Slashdot Mirror

For an insider's perspective on record company dealings with artists, check out "The Problem With Music" by Nirvana producer Steve Albini. I'll spare us all the math for brevity (read the article for the balance sheet), but Albini's "real life example" has the band making "7-11" paychecks on sales of 250,000 units of their debut LP, supported by a fairly successful tour, complete with the math that explains the financial f*cking of the band.

Quick excerpt (the intro):

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water...

re #3... if the music is so crappy, why is everybody sharing so much of it? RIAA members have a monopoly on music now? You can't go to the store and buy your own instruments, write and perform your own music? This isn't like the frivolous lawsuits against Negativland, who were arguably using other's music in a Fair Use context. This is a legitimate use of the law and in perfect keeping with the common lament on Slashdot that the RIAA should go after individual users rather than the service providers.

...this is actually the way it really works out on a lot of recording contracts.

Read the article I have linked to very, very carefully. Record company "advances" are considered loans against future royalties. You have to "repay" a laundry list of expenditures made on your behalf before you make a dime of royalty off of your music.

In other businesses, those kind of expenses are considered part of doing business. In the recording industry, they are considered the employee's problem. Imagine the uproar that would happen if all the copier paper, copy toner, pens, pencils, internet bandwidth and other "cost centers" of a business' budget were charged to their employees and, as a condition of getting paid, the employee would have to pay their boss back for all of it. You would have general strikes, you would have rioting in the streets, it would not be pretty.

Because of the high-glamour nature of the recording industry, however, and the strength of the recording industry lobby in governments around the world, they have had the unique, special right to charge off almost all their expenses to the recording artists.

And the big record companies are not the only ones who use this kind of chicanery. After SST Records lost their major distributor, Jem/Greenworld, all of a sudden bands who had been in the black on royalties found themselves on the hook to SST for promotional expenses. Bands like Saccharine Trust, Paper Bag, Zoogz Rift and others basically were screwed out of being paid for their record sales by a switch to a more "industry standard" set of billing practices. I was there to see this all happen...my husband was in Zoogz Rift's band and I was very good friends with Paper Bag.

This way of doing business has been standard operating procedure with major record companies since the 1930s. It is only now, with the record companies going after their customer base for "piracy" and adding hideously restrictive measures to safeguard their ill gotten gains that the word is getting out.

Sure, some people get ahead with their record company. That's why you hear Metallica and Elton John and Madonna and all these other mega-millionaire recording stars whining about people "ripping us off". But the vast majority of recording artists, including some, like Prince and TLC and Don Henley, whom you would think would be in this Millionaires' Club, have been basically given a deal that is exactly as you describe. Yes indeed, artists get absolutely no money and the label keeps everything. That "advance" money is not really theirs...it is a loan from the biggest, nastiest loan sharks the world has ever known.

I've read the sentences numerous times. Read mine again. I do not claim duplicating == loaning. Using the logic that a duplication means money out of someone's pocket, then the use of a single copy for multiple people is just as equally economically depriving. I am not claiming copying is good or right, merely pointing out that if copying = depriving people of their hard earned money, then the logical conclusion of that limited reasoning is that libraries also deprive people of hard earned money.

While I might agree with you in concept, what the hell numbers are you quickly looking at? You got a great reference: sight it. Otherwise as far as I can tell you pulled that out of your ass.

One story stating musicnet as 75,000 subscribers, which is better than pressplay. Perhaps it would be better to say the public response to the variety of such ventures is lukewarm at best (excepting the iTunes store). BTW, the word is cite, not sight.

Bingo, this is the business world. They aren't there to protect your rights, just their interests. See the well know industry attempts at more percise crippling attempts: Palladium, Digital Rights Management

Exactly. This response was to a question about fair use rights of the consumer, and his answer was essentially a "we're concerned with our interests, not your your rights." Rather than give an honest answer, the response was that we want a technology that can determine your intent and prevent the "bad" kind, a task that is obviously impossible.

Finally, a reference. Here I'm just curious: does anyone really believe that as P2P becomes more common it wouldn't disrupt sales? The paradigm has shifted, thats the issue here. Does the Recording Industry have the right to limit our rights in order to protect an out moded business model?

