follow me: twitter
my (he)art/writing: hitRECord
This has nothing to do with me because I’m not even on the recollection, but on the CD, are they seriously saying each fake phone call song request is worth $140, but in several cases someone recording actual instruments for a song only gets a few bucks?? or even someone like tonguecutsparrow only gets $77 for his part of “I Have No Cats”?? when a phone call is worth $140??
Someone tell me if I’m reading this incorrectly, am i missing something here? or should I just forget about making music and start working on my phone calling skills or something, because apparently that’s the best way to make money on hitrecord.
and as a side note, i never joined hitrecord to make money, and i genuinely love the website, i’m just really confused by some of the percentages they’ve chosen.
*going to search for my recollection cd to see if there was something really special about those phone calls that i may have missed.*
I’ve tried to bring this up before during one of the past profit proposals, but few people seemed to agree. But it’s true: looking at the numbers, on hitRECord, the more people that collaborate on a record, the less worth each person has. It happens with the films, with the songs, with anything. Doesn’t matter how much work went into the production on one individual’s part. I say this as someone who has never put in even a quarter of the work as some of these talented artists do. 17(?) tracks on the album, each one gets approximately the same amount of money, even though some were made by 1 person and some were made by 100. 6 short films in a live show, let’s say one is a home video by 1 person, and others have 200 collaborators… same thing. I don’t get it. This profit-splitting model doesn’t encourage collaboration. It encourages the rare genius/stand-alone talent to step up and shine brightly over a crowd of hard-working artists that ultimately just blend together. That combined with all this follow friday, favorite artists, more-likely-to-get-featured kind of stuff? I’m seeing less of the “spirit of collaboration” and more of a search for one-hit wonders, or people who will consistently have their work highlighted where others have tried and failed. I know that’s not what the team is going for at all, but that’s what it looks like to me.
The number of people who have collaborated on a record SHOULD affect how much money is allocated to that record. Maybe in a normal company it wouldn’t, but for a company that advertises being, first and foremost, a COLLABORATIVE effort, it doesn’t make sense to me at all that the profits are split the way they are.
Moreover, I wish the team would be more transparent about how they come up with these numbers in the first place. To give us these charts, and expect us to tweak them without knowing the background of how they were created? It’s like giving us a page of multiple choice answers without us knowing the questions. Give us the equations or the algorithms or something, ANYTHING, then maybe we can help improve them.