2017 Fetty
No. Not at all.
If a label has spent a couple million, let's say, on promotion, pressing, distribution, recording, advances, touring, staffing, styling, production, etc. Whatever. But the artist doesn't sell a lot of records. The artist pockets nothing, until that entire two mill or whatever is paid back. So even if the artist tries to do some other shyt, like acting, and gets a check for $100,000, that whole check goes to the label. These artists basically live off their advances, which typically run out quick because they're not as big as they used to be. Sometimes they'll resign for another advance, but all that does is put them deeper in debt. I'm not saying anyone should go indie. What I'm saying is, people don't typically know how the business works, and labels know that. That's why they do things the way they do. They know no one is going to take the time to see if these deals are best for them.
Going indie isn't as hard as it was 10 years ago. Yeah, it's mad more work, but at least you're not busting your ass to pay someone else.
I heard Kevin Liles Rap Radar Podcast and he didn't even speak on A-Boogie. He was talking about Thug and Fetty. Fetty said Kevin changed his life.The opportunity to do what though? Go millions in debt to a record company? What's the point of signing into a 360, if you'll spend the rest of your career paying these people back because you couldn't move any units? I don't know. Maybe it's just to be known, but it makes no sense to do all of that work, just to end up with nothing while busting your ass to break even with a label. BTW, Kevin Liles spoke about A-Boogie's 360 and others on podcasts. That's why I mentioned that before. Go check that out.
You said it puts them in a position to make bread. What I'm saying is, they're not making it for themselves because every cent that comes in has to be funneled through the label first. And if they still have a balance with them, artists won't see a dime.
Where does he speak on A-Boogie and where is it confirmed A-Boogie has a 360 deal...This is mad inaccurate, I can see why artists are getting jerked today. LOL!!
No knock on you, but the fact that you typed that shows that a lot of people really don't know how this works. So it's no surprise that a lot of artists find out too late why they aren't getting paid. You're talking about quantification, I'm talking about revenue dispersed. They are two very different things. Read what I posted before. Labels are getting paid from streams. Artists are getting pennies. Literally pennies! $0.004891. That's per stream. As I said before, if you go "gold", that means you've pocketed less than $3,000. Artists splits with the label haven't been this low since 1949. These are facts. So to say nothings's changed is just wrong. The entire format for how artists get paid has changed in the past decade. Which is why they're trying to make longer projects. So they can make as much money as possible, if they can, from streaming, by the song. The entire system has shifted to cater to labels pulling in way more than they did in the past, and artists, a lot less. This is common knowledge.

You can see why artists are being jerked now, as opposed to when exactly?
Labels have ALWAYS kept the lion's share of money generated from music sales... pre-streaming the trope was that the average artist only nets like 11 grand from a gold ALBUM, damn a single
You've just typed up a bunch of cliché messegeboard armchair industry expert shyt...That sorry, is just factually wrong... Assuming your figures were actually right and artist are getting $.004 per stream (which is not correct and depends on a bunch of factors, but fukk it)...500k streams does not equal "gold"... The actual gold streaming metric ends up generating over a hundred times what you figured... But even that is besides the point because RIAA certifications have NEVER BEEN A MEASURE OF WHAT ARTISTS ARE POCKETING ... They're meant to measure consumption and popularity
Bro what we're saying is an artist probably wouldn't even get these type of opportunities if it weren't for the label
So if an artist knows they're not gonna sell records whether they're signed or indy how can you knock an artist for signing to a label in order to have opportunities outside of record sales
You think someone like yachty could have secured the type of endorsement deals he has without a machine backing him?
I understood what you meantNah, what I'm saying is, what's an opportunity really worth if you'll spend it in debt? I don't have any issue with labels. What I'm saying is, for all the trouble they put dudes in with these deals, is it really worth it just to be known? With your Yachty example, he said he doesn't even know who owns his publishing. Clearly in a 360, and getting a few looks, but has no idea about how his business is being carried out. So yeah, he's got exposure, but what's it worth if he can't reap the benefits of it because he has to pay back every cent he was advanced by the label and makes from now until he's back at 0 with them. Even from outside ventures. This is my point. We all have different opinions. That's cool. But this thing with "exposure" being seen as an asset is ridiculous to me. Being "famous" ain't worth the trouble.
Read what I posted. You're speaking about things I haven't even said.
You're talking about justifying certifications. I'm talking about how the payouts for streaming are at the same rate as artists got in 1949, while labels are running off with basically everything. I was also making a point about how 360's work. No armchair shyt here, just facts from experience.

I understood what you meant
But you're talking as if 1) you know what yachtys advance was 2) what he's getting for shows, endorsements etc and 3)what percentage of revenue his label keeps just to prove your point
Not cool lol
Gold means nothing if it doesn't make gold.

