Futuristic Explains Why He Doesn't Give 50% Song Splits To Producers (Full Interview)
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 10. 2022
- Independent Artist, Futuristic, explains why he doesn't give 50% song splits to Producers. The original video has been getting shared by large Producer platforms and has become a highly controversial topic in the music community.
Is he right or wrong?
BE SURE TO LIKE, COMMENT AND SUBSCRIBE
Collect all your publishing royalties here (SONGTRUST):
app.songtrust.com/signup/?dis...
▶︎ Follow Kato:
www.katoonthetrack.com
/ katoproducer
/ katoproducer
/ katoproducer
/ katoproducer - Hudba
If this video was helpful, hit that like and subscribe button!!
He's more than fair. Good to hear an independent artist knows his hustle. Respect
He should try making an acapella album or mixtape and see how that goes
If a producer wants to do 50/50 then draw a contract stating Your gonna need 50% up front to work the song!
That’s why I produce engineer and provide artists development for MY artists and I’m THIER producer we split down the middle because everything he spoke of I split with them. He’s talking about beat makers not producers there’s a difference.
In this day in time i can see the 50/50 split thing! If this was the 90's early 2000's that wouldn't fly because they didn't have to do that.THAT BAG WAS BIG!
This is a very interesting topic, especially in today's industry! The industry is not like it used to be. There are no fixed rates of splits, like way back when,especially among the independent artist community. If you just sell a beat, doing fuc*all after making the sale, you can't really expect for the artist, who is paying everything out their pocket, to give you 50%. It just doesn't make sense business wise, and this is 100% a business matter, and NOT a music/art matter. I am paying studio time to record, I pay the engineer(s) for mixing and mastering, I pay for artworks, promo material, videos, and advertising. The minimum to record/mix/master a song, is around 200 for a decent, above average, and competitive sound. The graphic designers can charge anywre from 50, 100, up to like 500 and more, depending on what kind of artwork you want, let's say an average of 150 for artworks. Then, if you wanna shoot a video as well, that's at least 600-700, for a decent, above-average, video. And then advertising, you're gona spend at least 50-100 to have some impact. If you sum it all up, it racks up to around 1500, for 1 song, without taking into account a flat-fee for the beat purchase. So, I have spent 1500, while the producer has already made profit, without lifting a finger beyond the beat-making and sales. So, why would I give out INCOME, from which I have to re-coup the investment, BEFORE I START MAKING PROFITS, and from which said income the producer is also being paid the percentage agreed, so they are actually making money, while I AM STILL TRYING TO RE-COUP MY INVESTMENT! See, things are not as simple as people wanna make them out to be. Producers nowadays make more money than artists already, and it's overall much easier to built a producer career than an artist career. Now, I am not trying to discredit producers, or to say that they have it all easy. All I'm saying is that after the sale, most producers just go on to the next sale, and that's fine, that's what they want to do and it's making them money. BUT, you can't ask for more than you give out. And don't forget nowadays beat-making is also much more approachable than it was back in the day. You can literally take loops from Splice (for a fee of course, can't have everything in this world ya mutts), and drop them in your daw, and you have a beat ready to use FOR PROFIT! And these are FACTS! So, yeah just cause you did THE MINIMUM AT YOUR JOB, doesn't mean you are entitled in all the income from the final product. It's not like you go out of your way to make and sell a beat, this is what YOU CHOSE FOR A JOB, AND MAKING A BEAT IS THE MINIMUM AT YOUR JOB! It's as if you had a regular job, and demanded bonuses and pay increases just cause you clock in everyday... It doesn't work like that. You want more from splits? DO MORE!
I understand what you are saying but whether you like it or not when you collaborate with a producer which is what you are doing and you create a joint work together they are just as much owners of the masters as you are. How you promote the record, spend money on studio time or shoot a music video is your choice as the artist.
Intellectual property is just that property. I totally get where you are coming from an investment standpoint of the artist however that doesn't change the fact that a producer doesn't have to accept a lesser royalty rate if he or she does not agree with those terms.
My question to you would then be are you as an artist willing to pay a larger upfront fee to a producer for him/her taking a smaller royalty?
@@MIQVERSERNBCOMPOSER I understand what you are saying, I understand from a, solely, legal standpoint, that all parties involved in the creation of an IP, have some kind of ownership on that IP.
However, its not that simple if you take into account how the industry started, and how these old formats can be translated today.
Way back when, the music industry was divided into publishing houses, and recording companies. The recording companies were basically hubs for the creatives of the industry, in that case songwriters, which as a term refers to BOTH actual songwriters, as in lyrics, as well as composers/musicians. The publishers were sort of like hubs for singers/performers.
That's in a "more or less" manner, Im not going into the deep here, just outlining the process.
So, what took place in the creation of a record was, the publishers who saw profit in some new up and coming performer, or artist whatsoever, would engage into business as a representative of said artist, commisioning a recording company to write and compose the songs.
The recording company would be owners of the composition itself, as in the lyrics and music, as ONE entity, and the final master, belonged to the publisher, were the performers would be signed. So the performance was also accounted for, through the publisher. So, the publishers actually owned the final master, which was differentiated from the composition, because back then songwriters and performers were mostly different entities, and the term singer-songwriter, was established much later, and it was not established in a manner were these things were done from scratch to accommodate that term and what it meant for industry.
And thats how the 50-50 split was established. 50% would go to the recording company, who would then allocate percentages to all creatives involved in the creation (songwriters AND musicians) as agreed upon, and the rest would go to the publisher, who was then responsible of paying the singers/performers.
So actually if we are being TOTALY REAL, the breakdown would be closer to something like this:
The creatives, SONGWRITERS AND PRODUCERS, are owners of the composition itself. So, if there is 1 songwriter, and 1 producer, each deserves 25%.
The rest, is accounted for the final recording, the MASTER, which is a different entity altogether. So, whoever owns the MASTER, gets the other 50%.
In a case where an artist, singer-songwriter, who is signed to an indie label, commissions a beat from a producer, and they record it, the breakdown would be something like this:
50% - composition and lyrics. Split between the creatives, in which case the singer-songwriter artist, gets a percentage as SONGWRITER, and then THE REST go to the PRODUCER. And the final master belongs to the indie label.
If we take that scenario and put and independent singer-songwriter artist. Then guess what happens. The breakdown would be something like:
50% go to the songwriters and composers. THAT MEANS THE SINGER-SONGWRITER HAS OWNERSHIP IN THE COMPOSITION PART OF THE LYRICS, OF THE FINAL RECORDING. And the rest go to the producer.
The other 50%? GO TO THE SINGER-SONGWRITER ARTIST AS OWNER OF THE MASTER RECORDING, I.E. AS THE PUBLISHER OF THE RECORD.
THAT IS WHAT YOU GET MESSED UP.
YOU FORGET TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ARTIST AS A SONGWRITER AND A PUBLISHER, IN THE CASE OF AND INDEPENDENT SINGER-SONGWRITER ARTIST.
You might not like it, but the lyrics are as major a part of the composition as the music! And thats what a lot of people misunderstand. They think that because there are 2 parties its 50-50, no matter what. BUT, it's all about the breakdown of the record, bot in terms of creation as well as in terms of publishing.
It doesnt have to do with upfront fees and whatnot, its about what you put in the table. Its not just the music mate. Otherwise every producer would be an instrumental producer and would not give 2 Fs about singers and performing artists, and songwriters and whatnot.
This is not as simple as saying, well theres 2 of us, so we split it 50-50. You have to account FOR EVERYTHING. Songwriters, producers, and publishing (which obviously includes the distribution, promotion, and public relations, among other things)
Sorry for the lengthy reply, I try to break it down as best as I can, so that what I convey is as close as possible to how I have it in mind. And also, because I did my thesis on music distribution and publishing at University, so its a topic I have a lot of interest in.
Fair enough 💯
@@KatoHipHop Thanks for replying Sir, I was actually waiting for your reply on this, and I think a follow-up video with someone that works in publishing and distribution could be good in progressing this much-needed conversation, because I think, due to the lack of concrete guidelines, there is no right or wrong answer. But, generally speaking, I think that to understand someone would need to look at music publishing and distribution from a historical perspective, kinda like I'm trying to do in my reply comment to the gentleman above. (Also think about the difference between "recording industry" and "music industry", and what each term conveys and how they have been used historically to describe this industry.)
