Slashdot Mirror
A Music Industry Case Study
spmkk writes "The NY Daily News has an uplifting look at the fate of a (hypothetical) 4-piece band "making it big" in today's RIAA-driven music industry. The condensed version: A band that sells 500,000 records for $8,490,000 gross ends up (after a few iterations of the new math) with $161,909 in their pocket. Split four ways, that's a whopping $40,477.25 each for a record that probably took close to a year to produce. And this is for a record that goes gold (as per the article, only 128 of some 30,000 records released in 2002 were so privileged). And I bet you wanted to be a rock star when you were a kid..."
"Blame it on piracy! Piracy, robble robble robble..." - Hillary Rosen
Todays rock bands don't even get the supermodel girlfriends, they get goth chicks with piercing in 7 different places. And Heroine, Cocain and LSD aren't even socially acceptable among rock stars anymore! Bah!
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.
Really, who's to blame here? Is the lack of income by the individual the result of the large share the recording label takes?
No one said the music business was easy either, and we all know the success stories are certainly the far and away cases.
I wonder when they'll get it all fine tuned to the point where successful bands actually go bankrupt from attempting to make and sell an album :-P
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Disclaimer, I don't really understand the pop industry so this is probably obvious, but...
Why is the negotiating position of these bands so weak that they end up with such a shitty deal?
Don't buy CD's from a record store. Don't pirate music - it only increases the popularity of the people you shouldn't be buying CD's from.
Go see live music. If you live in a city larger than 50,000 people, there should be a few bars that get live music. Go see them. If you like them, buy their music. No record company required. No inernet piracy required. Just good music.
If they wanna post stuff for free on the internet, more power to 'em. I'll download that. But I don't expect them to.
No, I haven't read the story yet :)
:)
I came across this the other week, it's a long but very good read. I honestly don't know how true it is, but I read it all anyway
It's the story of a guy who's mixing a band for a big label, and his trials and tribulations.
The Daily Adventures of Mixerman.
--- There isn't any problem that can't be solved by a small, low yield nuclear device, is there??
Get the hell out of the way.
And don't forget the artists. Attend local shows, support Independent acts. Buy merchandise, hell, mail a check, but find other ways to support your favorite musicians without giving a tithe to the RIAA. It can happen.
You can read her manifesto about this at http://www.holemusic.com/speech/
It's more in depth than this article and comes from someone who has been there, a good read..
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
I guess I'm puzzled by the attitude displayed here on /.
On the one hand I'm told as a software developer it's not about the money. I should code just for the love of it!
On the other hand I'm supposed to be outraged because a rock star only makes $40k off a record deal?
And the rock star get's groupies, whereas the programmer just has pr0n.
In this case, each band member got 0.476% of the total gross of the sales of the album they worked on.
At my job, I get approximately 0.307% of the total gross of the sales of the software I work on.
I spent 21 years in school working to get my job (which wasn't cheap), and I've been working in my industry for 8 years.
I also work well over 40 hours a week, and I'm never, ever going to get a product endorsement deal. (They probably won't either, but if they do, it's extremely lucrative.)
I'm not saying they're not getting screwed, but I do want to try to keep things in perspective.
Education is the silver bullet.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In a 2000 speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference. It shows how a million dollar advance and a million copies sold can equal zero dollars.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
1) Radio monopolies. As has previously been discussed on /., this means that few bands ever get play time on the radio. In fact, radio today pretty much sucks unless you really like "Top 40" music. Now, there's a reason that Top 40 music used to be Top 40 -- it was popular (and usually fairly good) music. But that's not really the case anymore.
2) Paying artists. The Music Industry can whine all it wants about "artists getting money" this and "artists getting money that" but the truth of the matter is, Item No. 1 makes the music industry so competitive that, after all the marketing is finished, they can't really afford to give any money back to the artists. Artists in today's music industry are somewhat like the sweatshop girls who make Abercrombie and Fitch cargo pants (or Nike shoes, or you name it): they produce a product sold for an extreme premium but are poorly paid. Incidentally, the premium goes not directly into the pockets of the responsible corporation, but instead into marketing and promotion -- but only of the artists which the record company likes.
I firmly believe that we're about to experience a paradigm shift in entertainment delivery. The era of free music -- as it was in the 16, 17, and 1800s -- will once more be upon us. Recorded music will be free, and niche internet radio/community music sites will be responsible for the creation of new hits and pop sensatia (remember Michelle Branch? MP3.com, not the radio, was instrumental in her stardom). Artists will instead earn their money as they did 100 years ago: in concert. Ticket prices will skyrocket (and fans will pay), and probably move to an auction-dominated system -- which will equilibrize ticket prices. Some artists might be forced to get day jobs. But art, music, etc., they will all move onward...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Thats not the point - the point is that he did it damn well. He made it into the top 2%. Most don't. Most tragically, his music made a massive steaming pile of money for other people - not him. He got very little. That is why this is sad - its not "oh drat, this guys' not getting his free ride" its "oh drat, this guy climbed to the top of percentile of his industry, made buckets of money for other people, and scraped a medium paycheck for his efforts".
Rockstars are just underground punk-rockers that became popular. It seems to me that there are people who prefer bands that are underground (read: "not popular"). The moment those bands become popular (even though if their music didn't change and/or become more mainstream), the fans reject them because they have "sold out to the mainstream" or some other crap like that. I guess it's more l337 to like some unknown bands even if their music is no different from the more mainstream bands
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I was in bands. For many years. Some of my good friends were in bands with deals for many years.
95% of the time, you LOSE money on the road. Remember, you don't get to keep all that money. You have to pay for food, gas, roadies, hotels, the inevitable replacement gear (when yours breaks, is stolen, or left in Missouri by the drunk-ass drummer).
And that's assuming the venue owner decides to pay you at ALL, and not pull the ol' "how about we give you food and beer?" switcheroo.
Often you don't get to sell CDs at your shows (often due to contractual issues). In many cases, the merchandising company makes ALL the money on your T-shirts, buttons, etc. (the band gets about 5% of "profit").
If you're some huge band like Creed, yeah, you can make major cash. But even 1 or 2 levels down, you lose money. You have to have insurance, you have to pay the venue, you have to hire security guards...the list goes on and on.
SUCCESSFUL bands make money on the road. But most bands lose it. And lots of it. In the "old days" (pre-internet), everyone understood that you LOST money on the road, but it served to promote ALBUM sales.
Don't know where this myth got started about it being the other way around.
I think these figures are pretty conservative as to the amount of money that bands can make from online sales. I would much rather do business in this way than to do it the RIAA's way. And yes, this does nothing to touch the piracy issue, but we all know that whole Linux distros are freely available for download on the Internet; and this hasn't ruined Linux, has it?
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
You guys are ignorant. The same thing happens in the live music industry. Only a tiny miniscule ammount of people make money touring. And there are probably only a handful of people in the world (mostly actors, not musicians btw) who get paid to appear on magazines.
I am a professional musician who recently put out a record on a major label. I did a west coast tour last month where every show was sold out. Wanna know how much money I made?
$80 a day. And that's with the shows selling out.
The live music industry is the same as the record industry. They've worked it out so that the musicians get nothing.
A major record label has a lot of resources that a musician needs to "make it big". They have the capital that is needed to produce albums.
Each album can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to record. Each music video also costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Radio stations must be paid off to get a band's singles in the rotation. And the album has to be manufactured, which costs money as well. Then the album must be distributed, which costs money and requires a business relationship that labels have and most musicians do not.
There are dozens of bands in every city around the world that want to make it, but only a handful of major labels. This is why bands get the short end of the stick.
And I bet you wanted to be a rock star when you were a kid.
Rock Star? I always dreamed of working for the RIAA. I started young, charging my first royalty at the age of six. One day I hope to have a global surcharge named after me. That would be the ultimate bragging right.
The point isn't that they only make 40k, the point it that thy are make 8 million and only seeing 40k. That other money is being eaten up by an industry that exists so it can continue to exist. You know how you can get an e-commerce package for $25/mo? Yeah, thats what the music industry could be, a monthly service for any band to upload and be published. Then, local record stores with bulk burners could download and burn, or burn on demand for customers.
Customer: "Do you have the latest radiohead?"
Clerk at a PC: "That'll be ready in 10 minutes, $5.00 please."
This recording industry is spending millions and millions manually doing the job of a good database. To make a long story short (too late) the problem is the record company being overpaid for a service it doesn't provide.
Being I spend my first lifetime in the music business this isn't telling the whole story. They are not factoring in money from playing live. Also you know getting into the music business that you don't make a much of money in the early years of band. It take years for a band of gigging and recording to become the "hot new band".
Also there aren't "bands" these days mainly due to economics, everything is "projects" these days. A player will be juggling schedules rehearsing and playing multiple projects and doing side gigs to pay bills, hoping one of these projects gets signed, records, and tours. It's sad that players today don't know what it was like to be a band. To grow together musically, the family of band members and supporters. I still have a lot of friends in the business and it is way to commericial these days.
Some one forgot along the way that it's really about the music. Musicians don't make music so that they can become famous.. they make music because they love to make music. Sure we strive to "make it" but even though most don't make it.. it's still rewarding. True music is an art.. prefab music is a business. I have been writing songs since I learned guitar when I was 12. 8 years later I have a band... I could care less if we "make it". I just love to get together with my band and play music and give that music out to people who want to hear it. Remember, there are a lot of rock stars and wanna be rock stars out there.. but a lot of them aren't musicians.
"The moment those bands become popular (even though if their music didn't change and/or become more mainstream), the fans reject them because they have "sold out to the mainstream" or some other crap like that."
Totally untrue. Most of the time these bands produce one record that fits their old style then fall to the hype from the record companies. The record companies will say, "hey, change this and you'll sell a couple hundred thousand more albums", or "Let's sound more like band X so that we can reach a wider audience."
When a band changes just to sell more records, forgetting the fans that got them to the point they are at is, when the band sells out. Sometimes the bands just change as the members get older. But any fan can tell the difference when a band starts "selling out".
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
I put out a record on a major label recently. Just finished a sold out tour of the west coast a week or two ago.
I have these thoughts:
1. The article is totally accurate.
2. Anybody who thinks successful musicians make it back in touring or merchandise is A COMPLETE IGNORANT IDIOT. Once you get close to going gold this might be true, but as the article pointed out, this happens to 138 of 30,0000 records.
3. My sold out tour of the west coast was the first profitable tour in almost a decade of touring. I made $80 a day once the profits were tabulated.
4. Merchandise sales are not major sources of revenue, but they help stem the bleeding. Less then half of that $80/day was from merchandise.
5. One word: EXPENSES. It's not just the money you get. It's also the money you pay out. And touring is expensive. Don't be one of those assholes who says "ah but the bands make it back from tours and merchandise"
6. A shitty sys-admin can do $30-40k a year.
7. A top notch musician who has practiced most of their life and given countless sacrifices for their job and has gone gold will do about the same.
8. A top notch musician who hasn't gone gold will be broke.
9. A shitty musician will be in debt.
10. Mama don't let your baby's grow up to be musicinas.
Bands do not make big money touring.
Bands do not make big money touring.
Sure, they make a living sometimes, but most of the time they don't.
Band's tour for two reasons: They love to play music, and they want to promote the sales of their albums.
Tickets cost $200 sometimes because people are willing to pay it. If you can sellout a show at $20/ticket, then why not charge $30 (etc. etc.) and it grows from their. The money just gets spent making the show bigger, brighter, and louder.
The costs for putting on a concert are staggering. Just the local labor alone can be as much as $10,000 (or more) for an event. It costs $2/mile/truck to send the show down the road. Each truck. Each bus.
Why do you think some bands accept corporate sponsorship for their tours? Many (well-known) bands would lose money trying to tour if they didn't have the sponsorship money.
Merchandising? By the time the venue gets their 20%; the sales company gets their cut; the designers, manufacturers, etc. get their cut, there isn't much left for the band.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Stop complaining and vote with your dollars.
It is not an either/or proposition. People should keep complaining and vote with their dollars. In fact it is pretty importatnt that people do both, because if they just vote with their dollars then the music industry will continue to pretend that declines in revenue are due to piracy. We need to complain long and loud so that everyone knows the real reason - poor quality products combined with an unrelenting series of legal attacks on their own customers.
A lot of people don't like anything that gets radio play, because that's the crap that people listen to. I think a lot of people don't like anything that's on the radio, because then they get to act like experts, and play along like they understand the something about music other people don't. For the most part, most people don't have an inner genius that conveys more information about high quality music then the rest of the general public. I stopped listening to the 5 years ago, and I have about 20 CD's that I can happily listen to for extended periods of time. I'm not big into music, but I laugh at the pretensious people who act like they know more about music then the general public, because they've decided they know more.... *grin*
Kirby
I'm trying to think of another industry where the employees are given loans or are required to make initial investments and usually end up screwed. Hmmm... where else does this happen... In what other industry are the guys on the bottom so braindead they participate even though it's common knowlege they'll get the shaft?
Amway? Herbal Life? Yeah.
This nation is capitalist and if you are too stupid to ensure you are properly compensated for your efforts, you are giving work away for free. In this case the fools are giving it to record labels, and that's fine with me. When I buy something it's because I'm paying what it's worth too me. If the wrong people profit, too fricken bad... I still get what I want.
And you can't say "well people buy crappy music, thereby supporting an artificial economy perpetuated by marketing!!!" IF PEOPLE BUY SOMETHING THERE IS A MARKET FOR IT GOD DAMN IT! And if under the current system no music is produced that anyone wants, the system wont continue existing, now will it? Theres a reason labels continue to profit and it has nothing to do with them being bastards. Nearly everyone acts selfishly. The industry produces a product people apparently want and the competition to be an employee is so intense they aren't obligated to pay fairly.
Labels are trying some legislative things to prop themselves up (and they have the right to do so), but democracy has a solution for that: dont vote for the industry's lackies. And if they still win then the people seem to want the industry supported by laws. If you dont like it, too bad.
What's wrong with the music companies taking the cost of touring, recording, distribution and advertising from the revenue earned by an act? How else are they supposed to pay for it? It's a business, not a donation to the arts
The problem is that the companies take their profits first before costs are taken out. If the system were truly fair, record companies would take their profits with the artist at the end of the day when all costs have been calculated. Yes, it is a business and the record companies deserve the right to make a profit on investment, but would you want your investment company taking their profits before costs were calculated? The folks that manage my portfolio take 1.5% of the portfolio value at the end of each quarter, not at the beginning of the quarter, therefore their income is dependant upon the performance and my costs to them are based upon mutual growth. Not bleeding the portfolio dry.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Go see live music. If you live in a city larger than 50,000 people, there should be a few bars that get live music. Go see them. If you like them, buy their music. No record company required. No inernet piracy required. Just good music.
Thanks to the joys of deregulated radio...
Clear Channel owns the air time.
Clear Channel owns the play lists.
Clear Channel owns the concert venues.
Clear Channel owns the concert promotion.
Clear Channel owns the ticketing companies.
So, unless you want to play in a bus shelter, unadvertised, playing songs that no one has ever heard of, guess who makes all the money?
Why do you think all those radio stations that sound exactly the same as each other have exactly the same bland "Front Row Seats!" competitions, the same bland "Sold Out Seats!" competitions and the same bland DJs who're supposedly on "Hard Rock" stations giving out tickets to go and see Britney Spears with them at the same three venues as every other gig you ever hear about? Clear Channel owns the entire chain from start to finish, nationwide. Even when there is a chink in their defence, the artists all know damn well that if they dodge Clear Channel in one city, they'll be blacklisted from every other one across the nation.
Everyone criticises the RIAA on slashdot. After all, they're the evil monopolies, making all the money at the artists' expense. The problem is, to get their product out, they have to deal with a monopoly. I'm not defending them but they're also not making money hand over fist either - not because of piracy but because Clear Channel squeezes every last penny out of music, shoe-horning it in to an easy to sell, nationwide generic sludge. Bad as the RIAA are, perhaps it's worth going after the real culprits.
pyrotechnics!!!!
*ducks*
I don't know that I have ever seen a 'rock star' driving a really nice car. You know who I see with lots of money? Rap artists. Anyone care to venture a guess why there are rap artists that make a shit load of money?
They have their own labels! Death row, murder inc, I could go on and on. These guys were smarter then whitey from the get-go. They produced their own music, and sold it themselves. New artists get picked up by these labels and make ridiculous amounts of money because these labels know how easy it is to market these albums. All you need to do is have a video filled with hot chicks and some Bling, have music that doesnt suck(Doesn't have to be good, Ja Rule sucks heavy fucking ass and is really rich), and the white MTV watching yuppie kids will go out and buy that album in droves.
There is no shortage of smaller record labels that will sign interesting groups. If not, create your own label! Swollen Members did it with Battle Ax records, and the beastie boys eventually came out with Grand Royal as a record company. Hello Nasty sold a shitload of albums, and wasn't promoted by RIAA tools.
If more people followed this business scheme (Basically invented by Puff Daddy and Russel Simmons) when they went for a recording contract, they'd be rich. (See Bow Wow, but it helps that Snoop Dogg was in his corner.)
I don't feel sorry for Idiot Band A when they sign with Mega Asshole Company B, without taking into account whats going on. That's just stupid business practice.
Seriously, when you make music, typically you want it to be your life, not just a hobby. If you want to make money doing it, and you're good, you should be able to. Which do you value more? The music musicians make? Or the papers lawyers shuffle around endlessly?
One could say Lawyers put more effort into it. However, I don't think anyone can say that making good music is easy. It's just one of those things that are subjective. Music is something that only a few can make a living doing.
How about a business model that doesn't include money for recordings anymore?
Begs the question. I don't really want to see any but a few bands live. I don't want them to reshingle my roof. I don't want them to wash my car. What I want are recordings of their music. There's a lot of money in sales of recordings; surely more of it could find its way to artists.
500,000 albums sell at $16.98 = $8,490,000 Okay, so that says: Total Earnings = $8,490,000. Now let's work out who gets what out of this.
... reaps ... $829,900
B = Band, R = Retail, S = Studio, Packaging, production costs, A = Advertising, L = Lawyers, T = Total Left to record company, M = Manager
The Grunts' royalty is 15% of retail. Now, if we take this at face value that means.
B(OfRetail) = 15% * 8,490,000 ~= 1.3 Mil. But since we know this is wrong, let us continue.
"packaging deductions" of 25% So, this translates into, or means that
S = $2,122,500, T = $6,367,500
now we also have, That's a "free goods" charge of 15% So that gives us (since this is advertising)
S = $2,122,500, A = $1,273,500, T = $5,094,000
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Now the band gets from this. So, the band's royalty is actually: $764,100
B = T*.15 = $764,100 - Yep!, S = $2,122,500, A = $1,273,500, T = $5,094,000 - B = $4,329,900
Now, The $3,500,000 balance goes to retailers So, we have
R = $3,500,000, B = $764,100, S = $2,122,500
A = $1,273,500, T = $829,900
The record company
R = $3,500,000, B = $764,100, S = $2,122,500, A = $1,273,500, T = $829,900
Okay, our numbers all make sense thus far... now things get weird. Because the band was hot, they got an advance from the record company of $300,000. They spent $200,000 of that recording the album, which included a $50,000 advance to the producer. They pocketed the remaining $100,000.
So this means that the band got $200,000 of their royalties early, and spent $200,000 on recording costs, and the band kept the $100,000. So we have
R = $3,500,000, B = $764,100 - $200,000 = $564,100, S = $2,122,500 + $200,000 = $2,322,500, A = $1,273,500, T = $829,900
Now as well, we have more advertising (the video). So here we go. the label spent $100,000 making the band's first video Which was expected to be paid back
R = $3,500,000, B = $564,100 - $100,000 = $464,100, S = $2,322,500, A = $1,273,500 + $100,000 = $1,373,500, T = $829,900
Whoa, now our numbers aren't lining up as well. Where the problem? The article says: So the royalty drops to $364,100.
For some reason the writer of the article decided that the $100,000 that the artists kept wasn't really paid out to them. Even though they "pocketed the money" or kept it, or however you want to put it. They made $100,000. That's the deficiency. They do fix this later on. Now, let's finish.
But the band's producer also earned a 4% royalty of $203,760, of which he already received $50,000. So the band has to pay him an additional $153,760, reducing their royalty to $210,340. Let's put this as production costs. Since the producer must be paid as well.
R = $3,500,000, B = $464,100 - $153,760 = $310,340, S = $2,322,500 + 153,760 = $2,476,260, A = $1,373,500, T = $829,900
Good.. Good... After pocketing $310,340 (which includes the remaining $100,000 of the advance) All Fixed
the band has to pay their manager 15%, or $46,551, and give 2% of the total deal, or $101,880, to the power lawyer who got them the deal in the first place. That takes the band down to $161,909. Let's see now:
R = $3,500,000, B = $310,340 - $101,880 - $46,551 = $161,909, S = $2,476,260, A = $1,373,500, T = $829,900, L = $101,880, M = $46,551
Total = $8,490,000 - All is accounted for.
Okay, so now that we have all of the numbers worked out.. Whose coming out on top here.
Well, the Retail guys definitely make a pretty penny. ($3,500,000), but that has to be divided over all their stores, so it doesn't work as well.
Studio costs are really high. (Higher than they probably should be.) That would be something of note.. But most importantly... the record company gets T = $829,900
That's it... Sure they get "whatever's left over from packaging and advertising" but that's not going to be that much. So the record company is making very little off this deal.
Really, if this shows anything, it is that the current system is too cost intensive, and that if it were optimized, there may be a better way to save money, and make sure everyone gets paid. It's not a conspiracy people. It's just common sense. These fees have to paid somehow, sure they may be high, but they are still necessary costs.
Personally, I don't see a problem with the record companies persay. I see a problem with how the money is spent recklessly. If you like a song, buy the CD, sure the artist doesn't get much, but it will make sure that more music like it is made in the future. All of those other costs have to be covered as well. If the only people who pay for CDs are people who listen to Britney Spears or Enrique Iglesias (Not saying they aren't good singers), then the only CDs that will be made are those by B.S. and E.I. The artists people are willing to pay for, and make sure that the investments that these companies put into them are returned.
It's simple math, that's all it is, and that's all it will be. It's not a revolution, or a conspiracy.
~ kjrose
I think you're totally off. It's about the music, sure. But at the same time, it's a music industry or a music business, neither are music philanthropy.
I'm a student at Berklee College of Music, and a very serious musician. You do music because you enjoy it, but at the same time- by the time i'm outta here, I'll have over 60 Grand in college loans and i'll be damned if I just 'love music' and not try to pay that off, get a house, get a car, etc.
I really enjoy music, and so does everyone at Berklee. Who doesn't wanna be a rock star though? No, it's not all about money. But you can't live in a cardboard box and play in the subway forever, well some people do, but not me.
And have you considered that if you are a real musician out there doing it you better be making some money to pay the bills, even if you don't get any of the money for yourself.
Studio time is over $100/hour at anywhere decent. Guitars are $2000+ for ones of good quality. A drumset is gonna run at least 2000 also. Think about microphones, preamps, speakers, etc. Ok, that's just the items. But at the same time there's people that need payed. Your manager, booking agent, business manager, accountant, cover artist, web designer, producer, engineer, roadies, lighting designers, etc... They all need to live too, and if you are just playing at people's houseparties, you can't make the money to pay them, let alone you. And don't tell me that professional musicians do it all by themselves. Just open up any cd and look at all the credits. They need to get paid. Go to a concert, it makes money, but it costs money to start up. You need a lighting and sound system, tour busses, etc.
Yes, I love the music. But as a real professional, it's insulting to not try to get paid for your talent. Most programmers program because they enjoy it, but at the same time, program what the boss says, not whatever they are doodling away on randomly.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
But of course, that's the point. If they didn't take their profits when they do, then many, many more acts would be profitable... but the recording companies wouldn't make quite as much money, and (heaven forbid) would actually have to take on some amount of risk along with the band.
As things stand, the recording companies structure deals so that they always make a profit, no matter what. To the recording companies, an "unprofitable" band is one that they do not have to pay any money. See the small problem here?
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
If Pantera is charging $500 a pop for tickets, they need to re-evaluate where their money is going.
There are dozens of punk rock and smaller alternative bands that tour every year, with or without a big budget. Greedy whores like Bikini Kill won't leave home without a guaranteed $10k payout, but bands like Armchair Martians or Scared of Chaka will roll out for a few hundred bucks TOTAL. Sometimes things get fucked up and they have to play to a small crowd and get paid with beer and food, but that goes with the territory.
In the final analysis, bands don't really need enormous touring busses, 5 star hotels and new guitars for every show. They don't need their promoter taking 10% of their cut. If you cut down your overhead and subscribe to the DIY philosophy, you can make it on your own without a major label rolling out a magic carpet for you.
Remember, most bands you know and love probably started out in someone's basement or garage, and probably borrowed the minivan on the weekend to go to shows. Then again, bands these days are basically born from corporate labels and aren't as homegrown as they used to be.
Someone needs to moderate this up as Informative. It's so very true -- bands aren't supposed to expect to make money from selling their recorded music. The money is supposed to be in touring ticket sales, and maybe royalties for soundtracks, etc.
Dossy's Blog