Chappell Roan’s Grammy Speech Echoes What All Music Creatives Are Fighting For: An Op-Ed from Tiffany Red, Founder & Executive Director, of The 100 Percenters (Updated)

Sunday night, my phone buzzed with messages of excitement and hope after Chappell Roan set the stage on fire with her acceptance speech for Best New Artist at the 2025 Grammy Awards. She cracked open her off-white journal, sat her shiny gold trophy down, and spoke of a journey many signed music creatives know all too well: no health care or livable wage while being signed to a company that has the power and makes the majority of the revenue from your music once you "make it." That's real and very relatable if you're an artist, songwriter, or music producer. I was so proud watching her up there because these topics of conversation need more visibility and support. Using the biggest stage in music in front of all the decision-makers in the music business to speak up is badass!
 

As a songwriter and founder of the music creative advocacy organization, The 100 Percenters, I've seen firsthand how difficult it is to get these issues the attention they deserve. It takes courage to speak truth to power in an industry where the major music groups hold so much control. That's why seeing an artist use their moment to highlight these problems was so important. The push for fair pay, healthcare, and equity in the music industry isn't a fleeting complaint—it's an ongoing fight for the dignity and sustainability of creative work.

​

Music executive Jeff Rabhan's tone-deaf and condescending op-ed in The Hollywood Reporter Chappell Groan: The Misguided Rhetoric of an Instant Industry Insider dismisses legitimate concerns about fair wages, healthcare, and financial stability. It isn't just unhelpful—it's harmful. It perpetuates the conditions that keep creatives struggling while the industry reaps most of the economic benefits from their work. Chappell Roan's speech wasn't an attack; it reflected the reality many signed artists, songwriters, and producers face. 

​​

​​​​Every five years, during the CRB (Copyright Royalty Board) rate-setting proceedings in Washington DC, major record labels spare no effort in securing the lion's share of streaming revenue—often at the direct expense of the songwriters and producers who create the very music that fuels their profits. It's a calculated power play that ensures the financial imbalance in the industry remains intact. Songwriters and their publishers (under the same parent company as the record labels) get 15.3% of the revenue from streaming in the U.S. The record labels get around 52% of the revenue. So, how exactly are record labels the ones who continue to avoid accountability when they're making the majority of the money?

​

Music creatives are forced to accept terms set by a system that masquerades as a free market but is, in reality, controlled by an oligarchy and government regulations. This structure doesn't foster true independence; it maintains an illusion of self-employment while keeping creatives tethered to an industry that dictates their earnings without their input. And Jeff is right; this does sound like a union issue, which is why, for the last 2 years, we've been organizing the Songwriter & Composers Guild and collecting union petition signatures, but this union-busting tone he's speaking with is a tiny glimpse into what we're up against. This systemic tone continues to discourage creatives from trying to pursue progress.

​

Jeff Rabhan wrote about the treatment of songwriters in his op-ed, but guess what? Record labels are the ones fighting us on modernization. One of the most glaring injustices in the music industry is the outright refusal of record labels to pay songwriter fees, unlike producers, who often receive upfront payments for their work, master royalty points, and music publishing royalties. In contrast, songwriters are expected to contribute their creativity and labor with no guarantee of compensation—only the hope that a song will generate enough publishing royalties to make a return. This model is unsustainable and exploitative, yet it remains the industry standard. Record labels are a huge part of many systemic problems in the industry, and that's just the bottom line.

​

So many creatives in the community reached out to me after reading Jeff's essay, so I want to tell you all this. If you're an artist, songwriter, or music producer dreaming about the day you walk across the Grammy stage and speak into that microphone to the world and the music industry, remember speeches are powerful tools in advocacy. A well-delivered speech can shift perspectives, inspire action, and spark movements. Throughout history, some of the most significant social, political, and cultural changes have been fueled by people who stood before crowds and spoke with conviction, passion, and purpose. This kind of person drives progress. Those who rise above fear and opposition create lasting change. Block the noise, and remember that your voice matters.

​​

Chappell, if you're reading this, thank you for speaking up. We’re here, organizing, and we’d love to connect with you. The 100 Percenters exist to advocate for music creatives, ensuring that these conversations don’t end after the awards show lights go down. To any artist, songwriter, or producer who resonates with what Chappell said on that Grammy stage—The 100 Percenters is for you. We’re stronger together, and the more voices we have, the harder we are to ignore.

​

Music creatives have always had power, and when we stand united, we are unstoppable!

​

Update 2/12/25 8:20 PM PST:

​

In Jeff's response to Chappell Roan's reaction to his op-ed, he stated in his open letter on X:

​​

"My article was not a personal attack—it was a call to action and a warning to avoid the pitfalls of many who walked before you. It was a reminder that your status has changed, your strength has different muscles and, when used effectively, can move mountains and affect change."

​​

Yet, Jeff, your original piece tells a very different story. If your intention was truly to offer guidance, why was it full of outright personal attacks? Here are just a few of the most egregious examples from your op-ed:

 

• "Far too green and too uninformed to be the agent of change she aspires to be today."

  • This directly insults her intelligence and experience, implying she is incapable of leading meaningful change due to her lack of knowledge.

• "Her Grammy speech was a hackneyed and plagiarized script of an artist basking in industry love while broadcasting naïveté."

  • Calling her speech unoriginal and naive dismisses her message entirely, reducing her advocacy to empty rhetoric.

• "Should Chris Blackwell put a mint on her pillow and tuck her in at night, too?"

  • This remark belittles her call for better treatment of artists, making it seem like she is asking for unnecessary pampering rather than advocating for fair industry standards.

• "It is disingenuous to cash a fat label check, ride meaningful industry support to mainstream success, and then act like the kid who didn't get picked for dodgeball when your name is called."

  • This frames her as hypocritical and ungrateful despite the fact that acknowledging industry support does not mean one cannot critique its flaws.

• "So a label should be slapped for running its business like a business, while your advance goes toward more important things — like a personal ayahuasca shaman from Detroit and a toilet that speaks four languages? Make it make sense."

  • This sarcastic and baseless claim attempts to discredit her by painting her as financially irresponsible despite no evidence of such spending.

• "This isn't a game of laser tag at the mall with your friends — it's bare-knuckle warfare at sold-out Madison Square Garden."

  • Comparing her activism to a childish game trivializes her efforts and suggests she can't handle the realities of the industry.

• "The industry matrix is far from perfect and often a dysfunctional clown show — but Roan isn't ready to be Neo."

  • This implies that she is unprepared and incapable of enacting change, diminishing her role as an advocate.

• "Otherwise, you're liable to become just another artist no one cares about in the industry, burning their 15 minutes of fame for an echo chamber of applause."

  • Suggesting that her advocacy is performative and that she will fade into irrelevance undermines the legitimacy of her message and contributions.

​​

If this wasn't a personal attack, what would you call it? Because instead of engaging with her ideas in good faith, you mocked, belittled, and dismissed her. Critique is one thing—undermining someone's credibility, intelligence, and worth is another. You claim to offer a warning, but your op-ed reads more like a hit piece designed to put Roan in her place rather than inspire meaningful dialogue. The demeaning manner in which you spoke to Chappell Roan is how too many men in the music industry talk to young women in the business, and it needs to stop!

 

Tiffany Red

Founder & Executive Director, The 100 Percenters

 

Donate To The 100 Percenters