Good sh*t as always Sir Kato! Hope you don't get headaches when you read some of our replies here.
KATO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS 🙏🏽.
There is no song without the producer.
True, but should you get 50% of the master?
@@DewayneOh6 If that’s what the producer wants for his art and work, yes. Producers set their fees/terms just like artists.
@@jasonau427 I agree, and artists can decide whether or not to take the deal. Personally, I don't knock on what another producer charge. Yet, I agree with this artist because if we can set our terms, why can't they do the same. I started as a songwriter where I was basically working as an executive producer hiring artists and producers to create songs with me. In that situation, I was not giving them 50% on the master; however, we split the publishing equally.
@@DewayneOh6 Fine by me. I think every party has the right to set their terms. If either is not reconciable then it’s probably best not to work together and that’s okay.
I worked with a producer who i befriended at a music event last year. We split studio session time, mix and master, but they wrote the record before i met them. I didn't pay upfront as we made music as friends. I now want to upload to streaming. I think that would mean they are owed 50% of the record, however if I'll be promoting. Tbf my producer helped arrnaged and was in the sessions so i feel they should get 50 %
if its just beat making, sending some already made left over beats it should start at 30%
but if the producer has to go there into the studio, producing the whole thing like recording sessions, directing, help writing lyrics, doing the mix. help creating a character,marketing plans.
going on studio sessions with the artists and spending time, planning,cultivating, carving out that artist into a successful star.
like those kpop producers or oldschool record producers. then it should be 50%, 60% or even more. depend on how much work the producer has to do.
Artists will also receive tons of gigs like brands & products promoting, interviews, doing commercials, movies, going on shows and tours, and many more, so they will get plenty more incomes.
the more producer do the work behind the scene. the more cut they should get.
nowadays it is the desk sitting people and Ai that are responsible for marketing and promoting music, they put effort,money,strateghies into it organazing the shows and tours,
but flexing moments on stories don't really count as marketing, its a daily routine that everybody just do it all the time.
the creative work is the real deal. producers use our brain power to make things happen. shitty sound won't bring out the best in artists. shitty vibe won't grab any attentions from audience even before the artists start singing. and it won't be able to make people come back to listen to it again. also shout out to them sound engineers for this. thats creative work too.
its a mutual team work and hardworking process.
I'm a producer and I agree with him 100%. I was kinda shocked to see the reactions from the producer community.
What smh
Yeah bro your dumb asl
Yeah same. Idk man once they buy the beat we don't go help them share their song like that. At least not every single artist we sell to.
They do all the legwork after they make the song. Or spend the money to get the work done.
We make a beat in like... An hour? Lol idk I'm not mad at him foreal. It's ALL negotiable anyway.
You agree with because you have no self respect and are desperate for placements
@@JEFFMAN90 wow man, you're so right. I definitely have zero self respect lol. I've actually never even tried to get a placement before tbh. I honestly just think what he's saying just makes sense. Here's another producer who agrees with me and also explains his reasoning if you happen to give a fu*k
czcams.com/video/v_5UClyUZVU/video.html
even though he backtracked on the original statement ..... he needs to learn to clarify what he means when he says things... During the original kerfuffle he said some misinformation about splits .....
What options I guys use to have transparency on
1) publishing royalties?
2) radio or TV plays?
3) anything else plays globally…?
Thanks for feedback!
This deserves more views
I totally agree
10 to 20% is crazy though
He may have a point, at the same time tho, what you're spending on the promotion of the song has nothing to do with the publishing for the song. without the beat you have NO SONG!!!! thats 50% BOTTOM LINE!!!!! Its no different from a label spending "THEIR OWN MONEY" to promote a song in which the producer STILL GETS THEIR 50%.
This is a good interview.
Maybe not black balled but you most definitely can get more of a shadow banned once the industry, labels streaming service doesn’t favor you anymore. That’s the only difference from a major and independent artist. Major artists have higher chances of mass exposure which can lead to more casual fans and independent artists reaches a more niche audience
Bro is buying his videographers cameras? Damn seems like a nice world
Mad free game 💎
So far every artist ive worked with has came to me with 50/50. I mean thats what I would have asked for anyways. Where is the artist without the music. The music is the most important part imo. You as the artist,its your job to do all those other things. You chose to be an artist. I be damned if you offer me 10%. I would take it as disrespect actually.
He must be crazy.: only a producer who doesn’t know his value would accept 10-20%.
That’s cool! He can come off his show money and split it with a producer then.
Great video 🔥 a lot of artists in the music industry need to be aware of this
What do you define as a producer? If someone made you the music you sing on unless you payed for the beat you should definitely give them 50%. What hes saying here is that an ARTIST(who just played gitar, if you only play one instrument you are defined as an artist. NOT a producer) wouldn't get 50% of his record which is totally fair, feels like hes using the wrong definitions on purpose to get clout.
I think his point was more that while producers may contribute to half of the song they often aren't contributing to the external costs to make a song successful which ends up making 50-50 not actually half and half.
He even says that when he was working with a producer who was willing to split these external costs he happily gave them 50%.
23:30
@@ykraoua What you do to the song after its produced doesn't make the producers work worth less. He wouldn't have a a song if it wasn't for the producer.
@@Unshapenkris You're right, it makes a producer's work and the overall song worth exponentially more.
Which is why when it is the artist paying these fees without the producer chipping in, 50-50 actually leaves the producer making more than the artist and a *lot* more than they would if the artist hadn't payed those fees
I do think 15%-20% is a pretty lowball offer though
@@ykraoua I agree it might make it worth more, but how many producers are really known on the same level as the singer/rapper? All that marketing is building him a brand not the producer, why should the producer pay for his brand? The return investment for marketing is way higher for the artist than the producer. most producers are barely known, you have outliers like Rick Rubin and Max Martin, but those are the exceptions.
No producer deserves anything over 20%, you're stupid.
This should have been the video he put out. 30sec rant.
I agree with him and I think it is unfair and taking advantage of artists, because at the end of the day if you have a hot beat and hot vocals, but none of the backend is getting done then it won't make money. So you are busting your butt while they are getting paid off your hard work and telling you it isn't their job. No other business pays you for work you aren't doing. Then you usually have to pay a flat fee on top, so most get more than half. How is it fair to work yourself to death and someone gets to sit there saying it isn't their job and gets paid more. It is like being at a 9-5 where you are a hard worker and the guy on his phone all day not doing anything talks about how they get paid the same as you. It is a lot of work. Then people mention the manager or whatever as if they don't then deserve a fair amount for their work and it is some meaningless task.
Damn fr? why wouldn't you wanna pay the producer?? u save me huge amounts of time when you make the beat for me... takes me forever to make the beat... easier to just spit that shit and split that shit. Plus who wouldn't wanna support the Hustle
Futuristic, lol, I'm not giving anymore than 50% to an adjective.
oh hell no! You have to do what manually how often on tune core?!?!
My question is why he didn’t say what he meant from the jump instead of making vague blanket statements?
Because he wanted exposer. He wanted to go viral for a while and it probably worked to an extent. There is a percentage of people who saw it and looked up his music to see if he is even good.
Take the beat away and what do you get?😂
👀👀👀👀🧐
We LEGALLY OWN 50% OF ANYTHING WE MAKE SO HOW ARE YALL COOL WITH THIS?????
Producers, get your royalties.....don't let these artist scam you out of your check. Producers also, if you don't feel it's fair, simply don't work with that artist. It takes talent on both ends to make a song work, yet alone hit the charts. I you made the ENTIRE BEAT, get your 50% share of the royalties. Without the beat the rappers would be acapella. If you don't like it make your own damn beats.
Lol if the negation doesn’t make sense to you then don’t do business Fugg that
Idk why but I smell fake streams 😅
Right…once he said algorithms I was out
He ain't wrong no cap
Kato iam in u Uganda how can I contact you