When things become bigger the advice of many managers is don’t redistribute the money equitably. Just make a salary for everyone else… except of course you the artist and me the manager. Some people think that’s fair after all the artist wrote the damn song and now famous people are covering it or audiences of more than 500 people are attending the shows.

Then why did they share the money when it was a broke operation? If you rewind the tape the money was split. Check the first years playing to audiences of 8 people – you can bet they shared the money (or loss) evenly. That was the cool thing to do so why if it grows bigger shouldn’t the same rules apply?

And what if the reason the song was added to commercial radio wasn’t even directly because of the song? Who can prove why the decision was made that led to a whack of revenue for whoever owns the publishing? Was because the station manager thought the lead guitarist made cool expressions during their solo?

Let the whole band see the publishing statements from BMI or ASCAP or SOCAN etc. When all is said and done spreading around the wealth will make better conditions for the life of the artists’ relationships or to put it another way hoarding will speed up a shitty death. There’s nothing as cool as transparency.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *