Slashdot Mirror
PressPlay and MusicNet vs. Artists
gilroy writes: "According to a New York Times article (free registration, yadda yadda), despite taking the moral high ground (that they want to see artists compensated, as opposed to all those evil downloaders), the record companies have actually set up pay schedules so as to -- wait for it -- rip off the artists who record the music. Some figure they will earn less than $0.0023 per download -- yes, that's hundredths of a penny. Best quote from the article: 'For many acts, suddenly there appears to be little difference between the illicit file-sharing system and record-label services.' Good to see they're fighting for the artists, n'est-ce pas?"
The greedier the industry gets, the better it is for the artists and the public in general, simply because it will eventually reach the point where everybody (and, hopefully, Metallica too) will just want to bypass them. The nice thing is, we now have the means to do so. It's much easier to convince a judge that a publisher does not deserve protection if it's obviously ripping everybody off.
Purchase tickets for their concerts, they recieve very little in the way of compensation from CD/tape sales.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
It seems the only way that we'll break out of the cycle of recording companies ripping off artists are to bancrupt them. And that means hard times for recording artists while a new economy is built to support them.
I do think that file sharing is a good thing, but it is also destructive to the current economic structure of the music industry. But, with change comes pain.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
So when someone get's busted for illegal copies of mp3s, is that the value the MPAA will use to calculate damages?
I'm glad someone is. Though I agree with the idea that record companies aren't the elite "doers of good" in the industry, the fact remains that many geeks (myself included) have basically been fucking over the artists by downloading free music. Admit it. The first time you saw someone download something from Napster/GNUtella/whatever, you had a pang in your gut that said "Isn't there something wrong with this?" It's called guilt.
There are hundreds of record labels that get screwed over by these practices - there are millions of artists who get the same. Unfortunately, without a massive revamping of the entire industry, you can't fuck one and not the other.
Go here: http://archives.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http:// www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/technology/18SONG.html to get around their registration process.
Holy Hannah, the labels and Pressplay get 91% of the revenues? I want in that racket. And think, after 1000 downloads, the artists will have a shiny 2 dollars 30 in their pocket...reasonable compensation.
Even better is this tidbit: Another irritant for the artists, several lawyers and managers say, is the distribution of the $170 million settlement from MP3.com, an Internet company that offered a music storage service in violation of copyright law.
The labels were to share that money with artists whose music was put online without authorization, but several artists' representatives said nothing had been distributed.
Raise your hands, who here didn't see that coming.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
He added that it was "beyond logic" that artists would choose to leave their music off Pressplay and "effectively encourage the use of illegal services."
In other words, why would an artist give his/her music away for free when they can make money using pressplay?
Think of pressplay as another broadcast source. Just as each time an artists gets dinore when their song is heard on the radio, they will get money each time their song is downloaded from pressplay.
I think that once the kinks are worked out so that the artists feel as if they are getting their "fair share," this system will become very very popular.
...who really believes that the Record Companies have their artists' best interests at heart? Miles Copeland III can tear up his shirt all he wants about how Napster is infringing on musicians' rights, the only thing members of the RIAA care about is keeping their stockholders happy.
We need more artists like George Clinton and media-whore Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit to support file sharing of their music, and give the (record) Man a big finger. When artists agree to file sharing, perhaps we'll see a real shift in the industry's exploitative business model.
Reminder: find a new sig
As one rock manager computes it, if a consumer buys the standard Gold Plan on Pressplay, paying $19.95 for 75 songs downloaded to a hard drive and 750 streamed so that they can be heard only once, an artist, after these deductions, gets $.0023 per song downloaded. To earn a penny, more than four songs must be downloaded.
Aren't the artists getting shortchanged? According to copyright law, the current statutory rate for a U.S. copyright is 7.1 per song. (See, 37 C.F.R. 255.3(h)) This minimum rate is effective until January 1, 2000, after which it will go up every two years until 2006, at which time it will remain at 9.1 per song until changed.
There's a lot more to royalty calculations as well. More info on Freeadvice.com.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Because when my one hit wonder song goes platinum and recieves 1,000,000 downloads, I will have made a wopping 2,300 dollars, almost enough to compensate the recording studio for greeting me. I think I will stick with the 'making money from my computer' SPAM I get from my joecool@aol.com email address. I'll bet Scientology wishes they thought of it first.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Well now we know how much songs are worth, I figure my 11gigs of mp3s work out to around something in the range of $5.33. I can afford that, where do I send my money?
Even better, the fans have to download broken formats that will be unplayable in a few years, so the artists can have another Big Mac later on, courtesy of the same 1213 fans!
The manager also expressed shock that the Pope is Catholic, it rains in Seattle, and that Bill Clinton is no longer President.
Recording companies offer the artists a service they often like: "Don't bother with the business, we've got all the skilled marketroids to ensure your genius will reach the masses. Just keep doing you art". This comes for a price, of course. But truth is, managing your own musical business while doing art is a real pain. I hope such incidents will entice more and more artists to try alternative ways of ditribution and earnings.
Giving away the music and being paid through Paypal seems a bit overoptimistic, giving away the music, or making it very cheap, and being paid through concerts is something some bands are actually doing, trusting small companies that essentially work through the web is something I'd like too see develop in the future.
MPAA has a monopoly they don't want to lose. It's not only against MP3-sharing they are fighting, but also against any possible alternative to the way they make business. Because they can't afford to stop to grow.
That sucks. I really thought that as soon as the music industry eliminated illegal filesharing, world culture would gain tremendously from a steep increase in high-quality content made by well compensated artists. What a let-down.
Most bands have already signed their rights away to the music to the record company for the record deal. So the stuff that you're download still belongs to the record company, not the band. So when you download something that the record company owns, and pay the band, the person that actually owns the rights to that music you just downloaded isn't getting anything.
Yes, it sucks for the band/artist, but they're the ones that signed the contract. Nobody is screwing the band/artist, except themselves. It may not be morally right, but it's true.
Free Mac Mini
Ever notice how entertainers often champion the anti-corporate causes out there, or at least bemoan the politicos who support the big "traditional" corporations like oil, steal, chemicals, etc. I'm talking about Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, Rob Reiner, etc.
Don't you think its funny that, in terms of basic business ethics, their industries are about the most atrocious as far as supressing individual rights?
Then again, bad practices by the music/movie industry probably never killed anyone, whereas Union Carbide has a death count worse than Ted Bundy. Then again, its easy to point to the sludge in your backyard and say "The Exxon plant next door put this here" and get a positive public reaction than "The RIAA won't let me share my music online."
Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
My Karma is maxed out, so no, I'm not whoring.
Record Labels' Answer to Napster Still Has Artists Feeling Bypassed
By NEIL STRAUSS
In their bitter battles against Napster and other free music downloading services, record company executives have wielded one moral argument that has placed their position beyond self-interest: the fans take the music without proper permission and don't pay the artists a dime.
Last December, the major record labels responded with two Internet services of their own where fans pay monthly fees to download songs. Under this arrangement, however, the performers still don't get a dime: for each song downloaded, they stand to get only a fraction of a cent, according to the calculations of disgruntled managers and lawyers.
And, artists and their managers say, the labels, like Napster, aren't putting the music online with proper permission either.
"I'm not an opponent of artists' music being included in these services," said Gary Stiffelman, who represents Eminem, Aerosmith and TLC. "I'm just an opponent of their revenue not being shared."
Because the sites are new, no payments have been made yet, but the payment plan has so infuriated scores of best-selling pop acts, including No Doubt, the Dixie Chicks and Dr. Dre, that their lawyers have demanded their clients' music be removed from the sites, with some even sending cease-and-desist orders. Only in some cases have the major record companies complied.
Since Napster was born on college campuses in the late 1990's, peer-to- peer file sharing services have become the bane of the established music business, with, at their peak, some 60 million Napster users sharing nearly 40 million songs illicitly. Even after a federal district court shut Napster down, other free services proliferated, with Kazaa and Morpheus attracting an ever-growing base of users sharing not just music but movies and software as well.
In December, the music business responded with Pressplay and MusicNet, both pay-to-use subscription services where users can listen to or download a specified number of songs each month. Pressplay is a joint venture between Universal and Sony Music, and MusicNet teams BMG, EMI and AOL Time Warner (news/quote) with Real Networks.
