Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels Looking for a Cut of Tour Revenues
Anonymous Coward writes "As many a Slashdotter has pointed out, musicians make their money not from selling records but from going on tour. Now record labels are trying to get a piece of the action. 'Now the music labels, hungry for revenue from any source, are mulling over whether to make a grab for a piece of the tour biz. One company already has: In October EMI Recorded Music signed a deal with Brit singer Robbie Williams that gives the label a cut of the pop star's merchandise, publishing, touring revenue and sponsorship.'"
...major corporations want more money.
Full story tonight at 11
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
I'm surprised it took them this long. I mean come on, there's a way for them to bilk the artist out of more of their earnings, and they didn't do it? That's not the recording industry I know!
I thought a big part of the RIAA's argument is that the labels have to underwrite the promotion and some of the costs for the tours... If this is true, then shouldn't they have already been taking a cut from the tour profits? Maybe I'm wrong here. I'd check out the RIAA's site, but it appears to be down...
No one is forcing the artists to sign a contract with record label X-- if they dont like the terms, find another record label who has terms you agree with. If none exist, well you are up the river without a paddle, but Juicy cranberries grandma!
How are the artists expected to make any money at all? This is outrageous. So now when we "do the right thing" by boycotting the RIAA and their overpriced CDs and really support our favourite bands by going to their concerts, even that might not be enough? How is the typical artist supposed to make a living? I have a feeling all of this will come back to haunt the labels eventually. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I don't think it's wholly inappropriate. I know we're paying more for CDs than we probably should, but the one has nothing to do with the other.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
If pirates had just bought the damn CDs instead of illegally downloading them, the record companies wouldn't have to do this. You caused this.
....the record labels are now requiring musicians to give up their first born in order to breed a new race of pop stars.
-Valiss
Ok, to the animals who don't get the "theft" thing, a concert has real scarcity. If I copy your ticket, both our asses can't sit down in that seat. A recording has only artificial scarcity. Copying your cd has no effect on you. So this is a good thing. Let them act as promoters.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
At this rate musicians won't even worry about getting signed to a label. A couple friends of mine do quite well playing local gigs. Of course, here in New Orleans, live music is plentiful.
Don't get me wrong, this wont happen anytime soon. I wonder, though, what the threshold is before it pays to stay home and play in your local club.
----
Squirrel
I too grow tired of the bands that keep whining about everything. Put up or shut up! Esp. for the Madonna, Metallica and Radiohead types.
Your time is almost... up.
Don't the labels get a fee whenever a song is performed? (Some of which might be back to the writer, if the label feels like it...) Wouldn't that include the artist performing their own song?
I guess the new part is wanting a percentage of merchansing? Oh, and the article says sponsorship, too. Ouch. You mean you can't even sell out to Pepsi without losing a cut, now?
Record companies are not the nicest people, but the spin on this submission is that they are somehow robbing the artists.
There are enough things to berate the music industry over without having to fabricate injustice that isn't there.
This is what many slashdot users have been suggesting they do, so I don't understand the negative attitude all of the sudden. Remember the "they're going to have to change their business model" speech everyone was giving a couple of years ago? This is that change. Mind you, in typical record label fashion, they aren't going to mark down CDs any or ease off of the filetrading litigation, because that would still cost them *something*. That is the part everyone should criticize, that there is no quid pro quoa (spl?). Sure, they don't have to give their customers something in exchange no the markup on ticket prices we will no doubt see, but it might hurt them in the long run if they don't...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I found this interesting from the article:
... just have to be seen on a big screen.
> While music sales have dropped for three years in a row, from $13 billion to $11.5 billion in
>2002, hurt by Napster-style digital piracy and a lackluster flow of hot new acts, the tour
>business has climbed for four years straight, from $1.3 billion in 1998 to $2.1 billion last year
So in total, money spent on music has gone down from 14.3 to 13.6 billion. A small change in a time of economic uncertainty. I imagine people will always spend a similar amount of money for entertainment, just the patterns of expenditure change. Ripping an MP3 off the net will never compare to a live performance.
Similarly, movie studios don't have to worry. Seeing a decent movie on DivX makes me want to go to the cinema for the proper experience. LOTR, Matrix,
Anyway, the studios should make money where the consumer wants to spend it, and stop whinging when their lack of innovation stops them from earning.
Ponxx
Anything they can pass of as "promotions" is charged to the artists' potentional royalty payments. Oddly enough, this usually eats up ALL royalties due.
The artists should start counting every single expense of a tour as promoting the album and demand credit for it.
-- Will program for bandwidth
If you're willing to sign away your profits in the future for that fat advance now, the only one to blame is you. On the other hand, maybe the only way to get anyone to listen to your crappy music is to get a major label to spend millions promoting it, in which case giving a percentage of the tour revenues you wouldn't be making without selling your soul to the record company is a good deal anyway.
Remember, we don't have Britteny Spears because she is a musician. We have Brittany Spears because a record company invested millions of dollars in creating her. It's only fair that they get a cut of the tour revenues she never would have had at all without their promotion.
In modern society, there is no reason to make a deal with the devil for fame and fortune - just call up EMI.
paintball
These days, with very few exceptions, the biggest stars are all manufactured by the record labels anyway. The labels engineered many of these pop , or perhaps 'puppet', sensations that so many people go 'ga-ga' over.
Perhaps the better question is: why have some of these engineered musical groups earned so much, when their popularity and following is almost entirely due to the label's efforts?
"But, why me?"
"Because you fit the suit."
-The Brady Bunch, "Johnny Bravo"
If the artists have accountants as good as the record labels they can surely manage to make a "loss" on all the tours after charging "consultancy" and "music services" etc, and having their own highly paid company of roadies, etc.
Give the record labels a taste of their own accounting!
blog.sam.liddicott.com
require that all newly signed artists "provide" at least one healthy kidney (preferably but not necessarily their own) for sale to cover initial expenses, fees, lawyers, etc. Liver sections and spleens are ususally needed for video production. Hair cuttings cover per diems.
A lot of times, the label is putting a fair chunk of change into promoting the tour, booking the appropriate venues, and getting things done in general. I could see a decent tour costing the same as producing a CD, if not more when they go multinational.
Um, no.
The record label is putting a great deal of the Band's future earnings into promoting the band, mostly in promoting their CD sales, of which the band will receive $0.25-$0.50 per copy. Any promotion of the band, be it their CDs (the bulk of the promotion) or their tour is all charged to the band. In the end the recording companies, while taking the Lion's share of the CD profits (and now, soon, the touring profits as well), pays absolutely squat for promotion.
Hopefully this new development will encourage more bands to avoid the clutches of the recording industry and market direct, or use non-traditional channels such as mp3.com once was to reach their audiences. With luck this final act of hubris will be enough to kill those parisites dead, something that would be very good for artists and fans alike.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You make a deal with The Devil...
I don't see this as wholly horrible. I mean, you aren't forced to sign that contract now are you? You can always do everything yourself, no contract required.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Fuck the La-bels
Fuck, fuck fuck
Fuck the La-bels
for all you Jay & Silent Bob fans.
RIAA: All your earning are belong to us!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
People, the answer is simple! VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR! CD-Baby.com has a load of GOOD music, and not a dime of your money goes to the RIAA.
This is the ONLY way that the RIAA will understand that we're not going to take their shit anymore.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
This is not news. Labels have been digging their claws into concert revenue for years. When I was with the first Warped Tour, Sony was taking a 20% (if I remember accurately) cut from all Merch sales which dramatically reduced the artist's share since they didn't want to raise T-shirt prices for the fans. When you add a Bill Graham (west coast promoter) fee of 35% on top of this at the former Concord Pavilion, it was enough to cause all the performers (except Sublime) to pull all their merch from the booths for that show. Fans end up paying regardless.
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
Before we were supposed to not buy CDs and support artist we like by going to their shows and buying their merch, but now the industry gets a cut of that too. Might as well just download the songs from p2p and send the band a check for $.30 cents or whatever they get per cd.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Even the major labels,unscrupulous as they are, will have their work cut out for them if they want to go up against the just-as-ruthless giants Ticketmaster and ClearChannel.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Once upon a time, publishing was expensive and risky. Printing the manuscript of sheet music, or cutting the master for a record (old-style) and stamping a few thousand cost money. If they didn't sell, the entrepreneur who paid forthem lost money. So he was justified in taking a goodly slice when it came good.
But publishing audio is now cheap and low risk. So it doesn't justify extortionate profits.
But the artist had to work just as hard - or not - as s/he ever did. And deserves the rewards just as much as ever. So the rewards of touring should go back to the artist.
Of course, some of the rewards of touring are not due solely to the artist. Mr Dibbler and friends will no doubt have paid a bit to printthe T-shirts, posters etc. and are entitled to some share of the cut. But it is by no means obvious that these are the same people who arrange the creation and shipping of CDs.
Artists need to relaim their products from the publishers. Once upon a time, the publishers earned their retirn. No more. But it takes organisation - the first artist to try it will be dropped. But the big labels are no longer, in the ager of net publishing, contributing to the glory of music -and don't deserve the profits they got in the past.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I believe you'll find that this is the norm for all of the "manufactured bands" and "pop idols" that the industry created from scratch. Only the real artists get their own touring revenues, and the writing has been on the wall for them since the labels discovered that they could manufacture bands in just about any popular genre, not just bubblegum.
Personally, I think it's a good thing.
One of the reasons that artists are skeptical of online distribution of their music is the fact that it has the precise effect of making record lables think of those songs as valueless (which they are) and instead focus on tangible things that people will pay for (e.g. a concert with merchandise).
Once artists and labels get used to this arrangement, though, there's no reason that the indy labels can't do the same, and then distributing the music cheap (or even for free) and making their money on the concerts too.
A "label" in the Internet age should be... what? My feeling is that it should be a clearinghouse... a packager if you will that records/collects the band's or artist's music, sees to its quality of recording, adds lots of indexable info and then gets it to all of the online distributors (iStore, mp3.com, etc) that will "retail it". Heck, they could just run a Gnutella farm with a web-site full of reviews and other "value added" indexing, and a client-side plugin for downloading. Boom, instant high-bandwidth music distribution, and as long as the client has some basic incremental checksum system so that it can verify it's getting the exact file that you selected, you can be sure you're downloading what you wanted. That adds ad revenue to the label's list of sources.
The margins on all of that are small to negative, but if they have an alternate source of income, then they can afford to do it, and there's really no reason that foobar label can't compete with EMI on equal footing.
And you wondered why the RIAA was deathly afraid of file sharing... it's not because they thought their members would lose money, but because they KNEW that it had to lead to a decision about the value of music that they didn't want to have to make, and ultimately killing this goose once and for all!
Well, labels, who claim to promote and thus 'make' and artist, are simply greedy for more action.
Regarding Williams (a "pop star" I have no time for) EMI are taking a cut of his tours, merchandising etc but they've paid him, or are contracted to pay him, several millions of pounds over the next few years. When the deal was announced, Williams said, "I'm rich beyond my wildest dreams!"
He'd better not speak so quickly. Mariah Carey was rich too, until Sony dropped her.
Interestingly, Williams takes the attitude that Filesharing is a Good Thing. He actively encourages his fans to download his music.
An attitude shared by Snoop Dogg, Chuck D and Courtney Love. Shame Britney Spears doesn't know what time it is yet...
"Bitch betta have muh money" while wearing a big hat with a feather in it
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
This is more foolishness from an industry already rife with fools. 99% of the marjor label artists out there already make nothing off of thier record sales to begin with-even artists that have sold half a million albums generally haven't seen a penny's woth of royalties, via a process called recoupment. Recoupment means that the artist has to make back the money out of thier own royalites that the record label puts up for startup costs, which is everything from the recording sessions, new instruments, new clothes, makeovers, tour support (which is often very little), and various other costs of production. When you consider that a very fortunate artist who has a good lawyer might make 8 cents on the dollar when a CD is sold, you can see that it takes a LOT of record sales for a band to recoup. Meanwhile, the record company is getting the other 92 cents for every dollar, and is still sticking the band with the tab for EVERYTHING, which has to be paid out of that measly 8% or less. Labels rarely provide more than nominal tour support, particularly to thier 2nd tier artists (read as anyone who hasn't gone platinum.) The artist is expected to cover most tour costs via ticket sales and mechandising. To come to the point, for the labels to go dipping thier fingers into the only viable revenue stream that most artists have is only taking the highway robbery that they are committing already and taking it to the next level. Not that we should expect any better, since the majors have behaved like scum for decades, and are not likely to change anytime soon. Just my .02 dollars worth
Don't Panic!
Of course, that's all being done behind the scenes. In public, they would be required to perform and make billions in revenue, all of which would, of course, go to the record labels. The musicians themselves would never see any profit of any kind from their work. But if it's not good, they'll be tortured. If it doesn't bring in a quota of a specified number of millions by a certain deadline, they would be tortured. If they don't perform to record label standards, they would be tortured.
Of course, all music and/or any form of audible sound, now known or later developed, which is considered music by any record label, would be illegal unless the person composing and/or performing the sounds is a slave of a record label and working under their authorization. Punishable by a fine required to exceed one billion dollars and prison terms of at least 50 years per offense.
This wouldn't even be a felony. They'd have to make up a legal term for a crime worse even than 1st degree murder, because that is what theft from a multinational corporation essentially boils down to, and if you dare to make a sound, listen to music, or even fart without the record labels making an enormous profit on you at your expense, than theft is what you have essentially done. Shame on you. You are unfair competition because your making an audible sound may undermine their ability to make the profits that to which they are rightfully entitled by virtue of being a multinational corporation in a position of power.
For your convenience, laws like this will eventually be passed for other types of businesses, such as the food mass-production industry (growing and/or cooking your own food constitutes THEFT from the multinational food conglomerates).
Don't sign it. Obviously these big stars arn't going to sign over any more rights to the record companies that they don't think they need or whatever.
But it would be too bad to see some young bands sign this without knowing what it means, though.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
There was just now a segment on ABC World News about The [Grateful] Dead's new model for making money off music. They record their shows every night, take orders from fans at the show, have their audio man master it, ship it off for duplication on CDs, and have it in the mail to the fan within about three days.
Instead of the $1/album typically made by signed bands they make $8-$10 on the three-CD set that sells for $22. They've turned a quarter of a million dollars on the CDs from their performances at Red Rocks over the past couple of weeks.
Not mentioned at the link, but Peter Jennings added that the music companies don't like being cut out of the loop like that.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is great news. Snot nosed little musicians owe all of their success to the selfless sacrifices made by the RIAA. All rock stars do is get drug habits, destroy hotel rooms, and go on "Behind the Music" after their careers are finished.
Seriously though, wtf? i could sort of understand in the same way that I understand that evil mad scientists want to destroy the world sort of way, if there was any actual money in the process.
All this is going to do is lead to pirated concerts. Bands will be kidnapped and forced to perform for free by angry fans.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
Nice job, I swallowed this hook, line, and sinker for about 3 minutes. I was getting pissed because I have been waiting for him to finish that damned Dark Tower series for the last 20 years! It's about the only good thing he has ever penned.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Holy Santa Cruz, Batman!
This means more acts will opt to follow the model Phish used to become popular. They created a following not from a successful studio album, but by years of playing venues and building grassroot support. Imagine talented acts chosen by the people instead of the crap being driven down our throats today.
The goal of a corporation is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. If the record labels think they can make more money by going after the touring revenues, they'll do it, regardless of what is happening on the CD side of the business.
This would be like saying Major League Baseball is charging more for TV rights because ticket sales are down. Believe me, if MLB thinks they can milk more money out of the TV networks, they'll do it no matter how many people go to the games.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Most musicians have poor business sense, that's not how they see their profession. They think they are musicians, and they are correct in thinking this way. As it is, because of that attitude, they gravitate towards thinking only in terms of their only proprietary source of income -touring. In effect this natural shift in focus is away from the complexities of "the contract" and towards what they control. This is completely understandable and works well in practice. I just talked to a great friend of mine yesterday and he just got off a four show tour and wound up pulling in close to ten grand for the band. That's excellent cash for them but it's also interesting to note that they were just recently dropped from their label. Huh? That's right, bands don't need labels to make money, they need labels for large scale promotion and distribution. Bands can and do make good money while touring but unfortunately touring can also be very expensive at times and that's one of the areas where the label comes in to help. Anyway, I could go on for a long time about what's really up with all this crap and what certain labels do and don't do, but I'll get back to the point. Record labels wanting a piece of the road action is good. It's good because they're going to get into a heap of shit if they do. The reason I say that is because it won't give the musicians anywhere else to run (the road revenues) and then they'll be forced into understanding more clearly what they need to learn on the business side of things. This, I think, will ultimately be good for both sides. Well, maybe... There's also the issue of that advance. Cutting into the road revenues could also drive musicians into being nothing more than contractors which is already a pretty close call. Gosh, there's so much to this but it looks like we're about to find out.
Not to sound like a total conservative republican bastard....but hell....they know the rules of the game up front. Can we please stop crying for these musicians that get to live the life that most of us only dream of. Kinda' reminds me of teachers. They go into the profession with the full understanding that the pay sucks...but it doesn't seem to matter to them at first because they want to "make a difference". Several years later...all they do is bitch about the money!! Hell, you knew this up front when you accepted the job.
I'll probably get modded as a troll...but what the hell. If you don't like the system....don't sign on to it. If you can't make it without the system....find a different profession.
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
"The concert business has never been bigger, in dissonant contrast to the recorded-music business. While music sales have dropped for three years in a row, from $13 billion to $11.5 billion in 2002, hurt by Napster-style digital piracy and a lackluster flow of hot new acts, the tour business has climbed for four years straight, from $1.3 billion in 1998 to $2.1 billion last year."
/.ers claim, and not because of Kazaa, etc., then why have concert revenues been increasing over the last few years? The answer, cd sales are not down because of the bad economy, because then we'd see at least some correlation between concert sales and cd sales trends.
So, if cd sales are dropping because of the bad economy, as
Vote for Pedro
As many a Slashdotter has pointed out, musicians make their money not from selling records but from going on tour.
Correction: As many a misinformed, incorrect Slashdotter etc., etc...
Writing royalties are where artists make the big bucks.
The idea that concerts and touring are the big money-makers is quoted fairly frequently, although it is the fantasy/excuse created and embraced by those who want, want WANT to believe that downloading free music has no ill effect on artists or performers.
Yes, this is a bit of a digression, but let's keep the facts straight.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Don't tell me you Forgot About Dre... and the rest of NWA who originally created the song.
END OF LINE
is this so outrageous?
I don't get it all. Somebody signed a stupid contract, so what? And who cares about "artists" anyway?
If it were musicians then maybe I could share you outrage.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Let's see, TicketBastard (TM) is already adding their 100% service charge (sorry, "convenience fee") onto ticket prices. Mebbe the record companies can double the ticket prices once more!
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
since online music distribution became a reality, we slashdotters have been saying that the labels are dinosaurs and need to come up with a new business model. that using hinky laws to try and fix a technological "problem" is wrong, and they should come up with something new. well, here it is. we just may have what we wished for. OTOH, as long as wannabe pop stars are as common as stray dogs and cats, they will get paid what dogs and cats cost at the pound -- free if you give 'em their shots.
I can't believe HE of all people (wasn't he the guy who did that video where that one guy tore off his skin and threw his muscles out to the crowd?) would sell out to EMI == Capitol. :E Oh well, one more company (EMI/Capitol) to boycott...
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
I don't think it's wholly inappropriate. I know we're paying more for concerts than we probably should, but the one has nothing to do with the other.
(Artists work their ass off to create new music, and get left only a few scraps on the initial sales. They don't retain copyrights, they don't get paid a substantial royalty, they don't see direct income from other artists who sample, they don't see direct income when Muzak destroys their rockin' ballad. The artist says goodbye to the wife for a few months of hauling their equipment from Fuckbum Indiana to Bumfuck Illinois to do a gig at Beerapalooza, which is a promotion in and of itself to entice the fans into donating to BorgUniversalSonyWarnerBMI. I think the artist and crew should get all the cash the ticket sales raise.)
[
Soon labels won't sign an artist until they are guarenteed a cut of the tour proceeds, merchandice, etc... stuff that the artists usually took home all the profits on. I guess they figured out that they can't make all that much money by suing college students.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
...that the large record labels still exist in this day and age. They spend too much of their profits promoting existing crap, and not enough on searching for and promoting new talent. So now they are digging into performers' tour proceeds to make up for their reduced profits due to their poor strategy.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
That money rightfully belongs to TicketMaster.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
The RIAA lobby seems to hold an unorthodox amount of power in the US.
They recognize the evolution [of the industry] and are scrambling to save what's left of an otherwise outdated business model.
Error encountered in IAWebSig.clsSig.Create: Last Procedure: sPrc_Ins_tblSig
At some point they are going to piss off all the consumers, who will stop buying anything.
They will also piss off all the musicians who will no longer join the *AA in the first place.
This is just one more step towards that 'apparent' goal.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Think about it, Robbie Williams is raking in the cash here on everything to touring, merchandising etc. I can understand the record company wanting a chunk of the merchandising revenue particularly because I believe they basically "own" the Robbie Williams trademark - However this is not an example of companies wanting tour revenue.
Lots of slashdotters here, the ones who don't know what they are talking about and clearly have never strayed past POPular music think this is fine, because they see Eminem and Dr Dre ($50 Million US this year!) and guys/girls like this living it up. What they don't understand is that the bands that have popular followings but are not on MTV perpetually through the day are the ones that are going to cop the worst part of this. Most of these types of bands have far better music aswell.. Irony eh.
In summary I don't know that this article is really suggesting the right thing, Robbie Williams is probably an exceptional case here. It really would be the finally kick in the teeth if they did this to starving artists.
Labels by the Genius - anti-record company rant that manages to name just about every major label in existence at the time (early 90s I think).
I just saw Pearl Jam last week in Wash. DC. Each concert is being released on CD, while this is a good way to remember the show (especially after all that beer @ $6 a cup), I wonder how much the record company had to do with this idea. I really hope all the extra money PJ is making is going to good causes.
Ten years ago, Metallica's original contract with Elektra (signed in 1984), expired and there was a lot of competition from every label in the business to sign them to a new contract (after all, their untitled 1991 album was well on its way to being one of the bestselling albums of all time, and its predecessors were storming off store shelves). Metallica and Elektra reached an agreement that basically made Metallica completely independent of the RIAA. The arrangement that was reached was the creation of a corporation E/M Ventures, with the four members of the band, their management (Q Prime), Elektra being the sole shareholders (IIRC, the breakdown was something like 22% Lars Ulrich, 22% James Hetfield, 16% Kirk Hammett, 10% Jason Newsted, 15% Q Prime, and 15% Elektra). Elektra transferred the copyrights on all the catalog recordings (1983-1991) to E/M as their investment, along with a record deal that would pay E/M Ventures royalties equal to 50% of the wholesale price (in other words about $4 to %5 per album, or $7 to $8 per double album), with no deductions for anything (all record production and promotion expenses would be handled by E/M). This deal only expires when a simple majority of the voting shares decides to terminate it and buy back Elektra's share.
Elektra basically makes little to no money (apart from their share of E/M's profits) on the sale of a Metallica CD... all costs related to manufacturing and distribution are eaten by them. However, they're making this money with little risk; Metallica can put out basically anything and it will go platinum, simply on the strength of a rabid fan-base (much like Rush's, but probably at least twice the size).
E/M owns all aspects of Metallica's business interests. The tours are done by E/M (or subsidiaries thereof). The merchandising revenues are to E/M. Thus, Elektra gets a cut of all those revenue streams, which are actually even bigger than the recording streams. Elektra also gets a cut of international record sales by Vivendi and Sony. Metallica gets out of this what effectively amounts to total independence from the system. Even if Elektra doesn't want to release something, they're obligated to manufacture and distribute it, otherwise they forfeit their share (for no compensation, through breach of contract).
The artists already give a cut to someone, and it's called the promoter. Currently, the big boy in the business is Clear Channel. http://cc.com/
Currently, the way it works is that you have to schedule tours through Clear Channel for the most part. There are some local organizations who will properly get promotion and venue arrangements in place, but even then they have to usually give a cut to Clear Channel for the rights to promote someone. Anyone who's worked in a campus concert promtion board knows that you mostly have to pay off Clear Channel before an artist will schedule a date on their tour in your city. For big artists Clear Channel may get $100k up front, smaller ones maybe as little as a few thousand, but they get paid before a single ticket is sold. The venue then takes their cut of the gate, extracts the costs from the leftover and then gives the rest to the artist, and in some cases a cut of that goes to Clear Channel again, depending on how it was negotiated. Merchandise is usually only split with the venue, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some of it go to Clear Channel also.
There used to be a rate card published for clear channel's upfront fees for an artist, but I can't find it anymore and it may not have been a public site. It is very interesting to see how much it would cost a venue promoter to book an artist, as some of them make quite a lot of money just for showing up.
If anything, I'd see Clear Channel getting pissed before the artists, because at the very least this would give artists an option of who to let them promote their tour in the future. Clear Channel or their record label directly, either way the artist is going to drop at least %20 of whatever the gate is, so you can deal with the devil you know, or....
Just because "many a Slashdotter" has pointed something out doesn't make that statement true.
Most musicians make more from CDs that sell enough to get past the break-even point (i.e., after the label has recouped its expenses) than they do from touring. (Note: I said "most" so put your Phish back in your trousers please.)
Touring expenses are enormous. Living in hotels 200 days out of the year? Not cheap, and you still have morgage/rent payments to make on your primary residence. The venue owners take a massive cut of the gate, and a large part of that goes to their expenses (insurance, union labor, security, etc.).
Touring for the large majority of acts is a break-even proposition at best. The exceptions are the Grateful Dead-like acts that can count on people who are willing to see a dozen of their shows every year and those "top-tier" arena acts (U2, Springsteen, Stones, et. al.) who can charge between $75 and $300 for a single seat. And those dinosaurs still make more from a CD (since they have name recognition and the label's not afraid of spending $1M to promote a low-risk release).
For the rest of the acts on tour, live shows are a means of promoting an album, thus a modest loss is an acceptable cost of doing business. No CD, no tour, unless they can take advantage of the economy of scale afforded by a multi-act tour (like Lollapalooza).
Touring is an extremely inefficient way of reaching listeners. Four to six weeks in the studio can produce a recording that millions will buy (and millions more will hear on the radio). To reach a million concert-goers, a band would have to play 50 nights of sold-out hockey rinks (20,000 seats), which with travel time and days off approaches three months on the road.
As for revenue streams, retail sales aren't the only source of income from a recording. There are royalties from airplay (heard any live cuts on the radio lately?), and from soundtrack and commercial uses. I wonder if you asked "any Slashdotter" what a transcription royalty was or the origin of mechanical royalties whether you'd get a correct (or even coherent) answer.
Finally, here's a quite from Robbie Robertson, late of the band The Band about touring:
Of course, I don't see what goes on here making a damn bit of difference with respect to the Byzantine construct known as the music industry. Any Slashdotter could tell you that much.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Most people don't care much about or very much like music qua music, so they don't seek it out, they let it come to them.
And almost all that comes to them is what the companies who control the channels of delivery--basically, AOL and Viacom--decide to send down.
From those pre-chosen choices, they narrow it down a little based on their actual and desired demographic niches, the kind of people they think they are or wish they could be.
They "identify with" some performers and not others, based on the manner of their marketing, and buy accordingly.
The rich, pretty Harvard girl whose favorite artists are Bartok, Rakim, and Slayer, and the young, urban black teenager who loves Devo, Fennesz, and the Deftones--those kinds of "off-demo" individuals are not viable marketing targets, so, they have been mostly engineered and/or ignored out of existence.
One can guess with about 80% accuracy what records people own by what brand of pants they wear, the remaking of music as "lifestyle badge" (and concurrent brainwashing) having been so successful. Even--or, especially--among "independent" splinter groups.
It's fucking sad.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
wankers!
I have a very small mind and must live with it.
-- E. Dijkstra
As for a non-fictional band, read what Coco the Electric Monkey Wizard and The Brannock Device of Man or Astroman? has to say about playing Irving Plaza.
As for writing royalties, this explains Mechical Royalties and the Harry Fox Agency.
Here is an article that mentions mechanicals and P2P by Dave Lowery of Camper Van Beethoven, and Cracker
Most do not make their money on the road. "Most" musicians today don't even tour, if they did we would need to build thousands more auditoriums to accomodate them. Artists like Enya don't tour, even Modonna didn't tour for like 10 years (someone correct me on this). They make most of their money in album sales because it takes many many more people to set up a concert than it does to make an album. The costs are insane.
Now with that out of the way. If labels want money out of the concerts then they need to put more into them. They need to pony up the initial money for the artists and handle the management issues. This would eleviate costs for the artists on hiring tour managers and possibly even stage crew. Then there is something in it for all involved. If however they are just sticking their noses in and trying to drain the river dry we should all make it clear to them that sales will suffer as a result.
As it is, I haven't seen a live show in ten years. I refuse to pay the ridiculous costs they now charge. Besides that I can't honestly think of any bands I want to see live. Why spend a ton of money to stand in an auditorium listening to music you already own surrounded by strangers who sweat all over you while dodging the random sporadic fights that break out all over the place. I don't see the appeal but obviously some people do.
There are so many subset labels that the competition among producers is killing the big dollar part of the industry.
So if a producer wants more money for the label that is putting the bill for the band, then it is symptomatic of the certain Rock crash that is upon an overbloated industry.
People like ticket monster, studios, roadies, etc, all need a cut. If the producer is looking for more cash for a label it is because the costs have gotten out of hand. The crash of the Rock/Shlock/Pop industry will make the dot com fiasco look like a thunderstorm at a church picnic.
The time of independants is finally here. It will be a music revolution to rival recording in the first place. Musicians that can actually play and sing will start to take back what has been stolen from them by the industry, their creativity!
There is nothing more pathetic than a band that can only keep rehashing the old songs. Very few have the talent and drive to rise above the critics and create new ideas after they have been through the Pop Industry mill.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
...and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!
No seriously, I did help create a contract management system for EMI in the early 90's. Biggest piece of shit I ever worked on. No access to the subject matter experts (people who know what it should do), but plenty of "interpretation" from middle management types.
It was made clear to us that the only purpose of record label contracts was to fuck the talent and maximize label profits. Advances on publicity costs for tours to promote the album, holdbacks on royalties until the label had turned a profit, "equalization" so that profits from one album were siphoned off to pay "expenses" incurred for others.
On the other hand, there were stories about how the artists would occasionally score a victory. I think it was Dean Martin, beholden to his label for seven more albums, who showed up, dropped seven albums worth of shit tracks on the desk, and said "Ciao!"
And Christ, don't get me started about the VP who would grab us at the end of the workday and shanghai us to Flash Dancers (Manhattan tittie bar) to force us to charge hundreds on our credit cards which we billed as meal expenses.
Yuck, it's not just the talent who feel like we swam a river of shit for the music industry.
No one tell the RIAA but the real money is in scalping tickets for insane prices on Ebay. There are people making a good amount of money by buying tickets as early as possible on web and turning around to get a premium after tickets are sold out.
I should know I just bought 2 tickets to see a Radiohead concert for $200 bucks on Ebay.
Where the Music Matters
It might be because the music sucks. It might be because the economy sucks. Many companies would love to have the slightly reduced profits that the RIAA is "suffering" right now.
Or it could be that the product/service that the RIAA has been performing for the last 50 or 60 years is now completely obsolete.
I tend to believe it's the latter. And I believe they realize that and that's why they're looking for this revenue stream. They'll essentially want some percentage of the tour so that the artists get radio play. This will work for the RIAA until the radio industry gets into the same business and cuts RIAA out as an intermediary.
Any way you cut it, the RIAA is obsolete and will be history within 5-10 years, easily. But don't expect it go down without a fight.
Did you read my paper? During the time that record sales have declined CD prices have gone up and the number of new releases have gone down. There are references to these statistics in the bibliography (some of which are off the RIAA's website).
Visualize the world of wine
And if the artists decide to buy into it, they have only themselves to blame when they find themselves penniless after receiving all that cash up front, and after years of hard work.
Honestly, why is all the blame put squarely on the RIAA? Yes, they are the voice of the music industry zaibatsu, but that doesn't mean they are the only way to get rich, famous or discovered. They're just the easiest way -- that is to say, they offer instant gratification and low long-term rewards. If artists aren't willing to take a chance and do it for themselves, they deserve to get screwed.
Fine, don't read it, remain ignorant. You are just trolling, you have no argument you merely say I am wrong and leave it at that. I would like to see a well written paper/book argueing FOR the current copyright system, with sources and statistics.
Visualize the world of wine
Artist never made any real money from CD Sales. The majority of their money always came from touring. Phish for example sold bootleged copies of their music at concerts, and didn't have a problem of people copying their music. Every Phish fan knew if you wanted to support your artist, you visited him when artist(s) toured. The RIAA has controlled the distribution channel of music for too long. If P2P was allowed to "share" music, the only people losing money would be the labels, not the artists, as long as the artists toured.
Fuck them
C|N>K
are you on?
This isn't a step in the right direction. They aren't changing their business model.
You said it yourself, they are not changing any pre-existing practices, like high CD prices, overcharging artists, suing college students for hundreds of millions of dollars, etcetera.
This is stupider than ignoring Iraq cause Bush is giving 15 billion bucks to corrupt African nations to fight AIDS.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Recorded music, at close to $20.00 a CD is overpriced. Live music performances are underpriced. If they weren't, there wouldn't be any scalpers. Scalpers thrive because bands refuse to charge the price that the market will bear. Scalpers step in, buy tickets at what are essentially discount prices, then resell them at the market price (the price that clears the market.)
The acts leave money on the table (or, more accurately, in the pockets of scalpers) because they don't want to be seen as greedy. Fans still pay the high market prices; the acts just transfer the negative press and a large portion of their revenues to the scalpers.
(Of course, this is true only for those acts who have built up a following and who can therefore command premium prices for their live appearances. Those acts that haven't yet achieved that level of success still make a living, just not at "rock star" income levels. Building up a fan base through word of mouth and the judicious distribution of songs on their websites and through file sharing networks will bring a lucky few up to that level.)
So what should be done? First, tickets should be sold by some kind of Dutch auction system so that the artists, not scalpers, will receive the highest price the market will bear. If they fear a backlash, or they simply don't care to receive all of the possible revenue, they can donate a portion of revenues to charities they choose, or perhaps even let fans designate which charities will benefit.
This scheme would generate enough additional revenue that artists could cut in their recording companies for a piece of the live performance revenue pie. This revenue would partially reimburse the record companies for the effects of file sharing, and also possibly permit lower prices for recorded music. In effect, it would turn recorded music into a loss leader to promote live performances, which is not only where the real money is now, but where it will increasingly be.
Everyone into file sharing says the old business models don't work anymore. They are correct. So with what do we replace them? The mechanism I've described here is one alternative.
Insert witty sig here.
I don't understand it. It's not like record labels offer some sort of super-privileged service. They make CDs, advertise, and in many cases pay for the recording studio and equipment. Why do they think they get to "own" the artists?? Seriously, once a band gets a little money, they can do all of these things for themselves. Many bands, such has Big Head Todd and the Monsters have been very successful without a major label. The labels really do not offer an exclusive service, just basically an absurdly poor loan to desperate bands.
Any band that is being offered a contract from a record label should know that they are good enough to make it in the business, and thus they should know that THEY have the power. Most studio recordings are over done. Some of the most popular songs on radio were done with in very low-budget studio. (Such as most of John Mellencamp's early songs, Phish's first album, etc.)
The only real thing in the way of most artists is getting radio to play their songs. If we could stop payola and give people more power the voice what they like and don't like, instead of letting the record companies tell the radio stations for us, then they would lose whatever real power they think they have.
First of all there are many ways an artist you see and hear and love or hate got thier shot at fame. Many who approach the labels independently dont stand much of a chance unless they know people, most of the time thier press kit goes straight to the trash. If you are lucky and they listen to your demo they may just try to buy or steal the song if they dont think your image is easily marketable. And even rarer they call you to talk about what your looking for. Theres the P&D which many labels try to avoid unless your a known cash cow switching labels or they got the CD for a steal. P&D-Publication & Distrobution they from the money for pressing alot of CD's with a bit of marketing money sometimes. They dont do alot of these unless they know theyre gonna make a good investment, independent labels really tore into the big labels action by granting alot more P&D's because if you dont make doe the artist will rarely get another shot at it and will have to pay his own way unless they make a turn around. Now what the labels really like and if you approached them by yourself and they want you be prepared to make a deal with the devil. "The Full Ride" is what the average joe from nebraska thinks being a rock star is about. The record label is shoving that contract down your throat and your surrounded by execs and your soon to be producer and manager that you only dreamed of seeing in person let alone them shakin your hand every 30 seconds, calling you "Bro" with the slick pressure of the god of car salesman. They promise you limos, cars, women, whatever makes your eyes sparkle they zone in on it and get you to sign that contract as fast as they can with you reading as little of it as they can. When you lay the ink down the bells should toll, the room gets silent a moment, they shake your hand and say congratulations your gonna be famous. Then you get setup with a manager and producer who are gonna get you started and setup your image, your schedule, and all the other details you promised then on legal ink youd obey. Ok time to record, the producer and manager have prepared protecting your songs through the services of your lawyer which you pay for. And the producer wants to use the labels nice state of the art studio, which you pay for at a insane hourly rate sometimes. By this time you have taken more than a few rides in your limo, which you pay for. You havent made any money yet all this glamour is fronted to you and anything they want you will get buy you pay for it eventually. You pay the producer for a few tens of thousands of dollars per album the manager gets an anual cut and so on... Now this is the darker side of this and "The Full Ride" isnt always bad if the wouldbe artist is smart and watches his back. If he's good enough and is smart enough to have his own lawyer before going to the table and not relying on the labels "I know just the guy" thing. Ill give you an example, Vanilla Ice, not a bad kid, im not a fan, but he got a raw deal. He was 0wned, they told him what to wear, where he would be seen in public, what and when he would do most of the time. Now the big labels have cleaned up quite a bit since they are losing ground to alot of indie labels. The industrious artist who wants to cut a deal with the big boys and come out alive will get a lawyer they can trust , Then they use said entertainment lawyer to cut a fair deal with a good talent managment agency. The agency has the contacts to get your project hears by the right labels and producers. Then you have a good shot at securing P&D's with some studio money and leave the marketing to the managment agency. All these guys know eachother and you cant BS any of them because the word gets around fast. There are good and fair managers, lawyers, and producers out there. Many of them are wise enough to see the future where yes an artist can with time, money and luck make his own way enough to get picked up by a label at a fair deal. Example Cherry Poppin Daddies they tried for years to get signed and got turned down, so they did it themselves, m
If the number of CDs remains constant with fewer sales opportunities, the price of the CDs would need to fall in order for the market to clear. This is more like a right shift in the supply curve rather than a movement along the curve. I'm tired, so forgive me if I'm wrong here.
Considering the supply curve starts at ~$20 for a new release, there's a lot of area under the curve where people won't value the product enough to make the purchase at the ~$20 price. What I don't understand is why this market isn't targeted, unless the curve is such that a much lower price wouldn't attact that many more buyers.
I guess once you structure your company to operate in an increasing returns environment, it's hard to get back to the real world.
If the music isn't as good, why are people going to the concerts?
..for a college level paper, you should receive a C at most.
Anyway, to the flaws:
1. None of your quotes are cited properly (if at all). A rigorous marker (like myself) would return the paper at this point with a note along the lines of "Don't pull this stuff from your ass, show me where" though I'd probably phrase it more politely than that on the actual paper.
2. You haven't actually disproved the notion that file-sharing is the cause of lowered sales. You've provided a number of alternative explanations, all quite reasonable, but shown no evidence that any of your alternatives have any greater correlation to the sales drop than the record industries assertion of file-sharing.
3. You give no proof of the assertion that "the current downward trend in record sales would have to continue for 10 years for a loss of 4 billion dollars to occur." Nowhere in the paper have you stated a dollar amount of what the record industry actually lost. The only amount is the 4 billion they state which you dispute on the basis that you, personally, could not find corroborative evidence, in your vast research which encompassed.. let's see here.. eight citations all from the web. Bibliophobe, perhaps? Still, this is an English paper, so maybe we can let that slide.
4. Your blanket assertion that the DMCA is unconstitutional is on shaky grounds at best. If Lessig's argument that retroactive extensions applied directly to copyright are unconstitutional was not accepted, how will a law that says nothing about copyright terms at all likely be seen? If anything, this is more open, because there is nothing in the law that says companies cannot release some sort of "master key" that works once copyright is expired - and until they fail to do this once the copyright is expired, we can't say that the DMCA has prevented "limited times" from being expressed.
5. Again, you assert something about the record industry (namely the terms of their contracts) without providing any type of citation as to where exactly you drew the material from.
6. Don't piss around with numbers. If you're going to try and use numbers to back up your argument, you better be comparing apples to apples. So comparing a record contract that has various costs applied to it to a bar gig without also noting the various hidden costs there (transportation, accomodation, road-managers, merchandise costs, etc) is not exactly fair. Now, I'll readily admit that bands probably do make more, but by missing the details, you haven't shown it.
That's some of the basic flaws with specifics.
Looking at the whole thesis, the question immediately arises: What is the unjust law you are drawing attention to by your actions? Which law, specifically, does your downloading music protest? Have you informed those who might punish you for breaking the law that you are doing so, because if you haven't, it strikes that you are not willing to go by the words of MLK and accept the punishment. In fact, MLK was quite specific about that, it's not the act of breaking the law that's the protest, it's suffering the enforcement of it to draw attention to the injustice of the law.
Until you do that, you're not some moral crusader, so stop pretending. Leave the moral crusades for those, like MLK Jr, who had the guts to go through with it.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
With a friendly voice
A companion, unobtrusive
Plays that song that's so elusive
And the magic music makes your morning mood
Off on your way
Hit the open road
There is magic at your fingers
For the Spirit ever lingers
Undemanding contact
In your happy solitude
Invisible airwaves
Crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle
With the energy
Emotional feedback
On a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price ---
Almost free...
All this machinery
Making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted
It's really just a question
Of your honesty
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity
"For the words of the profits
Are written on the studio wall,
Concert hall ---
Echoes with the sounds...
Of salesmen."
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
And oh yeah, Clear Channel now most likely owns multiple radio stations in the market. Starting to see how this works? Ready to hit the road with your bandmates and 20 songs? Didn't think so.
Clear Channel's stated business model is straightforward. They sell advertising. They play whatever generates the most advertising revenue. They also own performance venues ("Play our arena or you don't get on the radio"), billboards and TV stations, so they're promoters too. Eventually, they may decide to bring content-generation in-house. If you own most of the radio stations, taking on the music industry is a viable option. Especially when, under current US law, radio stations can play records without paying royalties.
Clear Channel may be crap, but their management isn't stupid. Music-industry top management is generally acknowledged to be dumb.
Think what would happen to, say, EMI, if Clear Channel simply didn't play any of their new output for six months.
How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today?
that's cool, now it's THEM stealing from the artists. hypocrites.
Right, so nobody buys tour tickets as a result of all of the album promotion? All those TRL appearances, the times the record-company financed music video plays on MTV? rotations on radio station "purchased" time? Tour ticket sales ahve nothing to do with any of that, right?
Britteny Spears would not be able to sell out the venues she does without the promotion from the record company, period, as no one would know who she was in the first place.
paintball
Is this as bad a deal as it appears? Notice that the guy voluntarily signed - in order for him todo that, they had to offer something that he felt was worth signing. Maybe promotional things, perhaps transportation costs, etc.
Hi there, Bob, it's me, Chuck, you know, your RIAA rep? Well, Bob, We at the RIAA would like to offere you a draconian contract to suck a little more blood from the wound, if you know what I mean... How's that sound?
No?
Oh, Bob, I'm sorry to hear that, we'll, I guess we'll just have to go without. Oh yeah, before I forget, there is just one little thing...
Remember that whole "five album deal" we made with you when you signed. Yeah, that one. Yeah, remember how in the fine print, it says you can't work with any other recording company until those deals are done? And remember that clause about how an album can't be released without our approval?
Well, you see Bob, it seems that you've only released three albums so far, so you still owe us two more. Now, the way I see it buddy, You're going to need our approval to get those last two out. Now, I can't speak for the rest of the group, but I like you a lot. However, there are a few of us who are saying.. well, saying that they don't think you've got what it takes to get your last two albums approved.
Yeah? Yeah, that's true, you COULD practice more, but Bob, the thing is, they think you just aren't a team player... I don't think they'd feel you deserve approval even if you were really good. Unless you could show us some of that RIAA team spirit...
Yes, Bob? Oh, no, Bob, without those last two albums, you can't work for ANY label, even your for youself. Nope, can't sing another lyric, legally at least. Ah, we'll I wouldn't advise singing Happy Birthday to your grandmother, see that would be a public performance, and all....
Oh, what's that you say? That draconian contract sounds fine to you after all? Oh, excellent! Oh wait a second, I think the RIAA percentages I quoted you before were off by, say, 20% (darn blurry faxes), but I'll have the revised copy sent to your trailer. Oh, I'm sorry, Bob, the line must be going bad, I could have sworn I heard cursing on the other line... It would be a shame if we had to.. oh, you didn't hear anything you say? Ah, so you agree? Right. 25%. Oh you heard 20%? Ah, that pesky line noise must have interfered... Or did I say 30%? That's a good boy, Bob. Yes you can come over later this afternoon and lick my car clean for me, that would be super.
ciao!
Start listening to new-music ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
This doesn't surprise me. Mainly because labels, distribution and media conglamorates are so concentrated and dominant now that they can claim they are primarily responsible for the demand for an artist and therefor justify getting a piece of everything, including the traditional performance royalties (otherwise known as blood, sweat and tears). Unfortunately they are right.
A good example are the concerts that Clear Channel stations put on in their markets, often wildly superior to comparable tours or shows. CC can ask almost any band (and name their own price if one at all), even one not on tour to play a festival for one of their stations and most commercial artists know turning them down is the kiss of death. It's one thing to turn down a show in one market. It's another thing to turn down a CC station and piss off a company that controls 60-80% of the major radio stations nationwide.
And things have only gotten worse with the recent relaxation of media ownership restrictions.
We should not be surprised. The only alternative artists have left at this point is the Internet.
At this point, most of what you see/hear in the major media is formulaic and bland anyway. What I think is interesting is that P2P networks in my opinion are more threatening to the music industry not because of copyright/piracy issues but because they can introduce the public to non-corporate music that doesn't suck.
>> ...EMI Recorded Music signed a deal with Brit singer Robbie Williams...
You could just as easily say: "Brit singer Robin Williams signed a deal with EMI Recorded Music..."
There are at least two parties to every contract. No one is compelled to sign.
Many stories exist of naive and unwise musicians signing contracts that take advantage of them. That's too bad. People ought not to take advantage of the naivete of others. But, alas, we do. I have some sympathy for the uninitiated who get ripped off, but no sympathy at all for established musicians who have lost their naivete.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
They've been illegally deprived of the money from the second sale.
Sorry, wrong. You are make a huge assumption here, which is that there would have been a second sale. I stopped buying CDs almost as soon as I started (well before mp3 availability). Why? Most had only one or two songs I liked, and they were way too expensive to justify the modest amount of music listening I do. In addition, I found that I tired of pop songs very quickly, so it didn't make sense to buy if I wouldn't be listening to it at all in a year. So I stuck to listening to the radio, or not listening to music at all, except for the occasional very good CD, which I bought.
Now, I have a reasonably-sized mp3 collection, including many songs which I occasionally enjoy listening to, but would *never* have purchased. My buying patterns have not changed at all -- I still buy CDs that I genuinely like; I don't just find the whole album in mp3 format.
Yes, it's possible, even likely, that widespread availability of free mp3s can have some of the effect that you describe. But if you think every copied song is a lost sale, you have swallowed far too much of the RIAA's propaganda.
I never said that. I said record companies promote albums not artists. Artists like all celebrities benefit from publicity planned or unplanned.
All those TRL appearances, the times the record-company financed music video plays on MTV? rotations on radio station "purchased" time? Tour ticket sales ahve nothing to do with any of that, right?
All that promotion is only so that people will buy more albums. Some artists do not tour until a few albums into their career so they don't get the full benefit of album promotion. Some artists never tour after putting out an album and thus never see any benefit. All those MTV video, TRL, radio time, TV appearances, have you ever noticed that at the end of an appearance, the host always says "Go buy the album XYZ from ABC Records, and tour dates are . . . " Now, they always mention the album no matter what. They never just mention only the tour dates.
Do tours and albums help each other with promotion? Yes. But that is not the record company's real goal. Record companies are more than compensated for any cross promotion of a tour with how much they get from album sales. If they do help promote the tour, they always get a generous cut. That's why many artists today do not go through their record companies for tour promotion. They often do it themselves, use a concert promoter, get a sponsor (Pepsi in the case of Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, etc), or a combination.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I think Robbie is more than happy to give EMI a slice of the revenues...
- 4r0g
This could turn out to be a battle royale between really big corporations. I know that Clear Channel does alot of concert work as well. Since they own a bazillion radio stations and do the work at many venues, I wonder if they are eyeing a similar cross-over into the recording biz? They are in a similar situation to the recording companies: they have alot of cash and want more of it....
Looking at this nonsense from outside, all the things others on this thread are saying about artists makes them look like gormless, witless, even masochistic sheep, unable to see beyond the ends of their noses and to understand cause and effect. It's hard to believe. In fact I don't believe it, these are intelligent, creative people for the most part, if one disregards "manufactured" pop bands.
Why they're doing what they're doing and continuing to sign up with labels at all is completely incomprehensible to me. I'm totally at a loss here. I just cannot believe that the insignificantly tiny possibility that they will make it huge can distort judgement that badly. Not really. There must be some other factor.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
"When you copt that CD from your friend you are not stealing from your friend. However, you are destroying the opportunity of the record company to sell you a copy. That is a real cost that is now lost. You have shrunk the market."
There is a massive difference between this and inflation. Inflation is concrete, you print more money, inflation is a 100% guaranteed result. This is not at all similar to a theoretical loss of profit that may or may not have EVER been obtained. Yes you reduce the "market" but a "market" consists of potential customers who might potentially purchase a product... again nothing concrete, if I copy a cd the only one who knows if it cost the record company anything is me since I'm the only one who knows whether or not I would have purchased the cd otherwise, if my answer is no, then they haven't lost anything in reality.
When record companies are losing money, why don't they act like 99.99% of corporate America: layoffs, trimming budgets, and boost revenue. If the current executives are unwilling, then its time shareholders and music buyers tell them otherwise.
They claim it costs $500,000 to make a new "hit" record (was in an AP story in the newspaper I read a few weeks ago). Some of the 500k included: bar and catering for the artists (others, I'm sure are helping themselves), lawyer fees, 500 hours in the studio @ $200/HR, and a lot of miscelaneous! I'm sure that the air they breathe while recording in the studio is also on the bill.
Spending that much making a record in the first place is foolish. Cut back. Same for paying radio stations to play songs. If a song is catchy, IMO, they'll have to play it for viewing.
Cut back on the spending already! Leave the cash for the artists who are *actually* doing the work.
Recently on CNN, they discussed how the 'older' bands, i.e. Fleetwood Mac, Bruce Springsteen, REM, etc. are far out-selling newer 'popular' bands for concert ticket sales. The music lackey who was interviewed said that it was due to 'creative pairings' and 'an established library of music'. They never mentioned that new music mostly sounds like the same crap.
It occurs to me that this is the true root of filesharing and the loss of $$ to the labels lately. It would never occur to them that CD sales are down because the new music stinks. I wonder what percentage of downloaded music is the 'older' stuff compared with the 'popular' tripe they try to force down our throats. My guess is that there are far more Rolling Stones downloads than Brittany.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
EMI just announced that they and other record companies want to get paid every time anybody in the world hears any musical sound anywhere. Said RIAA spokeswoman Hilary Rosen, "Record companies invented music. Without us making the deals, you wouldn't hear a thing. It's always been about us. Hearing any sound whatsoever without paying a record company is theft of physics."
... a record company would still want to get paid for it.
Tipjars violate the "exclusive distribution" part. It would be pretty easy to show that "tipjars" are designed, form the start, to provide recompense to artists for otherwise illegal MP3 downloads, which means that "tipjar" is violating the record company's exclusive license to US (and, likely, euro) distribution.
I grew up around Detroit. I have had many friends from that area who were in bands and who have supported themselves for years - some of them decades - by "touring." No albums to hype, no record labels to hold them up, and no names I expect you would recognize if you were not from the area and the time.
Contrary to the hype, Liz Phair was NOT the first "independant artist" to be able to buy her own bus; there is plenty of money to be made if you are both smart and talented - and not just talented at keeping money, but talented as in keeping an audience coming back for more every time you come to town.
The music companies has as an important a role in the future of music sales as mainframe computer companies have in computer sales.
And guess what, the market has spoken on the matter of mainframe computer companies and they no longer exist.
Its just a matter of time until the music companies of the 50s, 60s, and 70s disappear.
What's missing is a Dell to take music sales to a new level. A company that focuses entirely on distribution and marketing its internet address, and leaving all the product marketing to the artists (like Dell does with Intel and Windows) and focusing on low prices, quick delivery, and high volume.
You have bought the RIAA line that every copied CD is a lost sale. Personally, I rarely buy CDs. Most of what's new these days is shit.
I bought the Evanescence album at the weekend, the first CD I've bought in about six months. I bought it because I got a copy from a friend and I liked enough of the tracks (actually I like the whole album) that I could justify spending the money on it. If I hadn't liked it, the copy wasn't depriving anyone of anything since I wouldn't have bought the album otherwise.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly