends on how you define success. The advantage of the major label is they have infrastructure and money. Those two things can be helpful to a career. The money has to come from somewhere, at least at the beginning. It takes a while for royalties to trickle down. What radio brings is narrow targeting. So if you're an artist getting airplay, you're getting a lot of it, and it's targeted to a clearly defined audience that can be documented. If you're on a streaming platform, people can avoid your music if they want, and there isn't a lot of data on who is listening. If you're getting airplay, you can count on that radio station to do some of the marketing to get butts in seats and get new music sampled. So there are roles for both, and it's a valid choice that an artist has to make.
Wasn’t responding to the singer, but to the response about people supposedly choosing not to work because they get more at home.
It’s a ridiculous trope, and to the extent someone can find the isolated case they think makes it true, that’s an indictment of the business community, not social safety nets that come nowhere near to providing adequate support.
So essentially, you're saying that the only path to "true" success (as you define it) is the traditional major label/radio route. "That's great that your songs got a hundred million views on YouTube, kid, but unless you play ball with us, you're nothing."
I obviously disagree.
No, but my point is there still can be value to do it that way, and I gave you one example. There are several genres where there is little interest from record labels and no chance at radio airplay. For them, they have other ways. No problem. Lots of ways to do the same thing.
From what I hear, all of the labels have been offering deals to the Rich Men singer, and he's turned them all down. CNN yesterday reported he's turned down deals for millions of dollars. That's OK. There are many more where he came from.
No, but for most mass appeal music, radio is a key part of the formula to maximize a song's revenue. Otherwise, they would not have record promoters visiting major radio stations incessantly and annoyingly.
You can get hundreds of millions of initial views from fans and social media. But to get a song like "Despacito" up to 8.2 billion with a "B" views just on YouTube, you have to get sustained radio play, participation in TV music awards shows, a big concert tour, etc. (That is the biggest non-novelty song on that platform)
But the record companies don't agree with you, as should be obvious from how much the spend in staff and promotions to "bring home" a song on radio.
New media is significantly driven by under-21's. That is not and has not been for decades radio's target. So now record companies have a new method of reaching an additonal audience that they had no way of getting to 15 years ago.
Remember, a major label not only has streaming and radio promotion, but an organization that works with TV shows that feature guest artists, venues and tour promoters, product endorsements, arrangers, composers, publishers and a lot more.
There was a reason why Elvis went from Sun to RCA. The same reasons, updated, exist today.
Certainly any artist can hire a personal publicist at $200K a year to do the same thing. But typically new artists have no money.
The other thing is that while the bulk of streaming is on-demand, there is a chunk of it that's curated. For those curated services, it helps to have record promo people pushing your music in front of the curators.
I've been to dozens of seminars for DIY music. There's no question that anyone can find a certain level of success without radio & record labels. It's done every day. But a lot of other people still choose to use labels and radio, and I don't hear them complaining. Taylor Swift doesn't need a record label or radio airplay. But she chose to go with UMG and uses their promo team, as well as her own in-house team, to keep her visible on all platforms.
Well of course they don't agree. It is in their best interest to disagree. Yes, they spend a lot of money in staff and promotions selling a song to radio. Like a lot of folks here, I have friends in the promotion departments at the labels, lots of friends still in the radio business, and understand that they have a vested interest in things staying as they have been. I can't fault them for wanting to protect their jobs.
You help run a site dedicated to radio. People around these parts have invested their entire lives in radio, and are obviously convinced that it is the time-tested best way to do things. You have a vested interest in things staying as they have been.
Inertia is a helluva thing.
The Big A said:
It seems to me like the labels are saying "how DARE you refuse our money?! Don't you know who we are?!" I think it's kinda cool he told them to shove off.
Last edited:
But they don't have to. No one forces them to spend that money. In fact, in some genres, such as alternative, they spend next to nothing. And in return, alternative radio plays on average 10 currents a week. It doesn't matter since fans of the genre have their favorites and get their music in other ways.
That's a strong part of his appeal. He doesn't want anything to do with rich politicians, rich label executives, rich anyone anywhere -- it all ties in perfectly with his persona and his song. Meanwhile, he's making money. Not Morgan Wallen money, not Taylor Swift money, but enough to maybe pay for better equipment and defray his travel costs so he can get out on the road and deliver his music to a large potential audience that's already engaged with him via streaming and whatever limited role radio is playing. But if he wants to do this full time while saving money for a comfortable retirement, then he's going to have to tackle the big question of label affiliation sooner rather than later. Who knows? Maybe this is the beginning and end for him in the music business, and maybe he's fine with that.
That .0008 figure is lower than the average I had read on a musician's digital rate site, where the average, across the major streaming sites, seemed to be $.004-$.005 per play. According to the chart on that site, YT paid. $.002, Spotify $.003, and Apple Music $.008. But your point is well taken.
Agreed on most of your points, RE young people you know who don't listen to radio station streams. I think most of them I know do Spotify or Pandora.
As for my Staind example (and there were numerous other stars that made millions off the CD sales model that dominated until around 2005 or so), would you rather have 2% of $100 million in one year ($2 million), or $130K today (or $40K, as BigA points out)? My point was that there was more money coming in to the music industry in general, and it was because the sales model brought in more money than the streaming model. So when theses "55 million plays" and other large figures are publicized, the figures are impressive, but the money is less than is would have been under the previous consumption models (download sales, CD sales, etc.).
It's all perspective. And yeah, streaming is here to stay. It's not going away, and even if the digital royalties go up, the money will be smaller than it was for artists in 2000. The upside is that anyone can have almost infinite potential exposure, as there are few, if any, gatekeepers. More artists at least have a chance at using an international-scope media to gain an audience.
And most of the big stars who make money off streaming -- the Taylor Swifts, the Justin Biebers, the big Country music and Hip-Hop stars -- they also get a percentage of the take, just like artists got in the old days. The record companies, the management, the studios, they all get their cut, just as they did in 2000. Independent artists like Oliver Anthony, of course, get 100% (or whatever percentage he may have under agreement with his management, if he has any).
I know a local band here that is doing the same thing, basically. They are a band made up of local, second tier grunge veterans who maybe get 10K-50K views on streaming sites per song, and play a few local shows. The 'promotion' is word of mouth, basically, with a tiny bit of airplay on one radio station.
It's a whole different world from the one that existed in 2000 when the guys I know in this particular band were signed to a record company and were playing local shows, and opening up for bigger bands on tours.
Last edited:
In his song, he whines about Bulls*** pay. Once his five minutes of fame dry up, he won't be getting anything close to the 40,000 you mentioned. Reading the trite lyrics, this guy is no Dylan or Springsteen...
I hate never seen such hate for a person writing & performing a song. When you want to see someone fail, be careful what you wish for.
Indeed it is a different world. I also knew a guy who was in a band in the early 2000s. More on the pop metal side of things, but they weren't just local. They were international. Had a record deal with a small label, but also toured South America and played in front of huge crowds. IIRC they played some shows in Japan. Sold a half a million records overseas. Yet after the record company, management, etc. etc. etc. got their cut, the five guys in the band wound up with the princely sum of $25k each. My friend came back from their "world tour" and went back to his day job as a home inspector.
What bugs me is that there are people who still insist that the label/management/radio model from decades ago is the only way to go if you want to have "success" (depending on how you define it). "That's nice you've got a lot of views on YouTube, kid, but unless you sign with Universal/Sony/Warner Music, you're never going to amount to anything."
Apologize for being off-topic. Why does this keep happening, over and over and over, through decades, of talented artists who work night and day, constantly on tour, which is hard work -- then the label and the management take a huge percentage of their earnings, while they and their band are left with almost nothing? This cycle seems to always repeat itself.
So, the topic of this thread is "Rich Men North of Richmond" When the song was first released, I thought it was a protest against northern liberal politicians by a southern artist who favored the Confederacy. ( Richmond was the Confederate capital during the Civil War). Or, I thought it was kind of a culture wars song - good rural country folk vs. wicked city folk i.e., "Fightin' Side of Me" or "Okie From Muskogee" by Merle Haggard. But, after the song was played at the GOP debate last week, Oliver Anthony spoke out and said no - he was writing about politicans in general, and he didn't want the song "weaponized" by one side or the other.
Not sure if this NPR article about the artist and song has been posted before. .
Not sure if this NPR article about the artist and song has been posted before. .
Last edited:
- Status