The Struggle for Ownership: ADOS and the Business of Black Music Labor
Labor Day is upon us, and as Americans gear up to spend their last days of summer grilling, enjoying time with family, and listening to music, a significant portion of that music will be by ADOS artists, both past and present. These artists have made immense contributions to the music world but were consistently prevented from reaping the benefits of their labor. “Black Music Month was originally created to promote, protect, and perpetuate the business of Black music, not just to celebrate Black music,” says Cochrane, as quoted in Maria Sherman’s article titled ‘Black Music Month has evolved since the 1970s. Here’s what you need to know.’ This statement highlights a key issue: an emphasis on cultural celebration overshadows the original financial goals of Black Music Month, which are equally, if not more, essential.
We need to rediscover the original purpose of Black Music Month. Although the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) helped shape a variety of musical genres, we were not permitted to own or operate the means of production for our groundbreaking work. This exclusion has hampered Black Music Month’s original goal of becoming akin to the Country Music Association. It is primarily to blame for its inability to materialize.
The Business of Black Music
Cochrane’s observation raises the question of why there isn’t a bigger emphasis on the commercial aspects of ADOS music. The concentration on cultural elements, including music from the African diaspora, has diluted the original goal. Like many others, the music industry has a consistent pattern of ADOS exclusion from ownership and financial participation. As ADOS President Yvette Carnell so eloquently puts it, “we were plundered,” despite our immense contributions to the music world. ADOS musicians shaped American culture by establishing genres such as Blues, Jazz, Gospel, Country, Rock, Funk, House, and Hip Hop, which altered the music industry and generated substantial profits for white-label owners, music publishers, and retailers.
According to Visual Capitalist, the total revenue from music sales between 1973 and 2023 was around $771 billion. This massive wealth was accumulated mainly by people who owned and managed the music industry, allowing them to transfer wealth over generations. While Black Music Month may have aimed to compete with the Country Music Association, this was never a realistic goal owing to ADOS’s structural economic marginalization. Despite our tremendous achievements, ADOS were barred from accumulating wealth during the Jim Crow era.
When ADOS artists attempted to own and operate their own music labels, they were often unable to compete with white-owned companies due to systemic barriers that blocked access to capital, technology, and distribution channels, which were almost entirely controlled by whites. This issue persists today, as seen in the recent case involving Katherine Jackson, mother of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. She recently lost a legal battle in which she sought to prevent the estate’s executors from selling Michael’s catalog back to Sony. Michael Jackson, who made history by owning his masters following the release of his critically acclaimed album Thriller — a rarity, especially for ADOS artists — had previously partnered with Sony in a joint venture.
In 2016, 21 years after Jackson and Sony formed Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Sony bought out his half of the company in a deal that netted the Jackson estate $750 million. Jackson had first acquired ATV Music Publishing, which owned the publishing rights to most of The Beatles’ music, in 1985 for $41.5 million. Eleven years later, he merged his stake in ATV with Sony Music to form Sony/ATV. Now, Sony will regain full ownership of the catalog of Michael Jackson, the premier artist of our time — a feat that no one, especially an ADOS artist, is likely to surpass in sales or ownership. This buyout underscores the grim reality that no other ADOS artist will ever achieve the level of control and success in the music industry that Michael Jackson did, given the systemic barriers that continue to dominate the industry.
The Struggle of ADOS-Owned Record Labels
The history of ADOS-owned record labels confirms our exclusion from ownership in the music industry. ADOS previously owned and controlled labels such as Motown, Black Swan, Vee-Jay, T-Neck, and Sussex. These labels released music that is still cherished today; however, prominent white labels bought them out over time. These hostile takeovers frequently occurred because ADOS labels were undercapitalized or deliberately undermined by major white-owned companies like Paramount and Columbia.
For example, Vee-Jay Records first signed The Beatles when they were relatively obscure. And in 1964, they sold 2.6 million copies of The Beatles’ songs in one month. However, following The Beatles’ breakthrough, Vee-Jay was sued by Capitol Records and subsequently went bankrupt. This instance demonstrates how ADOS’ marginalized economic condition allowed more powerful entities to exploit them. Historian Matthew A. Killmeier explains, “Segregation and racism, combined with only fleeting access to capital, technology, and distribution — which were almost exclusively controlled by whites — placed the African-American labels at a disadvantage and ultimately contributed to their quick demise.”
