If what I preceive as being true from reading that small blurb is thus, this is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashdot
Printable View
If what I preceive as being true from reading that small blurb is thus, this is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slashdot
lol, they are dumb.
and they wonder why their market is shrinking - fucking idiots.
HI HO BITTORRENT! AWAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!
I've been advocating this for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
The record industry does not need your support, or your money.
Does anyone besides the forty and over crowd even buy CDs anymore?
People use the argument that you should support the artists who make the music, but they don't make any money from the CDs anyway. That's why they go on tour.
I buy CD's because I'm a consumer whore with excess money who likes to own things, but on the whole I have hardly any problems with music "piracy" (The record labels have much more in common with pirates than a kid who downloads music does).
Really, it depends on the artist. for example, Australias music industry is really, really weak. Aussie artists usually tour at a loss and make nothing from their album sales. The air waves are clogged up with music from the States and the UK to the point that the public percieves a band thats Australian to be inferior before even hearing them. The industry doesn't have the balls to back a band because its apparently too big a risk in a market this small, and then when album sales are poor due to lack of advertising and over exposure of American competition they use it to back their initial stance that Australian <> $$$. I think the few of us that actually appreciate and listen to some the great Aussie bands out there, of which there are many, should do all we can to support them, because when being in a band is a huge financial burden its alot easier for an artist to stop making music all together.
(I actually wrote a 1500 word article on this very topic but my computer ate it :( )
I buy CDs for three artists and that's it - just to support them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Otherwise, no way. An incredible waste of money, and the music coming out just doesn't sit well with me anyway, generally.
I think a lot of people in my age range feel the same way, and if they don't, they're not adept at getting their own music by themselves.
I'l buy CDs through BMG or Columbia House's "buy 1 get 2 or 3 free" offers. Aside from that, no thanks. $18 for a fucking CD is insane.
You're better off downloading those songs. The quality of the BMG and Columbia House CD's is horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I can not recall the last new CD I got from a main retail store. IF I buy any mainstream music it is usally for like 1.50 at a pawn shop. Everything else I get is either on wax, or metal from a online site that I don't mind giving money to.
I buy CDs for my collection so eat me.
i still buy cd's but not many, 2 this whole year. call me old fashioned, but i dont beleive in stealing, even from a thief, just how i am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
EDIT: ok turns out i have bought 6 cd's, my error, 2 of them(shakira and darkness) i shouldnt have because they turned out to only have a few good songs and i should have i-tuned them, 2 were from christain groups(roeper and five iron) who dont belong to major lables and had really good full-cd's, and 2 very good cd's from major lables with dropkick murphys and tori amos. six in a year, thats a significant drop in purchasing, i used to buy that in a 2 week period.
I'm a pawn shop and ebay whore. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Either theft or infringement. Take your pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
It's my opinion that American radio needs more Austrailian novelty acts such as Men at Work. Start writing songs about kangaroo's and vegemite. GO GO GOQuote:
Originally Posted by arjue
You know, just because artists don't see a lot of money from CDs, doesn't mean that not buying CDs doesn't screw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Perfect example is Sonim, my favorite singer when it comes to Japanese music. She has had some great music, and she was with a big label, but her CD sales weren't spectacular. So, the label dropped her, just like that. She's now with an indie label, and trying to continue on with her thing, but because she's not on a bigger label with the big label push, she's having a harder time now getting noticed in the Japanese music market.
I really do wish we were at the point where CD sales didn't matter anymore, and all artists could just release their music directly to the consumer. We aren't there yet, though.
The artists make about $1 an album. They really don't make a lot of money off of touring either. Most of the money they earn from touring goes back into paying the roadies, the manager, the light crew and travel expenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
My cousin once played an event in front of a crowd of around 5,000 people. His band made about $200 each, after paying everyone else.
Bands tour, to promote thier albums actually. Notice how whenever your favorite band is coming to town, every radio station that plays thier style of music, will up the playtime for said band. Royalties from airplay go up, as do album sales.
The major revenue that a band earns from touring, comes from t-shirt sales and other fan junk.
Ah, but the fewer CDs we buy, the faster it'll happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
Record Labels are hilariously terrible. There was an article I read the other day (no idea on the source) that mentioned how Sony and some other labels are implementing anti-copy protection on CDs so that people can't copy the music into iTunes and put it on their iPod and MP3 players and stuff. Some artist got really pissed about it being on their album, because they never signed anything that said Sony could do that to their album, so they posted on their official fan site how to get around the protection (and it was 'removed' a day later).
Record companies are essentially discouraging people from actually PURCHASING the CDs now. MP3 players are huge, and will kill portable CD players, so why are they ignoring that and going about their business like they don't exist? That anti-MP3 player shit is just pissing off the dwindling market of those who still regularly buy CDs.
Let's just start off by saying that an artist, early in his career on a major label, is not goint to make shit unless they:
A. Are fabulously successful, and their debut album goes gold or platinum (and even then, after advances, might still only be making a "decent" living)
B. Had a massive following before they signed with a major, and were able to squeeze the record company for some decent royalties, based on the fact that the artist has a track record of already being succesful.
This number varies drastically from artist to artist, and is based off of the number of points that artists are able to negotiate in their contract. A typical "first" major label contract will grant the artists about 6-8 points from gross retail. So if we ballpark a CD at about 15.99 (what you would most likely see at a chain store like Tower or Sam Goody), and the artist is getting 7 points, thats $1.12 a CD. However, established artists who are making big bucks for major labels can renegotiate contracts to make as much as 20-25 points per record, and since artist's CD's in this group tend to go for more like 18.99 at a chain store, they are making more like 3.00-4.00 a CD. If that artist even goes single platinum, they are rolling in it, as long as they are in the black from their advances. This works out OK for the label as well, since they don't have to dump as much promo money into an already established artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
True, the cost of the production certainly cuts into the bottom line for the artist, but to say that they don't make alot of money off of touring as a blanket statement would be untrue. For instance, many mid level artists make their living off of touring. This is due to the fact that since they are playing venues that don't require huge audio or lighting setups, and almost always use the house audio and lighting, need not tour with such technicians and engineers, and subsequently need not pay their salaries. Managers fee's are almost always 15% of net profit (as long as the artist was not stupid enough to let a manager con them into letting him take 15% of gross.) Bands either work on percentages of the door, guarantees, or a combination of the two. Most, if smart and can draw big crowds, use a combination. This makes sense for both the club and artist. If the venue fails to promote, or for whatever other reason fucks the event up, the artist still gets it's guarantee. However if the place sells out, the artist will get it's guarantee plus the percentage of every ticket that goes over the already established guarantee. The venue sells massive amounts of alchohol, and banks bigtime. Even mid level artists can easily walk away with 20 or 30 grand in their pocket, not counting merch sales, if they pack the shit out of a mid sized venue (2-5000)Quote:
They really don't make a lot of money off of touring either. Most of the money they earn from touring goes back into paying the roadies, the manager, the light crew and travel expenses.
Were they the headliner? If not, most of that money went to the headlining act, I can promise you this.Quote:
My cousin once played an event in front of a crowd of around 5,000 people. His band made about $200 each, after paying everyone else.
This used to be, and still is to a degree, the case, but it's becoming more of a reciprocating venture than it used to be. Albums being in major rotation on radio stations are advertisements not only for album sales, but for live performances as well. The reason you see artists get more spins previous to a performance is because most stations are in some way collaberating with the artists label/tour support to increase revenue for both parties. Artists offer free tix/backstage passes/hang with the band types of things to give away on the air, which draws more listeners (in turn increasing the stations ratings), which makes them hear about the event more, which promotes the event, resulting in increased tix sales. Everyone wins.Quote:
Bands tour, to promote thier albums actually. Notice how whenever your favorite band is coming to town, every radio station that plays thier style of music, will up the playtime for said band. Royalties from airplay go up, as do album sales.
This is sometimes and sometimes not the case. Bands can make killings off of show merch, which is way overpriced ($25 tour shirts) but artists early in their careers usually pay royalties out the ass of their merchandising to their labels, which probably got them their merchandising deal to begin with. On the other hand, mega-stars will keep their merchandising completely seperate from their label, thus earning them huge amounts of money.Quote:
The major revenue that a band earns from touring, comes from t-shirt sales and other fan junk.
In a nutshell, it depends on the artist, the contract, and the label, and the tide is turning towards bands making more money from live performance than from record sales. Boo-fucking-hoo for the record conglomerates
You do have that crazy doctor on PRI that'll answer anything. Even why a kangaroo would decide to only urinate on a man's couch (it doesn't want any urine to splash on its feet so it prefers to go somewhere soft, horses can be the same way).Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
It all depends on the artist, but big name artists make fortunes by touring. Bands that aren't established tour with promotion heavily in mind, but once a band is successful touring is a goldmine. They play big venues where they for the most part get to just show up, play, sell merchandise, get paid and leave.
The recording industry is staggeringly blind and arrogant, they've been in a position for years to adapt and avoid becoming obsolete and they've chosen to hasten their own demise instead. Digital music is not a fad, the sooner they get that through their thick heads and develop some humility the better their chances of being relevant in the future are.
As MyKozo pointed out, the majority of the profits go to the record labels. It's the musicians that can hang around long enough (5 years + or more than 3 albums) that stand a chance to make the big bucks. Once they've lasted out the length of their contract, they are the ones holding the ball. It's up to those musicians to sign a more lucrative deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
Howard Stern had The Presidents of the United States of America on for an interview last year. Believe it or not, they are still putting out albums, but it's on thier own independent label. The guys from the band talked about how their first album sold multi-platinum, yet they had nothing to show from it. They couldn't make money with a record label.
Here's their indy album: http://www.allegro-music.com/pusa/
Remember that 3 girl band that sang Waterfalls? I can't remember their names, but one of the singers was called Chili. Their second album went platinum, yet they all had to claim bankruptcy. So much for that point system.
The problem is, they have to rely on record labels to get their names out there. Maybe once satellite radio becomes the standard, radio programming that caters to those indy style bands will give them a chance to break free of the Sony's of the record industry.Quote:
The recording industry is staggeringly blind and arrogant, they've been in a position for years to adapt and avoid becoming obsolete and they've chosen to hasten their own demise instead. Digital music is not a fad, the sooner they get that through their thick heads and develop some humility the better their chances of being relevant in the future are.
The band's TLC. And I didn't know they all went bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
I just rip my friend's cds in iTunes and enjoy them that way.
Yes, it is TLC. They were featured on VH1's Behind the Music and the biggest focal point was on how they went bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisco Bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
wow I remember one of their albums sold over like 14 million copies
BUT then again it could be they spend money like air
didn't Mike Tyson buy like one new car every single day or something???
just watch those billions go...
Considering all 3 of them had to claim bankruptsy, it's very unlikely. They barely made crap from the first album. The second album sold very well, but with back taxes and money they supposedly owed the record company for their first album, all did not go well. It's a story of poor managemant, bad accounting and a record company that put together a very shitty contract for TLC.Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFer
Mike Tyson's an idiot, who was taken advantage of by all who knew him. He had a posse of people on his bank account. Remember seeing Tyson entering the ring with about 20 people surrounding him. Who were all these people?
Then he had law suits with Don King and the whole rape conviction as well. Plus taxes he owed on unreported income (with penalty fees).
One of the members broke it down, bit by bit, and thier 2nd album, after the label was paid back, agents and such, they each made about 50 grand.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
150K to the artists for an album that went multi-platnum, that the label made millions off of.
This is why the music industry sucks.
Seriously.
Stop buying CDs from these giant record labels.
They're always the easiest ones to steal anyway.
Of course that one member of TLC having to pay off her legal fees for burning down Andre Rison's house probably didn't help either.