"All of my clients had their attorneys advise the labels that if they did use my clients' music on Pressplay or MusicNet, they would be in breach of contract," said Simon Renshaw, who manages the Dixie Chicks, Mary J. Blige and others. "Some artists they took off, but some they didn't. It's becoming very obvious to me and my peers that we're becoming victims of what is a huge conspiracy."
Representatives of the five major record labels would not talk on the record about the payment system or their rights to use the music. But in comments not for attribution, several executives at labels and their subscription services did not dispute the accusations regarding the payment plan. They said their first priority was to make the services attractive to consumers and that the details of compensation could be worked out afterward.
In a letter responding to a lawyer who is trying to remove an artist from Pressplay, the head of business affairs for several Universal labels, Rand Hoffman, set out a company position. It is a view shared by other record executives, who say they are investing heavily to fight piracy and develop a fair compensation system for artists who are ungrateful.
"We are now spending tens of millions of dollars to help launch Pressplay in the hope that a legitimate response to the illegitimate services will provide an attractive alternative to consumers," Mr. Hoffman wrote in the letter. "Pressplay is committed to making music available on the Internet in a manner that is legal and that ensures that artists and publishers will be paid. This is truly a time for artists and record companies to be working together."
He added that it was "beyond logic" that artists would choose to leave their music off Pressplay and "effectively encourage the use of illegal services."
Though the two new services don't appear to be widely used, what worries artists and managers is that a precedent is being set, so that if the labels finally come up with a viable online music subscription service, they won't have to share a significant portion of the proceeds with artists and can claim that this is the way business has always been done.
The crux of the debate over artists' compensation involves whether they should get a licensing fee or a royalty payment.
When their music is used in movies, in commercials and on Internet sites, artists are paid a licensing fee, which, after payments to the producer and the publisher, is split 50-50 between artist and label. Although Pressplay and MusicNet license the music, the bands are not paid a licensing fee. Instead, the labels pay their artists a standard royalty for each song accessed by a fan, as they would for a CD sold.
This means that the artist gets on average less than 15 percent instead of 50 percent. But, out of that, 35 to 45 percent is deducted for standard CD expenses like packaging and promotional copies -- expenses that obviously don't exist in the online world.
As one rock manager computes it, if a consumer buys the standard Gold Plan on Pressplay, paying $19.95 for 75 songs downloaded to a hard drive and 750 streamed so that they can be heard only once, an artist, after these deductions, gets $.0023 per song downloaded. To earn a penny, more than four songs must be downloaded.
"I did the math with several other managers and lawyers, and the labels and Pressplay get just under 91 percent after they've paid all the artists for all the downloads," said Jim Guerinot, who manages No Doubt, Offspring, Beck and Chris Cornell. Other managers come up with other figures that they say are even worse for the artists.
The artists' managers and lawyers say the record companies have not committed their payment system to writing.
Representatives for Pressplay and MusicNet said that the payment schedule was a decision made by the labels. "Pressplay licenses its content from record labels and in turn packages the music on our service," said Seth Oster, a spokesman for the company. "The compensation of artists takes place at the label level."
"Pressplay was developed as a legitimate service to make sure artists' rights were respected and artists were compensated," he added.
A spokeswoman for MusicNet said, "We are deeply committed to artists' rights and to ensuring that copyright holders are compensated."
Another irritant for the artists, several lawyers and managers say, is the distribution of the $170 million settlement from MP3.com, an Internet company that offered a music storage service in violation of copyright law.
The labels were to share that money with artists whose music was put online without authorization, but several artists' representatives said nothing had been distributed.
Spokesmen for Sony (news/quote ) and BMG said those companies were arranging to distribute the money. According to Warner Brothers and Universal Music, the money has been distributed, although it may not have been spelled out exactly in the accounting statements artists received. EMI did not call with a comment.
For many acts, suddenly there appears to be little difference between the illicit file-sharing system and record-label services.