The Illusion of Ownership Through Hip-Hop
“This period correlates with the attempt to sell hip hop via the perspective of ownership and the advent of boutique labels like Def Jam, Bad Boy, and Young Money, which are music production deals disguised as record labels.”
From the 2000s to now, ADOS music, particularly hip hop, is frequently marketed with a sense of ownership. According to Billboard, hip hop generated $2.78 billion in sales in 2022, with major labels getting a large portion of the revenues. According to data from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), music sales income peaked between 1992 and 2006. This period correlates with the attempt to sell hip hop via the perspective of ownership and the advent of boutique labels like Def Jam, Bad Boy, and Young Money, which are music production deals disguised as record labels. It would be interesting to see what their true proportion of profits, if any, is.
As ADOS co-founder Antonio Moore put it, “The Celebrity Decadent Veil” conceals the economic failure of the larger ADOS group, creating the image of grandeur and achievement. Moore adds, “This curtain is trimmed with million-dollar sports contracts, Roc Nation tour deals, and designer labels designed for leaders of state.” As black celebrities allowed us into their homes (Some of these houses have been alleged to be rentals) through shows like MTV Cribs, we lost sight of the broader state of African American financial issues” (Antonio Moore, The Decadent Veil: Black America’s Wealth Illusion). The propaganda of lavish living and perceived ownership makes it difficult for ADOS as a group to grasp the extent of our exclusion from genuine economic participation and ownership.
The mainstream media appears to be the driving force behind making it impossible for ADOS to understand true music ownership, as they frequently promote superstars like Jay-Z as the prototypical music mogul while ignoring relatively unknown industry heavyweights like Lucian Grainge, who secretly wield significantly more power. Despite his enormous impact — he and his son Elliot, as chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group (UMG), own around 37.6% of the USrecorded music market — Grainge is rarely portrayed as a notable music magnate in the public eye. This distinction highlights the skewed narrative provided by media outlets, which usually excludes the actual power actors in the sector.
Political Barriers to Music Ownership
Some might say, “Well, we don’t need politics. Just focus on your music. You have to outdo them by hustlin’ harder!” However, policies enacted over 25 years ago have supercharged the barriers to music ownership for ADOS artists. The passage of the Clinton Administration’s 1996 Telecommunications Act led to the elimination of many local radio stations, concentrating the industry in a way that severely limits the variety of music available to listeners. As noted by the University of Alabama College of Arts & Sciences, ‘With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, broadcasting companies were granted the right to form radio conglomerates which dominate the broadcasting industry today.’”
Entering the music business has become nearly impossible for independent artists as major corporations dominate the industry. The so-called “Big Four” music label giants — Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and Warner Brothers — have come to control most of the U.S. recording industry through a series of strategic mergers. According to reports, these companies collectively control over 85 percent of the U.S. music market, creating a significant barrier for new entrants to compete effectively source.
We hate to break it to you, but the system barriers are alive today. This concentration of power is a crucial issue in the industry, and political obstacles are encountered not only by artists but also by their families. The recent treatment of Nina Simone’s inheritance exemplifies another troubling feature of the industry’s structural limitations.
“My family doesn’t run her estate anymore. It was taken away from us & given to white people. Our family name was DRAGGED in the media,” RéAnna wrote. “We get NO royalties, nothing. Wanna hold someone accountable? Ask Kamala Harris why she came for my family.”
Despite these serious claims, it is unlikely that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Presidential nominee, would be questioned about this issue, though she should. As then-Attorney General, Harris oversaw a case in which Lisa Simone could not receive the wealth earned by her mother’s estate.
Conclusion
As you celebrate Labor Day, enjoying the food, music, and time with loved ones, remember the countless exploited ADOS music artists, musicians, and composers who made innovative music and were not fairly compensated. Despite their contributions, they were denied the opportunity to enjoy the American Dream. While the original intention of Black Music Month has been overshadowed, the underlying reason is clear: ADOS are locked out from economic participation and ownership in the music industry. This exclusion, deeply rooted in history, has left the community without the wealth to sustain ownership of their creations, including our music.
The only remedy to this systemic disenfranchisement is reparations for ADOS. Recognizing and addressing this economic injustice is essential for fulfilling Black Music Month’s original intent and ensuring that ADOS can finally benefit fully from the music we have given to the world. Suppose you would like to be a part of the solution. In that case, we are hosting the National Reparations Summit from October 3rd to the 5th in the ADOS music mecca of New Orleans, Louisiana.