Actually, I'm not sure how much it will disrupt sales. I submit that what might actually happen is a change in the breadth of what is bought, rather than an absolute decline. This is a point I am very open to discuss, yet my original point is that the riaa drones that maintain P2P is the cause of the sales decline when there I've seen no real evidence of that suggestion. You and I can sit here and debate the outcomes we expect, yet that will be as much meaningless blather as the drones in the absence of real data.

Who's the thief? I mean do you know who your stealing from every time you download? Are you sure you haven't downloaded anything self distributed? There are honest people in the music industry and dishonest people, what's your point?

The recording industry = the thief, downloaders = second thief. There are a number of highly publicized artists who've claimed that the real thieves are the record companies themselves. This was what the question was about, and taking the viewpoint of those artists, it becomes an interesting excercise in hypocrisy. If this group is essentially stealing from artists, and then blasting listeners for "stealing from artists," who is really harming the artists more? Again, I am not suggesting we steal, shoplift or illegally download to Fight-the-Man (tm), merely making a counter-point to the riaa drone.

Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.

..you make a cohesive point. But of course it is depriving someone of ownership: the record company and the artist.

of course? I think this issue is much more complicated than that. When I copy a file, I am

Well -you could use the Mp3's from the Negativeland site. I'm sure they'd LOVE this kind of re-exposure.

is your nick intended as a crosley bendix reference?

is your nick intended as a crosley bendix reference?

here and here

production costs aren't the major issue in getting music out there. the real money pit is "advertising", loosely defined to include getting your music on radio stations by hook or crook. check out this somewhat old but very interesting article by steve albini to follow the money.

i'm happy with having a few people listen to my music every day over the web, but i imagine a lot of musicians want more than that. when we solve the distribution and advertising cost problems, musicians will no longer need the labels. until then, you can't even give your music away, because no one will take it unless you convince them it's cool, and it's OK for their social lives to listen to you. the way people choose music seems to have little to do with music.

hate to tell you, but i do believe that artists only make about $1/CD anyway :) Courtney Love has spoken out a lot about this, and Steve Albini wrote an extremely interesting paper on it as well...read it a few years ago, so i don't have the link, but i'm sure it's still out there somewhere...

Ask and you shall receive:

The Problem With Music by Steve Albini.

Well worth reading.

as they used extensive samples of a documentary about the Powers incident during many live performances of their banned 'U2' single.

Check out the problem with music .

Check out the problem with music .

Check out the problem with music .

Check out the problem with music .

Check out the problem with music .

Check out the problem with music .

To the problem with music, an insightful insider's look on this exact same subject with more analysis and perhaps less solid figures.

It is written by Steve Albini, who produced (besides a few bands you maybe might have heard of) a little no-name act called Nirvana. Everyone should read it. Of course, most people have, which is why i predict it will be linked at least three more times somewhere in this story discussion.

You need more than plain RGB to show this, you need to include the little known fourth color, Squant, as well!

Squant description - though you may have to download the plugin to see it properly.

Steinski is perhaps better known for another piece of illegal art, his remixes of "Hey Mr. DJ, Play That Beat" aka "The Payoff Mix" aka Lesson 1, followed by two further Lessons, as well as "The Motorcade Sped On", an exposition on the Kennedy assassination.

The U2 song is readily available from Negativland's website.

This month's issue of the 'zine stay free! has companion articles and a CD with some of the pieces in/related to the exhibit, like negativland's U2 radio mix and sampled tracks from De La Soul and the Beastie Boys. I'm looking forward to seeing the exhibit in Chicago.

Whenever these issues come up, it's always a good idea to refer to The Problem With Music by Steve Albini. He's one of the best music producers ever. Even if you've never heard of him you probably have an album he produced. He does a great job of breaking down who gets what in a record deal.

The other day I read this Steve Albini article on where the money goes.

Worth reading.

Because this excellent essay is strong enough to be worth quoting as a whole, I paste The Problem With Music. Apologies for the odd formatting (tables not allowed, even if your data is tabular -- only the staff are allowed to do bad html! :).

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A & R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire." because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave.

Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast. By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years by a slick young "He's not like a label guy at all," A & R rep, on the basis of such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises [something he did with similar effect to another well-known band], and so the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A & R man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points, or possibly both, before he would consider it. The new label was afraid the price would be too dear, and they said no thanks. On the cusp of making their signature album, an excellent band, humiliated, broke up from the stress and the many months of inactivity. There's this band. They're pretty ordinary, but they're also pretty good, so they've attracted some attention. They're signed to a moderate-sized "independent" label owned by a distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label. They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so they can have some security you know, get some good equipment, tour in a proper tour bus -- nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work. To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well spent. Anyways, it doesn't cost them anything if it doesn't work. 15% of nothing isn't much! One day an A & R scout calls them, says he's 'been following them for a while now, and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just "clicked." Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time. They meet the guy, and y'know what -- he's not what they expected from a label guy. He's young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible with the right attitude.

They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot. The A & R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he wants 100 g's and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy who used to be in David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe-- cost you 5 or 7 grand] and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot to think about. Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he'll work it out with the label himself.

Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children-- without having to sell a single additional record. It'll be something modest. The new label doesn't mind, so long as it's recoupable out of royalties. Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer--one who says he's experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be great royalty: 13% [less a 1O% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years, with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of money in any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000. Just think about it, a quarter million, just for being in a rock band! Their manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that contract over too. Hell, it's free money. Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That's enough to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody In the band and crew, they're actually about the same cost. Some bands like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab use buses on their tours even when they're getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night. It'll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.

The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There's a gold mine here! The lawyer Should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe. They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo. They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm." All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies! Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. Income is bold [and italicized], expenses are not.

• Advance: $ 250,000

Manager's cut:

$ 37,500

Legal fees:

$ 10,000

Recording Budget:

$ 150,000

Producer's advance:

$ 50,000

Studio fee:

$ 52,500

Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors":

$ 3,000

Recording tape:

$ 8,000

Equipment rental:

$ 5,000

Cartage and Transportation:

$ 5,000

Lodgings while in studio:

$ 10,000

Catering:

$ 3,000

Mastering:

$ 10,000

Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses:

$ 2,000

Video budget:

$ 30,000

Cameras:

$ 8,000

Crew:

$ 5,000

Processing and transfers:

$ 3,000

Off-line:

$ 2,000

On-line editing:

$ 3,000

Catering:

$ 1,000

Stage and construction:

$ 3,000

Copies, couriers, transportation:

$ 2,000

Director's fee:

$ 3,000

Album Artwork:

$ 5,000

Promotional photo shoot and duplication:

$ 2,000

Band fund:

$ 15,000

New fancy professional drum kit:

$ 5,000

New fancy professional guitars [2]:

$ 3,000

New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]:

$ 4,000

New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar:

$ 1,000

New fancy rack of lights bass amp:

$ 1,000

Rehearsal space rental:

$ 500

Big blowout party for their friends:

$ 500

Tour expense [5 weeks]:

$ 50,875

Bus:

$ 25,000

Crew [3]:

$ 7,500

Food and per diems:

$ 7,875

Fuel:

$ 3,000

Consumable supplies:

$ 3,500

Wardrobe:

$ 1,000

Promotion:

$ 3,000

Tour gross income:

$ 50,000

Agent's cut:

$ 7,500

Manager's cut:

$ 7,500

Merchandising advance:

$ 20,000

Manager's cut:

$ 3,000

Lawyer's fee:

$ 1,000

Publishing advance:

$ 20,000

Manager's cut:

$ 3,000

Lawyer's fee:

$ 1,000

Record sales:

250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000

Gross retail revenue Royalty:

[13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000

Less advance:

$ 250,000

Producer's points:

[3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000

Promotional budget:

$ 25,000

Recoupable buyout from previous label:

$ 50,000

Net royalty:

$ -14,000

+++++++++

Record company income:

• Record wholesale price:

  $6.50 x 250,000 =
  $1,625,000 gross income

• Artist Royalties:

  $ 351,000

• Deficit from royalties:

  $ 14,000

• Manufacturing, packaging and distribution:

  @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000

• Gross profit:

  $ 7l0,000

+++++++++

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

• Record company:

  $ 710,000

• Producer:

  $ 90,000

• Manager:

  $ 51,000

• Studio:

  $ 52,500

• Previous label:

  $ 50,000

• Agent:

  $ 7,500

• Lawyer:

  $ 12,000

• Band member net income each:

  $ 4,031.25

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.

Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's "In Utero".

I love that essay. A cousin of mine is a fairly successful rock musician in various bands here in Boston, and as much as I'd love to see his bands really take off, reading this essay makes me very glad that that hasn't happened yet. Sad, really, but it seems like the only way to really "make it" is to go the Fugazi styled DIY route so that the industry can't fuck you over...

Advance: $ 250,000 Manager's cut: $ 37,500 Legal fees: $ 10,000 Recording Budget: $ 150,000 Producer's advance: $ 50,000 Studio fee: $ 52,500 Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000 Recording tape: $ 8,000 Equipment rental: $ 5,000 Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000 Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000 Catering: $ 3,000 Mastering: $ 10,000 Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000 Video budget: $ 30,000 Cameras: $ 8,000 Crew: $ 5,000 Processing and transfers: $ 3,000 Off-line: $ 2,000 On-line editing: $ 3,000 Catering: $ 1,000 Stage and construction: $ 3,000 Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000 Director's fee: $ 3,000 Album Artwork: $ 5,000 Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000 Band fund: $ 15,000 New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000 New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000 New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000 New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000 New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000 Rehearsal space rental: $ 500 Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500 Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875 Bus: $ 25,000 Crew [3]: $ 7,500 Food and per diems: $ 7,875 Fuel: $ 3,000 Consumable supplies: $ 3,500 Wardrobe: $ 1,000 Promotion: $ 3,000

Tour gross income: $ 50,000

Agent's cut: $ 7,500 Manager's cut: $ 7,500 Merchandising advance: $ 20,000 Manager's cut: $ 3,000 Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000 Publishing advance: $ 20,000 Manager's cut: $ 3,000 Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000
Record company income:

Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =
$1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Gross profit: $ 7l0,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

Record company: $ 710,000 Producer: $ 90,000 Manager: $ 51,000 Studio: $ 52,500 Previous label: $ 50,000 Agent: $ 7,500 Lawyer: $ 12,000 Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25

Steve Albini wrote a classic article, The Problem with Music, on the financial shenagins pulled by the record industry.

The article demonstrates how a band can manage to generate millions of dollars of profit for a label, but still owe the label money.

The article includes sample figures that indicate 'recording costs' of $150,000, and a wholesale price of $6.50 per CD (circa 1994, when the article was first published).

A must read for any band about to sign a contract with a label, and an interesting look behind the curtain from an insider.

..does it support the display of Squant?

"Sound Recording Rule of Thumb: There are NO sound recordings in the Public Domain."

Unless, of course, they've been explicitly placed there. (See Negativland, for example.)

Anyways, their handshake deal with [X label above] was 50/50. They get a 50% cut of all CDs sold.

He made close to $30,000 last year on sales of the back catalog.

Think about the math. You're a band with a moderate following. You release an album. It does fairly well. Say it sells... 20,000 copies. At wholesale the album sells for $8. that's $160k. Your band sees 50%. That's $80k. You divvy it up 3 ways. Each band member has an income around $27k. Throw in X dollars that you make from a tour. $30 to $35k a year for playing music you love and seeing the world isn't too shabby. Imagine if the album sells a modest 40,000 copies. That means if the band is a trio, each member gets a cut of over $50k.

To see how much money you'd make on a major label, check out the article Steve Albini wrote.

You can make money playing music you love. You don't have to sell your soul out to the music mafia.

the problem with music, by Steve Albini

No shit...it's also mathematics like this that allow record companies to cook their books and deny their slaves...I mean artists...royalties they deserve. Check this out.

Unproved assertion
Assertion of original post: music industry works via investment on future returns.

Since I thought this was "known" I didn't have to prove it. Read an example on how this works.

Supporting metaphor: market bottoming out. Not primary assumption.

Your counterpoint: take non-central point, simplify argument to that, gesture authoritatively, ignore.