The arguments the labels are using, said Jill Berliner, a leading music lawyer, are exactly the ones Napster made. "And, from our perspective, if the technology is going to be out there and the artist isn't really going to make money, we'd prefer that our fans just get it for free," she said.
Another complaint is that the labels are licensing music to the subscription services without seeking permission from the musicians.
"All of a sudden this thing launches," Mr. Guerinot said, "and myself and a lot of other managers and lawyers had never even been asked about it. We have coupling rights in our contract, which means they can't just take our music and put it wherever they please. When I try to talk to them, they say that they don't have to discuss this."
Mr. Guerinot said he sent cease- and-desist letters on behalf of Offspring, Beck and No Doubt. As a result, he said, music from No Doubt and Offspring was removed from Pressplay, but not the music of Beck.
One manager of million-selling acts, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "We've written them letters and put them on notice up front, as did most managers and lawyers, saying, `Don't put our artists' music up.' But they'll do it anyway. They're so arrogant. They're taking the position of: `We don't care. Let's just do it without asking.' They're ignoring their contracts. It's ridiculous. Obviously it will be litigated."
Some managers, however, said that they felt bullied into including their music on the services and were powerless to do anything about it. "Of course we're upset about it," said the manager of one male artist. "But he hasn't even turned in his record yet, so what leg do we really have to stand on?"
To try to avoid future protests, most major labels have added a clause to their standard recording contracts allowing the label to sell an act's songs on the Internet, including all subscription and pay-per-use services. It is very difficult, said Mr. Stiffelman, for a new band to have enough leverage to remove this clause from its contract.
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Start the "label" with the knowledge that records are primarily promotional tools for bands, and design the business with as little overhead as possible and to be as artist-friendly as possible. A real "internet-only" record label wouldn't make a whole lot of money, but it might be able to attract a fair amount of attention from artists if it played its cards right: sharing small profits generously might well work out better for most artists than sharing miniscule fractions of large profits.
The arguments the labels are using, said Jill Berliner, a leading music lawyer, are exactly the ones Napster made. "And, from our perspective, if the technology is going to be out there and the artist isn't really going to make money, we'd prefer that our fans just get it for free," she said.
Hmm... I wonder. It sounds like a threat just to get the labels to share, but could we really see artists coming out and endorsing free music sharing? Well, I doubt we'll see Metallica doing a 180 on free music downloads.
The main problem as I understand it is that the labels pretty much controls the major arenas. Bands that grow beyond club size need the labels or they won't ever see the stage of a major arena. Flaunting the major players will assure that a band, no matter how many CDs they sell online will never get to play before the big crowds and make the big money. Perhaps this will prompt more of the big bands to take on the labels and change the way the whole industry works and break the control the labels have over the arenas. For the sake of the small bands, I hope so.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Admit it. The first time you saw someone download something from Napster/GNUtella/whatever, you had a pang in your gut that said "Isn't there something wrong with this?" It's called guilt.
I think you are overestimating guilt here; the only ones feeling it are the misguided "moral" prudes who feel pangs of guilt when they fast forward commercials.
In reality the first thing most people thought when they meet napster et. al. was "man those downloads are kinda slow, and some of the songs are truncated or low-quality"
Non-commercial private sharing poses scarce threat to copyright holders if the would JUST MEET DEMAND. How long does it take for someone to offer affordable high quality-low hassle subscriptions to digital media? Simply on the books copyright law is enough protection, more than enough- all this SDMI crap is a collosal waste.
Until someone steps forward to meet demand, there is little room for "guilt". The longer they delay, the more effort is put into filesharing regardless.
Record companies are making one simple mistake. People who like big name artists need their music 'pushed' onto them, a la radio and charts, and MTV and yadda yadda.
.. like, how much of the music they were pushing around were big label artists. I'd venture that big names didn't do to well in an environment that encourages the discovery of new music.
There is no way the artists that make it big with the casual listeners, those who need to be told what to like, what is next, who is big, will make it big in an evironment where the listener must go out and 'pull' music from interactive sites.
We should have gotten some stats from Napster
Discovery and self-education, is, of course, the bane of media big business.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Maybe the artists who want their music off can arrange a DMCA raid on Pressplay.
I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected:
2002-02-18 15:32:33 Record Companies Facing Revolt of Artists (articles,music) (rejected)
I've read all the FAQ's on submitting (several times) and try as I might I cannot get a story accepted on this site. It makes one wonder what other stuff gets overlooked in the submission queue.
More to the point, it makes me wonder what issues are important to the editors of this site but which are not being clearly articulated in the FAQ's on submitting. I.e. I must be doing something wrong, but for the life of me I can't figure out what.
Although Pressplay and MusicNet license the music, the bands are not paid a licensing fee. Instead, the labels pay their artists a standard royalty for each song accessed by a fan, as they would for a CD sold. This means that the artist gets on average less than 15 percent instead of 50 percent. But, out of that, 35 to 45 percent is deducted for standard CD expenses like packaging and promotional copies -- expenses that obviously don't exist in the online world.
And:
To try to avoid future protests, most major labels have added a clause to their standard recording contracts allowing the label to sell an act's songs on the Internet, including all subscription and pay-per-use services. It is very difficult, said Mr. Stiffelman, for a new band to have enough leverage to remove this clause from its contract.
In other words, the bands' lawyers are arguing that the music label contracts give a royalty for each copy of the song sold, and a license payment for each instance of the song used but not sold. Future contracts will probably alter this, but the bands feel they deserve a higher license fee instead of a tiny royalty -- which is cut further by CD packaging expenses which the online world doesn't have.
Bands do not "sign away" all the rights to their songs when they record with a label. They retain the right to a cut of the profits. The argument here is that the cut they're getting is unfairly and possibly illegally small.
Sure, the record companies are ripping off the artists. But isn't that exactly what happens with filesharing, only more so? How does that make filesharing acceptable? To me it looks like people engaging in filesharing are just as bad, if not worse than the record labels. And hypocritical about it too. After all, at least the artists can try to negotiate with the record labels (as this article describes). Not mention that the artists are free to set up a co-operative or their own labels, or whatever. Of course the filesharers will just rip the product of the cooperative too.
Besides touring, you can use alternate methods of distribution such as: net downloads or you can even cut your own CD's and sell them through an online store. Basically, there is no reason for artists to be so dependent on record sales.
Just a quick reply, but the true figure is "90+ years of copyright is [more] than enough". Everything is in degrees, and I, along with many other /.'ers, think that the current system of copyright law is screwed up. To take the artist's pov, if they are a phenom, and create something (art, music, movie, whatever) when they are 10 years old, in the current system they would be 100 years old before that passed into public domain. Does that seem excessive? When patents expire in 20 years, that is, ideas that can advance the human race are given 20 years of protection, but if you write a short story, you are protected for the rest of your natural life? Do you see the discrepancy? Now that that is agreed upon, it comes down to degrees. Whether I think the artist should get the same years as patent holders or not is irrelevant, and can be discussed in another forum. Combine all that to the fact that when we talk copyright, we aren't actually discussing the artist, but instead the copyright-holder (in almost all cases, that is their label or ditributor), and you see where your correlation between the two topics (artist's being screwed vs. copyright protections) is flawed. If the artist *wasn't* screwed, for the 14/20/whatever # of years they should be protected, then we would both be happy (all 3! the artist would be happier as well).
Sorry for the formating, I'm in a hurry...
I've been using OMDs (internet Original Music Distributors) for some time now- was with mp3.com for a while until they got bought out by Vivendi and changed their contract in really negative ways, have stuff on BeSonic, and now I'm setting up shop on Ampcast.com.
I get FIVE CENTS per full download from Ampcast. (This is why they have you register- otherwise artists would cheat)
That is more than twenty times the royalty the RIAA is willing to pay...
Why, how? First, Ampcast really wants to be selling its CDs (a primary reason I like them so much is that they burn-to-order from genuine (rippable) Red Book CDs. The one I have for sale there is a Red Book, full 44.1/16 from high-resolution masters (done with my GPL mastering software Mastering Tools), I'm trying to negotiate a cooler tray-liner artwork but it's 'live' and buyable right now. If you buy one, I get a few bucks, and Ampcast gets a few bucks, and the RIAA gets absolutely fscking nada, zip, zilch, zero, thank you for playing. Secondly, Ampcast ain't a free OMD or trying to be one. It charges a fee like a hosting service, and that's where those five centses come from, plus from the CD sales. They're good that way- they have sense and have managed their budgeting intelligently so they have control of their business.
I'm still putting up other work and remastering my back catalog, but go check out 'Full Day', buy the CD (with a little bonus track not listed on the page) if you like it. And then ask yourself: is it fair that RIAA major label artists get a less than a twentieth of the download-royalty I'm getting from Ampcast? That _stinks_. The RIAA has _more_ money than Ampcast! They could well afford to do a HELL of a lot better than that. It's pathetic, outrageous, insulting. I'm not saying my music isn't as good- I put a lot of work into it- but TWENTY times as good? I think NOT... yet that's the discrepancy in pay.
By the way, if you don't like the idea of me getting paid off downloads, the streaming plays don't pay anything, you could check out those. Or, if there are people who've bought the CD, I write right on it "please copy this CD for your friends" and it's totally rippable, so you could look for the tracks on Gnutella or something- I hope people do share my music that way. If someone has a problem with dealing with Ampcast registration etc. and wouldn't buy my CD anyway, they should still be able to have mp3s of it... I don't need their nickel that badly that I should insist on putting them through a hassle...
(1) those who admit they download or rip music, but claim they either own all the CDs they rip, and/or that they buy more CDs, or more diverse CDs, as a result of downloading; and
(2) those who claim they never download or rip music, but insist that those who do are simply opportunistic freeloading teens downloading or copying Britney/N'Sync, and deny that category (1) exists.
What is striking about this duality is that the people who actually do rip/download would seem to be in a better position to report why they are doing it, as compared to those who have never opened a Gnutella window or ripped a CD. Personally, my girlfriend and I exemplify both classes of category (1) very clearly - she rips our CDs so she can make us mix CDs for the car/gym; I try out mp3s of new music, and buy the CD if I like it; we both rip some CDs so that we can play the tracks on our computers with visual displays such as I Tunes and Winamp plugins. And we would jump at the chance to convert our large (approx. 3000 CD and 500 LP) music collection to a high fidelity, all digital format that could be databased, searched, and easily played on our audio gear as well as the computer. Ironically, although such capability would enable us to buy even more CDs than we already do (we are running out of CD room in the house - seriously), the music industry seems determined to ensure that this never can happen.
Isn't there some way to obtain empirical data to determine whether (1) or (2) is the most valid world view? For example, could a program be devised to crawl out over Gnutella and track and compile download frequency data of file names, to see whether most downloading is focused on the big money pop groups as the industry claims? If that's too scary, could some university department with expertise in such things conduct a reliable blinded survey, or arrange a study of this behavior? When the two sides of the debate have such different perceptions about what is actually occuring, it's difficult to see how progress can ever be made.
And if I'm right (as I suspect) that category (1) users actually predominate, and that many category (1) users are actually serious music buffs like us (and are the industry's best customers, I would think), it is possible that the RIAA and its government backers would be given pause. I mean, I was a teenager once, and how much music could I afford to buy then? None. I admit that in those days I shoplifted a few 45s and LPs I desperately wanted and couldn't hear on the radio, and even though I would gladly have paid if I'd had the money, it still wasn't right. But I have paid that back with thousands of legitimate purchases as an adult. One would think that the music distributors would look at downloading the same way - it is the soil in which their best future customers grow. I find it hard to believe that teens who get their jollies downloading Britney (or other such slop) and copying it for their school clique are ever destined to become music nuts such as myself. The industry would be better worrying less about squeezing the last penny out of Britney drones who will probably never buy a single piece of music after they leave college, and worrying more about how much money they'll lose when people who purchase hundreds of CDs every year swear off Universal and other labels that cripple our music. My girlfriend and I have already done so.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
I think the best example of what MP3's can do for the music industry id Linkin Park. Las year, guess who sold the most records and CD's? Britney? Outta synch? Backdoor boys?, nope it was Linkin Park, a band that formed ::Gasp:: on their own! But surely Linkin Park Must have been spotted by some smart record exec and signed immediately. Nope, in an intrerview in the jan 28 issue of time, the band says that WB turned them down the first time they tried to get a deal, so what they did was plaster their MP3's all over the internet. They would go into chat rooms and pretend to be random people, saying "hey, have you heard the great new band linkin park" or something to that effect. Eventually they built up a legion of loyal fans through mp3's and the net, and THEN they were signed by WB. Would they have been able to do this without MP3's? maybe, but they sure made it easier. And WB certainly wouldnt be sitting on the goldmine they are neow, afte rall they turned down the band the first time!
