If everyone shared new music instead of complaining about the state of music, the whole ecosystem would be healthier. Be the change you want to see.

Best case scenario is the artist doesn’t charge any upfront fee, only taking a piece of the backend. If the song performs well, the artist isn’t in recoupment hell and the guest artist stands to generate more than $250k in lifetime earnings.

Ultimately, if an artist of their magnitude wants to work with you, it’s hard to say no. But you want to push for an arrangement that gives the song the very best chance to reach the largest audience and expedite the recoupment process.

Of course, Drake and Kendrick have leverage here because they’re Drake and Kendrick, so they’re well within their rights to ask for both their upfront fee AND backend (percentage of the master). This ask makes the decision more difficult to justify, IMO.

It might seem safe to assume, but you would also need in writing that the label involved plans to release the song as a single, with plans to commercially exploit the recording. Effectively, you’re executing a true joint release, not just paying for a guest verse.

A song with two primary artist credits pulls in more listeners than the same song with the second artist credited only as a feature because in addition to showing up on both profiles, the song is being recommended via two algorithmic sources instead of one.

For Drake or Kendrick, here’s the structure that could work: negotiate them as primary artists, not featured. So instead of “Artist A feat. Kendrick Lamar,” it would be “Artist A & Kendrick Lamar.” This allows the song to prominently live on both artist DSP profiles.

For those curious about the above calculation, I used a worst case 88/12 label agreement split, wherein the artist must recoup the total from their 12%, not the whole. This is often misunderstood and why so many artists never recoup (meaning they never see backend royalties).

The reason why it doesn’t make sense to spend a quarter mill on a guest verse is the math behind that type of expense doesn’t work in the current streaming era. Using a blended per-stream rate, the master would need to generate 450M+ streams to just reach break even.

There are only two artists I think are currently worth $250k for a guest verse, and ONLY under specific conditions: Drake Kendrick Lamar That’s the list. I’ll explain. (Thread)

Snoop is a legend, so he can charge whatever he wants to charge. But please do not spend $250k on a Snoop verse in 2026. And with or without Snoop involved, please do not spend $250k on a music video in 2026. If you have $500k at your disposal, invest it in a mutual fund 😂

Your artist manager can't strategize around information you're keeping from them. Transparency isn't a courtesy in this relationship. It's a requirement.

Charlie Rocket is back. Build the fans first. Everything changes after that. Full episode on The Manager’s Playbook: https://t.co/YGTntwlhaw

FWIW, the new album is strong.

Ross is independent in ownership on paper, but not in infrastructure, budget, or reach. Gamma is run by ex-major execs and operates at major-label scale. If the numbers are softer than expected, that's the market talking, not the structure around him.

At this point, the "indie" label is more branding than anything else. (I'm talking about artists in Ross' category, not artists uploading their music using DIY distributors like DistroKid or TuneCore.) It's part achievement, part Bat signal, part built-in excuse.

Even more confusing... if we look across the industry today, there are acts on major label distro deals keeping their masters with only $10K in marketing. At the same time, some acts on "indie" labels are in a 50/50 JV with a $75K budget. Neither fits the old indie/major binary.

Indie used to mean significantly smaller budgets and no ownership stake, which meant much lower expectations (compared to an artist signed to a frontline major label deal). But Ross has a big budget and ownership in his music. So should expectations really be lower?

Traditionally, if an artist isn't signed to a major (UMG, SME, WMG) and maintains ownership, they're considered "independent." But Gamma isn't some small indie outfit. They provide distribution, marketing, & brand strategy at scale, mirroring a major label infrastructure.

Ross (via MMG) partnered with Larry Jackson’s Gamma after leaving the major label system. Under his deal, Ross owns his masters, with Gamma licensing the music for the contract term. This is a night-and-day structural difference from the first deal Ross signed 20+ years ago.

Several people have asked me if Rick Ross is indie after the first week sales for his new album were announced. Technically, he is. But it's no longer clean-cut. We must rethink how we define "indie" in 2026. Let me break down why. (Thread)