Slashdot Mirror

I hope that it hasn't been linked before, because your link has a superfluous "/" at the end. Try http://negativland.com/albini.html

This has probably been linked to on slashdot before, but this thread deserves it as well: http://negativland.com/albini.html/

http://negativland.com/

This US band knows all about this sort of problem - they had problems with the RIAA 10 years ago. Things never change, huh.

BTW all there music is legally available for free - I recommend "A big 10-8 place" and "Death sentences of the polished and structurally weak" if you're into musical collage.

http://negativland.com/intprop.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativland

http://negativland.com/

This US band knows all about this sort of problem - they had problems with the RIAA 10 years ago. Things never change, huh.

BTW all there music is legally available for free - I recommend "A big 10-8 place" and "Death sentences of the polished and structurally weak" if you're into musical collage.

http://negativland.com/intprop.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativland

Decca rejected the Beatles and the problem is not with recording equipment or personnel (Come back when you've read all eleven pages!). The problem is with finding talented bands who are willing to put the work in. Often a band doing it themselves is a cop-out, there's a huge amount of work that needs to be done before they step foot in a studio and they're trying to short-circuit the process.

The Beatles put the work in before they even approached a record label, they did hundreds of gigs in Liverpool and 6 months in Hamburg without label backing. They were ready for a studio (insert Ringo joke), most bands today want to start recording after 3 months of weekly practice. Let's put it this way; 50 years ago, the though that the engineer may be a better vocalist, guitarist, drummer and bass player than the respective band members they're recording was unheard of.

I'm failing to see what value record labels provide to anyone in the face of online marketing and redistribution. Let's leave the last word on record labels to Mr Steve Albini

good time to link this again-

The Problem With Music
by Steve Albini
http://negativland.com/albini.html

You asked for a citation for the assertion that the recording artists don't get paid. The problem is that the record labels deduct so much from royalties that the artists often get little or nothing of the revenue from record sales. Here are Steve Albini's take and Courtney Love's take.

And at $15 CD, much more for DVD, I question how much the artist actually gets.

The music industry is bad m'kay. If you don't believe it deserves to die look here, m'kay. This is an insiders view of the music industry so pay close attention.Then tell me if it wouldn't be a better idea for artists to promote themselves on the net,giving away their mp3s under some gnu-like license and making money touring.
Some of you will remember Steve Albini from "Big Black" others will remember him as producing Nirvana. Either way it just isn't worth the worry of supporting the industry in any way.Sure some jobs will be lost,but hey to quote Ted Knight in "Caddyshack"," The world needs ditchdiggers too".

They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.

Just to add to this, here are articles by different artists about being ripped off:

Steve Albini
Courtney Love
Steve Vai

The MP3 debate is near and dear to my heart and I've given it a lot of thought. So here is my 25 cents (inflation):

CD prices are not, as such, artificially inflated to an outrageous degree. However, they are IMO spending their money inefficiently.

A LOT of the money they collect for a CD has already been spent in marketing.

If we're going to point our fingers at them and say that they're bad people, we should do it because they're ramming (successfully) horrid music down people's throats.

If you listen to the music put out these days, you'd find that almost all of the songs from a given artist sound exactly alike. *cough* metalliwhiner *cough* or any of the other popular bands.

The reasoning behind this is simple: when mary-muffins goes to buy the latest CD, she is less than happy if all the music doesn't sound as good as the 1 or 2 tracks splattered across pay-for-playdio. (I don't like getting a CD for a single song and have the rest of the CD suck either.)

Mary-muffins would know good music if it hit her in the face, she is just never allowed to hear it. The current RIAA members are the gatekeepers. Remember (anyone?) mp3.com? I do.

I found over a dozen bands that never appear on the splaterworks. Small, little bands with unique sounds and really interesting songs.

CNET bought them and for some odd reason, destroyed the entire music catalog and the service. It no longer exists.

Song (as well as movie) piracy exists for a single reason, and it has little to do with money above a certain age: ease.

If I can download a song or 6, in mp3 or better, at an acceptable bitrate in which I can hear the songs before hand (lower bit rate is acceptable for that of course), and if it is as easy as getting songs from bittorrent or whatever (click and go), then I'd buy.

Otherwise, if I can get superior service, packaging, delivery, and ease of use for free... why wouldn't I?

(Spare me the legal or moral argument. I consider the RIAA to be far more reprehensible than someone infringing on their copyrights. I consider them to have sleazed their way into many of the copyrights they own in the first place. I cite http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html/ as Courtney Love's take on the music industry and http://negativland.com/albini.html/ as Steve Albini (producer of Nirvana's "In Utero".)

Knowing that the music industry spends a LOT of money on promotion, and that live events and selling goodies (like t-shirts and whatnot) make the bands more money and promote at the same time (assuming people want to see them, unlike the ditzy shizz (those idiotic morons that maligned their country and alienated their entire clientele then wondered what the hell happened)), the music industry simply needs to change tactics.

They would earn (tons) of money, get to keep themselves as the gatekeepers, and take less risk in promotion if they followed this plan:

1. create a web portal and transfer their existing catalog of artists onto it. DRM free.
2. create a small cafeteria plan of offerings ($x for y songs per month, $x per song, and so forth). Create a merchandising link to sell the band's material goodies as well.
3. create a system for preview, band info, perhaps even music videos (streaming, if not download) to promote some hype.
4. DO NOT promote the artists via the normal very expensive channels. Do not pay radio stations to play the artists. Do not spend loads of cash to merchandise them.
5. As an effect of 4, the _patrons_ would then decide to which music to listen. Word of mouth, especially among the teen to college crowd, is the most effective advertising vehicle. You can't buy advertising as good as word of mouth.
6. Use intelligent linking with the bands. "You like x band? You'd probably like y band too. Click here to see."
7. Stick in advertise

Or this one by Steve Albini

That would be this article by Steve Albini, which lays it out in real numbers:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

See also Courtney Love's speech on "The Real Pirates" at http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html

A related article:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

First of all let me say that I am a Musician. The FUD about downloading costing them money is a smokescreen. What they are really afraid of is Musicians bypassing the record companies entirely and selling their music directly to consumers online. Remember MP3.COM it was shut down by the RIAA even though the music that was available on the site was posted by the musicians that held the copyrights to it. They are afraid that musicians will figure out that they are no longer needed as a middleman. There is an excellent article by Steve Albini who was involved with many of the Seattle Grunge Bands during their heyday. The Article shows just how screwed a Band will Get for Signing a contract and having a hit record. And how much money everyone else makes off them. http://www.negativland.com/albini.html This has nothing to do with "saving the starving Artists" this is just greed.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

It always seems like a good time to link to this essay, when everyone starts talking about the money model for recording artists.
From the essay:
The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html/

Yes, because it is crass and unseemly when hardworking artists try and look out for their own interests, pay for a decent roof over their family's head, food on the table, have medical and dental costs, perhaps, gasp, a bit of money put aside for when they're older or incapacitated or just want to take some time off from the daly grind.

You see, my friend, most "hardworking artists" get bent over and fucked, sans lube, by their labels. Day in. Day out. Even some indies do it too. I know, my husband was in a band that got the royal screw job from an indie that suddenly discovered "creative accounting practices" after their main distributor went belly up thanks to one of the many laws that people like Congressman Howard Berman passed for the RIAA. Remember when you could go to a record store and get higher quality vinyl and CD releases from Japan and Europe than what you could get produced for domestic consumption? You probably don't. You can't now, thanks to the Parallel Importation Act.

But I digress. Anyway, there is a very infinitesimal percentage of well known musical acts who make a living from their music. The rest work day jobs. It's like pro sports. How many people who played high school varsity sports get scouted by colleges and get put on athletic scholarships? And how many of THOSE people make it into the Big Show? And how many of THOSE people survive and make the phat bucks and earn their stack before their bodies give out?

The sports game is tilted in favor of the owners of pro teams. The motion picture game is tilted in favor of the conglomerates that own the studios. The "big leagues" in the music industry is similarly tilted. Twas ever thus. From Edison on down the big recording labels have always screwed the artists. You have to be a Madonna or a Metallica and have Big Fucking Lawyers to not get screwed. Hell, even The Beatles got the royal screw job. Who owns the Beatles' publishing catalogue? Well, maybe when Michael Jackson's money runs out McCartney will be able to buy them back. Until then, the catalog belongs to MJJ Enterprises. Not McCartney. Not Ringo. Neither of the widows either. But Michael Freakin' Jackson. Wacko Jacko. It's probably one of the few things that keeps him in cabana boys in Bahrain or Qatar or wherever he is.

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspeect that most contracts signed with new artists are borderline fraudulent: http://negativland.com/albini.html

we ... tend to support the artists that we like by getting their whole CD.

This is a really bad reason to buy CDs instead of digital files (and it has nothing to do with DRM). Buying anything from the "Big Four" (and even many indie companies) does not really support the musicians who made the music. I'd suggest reading the classic essay "Some of Your Friends are Already this Fucked".

It is actually not the people who PRODUCE music who need drm. They are able to make a living off it through various means including concerts, merchandise. Its only the people who MARKET music, who require drm - and the important question to be asked "What do these corporate marketing drones contribute to the CREATIVE process of making music?"

You need to reconsider the PURPOSE of Copyright, and whether it should be taken to such an extreme. This can be a turning point in how you think about the whole subject. You should consider Copyright that it is not a natural right but is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly GRANTED BY SOCIETY (ie you and me) TRADED in exchange for something WE value - which is the creative process. My natural right is to be generous, to help people, and to share the things that I have. As children this is drummed into us because it BENEFITS SOCIETY. Its "natural." What drm and extreme-copyright does is turn NORMAL PEOPLE into criminals.

I read an elightning article once (which I wish I could find again) which compares laws and ethics, and highlights the fact that law is a reflection of eithics, NOT the other way around. Laws are made by the government ON BEHALF OF "the people" to help us to exist in harmony with each other. The ultimate decision on laws "IS" made by the people in the election of governments (theoretically! which is belied by the way the spin machines works today and the suspect nature of recent US elections.) The most interesting point made is that when "the people" WIDELY disregard a law, then it is a BAD law. It is the LAW WHICH IS WRONG, NOT "THE PEOPLE", since the law is not reflecting the ethics of society. This is exactly what is happening with music today. People WIDELY AND WITHOUT COMPUNCTION feel that it is "right" to share music they like with their friends. This indicates that current Copyright laws ARE WRONG for the majority of society. Only a tiny part of society is trying to impose these laws on the rest of us, to make us criminals for doing what is natural, which is sharing.

If the laws as they stand are wrong, they should be relaxed rather than strengthened. The fact that this disadvantages a particular type of business, a tiny subset of society, is beside the point. SOCIETY IS NOT BUSINESS, SOCIETY IS PEOPLE trying to work out the best for all of us to have fulfulling lives. If "WE" were choose not to reward artists (which is not the case, but an extreme hypotethical) then WE may suffer by a reduction in creative works, but that is "OUR" choice. The artist CAN make a living BY PERFORMING. What many instead DO want is that we dont want people who don't contribute to the creative process to not make money exploiting artists. Until recently the wide disemintation of creative works has required significant resources, and so the distribution companies had a purpose. Now with the Interent, the resources required for distribution are so minimal that these corporations are less important, and THIS is the reason they are desperate to have these laws implemented. These drm laws they wish to inflict on use protect THEM, not the artists. To highlight this, please read to story The Road to Tycho (The Right To Read). While this is an extreme example, it is outside the realms of possibility in the future.

Consider that the original purpose of Copyright was to PR

Go read the problem with music and link it to your particular artistic endeavor, and then come back and tell me if your real problem are the teens "ripping" your profits.

The way most record contracts are written today, the artist doesn't see any of the money regardless of where you buy/steal it. They make their money from touring, promotional items, etc. Read Steve Albini's article http://www.negativland.com/albini.html on how you can be a musician with a gold record and owe the record company money!

"Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site."

Okay.. let's LET the artists set their own royalty rate -- note that I said the actual artists, not the mythical "content owners" (which usually means the distributor, ie. RIAA cartel members).

Just as a starting point, let's set the download royalty at what the artists are SUPPOSED to be paid by their RIAA masters, rather than what they are ACTUALLY paid after all "costs" are deducted (see http://www.negativland.com/albini.html). And let's pay the royalty directly to the artist, not to any distribution scheme or middleman.

The artists are now ahead of the game, the downloaded music costs a mere few cents more per track, and the RIAA is rendered superfluous**.

Back to letting the artist set their own royalties -- fair enough, now that the RIAA is out of the picture, let's do that. Artists who get greedy will price themselves out of the market (or back into MP3 piracy), making gouging unprofitable. But artists who set their royalties sanely will have another income stream that they didn't have before, with no effort or expense on their part.

** Noting that THIS is exactly what the RIAA fears the most. Piracy has nothing to do with it.

You guys seem to be under the impression the MPAA gives a flying fuck whether you WANT hi-def DVD's.

They will very soon pick a format, and you WILL buy them.

The RIAA did it. I don't see them passing up on such a good thing.

http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html

I would also recommend Steve Albini's piece The Problem With Music.

I think you're absolutely right. The studio time is paid for out of the artist's success. But then again, I don't think they're on the hook if the music doesn't make a profit. I could be wrong about that tho

You are, unfortunately, quite wrong. The artist(s) remain on the hook for all recording, production, and promotional costs that are calculated solely by the label.

Here is a link to an article I have posted links to in the past when these questions have come up, by a long-time music industry insider, Steve Albini.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

This should be required reading for anyone thinking of becoming a professional musician or considering signing with a label.

Cheers!

Strat

I think we all support the artist's right to make money off their music, right?

But there's a lot of folks involved in music production, the players, the singers, the writers, the studio (with their expensive equipment), marketing, talent scouts, etc. etc. etc.

The entertainment industry puts up a lot of money to get artists "out there", and I truly feel that they should see some sort of compensation for it.

I would hope that AllOfMyMP3 would be sending money not only to the artists but TO THE PEOPLE WHO SPENT MONEY TO PUT THE ARTISTS WHERE THEY ARE, i.e. the aforementioned producers, studio engineers, studio musicians, and so forth.

Link here: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Parent is probably referring to this:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

See also http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml

and http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html

Here's the article the guy was probably referring to. Maybe things have changed since then, maybe not.

Why should the self-absorbed drug addict who shows up 2 hours late and puts in a couple days' worth of work singing the songs that were written for him/her be awarded a disproportionate amount of the money? Just because its their picture on the cover?

This is either a troll, meant as satire, written by someone who only gets their music from TV, or written by a music industry exec.

Since a bunch of posters have already addressed most of it, here's the obligatory Steve Albini link to the economics of the music business The Problem with Music

As a musician, producer, and recording engineer, I have to ask one little question: what about those who DO write their own material for their albums? Much of the time, they still get screwed, after the producer and label decide which songs to scrap and then the label gives them 15 points or some other absurdly low amount of compensation for each sales. That's why you see more and more bands that are producing themselves--that's the only way to truly turn a profit.

Check out this article by Steve Albini, the producer who did Nirvana's album In Utero. He describes an all-too-common instance of exploitation.

For the most part, artists have signed such label-friendly contracts that they have no rights to their own music. They have no choice but to sit in silence and hope they can finally recoup the advance on their latest album.

Steve Albini wrote a great essay on the ways a major label owns an artist: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Avoid major labels, buy indies.

You simply don't appear to understand the reality of the recording industry today.

Yes, I'm only a copyright lawyer, what do I know?

Read this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

It's written by someone actually in the industry who knows exactly how the game is played. It should be noted that the story in the link is in no way unusual. This is the norm.

I read that years ago. In fact, I have a hardcopy of it in the Commodify Your Dissent book.

So I am quite aware of the sorts of deals offered to musicians. Nevertheless, I think that if the musicians want to accept that deal, they should be free to do so. I do not think that adults should be kept from agreeing to contracts for no better reason than that they are somewhat one-sided.

Again, what you say looks nice on paper. I even agree with you in principle. However, the way it's played out isn't so simple. You simply don't appear to understand the reality of the recording industry today.

Read this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

It's written by someone actually in the industry who knows exactly how the game is played. It should be noted that the story in the link is in no way unusual. This is the norm.

Get out of the paper and get into the reality.

The Future Sound of London did a series of concerts via ISDN in 1994.

Negativland did what they called "teletours" in the 1980s, using a simple circuit to improve the frequency response (much like pre-emphasis on vinyl LPs). Schematics are available.

I also think that Miss Loves musings on the subject are worth reading.

"by the evolving business model"

Consider the software industry as an example. Microsoft and other propriatory software companies are like the RIAA/MPAA companies. Open Source is the evolving business model. Microsoft's marketing model would utterly and completely FAIL if everyone was allowed to copy and give away Microsoft's software, but companies like IBM, Novell, Red Hat, are doing very well from Open Source.

When I mention the 'invisible hand' I mean that new business models will appear; people like making money and if you change the rules, they WILL find ways to keep making money under the new rules. I didn't want to have to come up with an example that might evolve, but you've pushed me.

Consider the "recorded music as advertising for live performance" model. Before recorded music and movies, artists would be paid to perform live. Going on tour is still a big earner for most bands, sometimes it's what they have to do just to 'recoup' the cost of their album if sales aren't high enough. So the new model? The band sells MP3 downloads from their website but makes most of their money from live gigs. They put some of that aside to 'advertise' themselves, which means paying for studio time and a good engineer.

Yeah, I know.. this is just five minutes though from someone who isn't even in the industry, and it has a few holes. But it's not like the current model is exactly perfect either; ref http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Well, I guess this is one of the cases were the ultimate truth will never be known, and probably lies somewhere in the murky middle.

I don't have the Negativland U2 book, but I do appreciate their work (plug: buy the plunderphonics book/cd they thankfully released).

But from the limited information that is available to me, I tend to stand in SST's camp in this case. I searched, but can't find anymore where I read that SST or Greg Ginn claimed that they had warned Negativland that Negativland were free to use any cover they liked, but that in the case of a lawsuit, SST would not be able to protect the band for lack of resources.

SST had always been short on money for various reasons (stranglehold of the majors on distribution and indie distributers going bankrupt all the time and consequently not paying SST, a - in hindsight - stupid release policy from 86 or so onwards). How Negativland could think that SST would be willing and able to support them in a lawsuit against a major (when over the years many many bands had claimed that SST owes them money), is beyond me.

As for "rolling over", Ginn truly is the man whom everybody left alone in the end. I'm sure he contributed to that, but still. If you read up on the early Flag history, those guys payed so dearly for what they gave and still give to people. Why should Ginn risk what was left of SST (and an income to provide a healthy life for him and the cats he now shelters, or so I read) for a stupid prank by Negativland, however interesting/important it might be.

Personally, I'd rather have a healthy and functioning SST (with a complete back catalogue of tens of bands in vinyl, not the sorry scrap shop it now is) than this one record by Negativland.

All of which doesn't take away from the prime topic at hand: knowingly or unknowingly (even more lame when the latter), letting your label sue the guy who played 100+ shows a year with Black Flag, traveling in a van, to plant the seeds of what later became (much to the dismay of Greg Ginn I guess) the very "alternative" rock your own band lives on. Lame.

And don't forget this article (math and all) about the RIAA contracts screwing the artists: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

In 1991, Bono's band U2 sued seminal independent label SST (home to, among others, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr, Hüsker Dü, Soundgarden, ...) over a satirical record by a band on the label, Negativland. They claimed that Negativland was infringing on U2's IP by using samples and other stuff (e.g., the letter U and the numeral 2).

This nearly ruined SST over the costs of the suit alone, but by forcing SST to fight an expensive suit, while the music they had greatly contributed to for more than 10 years exploded into the mainstream, it greatly contributed to the eventual demise of the label, robbing the artists of an important channel.

Later U2 claimed to have not been greatly involved. "It wasn't us, just the label", paraphrased.
I'm sorry, but if you let your lawyer sue, I'll hold you responsible. And if you wanna preach to people about responsible behavior, I'll expect that you know what your agents do in your name.

I have one thing to say about Bono: hypocrite. I think this is a fitting "people of the year" panel: They all give to charity in the limelight, then turn around and fuck people over.

Imagine the number of every day products which have "true" inventors without a cent to their name...

Sorta sounds like the music industry...

Oh wait, this is SONY.

Or: The artists themselves get x% of every sale, with wich they have to pay back the record company because most of the costs to produce an album is recoupable. So they have to sell 2.5 times as much if their songs are sold for 0.99 than when they start at 2.49.

With crappy songs that the "c00l" kids will buy at any price and everybody else don't want for free, I can see what the fuzz is all about.

So I think the article means something like "If the artists don't play it the RIAA's way, the artists will have to work much harder to pay their debt to the RIAA".

How the RIAA holds artists hostage:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/l ove/print.html
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

If you are interested in this sorta breakdown, check this out, a piece by producer and musician Steve Albini.

Ah yes, have a look at this.

That's what I was going for in my original comment... That RIAA execs are worse than calling the kettle black, they're complaining that others steal a couple CD's, while they tie up whole musical careers in a single "Letter of Intent". But I decided to go the care-bears route with the "scowling at old ladies" bit. (we will overcome you... with wuvvv!)

No, I didn't RTFA. I RTFC'd. Lots of them. And judging from what I saw I see gross misunderstanding on both sides. So why doesn't everyone stop screaming for just a minute. Thanks. Oh, and because I'm really lazy and don't want to have to make two seperate points, I'm going to roll them together into one, where its likely that the sarcasm subchannel will actually have the higher signal-to-noise ratio, so you had better pay attention.

In this corner, the Challenger, the world's most popular onlline music store. Having sold 500 million songs since inception, having managed by focused training and blind luck to create the largest, most-scalable distribution mechanism with the highest name-brand recognition, they now seek to dictate terms on the pricing of individual goods; They contest that their one price fits all is a good and just system for the reward of investment to the Champion.

In the opposite corner, the Champion, ...
anyways, you get the point. Its like Borges, if I imagine a really great book, and then tell you about it as though it existed, then it does for our purposes, doesn't it?

the deal is this; the music industry has traditionally disitributed its product as a package deal. that is, you get the hits and the b-sides, and you get a stew of both for X dollars. now, steve jobs wants you to pay X/10. whats the problem? the problem is that you're probably not going to buy the b-sides, and forget about the rest of the songs on the album. but the music industry can't scale down to an individual song level, because there are too many costs associated with the production, that they would have to be incurred for every song. think about it.

just in case you're wondering i'm not an industry apologist, far from it. personally i'm surprised no one has posted a link to the famous Steve Albini commentary on the industry. so i will, its here,.

but there was a really intersting piece i read the other day about a guy who had bought 20k worth of high-end digital gear because he wanted access to his jukebox in every room. and the only way that was going to happen was if he used an adapter of some kind - what do you call those things for iPods?

i hope you see the point; its that Steve Jobs isn't freeing you from anything, he's only grabbing as much power as he can right now because he can. he doesn't care about good or just or fair or anything. ask Woz about the $1000.

the only way this goes forward the right way, is that we decide to reward people who decide to move outside of this system to make a living. they release stuff for free and ask for PayPal donations if you like their stuff. and you know what, if everyone who listened to a song more than 3 times paid for it, they would have a decent livelihood and probably be a lot happier about the way things worked. all except for the napoleons of the world. yeah, you know who i mean, the ego-possessed, i want a gold toilet for the guest bedroom crowd. they and mr bronfman, that is.

No, It's not bullshit.
And the digidave shouldn't be modded as a troll.
I had a record contract. We got an advance which had to be paid back by the small percentage we got from sales. Recording costs were partially taken out of our advance, and the rest were meant to be paid back from our same small percentage of sales. Same would have happened with video production. That was around seven years ago. The companies have also started taking money out of the artists share of sales price for various marketing things, graphic design, producers, and so on and so forth. I have never actually seen ANY money from the record contract. It all went into paying for the recording. Since sales were minimal, proceeds went entirely to paying back the advance.

The only money I ever made was from live shows. From what I understand, that's how it goes for most artists on major labels.

Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Steve Albini. He probably knows what he's talking about:
The Problem With Music

And just so you know, you can produce a recording for WELL under $50,000.