For the first time in over 3 1/2 years. Yet somehow I seem to procure at least 5 albums worth of music a week.

How do I do it? I'm not telling. Why do I do it? I made a commitment to the recording industry that I would not pay for anyones music unless I hand my money *directly* to the artist for that music.

I was lucky. The other night I got to see one of my old Heroes, and he was selling records.

So, um.

How do you distinguish what is and isn't advertising?

If mysite.kids.us has no banner ads, but says at one point "hey, here's a great site where you can buy lots of cool toys!" and links to http://www.toys.r.kids.us, and this is because toys r us paid me some money, is that advertising?

What if i am www.sore-hands.kids.us, and my site says "hey kids, mattell treats its employees unethically, so you should buy Bob the Builder toys instead, here's a link to toys.r.kids.us." and i mean that?

What if i am six years old, and i just like Toys R Us and get nothing whatsoever out of linking them?

If nickelodeon.kids.us is doing a new movie, and they're selling toys as part of a tie-in deal, can't they have a little banner up that says "click here to buy our new jimmy neutron action figures!" and link to toys r us.kids.us? Isn't that just an ad?

If they can't do that, can they physically embed part of toys 'r' us.com into their website in a frame, or do some kind of complex backend where you use and order stuff from the toys 'r' us website through nickelodeon.kids.us, perhaps through some kind of distributed object system? If nickelodeon can do that, why can't toys r us pay Random J Site from embedding bits of toysrus.kids.us? Isn't that worse than a banner ad?

Now, if you answer that any of the above are "not okay", or that a banner ad isn't, then what on earth makes http://www.toys.kids.r.us/ okay in the first place?? all that a toys 'r' us website would be is trying to sell things, and nothing else. It is both an advertisement for the toys r us chain of stores, an advertisement for the products they sell, and a commercial extention of their commercial business. The entire purpose of such a site is to manipulate children for profit.

What's an advertisement?

Face it. No one is going to set up a website under kids.us without SOME sort of commercial intent. Servers and domain names cost money. If you're setting up a website, you in some way are selling something, perhaps just the website itself. One way or another. We Are All Advertisements.

p.s. negativland.kids.us would be awesome, and it is my opinion that public policy should be arranged such that as few people as possible listen to www.sorehands.com

You know what they say about people who represents themselves in a court of law? Glad I'm not you guys.

Legal definition of property

Copyright myths dispelled

The actual law

Fair use & copyright resourse at stanford

More resourses pro & con

Intellectual property

I know people don't want to read and understand the above, but they certainly want to voice their opinion of the way it should be when the law comes after them. A little late IMHO.

Since the cost of a major label making an entire CD is only 80 cents, it's a deal!

Yeah, slightly sarcastic. Now I can have people explain the costs of actually making and marketing a record. And the costs of distribution. Then someone can say the record only costs a major label 79 cents, and then someone can say, "No, it's 72 cents", and then an arguement over that...

Nevermind. Pretend I didn't hit submit.

There are some people who value "DIY" over mass-market acceptance.

It's Island that you need to watch out for. There's an amusing interview done in a sneaky fashion that Don and Mark of Negativland did with The Edge after the big lawsuit that Island filed against Negativland and their label, SST. It's funny, The Edge was sort of sympathetic toward Negativland, he claimed that Island went ahead and filed the lawsuit without really talking to U2 at all.

Sure, spam's awful, but I find Sorkin's Don't Link cause (promoting the right to link on the net) fascinating. It was discussed here at slashdot last month.

All of this has a lot of common ground with Lawrence Lessig, who was the subject of a Wired article also discussed here. Good to see some law professors pursuing freedom on the internet.

If you're interested in following intellectual property arguments in more detail I recommend Negativland's IP page as a great starting point.

And live concerts, I do believe, will be the real money makers in the future as opposed to CD sales.

Live concerts are already the primary source of income for artists. They get barely anything from CDs or merchandising, except in a handful of extraordinary cases. There's some figures here.

Any artist who has enough legal status to make their own decisions will probably start using recordings as a way to boost concert attendance -- yeah, both of them.

You can read the original piece by the brilliant Steve Albini here, and probably lots of other places. Thanks to some slashdot comment I read last week but have since lost.

mp3s of Negativland's original "U2" single is available here. Top of the page. "The forbidden single"

I have just finished reading "Our Band Could Be Your Life" by Michael Azerrad which details the creation of the American independent music scene from 1981 to 1991 (when Nirvana "Nevermind" went #1 on the Billboard charts). In it there are many examples of independent artists (those not affiliated with the Big Six) trying to move up to a major label.

However there is also a strong segement of the underground that is vehemently independent: Steve Albini for one and his diatribe against the majors (The Problem With Music) or Ian MacKaye and Fugazi who assure all their products cost at most ten dollars and who have concerts for five. It seems that there has been a long standing (at least twenty years) of a "shadow industry" that stands for all the virtues of music making.

My question is this: what do you think causes the majority of the music buying public to only purchase from the Big Six (99% of all music I believe)? And what would the underground have to do to bite into that? Or should they even bother (the idea being someone who buys music from the mainstream isn't worth the effort)?

Ha! My invisible notebook can display squant too!

How long before these machines come equipped with MP3 players? I can just see the RIAA exec's ranting to the press about it now...

(Uptight exec with nasal voice):

Copyright infringement in the LAUNDRY ROOM!

Copyright infringement by the NEW WASHER AND DRYER!!

(Apologies to Negativland.)

The argument used constantly on /. (and elsewhere) is, "I'd rather send my money to the artist, than to the RIAA..." Great!

Do you?

Do you go to that artist's website and buy a CD directly from them? Do you send them a check every time you nab a song off of gnutella? When your pal burns a copy of "The Greatest Hits of God's Favorite Band", do you send some $$$ to the guys?

If you do, excellent. You are avoiding the Recording Industry that will screw a band over for breakfast, and laugh over lunch at how an A&R rep has "this band by the short hairs...". You are helping to end an Industry that doesn't care what YOU want, only what they can market to you.

You are supporting artists who have incurred expense to bring their music to you.

They wrote it, arranged it, taught it to the band, rehearsed it, changed it, rehearsed some more, played it at a dive for $25 and two beers each, rehearsed some more, went into a studio, paid an engineer to roll knobs, move faders, and lay it on tape. They listed to it, rehearsed the vocals, and overdubs. They went back into the studio, paid the engineer some more to get that on tape. The engineer mixed it, gave it to the band, remixed parts again, mastered it to DAT or CD. They sent it to a duplication house, they paid to have artwork done, (saved money by doing some themselves), they purchased 1000 CDs. They paid to have a website hosted, (saved a little by doing their own site), drove all over consigning CDs at record stores (small independents). They played some more shows for 50 bucks each (show. not per member), they paid the soundman 50 bucks.

Repeat every year and a half.

This is just a taste of what an average unsigned band goes through to get music "out there". There are many exceptions to this example. Some can record at home on "lo-fi" equipment. Some never rehearse. Some don't play shows. Some release everything on gnutella for the hell of it. Some try to get you interested in their CD in this manner.

Add label interest and, well, look at the links below. The point being made is: Good music is hard to find for a reason. Being a GOOD musician (not to mention songwriter) is one of the toughest (and thankless) jobs ever! The artists who go though the trouble to bring this to you should be rewarded. After all, they could have just sat in the basement writing and performing for themselves, not worried about "how is this record going to do?". The next time you grab a tune off the net, think for a moment. If you actually sent your favorite artist some money for the work that you enjoy, that artist will be able to make more music. Finally, a win win situation.

Unfortunately, artists represnted by the Industry are in a different boat altogether. For some real examples of what it costs the major label band to be a major label band, see here, here, and here. Additional info here (my fav)

Yup. What was I talking about? That's right.

Please Read

The consumer did not Choose inferior Cd's over Vinyl, we were forced. Just like we will be forced to choose DVD.

Strange how we've never spotted the emission line corresponding to transitions to this below-ground-state in the hydrogen spectrum, isn't it?

Maybe it's squant.

Steve albini the producer (and member of, yes Shellac) has written a story on this as well.

Courtney didn't do the math herself -- she copied Steve Albini's homework.

I believe that was a negativland creation.

Here is is! The new color website:

Squant

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon