It's a music deal that lets the labels take a cut of everything, including revenue streams artists used to have to themselves -- shows, sponsorship deals, merchandising.

It used to be that if you bought, for example, a concert t-shirt or stickers or whatever (unsure if CDs/tapes were ever exempt) at the live performance that the artist got all or most of that. Artists could also control their own merchandising and aspects of their persona outside of the studio... personal appearances etc. but now the record labels 'own' them more completely. A terrible turn in general, and most labels demand a '360 deal or nothing' to new artists.

"Merch" used to be the way artists made a lot of their income while on tour, since they didn't make nearly as much from their album sales from an already unfair record-deal system; now they can't even catch a fair break on tour.

Huge acts can negotiate better deals; the rest are stuck with unfair terms.

[–] Techmaster@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also some labels would do a deal where if you buy an album through the usual retailers, the label takes a cut. But, they sell the albums to the artist at cost, and they can then sell them for full profit. So if you buy a CD through the artist's web site, they make a lot more than if you buy it through a retailer.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Considering Vinyl actually has a higher market share than CDs, I’m guessing the same rules would apply?