The company is still footing the bill up front. If the record doesn't sell, the artist hasn't lost anything (and actually gained quite a bit).
Here's the obligitory link to Albini's "The Problem with Music". Read it.
In regards to cost of production, these costs are falling dramatically with the advent of high-quality, inexpensive, digital audio cards for pcs(no, I don't work for Aardvark, I'm just a very satisfied customer). I would guess that at least 50% of the "hit" records of the past ten years were digitally recorded using pro-tools, or even less expensive, gear. Cubase, cakewalk, or logic, a decent PC, and a good pro sound card are about the same cost as a decent guitar/amp setup. A good mic/mic-pre/mixer setup will cost another chunk of change, but not too much. There are numerous softsynths and effects packages out there for reasonable prices (or as warez, if you're ethically challenged). $500/hr studio fees for unproven, non-mega-star bands should disappear eventually.
I don't mean to disrespect any audio engineers out there, btw. A really top-notch production job is going to always be a valuable service, and anybody would rather record their master through a Neve board to 2" tape than through a Mackie to their hard drive, but these new methods of recording can, and do, yield impressive results on a budget. Most consumer grade stereo equipment is for shit, anyway, and if you're listening to compressed, lossy audio, then it hardly matters.
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
Well, where do I start?
Well, it's not called "ripping people off," it's called investing. Record companies put up a huge amount of capital to produce records, market bands, and finance tours. Because there's a great deal of risk involved in promoting musicians, the recording industry demands a very high rate of return. Yes, the musicians create the content, but without financial backing, you never would have heard of Metallica.
Investing my ass, if anyone but the record labels did what they do, they'd be hauled into court for loansharking and racketeering. Oh wait, that's already happened to them...
Per the high risk of modern music and need for a high return, you're right. In fact, just like small businesses, they're quite risky. Guess what? If I get a loan for my small business, I make 100% of the money that customers pay me, and then I repay 100% of my loan from my proceeds. If I'm a signed musician, I get 7% of the money that customers pay for me, and then I repay 100% of my record company loans from my proceeds. Do you see a problem with this equation??
Band contracts last for a set number of years, and during that time, the record company will spend a gratuitous amount of capital promoting them.
WRONG. Contracts last for a set number of *albums* - there is absolutely no year limit. Also, the record company will *not* necessarily spend a given amount of capital promoting the artist - they will typically have X$$ to promote 10 groups out of the 20-30 they signed that year. The others will be cut at the end of the year.
Once that contract expires, the band typically retains the band name, for which a tremendous amount of branding work has been done.
If you're one of the 10 out of 30, some branding work has been done. Also, most contracts don't expire, the artist is flat out dumped from the contract. For those contracts that do expire, sure the band retains their band name, but they have no rights to their music or lyrics - the label owns those for at least 35 years at the minimum unless they auction them off to the highest bidder - who then keeps the copyright on the artists' material for the life of the auuthor plus 95 years.
They can take their brand and cash in on it themselves.
Riiiiight, you're talking about less than 2% of all acts signed to the major labels by this point. By the way, if they play their songs in concert, they have to pay the label for the rights to play their songs - because the songs don't belong to them. They belong to the label. If they create a Greatest Hits album, 90-93% of that money goes to the label. That's cashing in, right?
The end result is that bands that have longevity
You're on a roll now. Through la-la land.
will eventually get to live a fairy-tale existence, riding off into the sunset with millions and millions tucked away into their mutual funds.
You mean Waylon Jennings? Merle Haggard? TLC? Guess what, between all of them, they have never received a royalty check despite selling tens of millions of records and CDs.
Let me just say that, while I sympathize with people like Courtney Love, I won't shed a tear if she ends up with $15 million in the bank instead of $35 million. She can probably have her chauffer start clipping coupons out of the Sunday paper to help her make ends meet.
Are you a record company shrill? You speak like one. Courtney Love and Hole are not mega sellers, and likely will make less than $1 million net for their careers, divided by 4 members *and* 8-10 years. That comes out to $25,000-$31,000 per year per member before taxes - if they're lucky. 99% of all artists signed to the labels will not see a royalty check - coupons will be a necessity for them.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the internet and technology advances equalizing the revenues of the entertainment industry, as high-quality audio and video content becomes ridiculously cheap to create and distribute.
In theory, technology and the internet should force prices down, but many of us know they won't. It will be ridiculously cheap for the LABELS to create and distribute, but those savings will not see their way to either the artist or the consumer. Those ever-cheapening prices *will* help the independent artist who avoids the labels like a plague, thank God.
What a troll.
That's not entirely true - there is music that exists without musicians or bands per se, and can only be appreciated via recordings. Soundtracks and scores may never be played outside of the show, except in recording. Live performances cannot be repeated but they can be recorded. And there are even a few virtual bands/artists (Gorillaz comes to mind) that live in records and music videos, but no where else.
It's not that I don't think that we wouldn't be better off if musicians earned their money exclusively through performance, rather than recordings and radio. It's just that there are exceptions to that method. In addition to some music, many artistic works (Films, TV, print, etc.) can not be performed but only recorded. Figuring out a way for the artists to make a living while the art is freely reproducible in those cases is the more important problem.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
This is a wonderful example of why vertical marketing sucks in the entertainment industry in general and in the music & movie industries in particular for the consumer.
Vertical marketing, for those more familiar with a Unix prompt than corporate strategy, is the positioning of your company such that you control all aspects of production & distribution for the life of your product, from soup to nuts per se, or from artist to consumer. For example: in the beginning of the movie industry in the 20's - 30's, Edison had a vertical lock on motion picture production and distribution. Through patents he controled both the ability to make movies and the ability to show movies. There were Edison theaters, and you had to have Edison cameras to make films (at least in the US). The result was that he could charge the movie companies whatever he wanted to make a movie, then he could force them to show them only in his theaters, and at prices he decided. In a free market the owner of the technology (Edison) and the owners of the talent (studios) needed each other. but because Edison had a lock through patents the studios had nowhere else to go. Eventually he was forced to divest the theater business to people like Loews, etc.
How the story ties into the music industry is thusly. The music industry has been vertically integrated for a LONG time. They find the talent, produce the product, and control the distribution to retailers. Only what's hapenned to them is that because of innovation the nature of the product has changed in people's minds. People now know that music isn't a piece of magnetic tape or a little plastic disc. It's a piece of information.
Crushing Napster/KaZaa/Morpheus is vital to the future of the big 5 companies for this reason. It's has nothing to do with "piracy", because there's never been any evidence of a hit to their bottom line -- in fact, they've been raking it in over the past 5 years. It's about crushing your competitors and bad-mouthing the very innovation that's threatening you (thus you get the MP3 = piracy thing), introducing your own service that essentially does the same thing, and thus staying vertically integrated. Hell, my bet is they don't even care about downstream sharing as long as they're controling the original source.
Fucking over the artists is just a sideshow - icing on the cake. It's really about staying a small group of very big companies who make money by controling what you listen to.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
I wonder how far we are from an artist that has a breakthrouh hit that is on a CD produced at home?
Get Cakewalk or any of the current audio tools, a decent sound card, and decent mics, fix your garage up a bit, and there you go. Cost of probably around $2,000 total.
Going with a big company, you get a fancy studio and a producer, who will help you make your track sound just like everything else out there. (Okay...where would Def Leppard be without Mutt Lange - I'll concede that!)
Then again, some of the stuff I listen to on a regular basis either a) was recoded on a shoestring like this, or b) was recorded a while ago and the recording quality is probably the same as what can be done at home now.
Then again, I am also sick of all the overpolishing done on most modern stuff.