Hacker News Reader

Comment by TekMol | Hacker News Reader

Why would Spotify lock in the artist? It's enough for them to attain a license to play the songs.

Why would that need management folks? Wouldn't a simple signup form be enough?

Spotify wouldn't lock in the artist, but labels do. If the label demands full rights to a song/album, you would not be able to sign for the label since you've already granted rights to Spotify.

To me, they were suggesting that Spotify could replace labels if they had 'enough users'. Currently, band to record label relationships are exclusive (i.e. I can't release an album with both Label X and Label Y). Also, labels do a lot more than just getting your music on platforms. If Spotify wanted to replace the label, they would need to provide those services instead.

Either Spotify would need to provide those services, or someone else would need to step in and provide those services unbundled from the labels.

No reason it has to be the same entity providing everything that the labels used to.

Which services do record labels provide?

It varies, but mostly it involves marketing. Press, branding, merchandise, etc. Alongside all the other odds and ends like helping you find support staff (visual artists, booking agents, tour managers, etc), legal representation, and fronting money for the recording process. There's quite a bit that goes into it all, there's a reason why large record labels have so many employees.

They take the most of the money so the artists won't get rich too early (or at all). That way the artists has to be creative and come up with something new next years as well.

I love the music industry.

Financing, networking/matchmaking between different kinds of talent that go into making records, and promotion, just off the top of my head.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com