The offer
I had offers. More than once.
Each time, the conversation went roughly the same way: enthusiasm about the sound, a contract with language I'd need a lawyer to parse, and somewhere in the small print, ownership of masters, creative approval clauses, release schedules decided by committee.
I'm a developer. I read documentation. I read those contracts very carefully.
What you actually sign away
Most new artists don't realise what a standard recording contract transfers:
- Master recordings: often in perpetuity
- Creative direction: subject to label approval
- Release timing: you don't decide when your music comes out
- Touring and merch: increasingly, labels want a cut of everything
In exchange: an advance (which is a loan against future royalties), some marketing spend, and distribution.
In 2024, you can get distribution for a flat annual fee. The advance is the only thing left on the table, and it comes with strings attached to every future decision you make.
The maths changed
Streaming royalties are still laughably small per play. But the infrastructure cost of being independent collapsed. What used to require a label's resources, mastering, distribution, marketing, is now accessible to anyone with a machine and a connection.
The labels' value proposition evaporated. The control clause didn't.
30 years of catalogue, 100% owned
Every track I've made is mine. The weird ones, the wrong turns, the ones I'm proudest of. Nobody can license them without my say. Nobody can take them off platforms. Nobody can tell me what to do with them.
That's worth more than any advance.