RIAA and Net Radio Broadcasters Reach Agreement

An anonymous reader writes "The RIAA and internet web broadcasters have reached a royalty agreement. Instead of facing massive increases per song played, they will be generally charged 10.5% of their yearly revenue."

Comments

This is unheard of, but...

[dada21]

...it's also a sign that the RIAA knows it is outdated and is only grasping at the few straws remaining.

If you're thinking of starting a business venture, there are two words for you: supply and demand.

No amount of laws or regulations can overcome supply and demand in the long run. The RIAA relied on preferential laws and regulations to maintain their control over distribution. Recorded music has a near-infinite supply in terms of distribution online. Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero (yes, some people who see value in compensating the artist will never believe the price should be zero).

The RIAA is screwed, no matter how you look at it. Most monopolistic corporation unions who rely on legislation and not on supply and demand are just as screwed.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[WTF Chuck]

100% of nothing is nothing. If you are going to charge your distributors more for your "product" than your they will make selling that "product", then you get the full 100% of nothing. On the other hand, if you see that they will walk away and find some other line of work if you insist on the full 100%, then you know it's time to come to somewhat more reasonable prices.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Ihmhi]

Very true.

The future will be "Songs are our promotion, and concerts are where the real money's at."

For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments. If you want to do it on the cheap, well... that's why recording studios exist. How often do you hear about recording studios going bankrupt and having an unsuccessful business model? They don't.

The RIAA is the middleman that can be cut out far too easily. All they have going for them is their marketing power, and as they lose money that will be waning as well. Artists will form coalitions, collaborations, etc. and pool their resources to get the word out - like a record label, but less concerned with selling plastic discs and more concerned about advertising.

Either the RIAA is going to reinvent itself into a successful business or it's going to collapse under its own weight. Either way, it will be interesting and the artists will survive.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The RIAA is screwed, no matter how you look at it.

As long as they can buy laws, copyright regulations, and even international treaties, they're doing just fine. Sooner or later, their influence will probably wane, but don't hold your breath waiting. They've got a lot of life left in them, sad to say.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[akirapill]

For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments. If you want to do it on the cheap, well... that's why recording studios exist. How often do you hear about recording studios going bankrupt and having an unsuccessful business model? They don't.

While you are correct in saying that the huge drop in price and increase in quality of recording equipment has made it easier for artists to publish their music independently, the same fact is actually driving professional recording studios out of business. Engineers are making a fraction of the money they made 15 years ago now that every middle schooler knows how to use Garage Band, and small studios are increasingly losing out from competition at home if they're not backed by a label. Whether or not this is a good thing is debatable because on the one hand it removes obstacles from musicians and further minimizes the impact of the recording industry on music, but it hurts the art of recording when its harder for professionals to make a living.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Ihmhi]

True, but most studios include engineering as part of the recording (or don't charge much extra). An experienced professional can make your music sound better than some Garage Band newbie.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Technician]

For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments. If you want to do it on the cheap, well... that's why recording studios exist.

5 Grand isn't needed. Using a laptop, free software (Ubuntu Studio) an inexpensive interface, small mixer, & mics can be done for about half that. It works fine for the band I record. Many small bands already have most of the supplies already such as a laptop, mixer and microphones. If these already exist, then free software and an under $300 interface will work nicely.

Cheap is the under $30 Berhinger which does CD or DAT sample rates and bits. In Linux Ubuntu Studio it it truly plug an play as a USB input/output device. Open Audacity and select the USB audio for the source and hit record.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHUCA202

Don't record off a Sound Blaster compatible card except for maybe webcasts and other lower quality work. The hardware has a fixed bitrate, regardless of what you set in software.

The next step up in hardware will give you 96K 24 bit recordings.

Many studios are finding competion from the inexpensive gear that just works.

My setup excluding the already purchased computer cost under $500 for the mixer, a couple mics, and the interface. I have the ability to record 4 tracks at once and and layer over 30 tracks for post processing and adding wet tracks.

A typical session is recording the 4 drun tracks to a click track which are then played back while recording the back-up vocals, bass, keyboard and lead guitar. These are synced (remove latency) and then the lead vocal is recorded while the prior 8 tracks are played back. This is followed with adding wet tracks with EQ, effects, delay, reverb, etc. prior to the final mixdown for the CD.
Under $200 4 channel interface able to do 96K 24 bit recording is here;
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&m=Y&IC=PRI1394&A=RetrieveSku&Q=

For a little more money, recording 8 tracks at once is the studio standard for PC based recording studios, but mics, mixer, and interface will run over $500 for that set-up.
http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Echo-AudioFire8-8-Channel-FireWire-Audio-Interface?sku=247003

The cost of the set-up is less than a typical studio session. This recording in your own studio is common now that the high cost has been eliminated.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[CaptainZapp]

For about $5,000 you can buy a complete set of recording equipment - the necessary laptop, software, mics, etc. to go with your instruments.

I believe that Steve Albini may disagree with you.

If you don't know who he is, this essay is extremely interesting.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[westlake]

The future will be "Songs are our promotion, and concerts are where the real money's at."
.

That's fine if you are Gordon Lightfoot and still have the stamina and the talent to fill the 3000+ seat Shea's Buffalo at age 69.

Maybe not so fine if your burn out from the rigors of a full concert tour at a much younger age.

--- or you know that you are never in your professional career going to see a booking at a first, second or even third tier concert venue.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No amount of laws or regulations can overcome supply and demand in the long run. The RIAA relied on preferential laws and regulations to maintain their control over distribution. Recorded music has a near-infinite supply in terms of distribution online. Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero

I'm not so sure. I think it's a matter of the law. We have several laws, most of which are observed and obeyed that go against raw supply and demand. The most basic of which is stealing. By the same logic, we couldn't expect people to pay for a plasma TV when they can steal a perfectly good one for a lot less, but thanks to certain property laws, their enforcement, and the fact that their existence has penetrated into our collective morality, people generally go for the more expensive option.

There are real and very good reasons why we don't let ourselves be ruled by supply and demand, many of which apply here. The difference here is that copyright law is the new kid on the block hasn't had the time nor the education to penetrate public morality.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Cyberax]

Or compress it to sound louder...

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Lumpy]

And experienced professionals can make it sound like raging crap as well. Listen to most of the stuff out there now. They compress it hard so most of the dynamic range is not there, plus they EQ it for some pimply faced 16 year olds cheap car stereo and speakers propped in the back window.

It's very hard to find a RIAA disc that was mastered by a pro that did it right instead of their cookie cutter nastyness they have been creating lately.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[vux984]

That's fine if you are Gordon Lightfoot and still have the stamina and the talent to fill the 3000+ seat Shea's Buffalo at age 69.

A tile setter won't have the stamina at age 69 either. That trade is deservedly considered to be 'back breaking'. Do the users of bathrooms he tiled in his prime pay him a royalty?

Maybe not so fine if your burn out from the rigors of a full concert tour at a much younger age.

Maybe they'll need to find new jobs when they age? Its how the rest of society copes with the fact that they can't do the jobs they did when they were younger.

--- or you know that you are never in your professional career going to see a booking at a first, second or even third tier concert venue.

And?

Most models passing through expensive modelling schools never even earn enough at modelling jobs to pay back what it cost to go through 'school' and keep their portfolio maintained. The VAST majority never do better than a department store catalog job. And as they age and become less marketable... long before that, in most cases, they find another job.

So most musicians won't be successful enough to live off concert revenue, so what? They can get jobs like everyone else, and can join the ranks of: most poets, most authors, most fencers, most basketball players, most playwrights, most actors, most open source contributors...

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[garett_spencley]

The compression is done first on the master and then finally even further at the radio station.

So yeah it's not entirely incorrect to say that engineers are to blame, after all the mastering engineer is called such for a reason. BUT a general rule of good practice is that the mastering engineer not be involved in any of the recording, mixing or production process at all until the final master. The reason behind this is that it's considered to be a very good idea to have a completely fresh set of ears on the mastering. When you listen to an album over and over and over again your ears start putting on all kinds of filters and your objectivity goes down the toilet. It's one of the many reasons that mastering engineers (as a specialty) exist.

But yeah, of course professionals can do a bad job. I'm not disagreeing with your post. Just trying to point out that compression is almost never performed before mastering (which has nothing to do with recording or mixing). The only exception being on a track-by-track basis where compression is deemed required to achieve a particular effect on a particular instrument. Only the mastering compresses the entire recording. Then radio stations compress it even further for playback.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's very hard to find a RIAA disc that was mastered by a pro that did it right instead of their cookie cutter nastyness they have been creating lately.

To give credit where it is due, I've read a number of times over the years that the pro engineers don't have a choice. They do know how to do it right, but the people who write the paychecks - RIAA MBAs - are telling them to do the over-compression on purpose. They can do it, and get paid or they can not do it, get fired, and the next guy will do it anyway.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[mcgrew]

The product isn't the music, it's the media the music is stored on. CDs going away? I doubt it, until a replacement media comes along, but music can be used to sell other merchandice; phones, memory sticks, even soda pop (which they're already doing).

Advertising needs music. TV shows need music. Movies need music. Jukeboxes in bars aren't going away any time soon. There are a lot of ways to monetize music without selling it directly.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[JWW]

Yes, but 0.1% of something really large is still a significant number. I agree that the price can't go to zero for buying a song online, but I fail to see how it couldn't go down to say $0.10 per song.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[electrictroy]

The Slashdot summary is wrong. (Surprise.) It's 10.5% for places that allow the user to pick his/her songs. But broadcast internet radio, where the DJ controls the music, is still unresolved. They are still paying the "per play" royalty fee.

So places like Shoutcast are still in danger of going bankrupt due to the tyrannic fees imposed from above.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Guysmiley777]

The net radio companies need to pay bandwidth, they have to have some money coming in.

The way I read the agreement, it seems to be 10.5% of gross revenue, so basically for a break-even operation this would essentially be a 10.5% operating tax.

This doesn't appear to affect Pandora though. FTFA:

Limited download services include online stores such as Napster to Go or Rhapsody, where the end user can keep the music he or she downloads - albeit for a "limited" time. Interactive media sites, such as IMEEM and Last.FM, allow the end user to pick and choose the song he or she wishes to listen to. Both these concepts are different from internet radio, where like terrestrial radio, the play list is determined by the radio operator. Unfortunately for sites like Pandora, the agreement leaves their issue unresolved.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[shark72]

"Yes, but 0.1% of something really large is still a significant number. I agree that the price can't go to zero for buying a song online, but I fail to see how it couldn't go down to say $0.10 per song."

The laws would have to change for this to happen. Mechanical royalties (we're talking downloads, not the new interactive streaming model discussed in TFA) are around $0.08 by law. The lyricist and the composer of the music each get their own mechanicals, and this doesn't include performance royalties -- the per-track royalty that the performer negotiates with the label.

There are exemptions and other tricks that the labels use to lower the mechanical royalties, but for a track that, say, has music written by Joe, lyrics written by Fred, and is performed by Lindsay who's negotiated $0.05 per track, the royalties are liable to be more than $0.20. Record companies can't hold back mechanicals to pay for production costs, but even if they hold back Lindsay's $0.05 because the record hasn't yet made money (which is the case for most records), the record label still owes the mechanicals.

There's also a big disagreement about the true costs of producing a track. Many Slashdotters believe that production costs are next to nothing, and that record companies don't have significant costs for marketing, salaries or overhead. This helps foster the notion that each download is cost-free to the record label. The popularly understanding among people who are familiar with business is that record labels do indeed often have significant costs, and those costs are amortized into the cost of sale.

Your assertion that there's no reason that tracks won't go to $0.10 is hugely popular on Slashdot -- no doubt about that. I encourage everybody who truly believes this to start their own record label and sell music for $0.10 a track. Paraphrasing Gandhi, you can be the change in the music industry that you want to see.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Free the Cowards]

Many Slashdotters believe that production costs are next to nothing, and that record companies don't have significant costs for marketing, salaries or overhead. This helps foster the notion that each download is cost-free to the record label.

No, what fosters the notion that each download is cost-free to the record label is the simple fact that each download is cost-free to the record label.

Do not confuse up-front costs with per-item costs. Just because a track cost an enormous amount of money up-front to produce doesn't mean that any of that cost applies per download.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[shark72]

You've actually amplified my point. There's a huge difference between parts cost and actual cost per sale, and an essential difference between net margin and gross margin.

That mouse you might see on sale for $19.99 might have less than a couple of bucks worth of plastic. But the cost sheet developed by Acme Mouse Incorporated might have a dozen line items consisting of R&D charges which are amortized into product costs based on forecasts. These are very real costs that can't be ignored. You're correct that they're paid upfront, but Acme needs to get the money, and if Acme is in the sole business of selling mice, then they recoup those costs one mouse at a time. The amortized overhead and development costs are as real and genuine as material costs in the eyes of accountants and investors. It's not play money; it's not "soft dollars." If the mouse has $2 in material costs and another $4 in burdened development costs, if they sell the product into distribution for less than $6, they're losing money.

And record companies aren't much different than than mouse companies. Even with digital goods (and whether it's a song or a piece of software or a stock photo), up-front costs are amortized as a cost of sale. Record labels are primarily in the business of selling music, so it's the sales that must recoup the development costs.

I know this may seem counterintuitive or even nonsensical for many Slashdotters. But it's a concept that folks in the retail industry understand all too well.

Some folks have pointed out that if supply of digital goods is theoretically infinite, then amortized cost per sale should be a limit approaching zero. The issue here is that amortization applies to sold items. If you sell 10,000 instances of software and a metric squillion copies are pirated, you're only allowed to amortize your costs over those 10,000 sold. Taking the analogy to hard goods, Acme Mouse must amortize R&D costs over the forecast of units sold; even if they bury a million mice in the Arizona desert or shoot a billion into orbit via Space Shuttle missions.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Free the Cowards]

Actually, in order for it to be profitable, it HAS to apply to the cost per download SOMEHOW.

No, it has to apply to the price per download.

Cost and price are different beasts. You can't say that there was a big up-front cost and then just magically call that some sort of per-download cost.

Yes, they need to charge a certain amount of money as part of the per-download price to make up for the up-front costs. But that does not change the simple fact that their per-download cost is very nearly zero.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Free the Cowards]

It may amplify your overall point but the fact remains that the per-download costs of a track are essentially zero. Basically all of the costs are up-front. Obviously that up-front cost gets amortized into whatever price they charge for the product, but that doesn't make it suddenly magically transform into a per-download cost.

Your example at the end about piracy and shooting mice into orbit perfectly illustrates this. If it were truly a per-unit cost then that cost would be borne over every unit produced, even the ones pirated, stolen, or launched into the Sun. But it's actually an up-front cost which gets factored into the end price of the goods, so it only applies to the ones that they charge for.

Case in point: I once donated some software I wrote to schools. As I'm sure you know, you can deduct the cost of such donations from your taxes when the recipient is properly qualified. In the case of my software, which was done all electronically, the amount I was able to deduct was a big fat zero. Seems the tax men only care about the actual per-unit costs, even though the stuff sells for a distinctly non-zero amount, and a lot of that amount is to take care of the up-front costs of development.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[shark72]

More granularity is required here. In accounting terms, a paid download has no cost of goods (COGS) costs, but it does have cost of sale (COS) costs.

You're correct that a download performed, say, via BitTorrent or from one random person to another has no costs which are charged back to the software company or record label (although these companies would love to convert piracy statistics to losses on their balance sheets!). Costs of sale, on the other hand, are very real.

I wasn't aware that you're liable to not get a tax credit for donating software you've developed -- that's an interesting fact. I wasn't aware of this because I'm not a independent/hobbyist software developer so I wouldn't pretend to understand the intricacies of how it works. I do, however, have an intimate understanding of cost analysis for retail goods.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Idiomatick]

Many people have been popularized through the internet. The cost of this is 0 for marketing/advertising i'd say about 100$ for producing to get good computer recording gear (Increase after a few hundred thousand sales to rent a recording studio for songs). Overhead costs being a website for lets say 20$ a month (start costs will expand with viewers aka customers). If you charge .10 a song and sell a 'cd' to 6M people every month ala nickleback everyone in the band gets 1million per cd made. Though I think more cds could sell seeing how its going for 1/10th the regular price. Then with advertising deals and concerts they can probably make that again. So a band without dealing with record companies could actually end up making more than alot of signed bands. Because of the ease of entry into the market (under 100$ for a band is like a night out). And because they will be charging so much less per song it is more likely customers will buy all their songs rather than picking and choosing cds. The only groups I wouldnt suggest this for are ones targeting people that arent internet users, best of 50's dance or w/e.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[Free the Cowards]

I assume that "cost of sale" would refer to things like paying the credit card companies, bandwidth, and so forth? If so, that is easy to overlook, but it's also quite a small cost. For example, from what I've read about Apple's iTunes store, a $1 track puts something like 10 cents into the transaction costs and the rest goes to either the record companies or to paying off Apple's fixed costs. And this could be made a lot smaller with a better payment processing system, although I will freely admit that such a thing is essentially pie-in-the-sky right now.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[WTF Chuck]

Merchant service providers generally charge a monthly fee, somewhere between $0.25~$0.50 per transaction, and 2~5% per transaction. You may be able to find better prices than what I mentioned, bu they are all on the same basic monthly fee + transaction fee + percent of sale.

Re:This is unheard of, but...

[sjames]

What you say is true, but there are further issues involved.

For example, imagine the situation where Acme allows you to make an exact copy of their mouse using your own plastic and assembly line, but they charge you slightly MORE than if you let them make it for you and ship it to you.

Yes, there are fixed up-front production costs involved that must be amortized over sales. There are also promotion expenses on-going that must be covered. However, there are per-unit manufacturing and shipping costs that one might expect to be subtracted from the price when you're downloading.

The other issue for recording is that they spend astronomical sums making a high quality, then ruin it by mixing too hot, then it's trashed by lossy compression and/or cheesy headphones. Most of the consumers can't hear the difference anyway.

They should consider cutting some of their production costs unless the album is likely to be a hit with discerning listeners.

10.5% of the yearly revenue?

[Noryungi]

What about the radios that don't make any profit?

I am specifically thinking of SOMA FM and WCPE. I know that WCPE is a non-profit, for instance, and they are two of the best radios I know.

Are these exempted or not? Does anyone know?

Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue?

[fyoder]

What about the radios that don't make any profit?

Revenue is what they bring in total. Profit is what's left after expenses. In other words, they want 10.5% off the top, regardless. And the RIAA doesn't have a history of sympathy for the argument "But I wasn't making any money off of the music I was sharing," so while it would be nice if they'd give non-profits a break, it would be out of character.

Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue?

[QuantumG]

Strangely, being a "non-profit" does not mean you are not allowed to, or even that you typically dont, make a profit. Being a non-profit simply means that the stated goal of the organization is something other than profits, and so the directors of the organization do not have to justify their decisions in terms of how much profit it makes for the organization. There's also different accounting regulations, like publicly declaring the assets and expenditures, etc.. and in exchange they get a tax break.

Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue?

[Apple Acolyte]

I had to do a double take when I read 10.5% of yearly revenue. 10.5% of profits sounds excessive, but 10.5% off the top is outrageous.

Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue?

[DrLang21]

Actually, being "non-profit" means that there is no profit in the business to be paid out to investors, directors, or employees. All "profit" is recycled back into the company. The directors can profit by increasing their salary when business is steadily doing better. Running a successful non-profit can be quite lucrative, but not nearly so much as running a successful for-profit.

Re:10.5% of the yearly revenue?

[Guysmiley777]

In your fluffy, shiny little world how does Pandora pay for its bandwidth?

Remember to pay the tithe you teabaggers

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Perhaps if there were some mention of what broadcast radio stations were paying for their tithe or per-song charges we could make a reasonable comparison. Somehow I doubt that all-talk/mostly-talk broadcast stations are paying 10% of revenues in tribute.

Supply and demand, indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Supply and demand [...] Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero (yes, some people who see value in compensating the artist will never believe the price should be zero)

There will always be a segment of the population who wants to produce music simply for the fun of it. But they still need to eat.

If there's no income in music, it'll end up strictly a hobby-level endeavor. While a lot of decent stuff can come out of that, wouldn't it be better if the highly-talented musicians could focus more on their art by not having to also have a day job? (Yes I know about the current injustices in the system, but swinging it 100% the other way isn't the answer either.)

Without money in general music, the best musicians will end up producing work for advertisers since that'll be the only source of regular paying employment that uses their talents. Are you sure that's where you want the music industry to be going?

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[mcwidget]

There will always be a segment of the population who wants to produce music simply for the fun of it. But they still need to eat.

More than this; the potential to earn enough cash quickly (and easily?) enough to allow you and your family to live comfortably for the rest of your life is a major driving factor for many of the people in the business today. The less reward there is available, the less motivation. Rightly or wrongly, with less reward you have less talent - or at least, less depth of talent.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[QuantumG]

The world could do with vastly less musicians who are in it for the money.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Everything you say is true. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the RIAA contributes anything toward the ability of musicians to make a living off their music. Given the numerous horror stories about just how much industry parasites suck out of the music buyer's dollar on its journey from the buyer's wallet to the musician's bank account, it's quite reasonable to believe that it is more difficult to make a living as a professional musician with the RIAA around than it would be in the absence of such an organization.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[akirapill]

It's an expensive habit, most of us are just trying to break even.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[QuantumG]

Maybe without the RIAA around there could be some legitimate structuring of the music industry. As a programmer, if I had to find all my own clients I'd probably barely get by too.. although there are plenty of one-man bands in this field who get along just fine, it's not for everyone.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the RIAA contributes anything toward the ability of musicians to make a living off their music.

Actually, that doesn't matter. If the RIAA is not doing anything good, then they will fail. They will get no artists, and no customers. They will fail and it will be no skin off your nose. There's no need for intervention on behalf of the artists, and those who enjoy some of the RIAA's music, as we can and will decide what we want for ourselves.

Given the numerous horror stories about just how much industry parasites suck out of the music buyer's dollar on its journey from the buyer's wallet to the musician's bank account, it's quite reasonable to believe that it is more difficult to make a living as a professional musician with the RIAA around than it would be in the absence of such an organization.

I really don't think so. How could it possibly be easier for artists without the choice of being with a big label? I simply don't see the logic there, unless you assume that artists can't make decisions for themselves.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[BlueStrat]

It's an expensive habit,...

Yeah, I think that statement should be in the running for some sort of award for "Most massive understatement in a /. post".

most of us are just trying to break even.

Anything that's music-related...instruments, amps, etc...is extremely pricey. A decent brand-name USA-made professional-quality electric guitar will set you back $2,000-$3,000, and the same with an amp (thinking of an example of a new Gibson Les Paul and a 50 watt Marshall half-stack). That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players' personal rig in an average good-quality bar/club cover band!!

That's not counting effects pedals and/or rackmount effects/processors, cabling, strings, picks, stands, microphones ($100-$150 each), PA gear, and the maintenance costs of keeping all the equipment (which can be quirky) and the instruments in shape. Heck, just a new set of tubes for a guitar amp can easily run $200-$300! That's just for starters. Then there's transportation and storage costs for all the equipment, and personal transportation and lodging plus food costs, and even laundry for those on the road, on top of that for all the band members.

Most average bar/club bands don't come anywhere near to paying even ongoing expenses, never mind also recovering their investment in the equipment and instruments when you factor in all the costs. Most bars only pay a band $350-$500, many even less. Many times a band will get stiffed altogether by shady bar owners. These guys do what they do because they love playing and entertaining. Please keep this in mind the next time you go to a bar or club and see a tip jar at the edge of the stage.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[fprintf]

The thing is, hobbies are expensive. The fact that you have an opportunity to make some money on it is just an extra bonus. Think the guy who is into sailing moans about the $10-$200K he has in gear, and how "the man" (e.g. the Coast Guard) makes all these laws conspiring against him earning some income off his investment? Or how about the airplane pilot, with $200,000 sunk into his private plane that cannot take private passengers for hire?

What makes musicians so special and whiney? It is a hobby, albeit an expensive one, that if you are really really good at, you can get paid to do. Same with pilots. Same with boat captains. No one owes anyone an income from their hobby.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[scalarscience]

Actually, that doesn't matter. If the RIAA is not doing anything good, then they will fail. They will get no artists, and no customers. They will fail and it will be no skin off your nose. There's no need for intervention on behalf of the artists, and those who enjoy some of the RIAA's music, as we can and will decide what we want for ourselves.

You underestimate lawyers & politicians. The RIAA has been around for a lot longer than the history of net radio, and has their finger in suppressing competing business models since at least the era of the phonograph (see: RIAA preamp and how they colluded with certain label owners to control the recording & record pressing industries).

If anything they're MORE successful these days. Between the constant erosion of fair use (the MPAA has a hand in this too), the extension of copyright limits (with the MPAA again), the debtor's prison approach to instilling fear in their audience and their magical ability to be nominated as sole arbiter of all internet radio related profits I think they're quite capable of inserting themselves into the music business regardless of whether that is seen as 'doing anything good'.
And if you're curious how it could be easier in the "choice of being with a big label" then you're obviously not familiar with who has been behind the majority of the big labels for much of the music industry. The lawyers aren't the only side of the coercion and profiteering in the music industry...

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[roaddemon]

And that's not even including the drugs.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[eltaco]

sure, sure, money is an incentive, whatever walk of life. But I keep on getting the impression many people are forgetting or don't even know how greedy the RIAA actually is; Artists get ripped off majorly. somewhere around 95% of the revenue artists create is sucked up by the RIAA. The money isn't tied up in costs to produce the media, marketing, distribution or anything like that - it wanders into the pockets of the fat cats. If the RIAA is paying the artists less, it's because they're making a small percentage of their millions less. Many well-known musicians have been known to live close to the poverty line!

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[ArhcAngel]

What makes musicians so special and whiney? It is a hobby, albeit an expensive one, that if you are really really good at, you can get paid to do.

What makes musicians so special and whiny? It is a hobby, albeit an expensive one, that if you are a really really good entertainer , you can get paid to do.

Fixed that for you.

And just to play devil's advocate what potentially high paying profession doesn't have a high cost of entry? Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer, et al all pay a high premium for their education and arguably work harder and are more disciplined than the majority of musicians. The bulk of musicians are musicians because they wanted fame, fortune, women, etc. without having to work for it. I'm not talking about the few dedicated dyed in the wool musicians who love their craft and would do it even if they couldn't make a living off of it but they are, in fact, the minority.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[mcgrew]

Most bars only pay a band $350-$500, many even less.

here in Springfield it's usually less, but then again there's supply and demand. There are a lot of musicians here, many of then tending bar in the same joints they perform in.

Some make a lot of money, though. My friend and former neighbor, Ed McCann, gave up his job as a union carpenter because he was making more money singing (yeah, the guy's REAL good. I haven't seen Ed in quite some time).

Many times a band will get stiffed altogether by shady bar owners.

I haven't heard of that a lot around here; word would get out pretty quickly and the bar would have a hard time hiring. Plus, that's fraud. Nobody wants to lose their liquor license.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[electrictroy]

>>>Listen to music produced today and compare it to what was around up to 15 years ago.

So 1993 or earlier. The tops hits at that time were New Kids, Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, C+C Music Factory, Snap, Black Box, Boyz-II-Men, Will Smith, Salt-N-Pepa, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and so on. It was the middle of the dance music craze where almost all songs were composed around a simplistic beat box, with an occasional love ballad "to break-up the monotony of that hardcore dance that has gotten a little bit out of control".

Are you really sure your statement, that these artists were "better quality" than what's on the radio today, is accurate?

I honestly don't see much difference in talent.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[BlueStrat]

I'm not talking about the few dedicated dyed in the wool musicians who love their craft and would do it even if they couldn't make a living off of it but they are, in fact, the minority.

I'd have to disagree that they are the minority. In my 30-plus years experience as a musician having met and played with more musicians than I could possibly count, almost all do it because they love music and playing for people. Do many have hopes they might get lucky? Sure, but they realize they're more likely to be struck by a meteor than become rich and/or famous from music. Most who enter "the biz" for fame and fortune are quickly disillusioned.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[Digital End]

You could earn $500 a week working clubs (if you're very lucky). Of that money, you pay the whole band, eat, fix equipment, and so on.

The RIAA shows up, and offers to show your material to everyone in the country with their advertising, which means instead of a bar's worth of people, you have a country full... but they get 1/2 your money and get to decide what you write music about (prepare for angsty teen drama).

Still a net gain financially... even if it means your giving up creativity and freedom for it. Just depends if the artist finds writing and preferming their own music more important then money.

Possible fixes to the system? Independant website that works kind of like Pandora... mods mark a song with certain genres, people listen, vote for songs with a simple 'thumbs up or down' option, pay the artist based on how often his song is listened to (obviously more $$ if the song is good), people who don't suck get paid, people who do suck don't.

And yes, exploitable... bugs would need ironed out... but it's 9am, lucky I can type this early...

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[PunkOfLinux]

I'm interested in seeing how Severed Fifth does. Jono Bacon (yes, from LugRadio) did everything for it, so it will be interesting, to say the least.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[Undead NDR]

You're conveniently forgetting Alanis Morrissette, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Spin Doctors, Green Day, Beck, and a host of other artists who - unlike the current generation - really had something to say musically. Who is the new [insert one of the heavyweights I just named here] today?

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[Sancho]

Maybe the guy had a bias? Here's another bias for you.

I'm 30 years old. Most of the music I like is from the 70s and 80s (the former is before I was really cognizant of music, and the for the latter, I didn't listen to music much as my family tended not to listen to music.) I tend to think that these are the best years for processed music. Having heard some raw recordings of old greats, I think that the 50s and 60s were the best years for raw vocal talent.

So here's the bias: no one plays crappy oldies anymore or crappy "classic rock" anymore. The wheat was separated from the chaff over time, and now all that's played on the radio from that era are the really standout stuff. Compare that to today's music, where the good stuff is still hidden amongst all of the crap--it's all played because the time, the consumer, and the producers haven't figured out which ones are really hits. I don't think that even 15 years is enough to really distill a time period's music into the good stuff.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[shark72]

"Artists get ripped off majorly. somewhere around 95% of the revenue artists create is sucked up by the RIAA. The money isn't tied up in costs to produce the media, marketing, distribution or anything like that - it wanders into the pockets of the fat cats."

It's been amply covered elsewhere that the record labels are hemmoraging money. One reason is because they're just not yet prepared for the move to digital downloading. Warner Records, for instance, is losing money because people are choosing (surprise!) to download only one or two tracks from each new CD, rather than buy the entire thing. Additionally, I believe Warner has set up their internal accounting so that physical CDs are the money makers; with CD sales falling faster than they anticipated, they're losing money on unsold inventory and not making enough of it on the downloads.

Anyway, downloading a track or downloading a CD or buying software or a gallon of milk or a pair of jeans are all very similar from the supply chain perspective. The retailer often grosses the most; ie. Best Buy might have a 40% markup. The iTunes store pays around $0.65 for each track it sells for a buck; Amazon makes about 15% margin if their model for downloads is the same as it is for other products. This is all money that the manufacturer doesn't see.

Of the money that the manufacturer does collect, most of it goes to employees, suppliers, and contractors -- not the fat cats. Again, this is the same whether it's that track you've downloaded or the shirt you've bought. It's here where the record labels see the artist as just a contractor or supplier -- so they're liable to get a meager percentage.

The "wanders into the pockets of fat cats" assertion can be tested with some math. Going back to Warner Music -- they made $3.5B (yes, BILLION) last year; their profit margin was negative 1.5% and their operating margin was 6%. If Warner's CEO made $10 million last year, that's about a third of a percent of the company's revenue.

This would mean that for each $0.99 track Warner sold last year, that $10MM per year CEO made a whopping a third of a cent. Doesn't sound like much, but if he makes a third of percent of all revenue, there's his massive $10 million payday.

But compare that third of a cent to what Warner paid out for each track downloaded: Apple (the good guys!) got $0.35. Amazon got $0.15. Any composers or lyricists who didn't perform the songs they wrote got about $0.08. Even MasterCard and VISA got more from the transaction than Warner's fat cat CEO.

Do musicians make too little money when they sign to the big labels? Absolutely. Are record executives overpaid? Unless Warner's CEO took more than $1 last year, then definitely -- negative one percent margin is deplorable. But it's also essential to understand that when we buy music, that pie is sliced into hundreds of pieces, and the little guys get away with a lot more pie than the fat cats.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[kalirion]

Phase 1: Make every profession a hobby.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Communism.

And my way doesn't even need any blood spilled. Take that Marx!

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[wronskyMan]

Because in America, we had a principle at some point in time that the govt should by default not regulate your actions unless it had a legitimate need to. Boat and airplane accidents can kill passengers, that is why the FAA and USCG regulate commercial use. While I have heard some pretty horrible amateur music, I doubt many people have been killed by a crappy track. Also, music is a form of speech which falls under the first amendment, flying and sailing don't (unless you're skywriting maybe).

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[Free the Cowards]

I couldn't agree more. I also listen mostly to music from the 70s and 80s. When I listen to more modern stuff, it's often the good bands from that period who continued to perform.

Certainly good music is being produced today. But not being a real music buff, it's not worth my time or money to search for it. I'll listen to music from a time where other people have put in all that time or money, and wait for them to do the same to today's stuff.

Most of the great performers of yesteryear made their bread and butter off of concerts anyway, and the financial incentive for those isn't going anywhere. Record sales basically just gave them enough money to get hooked on drugs, fly to their concerts in private aircraft, and think that they were better than they really were. We'd probably be better off without all that if you ask me.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[BlueStrat]

Being a bit of a devils' advocate here;

1. The band is doing cover tunes and so don't "deserve" the money, they need to pay the people who wrote the music who do deserve it.

Why? The people who wrote the music aren't there slogging through 4 sets to 1:30-2:30AM, 3-4 nights a week in a smoke-filled bar sweating their butts off, and didn't invest in the instruments and equipment needed to play it.

In fact, one possible reason why the bars pay the bands so little is because they have to pay the collections societies so much.

Bars pay a flat rate that really isn't that much comparatively-speaking. Bars also pay bands roughly the same or less now as when I started out about 30 years ago.

2. The band is doing their own music and will get paid once by the bar owner and a second time by the collection society.

Now, somehow, I think it might not all work out this way and be cool but whose "fault" is that exactly?

Bars, to my knowledge, pay the same flat rate whether the band plays covers or original material. A band/musician has to register copyrights on their material and license it through ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, jumping through all their hoops to do so. Despite how much these organizations collect, because of the way they count plays (Hollywood accounting?) you might, as a small original artist, get a check for $20 at the end of a year. Maybe.

Here's a link that describes better than I could what happens and how:

http://everything2.com/e2node/ASCAP%252C%2520BMI%2520and%2520SESAC

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Why is there an automatic assumption that when someone is "in it for the money", there is suddenly no longer any potential for them to be talented artists? Money and art are not mutually exclusive; and I am unsure why whenever an artist wants to get paid for commensurate to his talent, it's suddenly some kind of sin.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[jeremiahstanley]

Your figures are inflated. I played bass for over 10 years and here is what I remember paying:

Bass: about $1000
Amp: about $1500
PA: we did a used one, for $1500 (it came with two mics)
Strings, picks, beer, etc: $60 every other month or so.

$10k is too much, we split the PA 3 ways and my grandparents of all people bought my amp for me. The most expensive part of the ordeal was probably the music training. Public school is subsidized to you by the gov't so taking music there is near free. But then I had 10 years of music lessons at $20/wk. Factor in the time spent practicing, buying books, etc and you have a bigger number than gear.

Hell, for $10k these days you could home record a pretty awesome record including all the gear to do so.

The key here is that you don't need the "ZOMG BESTEST!!!one" stuff to be a good musician. I'm not advocating being cheap, quality is what counts. And if you are going into bars and playing gigs with a tube amp, well, you deserve to shell out big bucks as you are an elitist twerp. They do sound better, but slamming them off of a truck every night is a good way to spend money on breaking something that can be replaced by a nigh indestructible IC.

Furthermore, if you are still working bars and getting ~$400 for your gigs then you aren't making enough to tour on w/o outside jobs and therefore are still not professional. Perhaps it's better on the coasts but here in the mid-west it's tough to get paying gigs that aren't weddings. People just don't go out to hear music as they all want to hear the same schlock that is bleating off of corporate radio.

This however doesn't cover streaming internet radio pricing into how bands/artists get paid for their art. Somebody needs to put a nail in the coffin of corporate radio and the FCC needs to ensure fair access to the airwaves. It used to be that if you could tolerate outlandish opinions and dead air you could find some of the best music on college radio. Now most of the stations are run by corporate interests and farm interns from schools. Pirate radio is some of the best programming you can find, however it is rabidly illegal. This leaves streaming, and RIAA is killing it. Therefore, radio shows need to go to the "podcast" broadcast method and deliver "value added" content. Essentially bring back the educated music loving DJ and some critical theory. He wraps it up into a show, and generates sponsors to pay for his time (and cd habit). Streaming is dead as a delivery method.

Re:Supply and demand, indeed

[rtechie]

Of the money that the manufacturer does collect, most of it goes to employees, suppliers, and contractors -- not the fat cats.

Who are all these essential people you are referring to?

I've heard the very same reaction from every person I have ever met that walked into a major record label: "What are all these people DOING?"

If you're making $100k per year for essentially nothing, you're a fat cat.

Turn their own tactics on to them...

[Anonymous Coward]

We've all heard about RIAA tricks to scam the artists out of their fair share. Like taking a percentage of revenues for 'breakage' based on the rates of vinyl records breaking in shipping even though CDs are much more sturdy and MP3 downloads are impervious.

So I suggest the radio stations change their business models to run revenue-free. Like becoming an ancilliary service that does not generate revenue under normal conditions - like you can pay a fee so outrageous for the radio service that no one in their right mind will pay it, or you can get it 'free' as part of membership (paid or advertising-supported, or some other scheme) with some other web-site or service provider. Let the free-radio and the revenue-generating service be subsidiaries of the same parent company and you are all set.

Of course I am writing this without actually reading the details of the contracts - those MAFIAA lawyers are really good at putting together contracts that fuck the other guy in novel and unexpected ways, so anybody trying to fuck them back needs to pay real close attention to the details.

About time

[Auckerman]

Profit motive is a fascinating thing. It's not in the RIAA's best interest for web radio stations to go offline, because they generate no money from web radio that way. Whatever they charge is going to be the highest possible without alienating their customer base, which is the web broadcasters. It took them long enough to finally admit that their pricing was extraordinary to say the least.

I do find it fascinating that the major labels, via "Independent promotors" actually pay radio stations to broadcast specific songs, whereas they do no such thing for web radio services. I would think that something like the web radio in iTunes would be a perfect target for this.

Re:Yay Pandora!

[pacificleo]

and open it for streaming to countries out side of US

10.5% of yearly revenue...

[SupremoMan]

Is that their monthly fee?

I'm not sure I understand...

[calmofthestorm]

I read TFA and something is seeming strange to me.

You pay 10.5% of all revenue to the MAFIAA. Does that mean that they're waiving the current royalties? Or is this tax in addition to the old royalty rate?

If this is all they pay does that mean I can:

* Stream RIAA music all I want if I don't make any money?
* Broadcast it DRM free?
* Get from the RIAA their music to play?

Clearly I'm missing something big somewhere, 'cause there's no way the RIAA would allow that chain of events.

Re:I'm not sure I understand...

[IBBoard]

Taking the definition of "revenue" then you'd only be able to do that if you didn't bring in any money at all, not if you don't make money (profit). Even then I suspect they might have other ways around it (like not selling the music to you in the first place and then enforcing copyright/DMCA legislation on the CDs that you probably got the music from).

It'd be great if some rich person did put their money towards a station that brought in zero money (including no ad revenue) though!

Only for on-demand services

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for posting as AC but I just would like to point out that this agreement is only for On-Demand services and not pre-programmed web radio services (which most web radio stations are).

So for most stations this does not change anything and the insane royalty rates that threatens the whole web radio industry is still very much in place.

Re:Only for on-demand services

[Atnevon]

I read about this yesterday on Betanews actually and headed to the source (DiMA to take a closer look). There's actually *even better* news in the agreement for non-interactive services: "Outside the scope of the draft regulations, the parties confirmed that non-interactive, audio-only streaming services do not require reproduction or distribution licenses from copyright owners." Hard to believe, I know, but take a look: http://www.digmedia.org/content/release.cfm?id=7243&content=pr

Re:Only for on-demand services

[media_Assassin]

The fact that you keep posting this comment seems to imply that you think that non-interactive streams will be free.

You're correct that there's no reproduction licenses or distribution licenses for non-interactive streaming.

But that leaves the $0.0019 per user/per song royalty (with a $500 minimum per year per station)

Specifically, here's the rates broken down by year:
a per play rate of $.0008 for 2006, a per play rate of $.0011 for 2007, a per play rate of $.0014 for 2008, a per play rate of $.0018 for 2009, and a per play rate of $.0019 for 2010
From: http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/final-rates-terms2005-1.pdf

Non-profit != no profit

[the_raptor]

"Non-profit organisation" does not mean the organisation makes no profit. It means the organisation puts the money back into itself rather than paying out dividends etc. It doesn't mean they operate at a loss and require constant donations to remain functional.

Some "non-profits" have even been run with the purpose of making its directors etc richer (eg they just jack up their salaries).

As a musician, I'm not a fan

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is vague but it sounds like there's no meaningful way for an artist to have these fees waived and, to top it off, those non-member artists aren't going to get any money from it anyway. Sounds like a great way to prop up the 'ole cartel.

More money than GOD?!

[agnosticanarch]

10.5%?!? But GOD only gets 10%?!? The RIAA out-tithed the Holy Tither!

Isn't this also called...

[Xanlexian]

... a "vig"?

Pay your vig, you get protection. Don't pay your vig, we break your kneecaps and destroy your place of business.

RIAA or MAFIA?

[TheCybernator]

Seriously. RIAA is acting like a mafia. Asking for a flat cut as protection money. Civilized extortion.

Ahhh...how biblical

[oDDmON oUT]

It's the RIAATithe©.

Re:Ahhh...how biblical

[Kreigaffe]

The extra 0.5% is because john lennon is bigger than jesus.

Mod Parent Up

[rsmith-mac]

He's spot-on. This agreement only covers services such as Imeem, Last.fm, and Napster, which are based on streaming individual songs. It does not cover services such as Pandora, AOL Radio, or Digitally Imported, which stream pre-programed/tailored stations like a meatspace radio station does. Those guys are still fighting to avoid having to pay the massive $0.0019/user/song that the Copyright Royalty Board passed down last year. Generally when people are talking about internet radio they are talking about these services, so internet radio is not saved.

Amateur

[SmallFurryCreature]

To lazy to google it, but there have been several breakdowns of the costs a label charges to the artist to account for the difference between the price of a CD and the amount the artist gets paid.

Basically 10.5% of the sale price is just penauts. I am willing to bet quite a few RIAA execs choked on that before they could finally sign the agreement.

In other industries, it would be a lot. In music, it is childsplay.

Negative comments on the RIAA don't work

[Dan667]

Really if you want to stop the RIAA you need to start posting hate on the companies that support it. Once you start to hurt their brands and people stop buying their products because of the negative press, and the RIAA will cease to exist. Everyone hates the RIAA, but no one hates those who fund it yet. So hate on these companies.

SONY
WARNER
EMI
UNIVERSAL ...

it's still blackmail: pay us to market our songs

[jsepeta]

radio, internet or old-school, should be free to play whatever it wants whenever. we the consumers have the ability to switch the station or turn it off. music providers (musicians, composers, and labels) make money off the successful marketing of their works. so why should they be paid by radio stations to market their work? where the hell would the labels be if radio only played the works of Indie artist who said to Hell with the old way of running radio (kickbacks, pay for play, etc)

10.5% sounds like a protection racket to me

[DragonTHC]

How much of that will go to artists? apparently none since no one is keeping track of the artists whose music is played.

Nope, this is more payola. Fat Tony wants 10.5% of the take for your continued ability to play music without issue.

Notice, it says 10.5% of the yearly revenue. Not yearly profit.

Yep, this is bad for artists and bad for consumers and bad for everyone except the RIAAfia

They should have held out

[JustNiz]

There are milions of excellent bands trying to make it out there. Most can't get airtime because the RIAA also have control over radio stations and their playlists, so will only allow their own manufactured poptastic crap to get any airtime.

If I was an internet radio station I'd tell the RIAA to go screw themselves and that _they_ should be paying _me_ for airing (read: advertising) their music. I would only play music from independent bands and musicians who haven't signed up with RIAA-linked labels so the RIAA have no legal recourse to do anything.

The bands themselves would probably more than welcome the opportunity to get some free airtime/plugs for their music and maybe sell a few CDs or downloads through the site.

College, etc.?

[FiveDozenWhales]

I wonder if this applies to things like college radio stations. Back in school our radio station (long banned by the FCC) operated an internet stream. The radio station itself garnered no revenue (and was of dubious legality), and thus wouldn't be subject to the 10.5% fee; but I wouldn't put it past the RIAA to argue that some portion of our tuition acted as the station's "revenue"

Good news and bad news

[russotto]

For webcasters, the bad news is the RIAA is taking 10.5% of their revenue. The good news is that they've got the MPAA's accountants to do their books...

Re:funny in a sick sort of way

[freedom_india]

Nope. You see, the artist is like the ditch digger, the brick layer, the janitor kinda guy. He does all the work, but always ends up with nothing.
Its always the suits who get to earn it.
10.5% of total revenue? Not profit... but revenue, wow! The RIAA is brilliant.
I dearly hope artists sue the RIAA for 10.5% of its revenue per year.

There is a good reason for that

[Weaselmancer]

The music industry would prefer to be in control these days. Allow me to explain a bit.

Back In The Day(tm), you had bands with enormous talent. Let's pick Led Zeppelin as an example. Please - no flames or debate on my choice of band. I've picked them for a reason, so bear with me.

They were pretty revolutionary. Fantastically talented and ahead of their time. It's been almost thirty years and you can still hear them on the radio.

And the stories on how they behaved were equally legendary. They'd blow into town, rent entire floors of hotels and absolutely trash them. Their post-gig parties were the stuff of legend. Once the dust had settled they'd simply pass it off to their label. "Deal with it." And if anyone complained it was "Fuck you - we're Led Zeppelin. You can't replace us, and you know it."

So they flaunted that. Most bands of the era did, but they were famous. Their partying habits were closer to acts of nature. I'm sure at the time you if you were a hotel owner you could buy Led Zeppelin insurance. At a premium.

So understandably, the labels got sick of this. That's why music is the way it is today.

Look at what's popular. Rap and bands like the one you mentioned. And what do they have in common? More style than talent. Why? Talent is rare. Style can be manufactured. Music stopped becoming something special that only a gifted few could do well, and became a product. Something you could buy in a shrink wrapped box. And replaced just as easily.

Bands today could not get away with Led Zeppelin-esque excess. Let All Saints try that crap with their label, just once. "Fuck you, we're All Saints. Just try and replace us." Every single person in the band will be working in a 7-11 the next Monday, with a bill for the damages.

This is beneficial to the labels, of course. But the problem is that the special spark that makes truly great music is systematically removed from the system in an attempt to make everything easily replaceable. Nobody stands out anymore. They can't, by definition. Anyone irreplaceable is too much potential trouble. They want mediocrity. Polish it up a little bit so it sells, and receive maximum benefit with minimum hassle.

The downside is that you will never hear truly great and innovative music ever again. At least from the big labels, anyways. It would be like being able to buy a really excellent coq au vin at McDonalds. The business model of bulk production and speedy turnaround simply forbids it.