Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Accounting — How Labels Avoid Paying Musicians
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, we discussed Techdirt's tale of 'Hollywood Accounting,' which showed how movies like Harry Potter still officially 'lose' money with some simple accounting tricks. This week Techdirt is taking on RIAA accounting and demonstrating why most musicians — even multi-platinum recording stars — may never see a dime from their album sales. 'They make you a "loan" and then take the first 63% of any dollar you make, get to automatically increase the size of the "loan" by simply adding in all sorts of crazy expenses (did the exec bring in pizza at the recording session? that gets added on), and then tries to get the loan repaid out of what meager pittance they've left for you. Oh, and after all of that, the record label still owns the copyrights.' The average musician on a major record deal 'gets' about $23 per $1,000 made... and that $23 still never gets paid because it has to go to 'recouping' the loan... even though the label is taking $630 out of that $1,000, and not counting it towards the advance. Remember all this the next time a record label says they're trying to protect musicians' revenue."
Only nowadays, I buy mortly indies...
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
deserves to get screwed. Seriously, go publish the songs yourself as an independent band. You don't need to be a record label to get it on itunes either (I think)
Reminds me of this horrific classic of how recording artists get ripped off:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
stuff |
The RIAA can't very well claim to be protecting the starving artists if the artists aren't starving.
So we all agree there: we, as Internet actors, have to invent collectively new economic models for assuring revenues and living to musicians — and it's likely these models shouldn't and won't include the current record labels.
I guess I always assumed the musicians were getting screwed in their deals, just never knew the breakdown. This just reinforces my decision to support artists through live performances and "swag" sales at said performances rather than through record sales.
Download Music, Buy Tickets, Save Musicians
If Prince wants his advance without having to worry about all those numbers then this is what he gets.
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
someone has got to play devils advocate. the latest round of carefully cultivated pop stars and rock bands could very well be designed from their inception to be too outright stupid to determine how this scheme works. Rap stars are groomed and trained to pay attention only to the lambos, the parties, and the mansions. the quick-change mainstream music is where the RIAA is getting the most bang for their buck, and despite some artists attempts to buck the trend by creating their own labels their efforts are sadly misplaced. anything in the industry that so much as glances at a musical instrument is shackled to the wagon of the RIAA and regardless of whether artists select an independent distribution channel or the more commonly recognized channels its extremely difficuly to avoid paying at least some funding to the RIAA.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That is easy said. But I happen to make one part of my income with music... Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers? Can you distribute? Can you promote them? Those guys can... it is easy to fall for it. And Itunes? Well that is a product that attracts a certain kind of public. Not necessary a public that can see the difference between good music and a fucking promotion stunt... Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place....... not that I am that big of a fan, but would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory? It's easy said mate, but in the real world, those guys have all the things you need. And they are willing to sell it. They just don't tell you the real price. Don't get me wrong though, we agree, but this is not the musicians fault. Not at all.
The lawsuit-happy RIAA is probably now going try taking on Techdirt. They're going to need to hire some lawyers with different specialties than their usual ones.
TFA is heavily based on a Courtney Love speech from 10 years ago at http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html . Prettier charts in TFA, though.
"Remember all this the next time a record label says they're trying to protect musicians' revenue."
I haven't thought that labels were trying to protect musicians' ANYTHING since 1972. And it wasn't true before that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
if all the bands end up with 0 dollars how does MTV Cribs work? Like, most chart topping musicians have boatloads of money, if they're getting screwed down to nothing where is that coming from?
RIAA rules!! It's like software piracy - gets the app known even though the creator (artist) see no money in return. All in all, it's win-win. And logical.
Actually the artists are locked into the main labels, because indies apparently don't get the same air time as RIAA members do, definitely not in the prime time, on the main broad cast stations.
I don't know about iTunes.
She even has one of those "360 degree" contracts.
Let's see what happens to her.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
That's funny 'cause many indie labels actually get their products distributed by subsidiaries of big labels. It's similar to what happens with indie movie studios.
That might have been a concern ten years ago. Today, radio is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to the Internet.
It's true that the major labels can do a lot for you. However, it's also true that you will pay dearly for what they provide. Most musicians are better off independent.
That's more possible now, but back in the day, not a chance.... I have friends dying from depression and destitution because the were snookered by some exec, cut an album or two, never got paid, and then sued for no fulfilling the contract otherwise primarily because the couldn't eat, got sick, and to this day owe money to some one for their intellectual property.
I think everything on that TV show is rented. I cannot believe that skateboarding hot-kid-of-the-month can afford a McMansion, 18 Escalades, a room full of arcade machines, yadda-yadda, from 2 or 3 endoresement deals when he will be old and stale before the year is out.
Either that, or the repo men have a heck of a time 6 months down the road.
That TV show, just like *everything* on TV is totally fake.
It's just not possible given the realities of these situations.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Thats where they take back a percent of the costs to account for breakage of the medium. Of course, ever since we switched from vinyl records to plastic cd's, the actual breakage is about ... nil.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
going in that the artist will take profits from touring and the label takes the profits from album sales. Indie artists still have a tough time without a label because advertising costs are high. Getting onto the home page of iTunes or played on MTV isn't cheap, and connections hold as much weight as money does.
What is this "air time" and "broad cast stations" of which you speak?
Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers?
No, but you sure don't need the RIAA for that.
Can you distribute?
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Can you promote them?
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
And Itunes? Well that is a product that attracts a certain kind of public. Not necessary a public that can see the difference between good music and a fucking promotion stunt... Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place.......
That's just an inane comment. iTunes is a store. If some company decides for whatever reason they don't want to sell in that store, fine, but that doesn't mean "it has no place". You might as well argue "The Electric Fetus" record store is a store where Jaime Thietten has no place since she won't let a store with "fetus" in the name sell her music.
...would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
Yes. Like 99.9% of people, while I can't buy the Beatles albums there, I'm not going to let a boycott by one copyright holder over a trademark issue prevent me from doing business with them. That's just dumb.
It's easy said mate, but in the real world, those guys have all the things you need. And they are willing to sell it.
Wait, that's your argument. Well, the iTunes store is out because the Beetles catalog isn't there so I guess people have to be ripped off by the RIAA? Times are changing. There are numerous indie labels that will share the profits, print the music, and put your music in the iTunes store along with other places. The RIAA's strength has been in locking down the distribution channels and promotional channels (radio) but with the internet here, those methods are starting to fail. There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
Pot meet kettle.
Boredom is bliss.
radio is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to clearchannel...
Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place....... not that I am that big of a fan, but would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
So you're saying that just because the iTunes store doesn't have The Beatles, that people shouldn't buy from there, or if they do, they aren't real music lovers? I guess if you had to get all of your music from a single source, and you needed to have The Beatles, then iTunes wouldn't be for you, but iTunes has tons of stuff that you can't find in any brick and mortar store, and even a lot that Amazon doesn't have. Any real music lover wouldn't limit themselves by not shopping at a store simply because they didn't have one artist. If they did that, they wouldn't shop anywhere, as no store has every artist.
How about we create laws to put people who take advantage of others under the prison! These music middle men should be regulated and closely studied to make certain that their "work" does benefit the content creators.
Frankly there may be a day when it is so easy to master and produce a CD that the middle men are thrown in the trash.
I read "Confessions of a Record Producer" where the dude gives you the step-by-step breakdown of where all of the money goes. One of the interesting ones is that the record companies now take out more for every CD pressed than they did for pressing LP's or cassettes, even though it's actually cheaper to make CD's.
He said that, every time he'd be at a cocktail party and someone would find out he's a record producer, they'd always ask "So, if I made an album that went gold, how much money would I get?". He proceeds to go through the cost accounting (which he describes earlier in the book) to arrive at some number like a 4-piece band making a gold record results in each member getting something like $23,000 or something. Don't quit your day job, fellas!
Also, back when Napster was really rolling, and the RIAA was freaking out, I recall reading an article by Janice Ian (a 70's 3-hit wonder) saying that she never got a statement from her record company that didn't say that she owed them money.
If you watch the RIAA's behavior carefully, you'll see that they're not really about attacking "piracy". They're trying to prevent any kind of delivery mechanism which takes them out of the loop... that connects the artist directly with the listener. "Disintermediation" is the big word for it. I recall several years back, there was a website (I forget it's name) where unsigned bands could post their songs as mp3's and they'd tag them with what known bands they thought they sounded like. So, you could go on there and search for "Dead Milkmen" and you could find all of these undiscovered bands who were influenced by them.
...
... and, of course, the RIAA figured out how to sue them into oblivion, even though they weren't really infringing on copyrighted material.
Let me tell you how it will be;
There's 23 for you, 977 for me.
'Cause I’m the RIAAman,
Yeah, I’m the RIAAman.
Should zero per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't sue you all.
'Cause I’m the RIAAman,
Yeah, I’m the RIAAman.
And you're working for no one but me.
RIAAman!
by Simon, Jul 13th, 2010 @ 9:41am But stronger DRM laws will fix this, right?
I think your view on iTunes is a bit off, iTunes doesn't have a ban on The Beetles, The Beetles aren't on iTunes because their music is so wrapped up in copyright and legal issues that they don't agree with Apple's terms. Copyright and legal issues that organizations like the RIAA are full supporters of. So just because someone has the resources to get your music out there, doesn't mean that it's a good deal for you.
well excuse me, but what good is a nice looking album distributed, promoted in good numbers going to do to you, if you do not even get $23 out of $1000, as per in the related article ?
Read radical news here
How many bands get airtime at all? When I listen to the radio, it's the same handful of songs playing over and over and over. Any small band who signs with a RIAA label hoping to get big might as well sell their instruments and buy lottery tickets. They've got about the same chances of striking it rich.
You really don't even need itunes, if you can get server space just offer the download for free and set up a papal or Google checkout like they used to do for shareware. And if you have such little faith that people will donate, charge $.5 per song. Then all you have to do is advertise, and the big ad agencies may be expensive, but at least they won't take your copyrights away.
Jack Chick was right about the music industry, just not in the way he thought he was.
Emotions! In your brain!
you don't need to have a record 'deal' - you should BE a label if you intend to release your own music. Just start your own. If you say you are a record label, you are a record label. To get tunes on iTunes you do need to go through a middleman. For a fee CDBaby will get your music quickly and fairly painlessly on all of the major distibution networks, iTunes etc. Routenote also claim to be able to do it for free, though I haven't tried them yet. There just doesn't seem to be a direct way to get your tunes on iTunes as the artist. Not sure why this is.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Even rappers, who do nothing more than chant to a monotonous beat, live in multi-million dollar estates.
If no-talent street thugs make that kind of money, how bad could the situation be?
Absolutely nothing new here.
Steve Albini.
Courtney Love.
Both, I believe, 10+ years old.
The majority of artists never record an album. Most play in your local bar, at your wedding, in parks. The number of artists that actually get picked up by a label are less than a fraction of a percent. They are not picked up because they are any good, they are picked up because they are marketable.
That is easy said. But I happen to make one part of my income with music... Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers? Can you distribute? Can you promote them?
No, but the point of doing all that is to get people to pay you to listen to your music... Why would you get the RIAA to do it when people won't pay you to listen to it, but pay the RIAA instead?
I am not sure what you are posting about. The article is not trying to justify piracy, neither are most posters.
A Florida coupled sued the show for using their rented home as a set for a Cribs episode without permission.
They rent a property, borrow props and cars, film it, the rapper, does his thing and presents his false front, but the money isn't there. Even multi-platinum selling artists can't pay the $5 - $10 million needed to buy the mansion they pretend to own.
So what you're saying is your music doesn't make any money, but their marketing does.
So why should they pay you?
Yeah, just like anyone who doesn't take the time to learn self-defense courses deserves to get beat up!
Listen, some of us may know what kind of deceitful manipulative wankers these guys are, but the general public is woefully unaware at just how underhanded the entertainment industries can be. We're talking about industries that know how to manipulate audiences and manufacture appeal among the masses... They know a thing or two about promoting images, including their own.
While I do wish more artists were better informed about what type of deal with the Devil they were making, but it's no excuse for how they get screwed over.
This whole scene is a mess. Big Labels have way too much control of what music people actually get exposed to, and the chances of making it anywhere without them are pretty slim. Even with the knowledge of how badly they treat the artists, some will still succumb because they feel it's their only real choice.
It's easy to say "just start an indie band", but what matters is not how many indie bands there are out there, but how many indie music customers there are out there. It's the buyers that make the difference, not the artists, and unfortunately I have little faith in the mass of sheep.
If they (performers, pop "music") do not make money, how is it that so many of them are obscenely rich?
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Of course you can do all of those things without the RIAA or even a record label. And you can do it a lot cheaper. If you've ever seen an expense sheet from a label trying to justify not paying musicians (I have) you wouldn't believe how much labels claim stuff costs. When you do a tour of 5 college campuses and the label says they paid $20,000 to promote the shows when the only promotion that was done was using free spots on college radio stations and printing a single black and white flyer, you realize you're being screwed.
Further, it is quite possible to work with a record label but not with the RIAA. There is no such thing as a "standard contract" and if a label exec tells you that something in a contract is "standard language" run for the door. There are labels out there that will make all sorts of agreements, including I have learned from direct experience, letting the composer license the music via Creative Commons (which, by the way, is not a free license unless you make it so).
And creating your own label has never been easier or more economical. There has been absolutely no need for big record labels since at least 2003, but they keep going because of inertia and uninformed artists. More and more, the big labels are nothing but factories for wholly-fabricated "artists" like Lady Gaga or the finalists of American Idol. They simply skip over dealing with "artists" by fabricating their own. And this does not only apply to pop trash like Gaga. A lot of what's passing for rock and heavy metal is just Archies-style fabricated groups made up of out-of-work actors who basically lipsync and pretend to play their instruments while backing tracks play in concert.
The big music industry has been in its death throes for some years now. The corporations have already socked away the profits and are only padding their quarterly reports now until the end, when they'll just transition into some other scam. Maybe "internet television".
You are welcome on my lawn.
... is whoever actively worked to make Justin Bieber a star.
You don't need to be a record label to get it on itunes either (I think)
Actually, I don't think this is true. Last I checked only labels can sell music through iTunes. That said, it does not have to be an RIAA label or even a very big one. There are many small publishers (like CD Baby) that will print CDs for you and sell your music through iTunes without gouging you or taking possession of your copyrights.
Perhaps then, these musicians should do their homework and stop working with labels that are in effect just RIAA thugs looking to screw the artists as bad as they screw everyone else...
This doesn't give you a big customer base.
English is not this
Techdirt is probably making a killing off of Slashdot this week, but here's another article about several musicians who are able to be successful without the RIAA:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
The danger is if musicians start to think that the RIAA is their only connection to the fans. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You're pontificating to the choir, man.
Why celebrities should be so special as to take huge loans and live lavishly and then end up ahead is a question no one seems to want to ask. If I were allowed to take a multimillion dollar loan against future earnings my life might be much better. I certainly would have difficult paying it back, but even living off the investment I would have more money. Such a loan might return more in investment than the average income
So record labels are loan sharks giving away money in exchange for future earnings. Some might not be able to pay back the loan. Well, boo hoo. Millions of Americans are in the same boat, with things such as pay day loans, but don't have the life style that these guys do. It is why people see how much Madonna has, and how little they have, and find it hard to understand how listening to one of her songs without a license is stealing. Does she still have a house?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
is Live. If I like the music and they are selling a CD, I'll buy it and pay cash (About the only place I play a CD is in my Car anyway). That way I know the artist is getting the money directly, and by paying cash they will likely not pay taxes on it either. They are also likely to spend it directly on whatever bar they are in, or to cover traveling expenses.
I think I am much more likely to go to a concert these days than go to a retail store and buy a CD of anything.
That said, I don't think I have downloaded anything in quite some time, mostly as I haven't heard anything too compelling that I would really wish to hear. I think I downloaded 3 CD's last year, that I might go out and buy simply because I like them, and I feel a bit guilty about it because of that. However, none of them are really mainstream so I might have a hard time even finding them... Though I can probably find them on Amazon or something.
I suspect what it is meant is that the kind of people who buy from iTunes aren't necessarily your audience. You might be able to make a few sales, but if your target niche isn't served by that medium, you won't have much success.
My other sig is clever.
But I happen to make one part of my income with music...
Mistake #1.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
"Own your own stuff" - Joan Jett
Jett had, and has, her own record label. Worked out very well.
Also notable: Mick Jagger, London School of Economics '63.
Ani DeFranco recently said The business is distilling in a way to where those who can make it by performing can make a living. As records become less a way of making money, the real performers will make it. We're all gonna be folk singers by the time this is over.
You could always make money in the music business if you were into the business side like Madonna and DeFranco, but we're not really sure there are enough organizations like Righteous Babe or Magnatune for ordinary people to also make a living.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
If they screw over Darth Vader what do you think a bunch of musicians are going to do?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
Yes, it's true, the record companies are evil, corrupt scumbags. But the musicians are not without blame. They accepted these one-sided contracts that pay the record companies everything and them nothing. And that is the sad irony of it all. Many (most?) musicians are so desperate to become rich famous rock-stars that they will blindly sign anything put in front of them. As a result the only way they can make any money is from touring -- and they really don't need the record company for that.
Who even listens to terrestrial radio anymore? I can't honestly remember the last time I tuned into an AM or FM station. I also don't use that satellite radio crap. Between last.fm and pandora I can find new and interesting artists of the independent variety and go check them out more. If I like them I can get their music.
I always have a smart phone on me, and well since getting a squeezebox I have no need for anything other than internet radio. If I'm somewhere there's no internet I'm usually hiking, camping or hunting so I don't need music then.
<happiness>beer</happiness>
All that you need to cut out the middle man and self-publish nowadays is a laptop computer:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
You can get on iTunes without being on a record label. But only the best-connected acts get good positioning in the iTunes store. You'll never find an indie by browsing, you have to know them by name.
That article talks about the money the band pays their manager and lawyer. It's the *job* of the manager and lawyer to work in their bands best interest. Why are the managers and lawyers allowing their bands to enter into such horrible contracts?
The article, if that's true about how financing in the music industry works, is basically showing the record company 'double-dipping'. I mean, if they are just making me loans, fine, I'll take out a loan, and will repay it. But in that situation, I wouldn't give them the copyright (maybe use it as collateral to secure the loan), and I wouldn't give them royalties. I would pay back the loan, with interest.
If I'm giving them a cut of the royalties, then I shouldn't have to pay back the money they spend to produce and market the album. That, after all, is why I would be giving them a cut of the revenues. But to make every expense into a 'loan' which has to be repayed, then taking the lion's share of the revenue, that's just wrong.
Seriously, who signs such a contract? Who advises their client to sign such a contract? What are the lawyers getting paid for, anyhow?
I don't think it is as easy as you make it out. Theory vs. Practice. Take a look at from NPR who interviewed OK Go!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/04/the_tuesday_podcast.html
In it the lead of OK Go! says they are leaving their major labor record for thier own. Basicly the reasons you mentioned.
On the other hand, he is not sure if they could have started out as you suggested. He thinks it takes 250k to lauch a low cost, no thrills alt-indie band like his. More if you want to go mainstream. He talks about the months that it took to write, produce and polish their first albume. Quiting their part time jobs to work full time on the album. Thier first tour, upfront costs, etc.
He could not get a bank loan to lauch this because 19 out of 20 bands fail comericially. So they needed the upfront loan to lauch.
He think the internet is getting to the point where a start up band could by-pass the major labors and their label is going to try it. So, yeah, in theory you don't. In practice, for today....
Side Note: Why do Rock Bands make more money then Rap Acts? It not because of the white/black divided. It because Rock Bands then to have a uncle who is a accountant who tell them if the thier agent gets 50% and the managment company gets 50% it is not a good deal.
Let us note the differance between a good / bad idea and a good / bad execution of that idea.
Who are The Beetles. Is that a Beatles cover band?
Even where artists have better contracts, if the labels are not fully reporting sales, it comes down to lawsuits, which are expensive. Labels can afford teams of lawyers, many artists cannot.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
and the book publishing industry too.
They advance you a sum of money, and then you pay them the money back using your 10-30% royalty from sales. They get to keep 90-70% starting at dollar 1, whereas the writer or developer doesn't see anything until their advance is repaid.
Such a shame.
Yeah, but RIAA will hook you up with the best drugs and hookers, and lawyers to get you out of jail. These are the expenditures that can't be itemized..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
This has been true for some time. Witness The Problem With Music or Some of Your Friends May Already Be This Fucked, which is a ripping expose of the music industry, written in the 90's by Steve Albini of Negativland.
www.wavefront-av.com
The article (and most of the discussion) is about how the record company gives an artist a loan, makes that loan back by collecting 63% of every dollar they make on the album, while still requiring that the band pay back the full amount they loaned them out of the 37% and keeping the copyright over the works. If that's not a crooked scheme, I don't know what is.
I don't see it as a means to justify piracy, but I do see it as a means to question the RIAA when they push for draconian DRM & copyright laws in the name of "protecting the artists." Explain to me how purchasing an album legally helps the artist, if .63 for every dollar goes directly to the label, while the other 37 also goes to the label, except it's shuttled through the band's books first.
To put it in software terms, imagine a company that pays funds a group of employees to develop a software application. The company then turns around, sells it for $10mil, keeps $6.3mil off the top, and docks the pay of each of the employees that worked on it for promotion, expenses, sales channels, etc. PLUS docking them for the initial outlay of the cost of developing the software. And when it's all done, the employees don't get to keep the rights to redistribute or sell the software that they developed. Does that seem fair, even if the employees were dumb enough to sign a contract? Doesn't that seem like something labour laws were enacted to combat?
Oh, so it's not just a clever name.
No one (around here) cares when GPL code is "Stolen" and used without commercial gain; do you see how big of a leap it is to say that the GPL (something designed to keep good work free and uncommercialized) somehow relates to these exploitative record deals which are there to take work from talented artists and ensure that they don't see the economic upside of it? If anything, it's a natural conclusion to say that the slashdot crowd unanimously supports GPL style code *and* GPL style music, as opposed to the lopsided contracts/licenses this article talks about.
You're right, there are a lot of pirates on slashdot, and you're right that they don't like your elitist blanket statements so they mod you down. Good for you, you're still at the bottom of the pile with an offtopic post.
This doesn't justify piracy, where in the entire article do you see "piracy?" This goes against the RIAA using their justification of "protecting the artist" for all the crazy stuff they pull. And honestly, artists don't know any better. Yes, no one "forced" them to sign their deal, but how many times have you heard the artist regret signing the deal with the record label afterwords? Why do you think they jump label or create their own label? And even if they don't regret it, how do you justify the record label owning the artist's intellectual property, and paying $23 out of $1000? How is that any different then the loan sharks and crooks? The difference is it is LEGAL, and everyone seems to think it is okay to let them keep doing it.
Or, to quote Jayne, ... let me do the math here ... nothin' into nothin' ... carry the nothin'."
"Ten percent of nothin' is
But that's not the issue here. If you want to make money with music, become a studio musician.
The RIAA is selling the dream of fame. You give them EVERYTHING and you get a shot at fame. And, as has been stated before, they could demand that you swim through a pool of sewage and if you refused, there would be someone else right behind you who would take that offer and think you were an idiot.
Who even listens to terrestrial radio anymore?
I do, when I don't feel like searching for artists and so on, I can just turn on the radio, tune to my favorite station and let it play while I am doing something else. Also, there are some songs that I can only hear on radio because I do not know the artist or title. I can tape those songs, but to do that I also have to listen to radio.
Also, radio is great in a car, when I am not in control of the playlist I think less about what song I would like to hear now and more about driving. Tapes are also useful especially since I do not fast forward or rewind them, so I put in a tape and it plays for 60-90 minutes.
I suggest you talk to Stardock Systems. They are an indy software developer. Because of problems regarding publishing, they self published their last title, Galactic Civilizations 2. You can find it in just about every major game seller (though on the budget rack now because it is like 5 years old now). They are doing so again with their next title, Elemental. For that matter, they've published two titles for other companies, Sins of a Solar Empire by Ironclad and Demigod by Gas Powered Games. If this keeps up, they may not be an indy studio in 20 years.
No big development or advertising budget, no attachment to a major publisher, just some guys from Michigan that can make a good game and get it out there. You can ask them who did the distribution, they'll tell you (they posted it I just forgot who it was).
Or, if videogames themselves don't work for you, how about Red vs Blue? Popular animated show made using the Halo engine. Started off as a few friends who like video games and cinema putting out products using a few Xboxes in the middle of the night while working real jobs and some donated web space. Now? You can buy the videos on Xbox live and the DVDs in Best Buy. They have their own company, with health insurance and everything. It is basically their full time jobs. The make money on t-shirts, DVDs, and people who subscribe to their site.
You are not required to work through the established system, unless you want to. Doesn't mean there isn't more work or risk to be taken on, but then there is more reward too. If you are lazy and just want to sign on the dotted line, well ok but then I don't really want to hear it from you.
Also there are intermediate options. Go to cdbaby.com, they can hook you up. One of the students that used to work here has a band on there. They handle publishing and distribution for you, and take a very reasonable cut. No, they won't get you in Best Buy. However they also won't fuck you. Also, if that is important to you to be in stores, well then look in to publishing and distributing agencies. They exist. Like I said, ask Stardock who they used. Probably videogames driven, but they might do music too.
If you want to make it big, then consider that some real effort may be needed on your part. If you look at most of the super rich business types out there, it was a combination of luck and a lot of hard work. Gates, Jobs, Buffet, Rockefeller, and so on, all had to do a shitload of work to get where they are. For all of them, there are countless more who worked had and got rich, but not so rich that we've heard about them, and still more who worked hard and just had a regular life. So I don't see why you should expect music to be any different.
Don't believe for a second they don't know that
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
Yes, because the beetles suck.
Tell you what: Why don't you go crying to Congress about the terrible plight of the musician. Get the record companies to pay the artists what they owe. Then, I'll pay them what I owe.
How about we create laws to put people who take advantage of others under the prison!
damnit! there goes "date night"
The RIAA is a racketeering group, plain and simple. Imho, the leaders should be put on trial for racketeering and the company disbanded.
Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
This is one of a few reasons that I haven't purchased music other than directly from the band that recorded it in over 10 years.
under the prison
Is that like ... the prison's dungeon?
... the music is sold by lawyers And the fools who fiddled in the middle of the stations are gone Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, David Allen Coe, etc. figured this out 40+ years ago. They weren't outlaws because of their music but because they were anti-Nashville.
radio is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to the internet
Last I checked only labels can sell music through iTunes.
I'm glad to say that this is not at all true. Here's my stuff* in iTunes, and I assure you, I don't work with a label (I learned that lesson the hard way.......fyi, so-called 'indie' labels suck too). If you don't like iTunes, there are other great sites like Soundclick, and many others.
*go ahead, buy it, you know you want to.
And while you're down there, have you seen my stapler?
There are plenty of "musicians" who get rich working with the RIAA. They just don't count on the revenue from songs and instead leverage the exposure to create a brand. Whether it's sports, music, or movies, Selling your image for corporate advertising nets more money than actually performing.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
The Problem with Music by Steve Albini
Looks like Courtney Love pilfered a lot of her article from Mr. Albini (that doesn't surprise me one bit), which really adds a nice rich chocolatey irony sauce to the whole thing.
I don't feel guilty in the slightest about my illicitly-gained music. I'll go to concerts, should any of the bands I like ever tour nearby, but I won't pay cent for the CDs. Maybe I'll send a check directly to the musicians, along with a license, saying that, by cashing that check, they agree to license me their music for personal use. That's held up in courts for software, right? Probably wouldn't actually work, but it would convince the jury.
I had a hilarious argument with a salesperson about this. I went into a CD store, mostly for shits and giggles, and checked the price on my favorite album, Metallica's S&M. $25 bucks. For a recording of a live concert that paid for itself. A concert that happened almost a decade ago. When I was leaving, the cashier asked if I wasn't buying anything today. I said, "Not at these prices."
Well, we got into an argument, about piracy, DRM, and crap like that. But the cashier kept trying to make one point: CDs sound better. I told him that a) 99% of people can't tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD, b) FLAC is identical to the CD. He remained absolutely convinced that a CD has higher-quality sound than a losslessly-compressed copy of the same.
I thought about asking him about DVD-Audio and the other "better-than-CD" formats, but I had already wasted enough of my time.
I haven't gone into a music store since.
I never much liked sports during high school and university. I'm still displeased by how universities lose money on their football teams just so their president can launder state funds and tuition into his pet projects and his friend's pockets.
I've learned however that sports offers one incredible benefit to society : perfect objectivity. African Americans were first accepted among elite athletes largely because a players RBI is a perfectly objective measure. Pro-athletes earn small fortunes today because they are actually better than other people and that extra skill translates into winning games and greater ticket sales. etc.
Musicians are almost completely fungible commodities for record companies and even consumers, much like say academic faculty for your average liberal arts collage. Add lock-in making the record companies absolutely non-fungible for the musicians, well your salary will drop through the $40k floor for liberal arts collage professors. etc.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
> Yeah, just like anyone who doesn't take the time to learn self-defense courses deserves to get beat up!
No. If you decide to go fight in the Kumate without doing so much as taking a Karate class at the local Y then you deserve to get pummeled.
If you go chasing fame, perhaps you should get yourself a clue and figure out how to do it right.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That is easy said. But I happen to make one part of my income with music... Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers? Can you distribute? Can you promote them? Those guys can... it is easy to fall for it. ll.
you sound like someone pimping young girls on the street.. because they cant "find clientele on their own" so thats why you get most of the cash!! ;)
This whole scene is a mess. Big Labels have way too much control of what music people actually get exposed to, and the chances of making it anywhere without them are pretty slim.
From what I've been told by a few insiders, except in very rare circumstances, the big labels won't even talk to new musicians these days until they've already "made it."
It's easy to say "just start an indie band", but what matters is not how many indie bands there are out there, but how many indie music customers there are out there. It's the buyers that make the difference, not the artists, and unfortunately I have little faith in the mass of sheep.
The record labels do, though! If you've managed to sell, say, 30,000 albums, managing successful tours, and getting airplay on the indie stations, they'll be all over making you into the "next big thing." (Direct quote from some A&R flack: "I don't want to talk to you until you don't need me."
They're still pushing "360 deals" too...where they wind up controlling every aspect of your image in exchange for a cut of merchandising and ticket sells. They consider it a win/win.
The RIAA's strength has been in locking down the distribution channels and promotional channels (radio) but with the internet here, those methods are starting to fail.
Listening to Internet radio while commuting requires a smartphone and a smartphone plan; RIAA-dominated FM radio has no monthly fee. How does one promote music to people who don't see the value in having a smartphone?
See all that money which we have? Loaned to us by banks. There's a bigger debt behind every single dollar/euro/pound.
The recording industry is just copying the masters.
Deleted
but at least they won't take your copyrights away.
Until you're accused of having accidentally copied part of some decades-old song still playing on the oldies station. It happened to George Harrison.
Why don't you buy something better? There are really cheap car radios which read dvd with mp3 and most new radios also have usb port for any usb stick.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Just out of curiosity, how does one go about submitting music to the iTunes store without going through a publisher? Does Apple have a portal for this?
Home:
pandora.
Car:
android + pandora
Playlists that are more in line with whatever i seed it with. Better than radio. Got sick of FM after hearing the same exact song 2-3 days in a row at exactly the same intersection. Must have had a playlist of maybe 10 songs - probably of whatever RIAA was trying to push at the time. Commuting to work is bad enough. Having deja-vu of commuting while commuting is orders of magnitude worse.
Now listen to pandora and rhapsody and some AM for news.
Can you press a nice looking album in good numbers?
Yes, easily. I have friends who self-publish; a run of 5k copies, professionally pressed with jewel case and cover art, costs about $2k iirc. With scale it would be even cheaper.
Distribution is problematic, but there's always Amazon.com. Promotion? You have to promote your live shows anyway. And the majors are notorious for not being very good at it; the RIAA claims that CDs are so expensive because only one in a hundred signed bands ever make any money at all, and the one winner is carrying the 99 losers. The only thing RIAA bands really have going for them is radio, and only 1 in 100 get air play anyway. Sounds like a big ripoff to me!
not that I am that big of a fan, but would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part music history?
Those stores are extinct in the US. Best Buy and WalMart and Target are about all that's left. Seed the torrents with your MP3s and tout the superiority of CD's sound to MP3's sound, and sell the CDs through Amazon.
Free Martian Whores!
Anti-Piracy comments don't get modded down bad approaches do.
All I see in your message is what accounts to 'It is too wrong cuz I said so'. Show me some numbers (non cooked preferably, oh wait sorry how about lightly cooked?) that actually represent real loss instead of imaginary every download is a lost cd(yeah cuz I wouldn't have just bought the song by itself) sale and nobody who downloads buys overinflated figures. Also quit acting like people are depriving these artists of something honestly most of these people wouldn't buy music even if there wasn't a way to get it for nothing. Those who would usually support the artists anyway by going to concerts or buying the song or album if they like what they downloaded.
Today, radio is becoming increasingly irrelevant thanks to the Internet.
Radio in the car: $0 per year. Internet in the car: $720 per year.
you still have to record your music. Apple takes 30% off the top. after you pay for studio time and Apple's nut you are probably looking at the same rate of return. except that most musicians don't have a lot of money to spend on studio fees and banks are aren't willing to lend to new bands without collateral. record companies are nothing more than hedge funds by another name. they take money from investors and invest it in musical acts. some pay off, some lose in the end hey make a decent rate or return in some years.
no one is going to give you a million $$$ to record an album and not expect to be paid back with profits
Film at eleven. Twas ever thus...
Sounds like someones management sucks. These are things that should be worked out/agreed upon when signing. A lot of bands will just run in signing anything because they think they are rock stars now. This happens in every business. It's the business man screw job. George Carlin talked about them once.
My tape collection outnumbers my CD and (most likely) MP3 collections, so I'm kinda "locked-in" to cassettes, since if I borrow a record and copy it, I copy it to cassette, because I can play it everywhere (I have a few tape decks at home, a tape deck in my car and a walkman, all quite high quality). And I have a tape deck in my car because I have a lot of tapes.
Cassettes are not inconvenient to me, and the sound quality is high enough (most of the time I cannot hear any difference between a CD and a TDK SA tape with Dolby B NR).
I finally bought a car tape deck with Dolby B and C NR and chrome/metal tape support, so I'm good :)
Even though I have a lot of tapes, radio is still good. I can just turn it on and not worry about what songs are playing (my favorite radio station mostly plays the songs I like), also, I hear news on it. Also, it plays music I do not have, so I hear new (to me, the station usually plays older songs) songs.
If you don't pay the extra hundreds of dollars per year that a smartphone plan costs compared to a dumbphone plan, "air time" and "broad cast stations" are all you can get in the car.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
Another way of saying it is: $87,500 per person before taxes. Which isn't really as shabby as the $45k number sounds. Probably self-employment taxes apply, but those were (presumably) accounted for in the article. I believe that is considerably above the minimum wage they imply....
The article illustrates the accounting, but doesn't point strongly at the "unfair" portion. My own take-away on the unfairness is that the performers are taking on 100% of the production and promotion costs, the label 100% of the distribution costs, and they split the video production costs. The distribution costs amount to only 50% of the total costs, but the label takes 80% of the gross. AND they (typically) take the copyrights on the song, limiting what further use the performers can make of it.
Boo hoo, performers are getting shafted by the labels. Yeah, we get it. And techdirt's source article explains those points in more detail. So how about an article or advice for artists about which contract terms are most rapacious? Or about labels that operate in a different fashion? I'm sure some of the smaller labels out there have to have more friendly terms, with at least some artists.
Neither one makes any money, according to their labels. Yet, the indie band drives around in the bass player's van and sleeps in my basement when they're in town, while the other band -- that doesn't make any money, according to their label -- drives around in a tour bus and stays at the nice hotel, and gets flown by private jet to Europe when they tour there.
There are major benefits to having record label backing, even if you're (supposedly) not making any money.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
It's really as simple as that. All manner of other practices have been outlawed in the past. Most of these have been associated with other forms of paid labor where [big] business had been taking unfair advantage of individuals. Making law against these unfair and unethical practices as described in the articles both current and previous would just seem reasonable and fair.
Of course there would be campaigns against this, but they certainly couldn't spin this by saying "the artists won't get paid" in this case.
Still, these descriptions of how the MPAA and RIAA are essentially using accounting tricks to avoid paying people need to be repeated often and in a way that the average person can understand. I hate to say it this way, but this is exactly what people mean when they say someone was "Jewed out of what they are owed/deserved." That expression did not come out of thin air.
"Money games" need to be brought under control. Obvious targets for control that people largely agree with are loan sharks... already illegal in most places. Also in the sites of many laws in many states are those "pay day loans" activities. The people already pretty much agree with this because they understand it and why it's bad. Now we just have to expand that existing understanding to include the MPAA/RIAA as "bad organizations" that need to be limited and controlled.
Once this gets better understood, I think it would be hard to get juries to award millions of dollars for sharing data on a P2P connection.
Explain to me how purchasing an album legally helps the artist, if .63 for every dollar goes directly to the label, while the other 37 also goes to the label, except it's shuttled through the band's books first.
To be fair, the record companies are providing marketing for the band. If record companies can't afford to sign bands the bands lose out on that exposure. Is it a fair deal? I don't know, but it's theoretically possible that the band comes out ahead when it agrees to hand-off their profits to the record company in exchange for lots of marketing money being spent on promotion. Besides, isn't the pirate's justification for piracy that "the extra promotion that comes from piracy increases ticket sales at their concerts"? Couldn't you say the same thing about the record labels - they take the money but the increased promotion increases ticket sales?
Is this system archaic in the age of the internet (as opposed to the 20th century system where labels were the sole method for bands to reach the mass-market via radio and get their music in stores)? Maybe it is.
To put it in software terms, imagine a company that pays funds a group of employees to develop a software application.
Your comparison to software companies is flawed because software developers earn money on sales. Musicians, at least, have the potential for multiple sources of income. "Selling off" one revenue stream for promotion is different than having a software developer "sell off" their sole source of revenue.
Last I checked only labels can sell music through iTunes.
label n. An entity that owns copyright in one or more sound recordings and their underlying musical works.
As I understand it, starting a label to market your music is not much different from starting any other business in your state/province.
Or you could go with an alternative like SoundClick
You dont need your record in the stores. Nobody buys music they never heard of in CD form from Walmart.
Airplay? Get off your arse and get it out to small stations. you will NEVER get airplay on the clearchannel stations unless you pay them to play it. But if you get airplay on all the smaller stations that are dying for something the big channels dont have... you spread like wildfire.
Get someone with real talent to shoot a video, get people to shoot "bootleg" videos at any concerts you play, get it on youtube and elsewhere. Get it out there. MARKET MARKET MARKET....
Distribution and self publishing is easier now than ever before.. Only really lazy people say it does not work.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Home:
pandora.
Car:
android + pandora
Could be nice, but:
Dear Pandora Visitor,
We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. ...
Oh, and in my country there is no unlimited data plan for cellphones. And I don't have a phone with Android, I have Nokia N93.
And FM radio is still good for me. When the station starts some boring talk show I can just listen to a tape.
If you want to be the next Metallica, or Madonna, or Brittany Spears, or one of the other stars who are known more for their publicity than for their music, then yeah the RIAA is you best bet. Of course if what you want is to make a living from making music and aren't really concerned with ever being a celebrity then you really should stay away from the RIAA.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yeah, just like anyone who doesn't take the time to learn self-defense courses deserves to get beat up!
If you sign a contract to fight in the UFC and you don't know any self-defense, then it's not a question of what you deserve... you're going to get beat up.
If you sign a contract to have someone else pay for your music production, distribution, and promotion and you don't understand the contract you're signing that says they're loaning you money for all of that and they expect to get paid back, then it too is not a question of what you deserve... it's what you agreed to.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I believe there may be a couple of methods, but I chose to go with TuneCore. I read this article with Trent Reznor, someone I have a lot of respect for, and arguably one of the musicians who really, really gets how to harness the power of the internet. I think he has some very insightful views on how new and established artists can prosper, and he has definitely paid his dues with bad recording contracts.
For anyone who doesn't know, The Electric Fetus is one of the most wonderful places you'll ever find. (ok so there are 3 locations... shhh)
Donald Passman's All You Need To Know About The Music Business details all this stuff. They can still rip you off, for example, for breakage (because shellac recordings are fragile!). Nothing is simple, and the contracts are intentionally impenetrable. Great, great book for anyone trying to break into the record business, though I suspect its advice may well be very dated at this point.
Dog is my co-pilot.
It might get you laid. And it might also get you famous. And if you're both smart and lucky it might get you famous enough that you can ditch the original label and work out something a little more profitable. Not saying that signing a deal with an RIAA affiliated company is a great option, but it might be the best option if your eventual goal is to become a "big name" star, or if you care more about getting your music heard than you care about the money.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I am to understand the supply chain of music is in point of fact not, Artist->Pandora->Amazon->Me? I didn't know record labels still existed. I haven't bought a compact disk in 10 years. I thought all artists gave their songs to Pandora and Amazon, so I could listen then buy.
iPod hooked up to car sound system: ~$500 up front, then $0 per year.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
And how!
It isn't like Apple decided that The Beatles aren't "good enough" music to sell, its the people who own their catalog that refuse to sell it in any online music store, not just the iTunes music store.
Wow, this is the first time I've seen this from someone else. I live in Philadelphia (A wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel (even the clubs!)). I stopped listening to OTA radio sometime in the 90s and never missed it since. Top 40s and oldies are great, but every station?
I believe there may be a couple of methods, but I chose to go with TuneCore [tunecore.com].
Actually, TuneCore is a publisher, a "label" as it were. They are just one that only does online distribution. I did a little more looking and Apple's website says they do not accept submissions from individuals, only publishers.
Thanks to piracy.
Educate yourself with something like http://musicians.about.com/od/musiccontracts/bb/producercontract.htm
Then get a lawyer to go over the contract. They only "still own the royalties" if you assigned them all rights. Keep your rights but assign them one time plus compilation rights but keep others and specify your desired pay-off rate. If they don't go for it, take the contact as you want it worded to other producers until you find one that will take it.
Or do it yourself. There are not only self-producing musicians online, there are self-producing bands that are also online collaborations. They can live on different continents and never meet. Music production has left the building and gone to everyone's homes. The MafIAA was the first against the wall when the revolution came, but they were too brain dead to realize it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
iPod hooked up to car sound system: ~$500 up front, then $0 per year.
An iPod can't play Internet radio unless it's in Wi-Fi range. MiFi access is $60 per month. What were you thinking of instead of Internet radio?
The original post is highly inflammatory and naive. From what I understand this "loan" is actually an Advance, same as when you write a book. An author is paid an "Advance on royalties" by the Publisher. Once the book is released and starts making sales, the author will not see any additional income until after they have accrued enough actual royalties to match the advance. Meanwhile the original poster is suggesting the music artist gets 100-63 = 37% royalty share? I wish I got that much as an author!
"Sorry Im not more user-friendly."
Extremely true. As a once almost-rich-and-famous musician, I can attest that's all *really* true... It's also why I'm writing software and posting to /.
It was fun, but boy you really get screwed even if you do well.
Nothing in the article or comments tries to "justify" copyright infringement, at least not most of them.
And their is nothing hypocritical about getting up in arms when someone takes GPL code that is meant, and required, to be freely distributed to anyone and adds it to their product without following the terms of the GPL. A copyright violation in itself.
If there are any hypocrites in this its the RIAA, they scream about how much money the artist is loosing but at the same time use all sorts of accounting slight of hand to deprive the very same artist's of that same money.
> Remember all this the next time a record label says they're trying to protect musicians' revenue.
No, remember that now.
This, if it's really an usual practice, amounts no nothing other than shaking. They're becoming experts at shaking the customer and at shaking the producers, it seems. If evidence can be produced, I'd suggest fast, sharp action by authorities to make sure such schemes have a stop.
I know it's naïve to suppose capitalism exists (much like idealistic communism), but were this to happen in other sectors (e.g. banking), federal intervention would be swift (even if uneffective).
To all musicians out there, I recommend getting together and creating their own distributor... rather than dealing with sharks, why not bypass them? Let's see how they fare without business and money to fund their malpractices. It goes without saying, but we customers really should refrain from dealing with them, too. If one boycotts all DRMed content, soon non-DRM material will gain prominence and make distributors money. These guys simply are not sensitive to reason, ethics or talking. For them, money talks. Or, more to the point, lack thereof.
Dan Ankroid said (and the quote is probably not exact) in the Making of the Blues Brothers "Well, when I was in college I studied criminology, criminal psychology, and deviant psychology, then went into show business."
Free Martian Whores!
I first heard of Dispatch, one of the most succesful fully independant bands in modern history, because my sister played one of their songs on a mix CD for me. I'm pretty sure I own a copy of almost all of their albums now. I even took a vacation to visit Boston and New York one summer because I got a ticket for one of their concerts at the Garden. Word of mouth is pretty powerful especially among people that don't commonly listen to the radio for whatever reason.
It gets you a following which you can then turn into money by:
* selling new material & merchandise online (the new way)
or
* playing concerts (the old way)
or
* both (the smart way).
People are using their iPods in their cars. I'm sure that there are a growing number of people who are using portable 3G wireless access points in their cars to supply internet access for internet radio in their cars, as well (though I really can't justify that this number of people can possibly be significant, at this point in time, though this sort of thing may become more common, as the technology in question becomes more developed and affordable), not to mention XM radio.
The old outlets are still widely used, but that's not the point. The point is that they're quickly losing ground as music discovery tools. The internet is quickly taking over in that role, and the RIAA has completely failed to invest in this venue; they have attacked it instead, therefore, nailing the first nails in their coffin.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Yes, how is it that Taylor Swift has amassed a $45 million fortune?
If the recording industry was really so oppressive, artists would find other ways to make more money. Free market capitalism is defined as the naturally occurring optimal distribution of resources. Stop trying to destroy what you don't understand.
So what you're saying is your music doesn't make any money, but their marketing does.
So why should they pay you?
What are they marketing if the musician doesn't exist? As advertising agency would not survive long if they demanded the lion's share of profits from any products for which they created ad campaigns. It makes logical and business sense to retain one's source of income. The record label business model is self-destructive; it's only sustainable because the resource of naive musicians replenishes faster than they can expend it, and the demand is insatiable.
I believe that the record label companies' profits are miniscule compared to what they would be had the industry been managed to find, encourage and support artists, rather than to discover and exploit them.
Two words. Factory. Hacienda.
How is this fucking troll modded +5 Insightful?
> Hell, they buy their music on a medium where the Beatles have no place...
> not that I am that big of a fan, but would you really buy music (as a real
> lover) in a store that doesn't have this part music history?
Certainly. I can easily see myself shopping at a specialty music store that only carries renaissance and baroque music, for instance, or a shop that only carries music performed on strings (violin and cello and so on). Narrowing the overall focus of the store's selection would create room for a more thoroughgoing variety within those limits. Heck, I wouldn't mind spending a couple of hours browsing the shelves in a music store that only sells recordings of late-baroque music played on stringed instruments. I bet they'd have some really good stuff.
Not sure what that has to do with iTunes, though.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Every Musician should read this, it's the truth [yes, I do know]:
Courtney Love Does the Math (2000):
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
~hylas
Ah, the just-world phenomenon.
All Saints went bankrupt because they had to pay for the limo that the label said they needed to take to the press shows about their album. Buy the clothes that the label told them to wear. All under a loan (with interest) set against their album sales. Even going multi platinum didn't help. I'd also bet that the limo, clothes etc were all paying the label or subsidiaries.
Holy crap. I can think of plenty of reasons to not do business with the iTunes store, but that isn't one of them. Are you serious? You really think there has been a single person who thought, "Hey, Santax's band is pretty cool, I think I'll -- hey wait a minute .. *search?* *search* No Beatles?! Forget it, I'm not buying Santax's music."?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You hit the big time, and once you are famous, you have more negotiating power. As someone else mentioned, 18 out of 20 bands fail (economically), so it's hard to get a loan. Basically the production company fronts the money and in return gets all the profits for your first album.
Once you are established, you can make better deals because people know you can deliver. Madonna isn't getting $23 out of every $1000. Beyonce is making real money. So is Shakira. The artists that can provably make money also make money for themselves.
Qxe4
For many indie artists, the issue is not just that it takes time and (some) money to record and publish the CD, but there's also the need to market the finished product. Sites like CD Baby (http://www.cdbaby.com) offer artists a storefront. Through live appearances, mailing lists, blogs, internet radio, etc., they can try to drive traffic to their page. Indie artists typically are not going to be Rock Stars. They'll probably have day jobs, family committments, and bills to pay. They're not doing this to get rich. They're doing it in their spare time because they love doing it. Also, it's easy to tell a musician to give away their songs and just sell tickets and merchandise. It's hard to pay for all of the gear, the marketing, the crew (if any), and the production of the merchandise before you see a single penny of income. In many cases, it's easy to lose money on a show. Consider the fact that these same musicians must compete for audiences against corporate acts backed by major labels with gigantic advertising budgets. A little respect for those who go it alone might be nice for a change.
After exhaustive research and excrutiating analysis, I've determined that Bubba is, in fact, everywhere.
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Actually that's half the trick and arguably the easier half. I have first hand experience in media distribution as both an industrial engineer and an accountant. First you need the capital to produce the physical media you intend to sell. Not many musicians have this kind of capital and you can't get it from a bank. Unit costs might not be bad but when you plan on selling CDs in the hundred thousands or millions the costs and logistics challenges increase in a non-linear fashion. Even ten thousand units is a pretty big logistical challenge. Second you need to actually sell the music to the stores and into the distribution networks. Try to do it yourself and you won't have much time for making music even if successful. Or you can hire someone to do it for you but this is expensive too regardless of whether it is an RIAA member or not. If you want big scale for selling a physical product (say CDs in Walmart) you'll almost certainly have to go through one or more middlemen who are much bigger than you are and who don't need your business. Your costs to use them will be MUCH higher than the big boys.
The hard part though is actually getting people to be interested in your music. Distribution logistics are a science but marketing and promotion is an art and something of a dark art at that. Few understand how to create a hit better than the RIAA members.
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
Maybe but maybe not. They aren't cheaper if they aren't effective and most publicity firms I've worked with have a pretty low return on investment. If you seek to reach the widest possible audience, it would be hard to compete with the RIAA members. Scummy as they are, they are actually better at promoting musicians than pretty much anyone else. (I'm not talking about how they treat the musicians, just their technical capabilities) You certainly can find cheaper publicity but sadly its pretty difficult to find publicists who specialize in promoting music AND who have the ability to reach as wide an audience. The RIAA members have economies of scale, pre-existing promotional relationships, knows the industry and who is important within it, etc. These are not easy abilities to replicate (a HUGE understatement by the way). Many are trying and the landscape IS shifting thanks to digital distribution but the big labels still matter and aren't going to be easy to push out of the way.
There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
Arguably true if the musician is realistic about the likelihood of success. Very few musicians make a lot of money and the RIAA members feed on the dreams and naivety of the rest. It's definitely possible to make money in music but odds are it will be a pretty modest living.
Moses Avalon is a record company insider who has written some very funny books about the industry:
Million Dollar Mistakes
Confessions of a Record Producer
Secrets of Negotiating a Record Contract (maybe not funny, have not read it)
On his web site he as a royalty calculator that allows you to plug in numbers for a recording contact and see how much the band will make:
http://www.mosesavalon.com/calculate.shtml
It includes standard things in record contracts such as 10% record (CD) breakage and 23% production costs. He gives hints how to maximize the return to the band. At standard record industry contract terms with no advance to the band you have to sell over 3/4 of a million records in order to break even. This assumes the band has already recorded the album. Need an advance to do that, then you have to sell more albums in order to break even. It is fun to play with and the hints are funny and eye-opening. His basic point is that the only money the band is likely to see is the advance. So get as large an advance as possible and spend as little of it as you can.
At one time he had an article about the economics of a record contract and touring to support it and the end result is that for the hours the band worked, they would make the same money flipping burgers at MacDonald's. And this is for a band with a million selling record.
Now I do not know how this translates to itunes sales but I would not be surprised if itunes sales still have a 10% breakage allowance.
Moses is a very funny author to read.
RLH
"the chances of making it anywhere without them are pretty slim"
The chances of making it anywhere WITH them are pretty slim too. So what have you go to lose by doing it without them?
I seem to recall such a thing in my youth, but now, there is nothing worth listening to.
That's the real problem---finding new music. The last radio station I enjoyed was run by a record producer who did it for love and as a vehicle for his ego. Sometimes you'd listen and all there was would be a drunken rant, in which case---come back tomorrow. The rest of the time was a vast amount of amazingly diverse material, old and new. Most of which was OK, some of which I hated, and some of which I loved. I discovered several new bands, and old bands that were new to me. Most importantly, the music was never bland, and the guy (and his helpers) vibrated with passion.
Then he died.
They sold the station and the frequency went to a boring hard-rock-and-nothing-but-hard-rock-we-are-so-hardcore-and-cool-and-like-dude terminally boring. Bletch.
Radio nowadays is run by droids who aim to maximize the monetization of the target demographic for the benefit of the shareholders through targeted focus groups in order to minimize risk, leveraging economies of scale to squeeze out costs...
Go and listen to a live band, radio is dead. Requiescant in pace.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
deserves to get screwed. Seriously, go publish the songs yourself as an independent band. You don't need to be a record label to get it on itunes either (I think)
It's not as easy as you think. Really.
Eight years ago, Janis Ian, a performer who's had a hit song or two and been recording and releasing albums for 45 years now, did a *fantastic* interview here on /., with questions submitted by the readership. It's worth reading -- one of the best things I've ever read on Slashdot. I bet you'll find that the opinions she expresses about how repugnant the RIAA and major labels can be aren't so far from yours. And yet, she takes pains to emphasize that the major labels have a lot to offer a budding artist (see Question #10 and her response).
In fact, most universities lost money on their football teams, see :
http://www.jstor.org/pss/40251010
http://www.knightcommissionmedia.org/images/President_Survey_FINAL.pdf
Instead, athletics programs justify the expense as bringing alumni contributions, while football programs are in-fact usually redirecting alumni contributions away from academic pursuits.
Also, Europeans are fucking insane about sports fandom, way beyond Americans casual television based involvement. Yet no serous money making inter collegiate athletics? hmm
Athletics programs are also justified as attracting additional applicants, but usually they are not attracting very high level applicants, so the value there depends entirely upon your existing academic standing.
I've found only one plausible benefit for continually losing money on football, namely "any publicity is good publicity" (for your graduates). In other words, if your institution always gets the snot beat out of them whenever they play some more important team whose games get airtime, well that creates more people who've heard of your institution, and that may translate into positive reactions form HR people for your graduates.
Yes, the major football powers obviously make money on ticket sales, never mind the television rights, but those are an anomaly.
p.s. If your university has already gone $200 million into debt expanding your football stadium, like say Rutgers University, well yes you must exploit the resources into which you've invested. You might however find more rapid recoupment if you prioritized massive concerts over football of course.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Why do people act like iTunes is the only alternative to brick-and-mortar? Try www.gomusicnow.com or any of a dozen other sites. Better pricing, plenty of selection, and no DRM.
Courtney Love.
Both, I believe, 10+ years old.
Have you seen her? She is WAY older than 10!
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Don't ask 'Why are we all struggling'. Take it for granted that we are and the pit the lower casts against each other. There's so much wrong with you're post it's hard to know where to begin. TFA points out that it's not even a loan against future earnings, the record labels keep everything and the only ones that ever see any of those 'future earnings' are the .0001% that hit it big enough to renegotiate.
The real trouble here is that our messed up economy is a complex and evil beast, and people like yourself are looking for simple kneejerk answers. You're comparing one group that's getting taken advantage of (musicians) to another (everyone but the rich), but they're getting screwed for completely different reasons, and the solutions and remedies are completely different.
That's the whole trick to the right wing: boil everything down to false sound bites that pit the poor against the poor, laughing all the way to the bank.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The state lottery can give you all that, with about the same chance of success. Do you purchase your lottery tickets regularly? If not, why would you make an exception for the music lottery?
Radio? I don't find my music on radio except on occasion I stumble on to something on public radio. A couple of weeks ago I heard The Horse Flies on "What Do You Know" and immediately ordered their CDs - indie - Funkyside.com. Mostly I do research and communicate with friends and acquaintances to find music or take a chance a show up at a venue or festival to see whoever is playing. I've found a lot of wonderful music that way. A couple of other good places to look for CDs if you like the kind of music I listen to are Yep Roc and CD Baby. I don't think they screw their artists like the big labels. do.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
I feel much better about stealing music (sorry...I mean obtaining commercial artistic works for free via copyright infringement, since it's not theft, it's A-OK!) now that I know how bad the industry treats its artists. Stealing $1000 worth of MP3's really only causes $23 of damage to my favorite artists -- that lets me sleep much better at night. Thanks to the previous article, I already feel the same way about movies too. Hopefully someone comes on and publishes an article showing the same thing about video games and computer software as well, so I don't have to feel bad about pirating them either.
sig? uhh, umm, ok
Nope, my brother doesn't have a label and he's got music on iTunes, napster, rhapsody, emusic, amazonmp3
More and more, the big labels are nothing but factories for wholly-fabricated "artists" like Lady Gaga or the finalists of American Idol.
How exactly was Lady Gaga "wholly-fabricated" by big labels? Unlike many other pop stars, she writes all of her own songs and, by most accounts, earned her success through the merit of own performance. She admits that her music is pop but challenges the idea that there's anything wrong with that. Before signing with the behemoth Interscope, she signed with the small, no-name label created by Akon. Sure, her music sounds like it was made in an electronic pop-factory but that doesn't necessarily reflect on her personally.
And as for American Idol, that's the whole point. It's a show about taking someone out of complete obscurity and making them a star, and people love it. There's no skulduggery going on here...it's a case of people asking the industry to fabricate a star for them and then getting exactly what they asked for.
I'm seeing a lot of dismissive comments in here about what labels allegedly do and how much easier it will be for an artist to do it themselves. Also a lot of hyperbole about "if they're getting ripped off, how come they're so rich"?
Let's say you are a good songwriter and performer, and you've shelled out your own money to record a handful of songs to a reasonable enough quality that a consumer would buy it if they heard it. You have no management. You have no agent. You have confidence and this product that you've agonized over. You don't want to go the major label route. You my distrust labels of any sort. You possibly have a deep dislike for the RIAA.
To get on iTunes, you used to have to be signed to a label of any sort who would represent your recordings so that iTunes would add it to their catalogue. That was from whenever iTunes started to around 2005 or so. That has been loosened somewhat so now an artist can go to CDBaby, who still require a CD of your work before doing so, and will only represent one (1) song to iTunes.
Once that song is actually in iTunes, now what? It doesn't just show up on the front page. In fact depending on which country you're from, you won't automatically show up in other countries on iTunes thanks to 100+ year-old physical distribution laws.
But what do you do? You can't simply persuade iTunes to feature your product on their service, not on your own. They have a staff who essentially act like retail used to: they "front rack" products. They do this based on the pedigree of the recordings coming in and a considerable amount of marketing push from the majors. I'm not privy to that major label process, but I can tell you there are thousands of indie artists who are having a very hard time getting any kind of meaningful exposure via iTunes without that same attention and manpower.
Tunecore - a sort of ex-major label A&R and promotions collective - will represent a completely independent artist but they still essentially only seek out artists with some kind of touring career already in place. They promote to iTunes essentially like a major label would.
It is also not that easy to sell your music - even if you're really good - without a lot of physical effort on your part. Touring. Actually pressing CD's and making them attractive and inexpensive enough that even one person would be intrigued to buy one. I don't know many people who buy CD's at all, and that includes at shows. They'd sooner buy a T-Shirt, so the artist also has to make sure they get good at shirt manufacturing. (Something few musicians assume they should know anything about.)
If your goal is just to write and perform music and possibly make a little bit of cash for fun, sure. You don't need a label. If you want to have a career at it, you may not need a label but you will need lots of other representation. Managers, agents, promoters, etc. You'll still need some financial backing to get a world class recording, and at that point you still need to answer the question of how you'll be properly exposed on iTunes. It is not nearly as easy or straightforward as many of these commenters are indicating. To have a genuine certifiably successful career? Labels are still good at that, they've just lost their taste for putting three albums worth of nurturing effort to get there. Your first album has to hit. Otherwise they will just move on. That wasn't always the case.
Comparing marketing options for a new, unknown artist who is bewildered as to what to do with their brand new music career without labels and an artist like Robert Fripp who started touring in 1966, and has released several dozen albums on a variety of internationally distributed record labels and built up a loyal audience spanning over 40 years now is (to put it mildly) apples and oranges. Same goes for Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead. Name me an artist that has succeeded on par with these artists in today's climate without a label, and I'll be interested to hear about it. Even Trent Reznor's attempt to marke
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
He simply dislikes Lady Gaga and doesn't actually know anything about her DJing or writing past. She's one of the very few "pop" artists who ISN'T fabricated. A bad example for sure.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
What do you guys think of spotify ?
Honestly, I suscribed for a premium account two weeks ago, and I love it, but even if it's the best way to enjoy legally copyrighted music without spending all the money I have on every single track of the 80 000 ones I listen to, I'm still not sure it's the best way to pay artists back.
I know the more people use and buy premium accounts on spotify, the bigger the share that spotify gives to the "artists" (in reality it's given to the Labels...), but there is no proof that those Labels give a fair amount to the artists.
So, what do you guys think of the Spotify option ?
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.
iTunes doesn't have DRM either. And they act like it is because its the biggest, and most well known.
Don't forget, it's easier for the masses to consume what is provided by the big labels than it is to go actively searching through many many more indie bands. People may like music, but it may not be their main hobby and thus don't want to spend all their free time investigating indie bands (of which most they won't like overly much). Especially not when the major labels make sifting through music easier. People may not find as much they like, or like what they find as much, but they are likely to find something they enjoy, at less effort.
It's not being a sheep, it's being cheap (about opportunity cost).
The contract is just a piece of paper, which can be argued over in court by lawyers, without the need for the signee(s) to be there. If the individuals are sick and depressed because of the actions of the executive's company, then the company should be sued for damages caused by mental trauma. A contract doesn't oblige anyone to suffer mentally or physically.
The accounting and copyrights work out such that the musicians are essentially employees rather than "independent artists." This is all much like the tech industry was doing with contractors. They'd keep the workers as contractors for years so's to not have to pay benefits. Contract workers from a few select tech companies sued and won, and now we're treated a little bit less like cattle.
I wonder how quickly the music and movie industries would wise up if they had to choose.
"What are they marketing if the musician doesn't exist?"
Everything. Because it's not music what they are selling; it's marketing itself.
"As advertising agency would not survive long if they demanded the lion's share of profits from any products for which they created ad campaigns."
Reality checking: they are doing it and they are doing it fine.
"The record label business model is self-destructive"
That certainly explains why it has been steadily growing with big margin profits since about 1910. Or maybe not? The only think that scares them is that they grew out of a scarcity (producing and delivering music) that due to technology it is no more. They should go the way of lift attendants, water carriers or coachmen. If they don't is because its bussiness is managing IP so they earn a lot of money with practically no effort which in turn gives them enough free time to use their big wallets to perpetuate the 'statu quo' by pressing the legal and political system. Not only non self-destructive but quite auto-sustainable.
"it's only sustainable because the resource of naive musicians replenishes faster than they can expend it, and the demand is insatiable."
Oh, sure! Mining gold is self-destructive... unless you happen to find a mine that's able to replenish faster than you dig it out.
"I believe that the record label companies' profits are miniscule compared to what they would be had the industry been managed to find, encourage and support artists, rather than to discover and exploit them."
Yes. You are like those economists that really believe on eternal geometric growing. Given the volume and size of the big brands that live *only* from expendible money (you don't buy a CD with the money for your food, do you?) without create *any* substantial value 'per se' across society (just entertaiment and, as such, easily substitutable for any other bussiness) I doubt they could suck any more money no matter what.
Why does eveyone think you can only listen to internet radio live? I save streams, some times days long, down to drive. A quick copy onto a usb drive and they're ready for the road.
I have hours of ChemLab from back on the day, and would pay if anyone else had any recordings. Loved that station.
*DrugCheese rants*
In America we thankfully have an unrestricted right to contract. Unfortunately, we also have an unrestricted right to contract.
The musicians are not getting screwed. They knew exactly what they were getting into. If they didn't, they're idiots. I refuse to feel bad for the cattle.
It's the artists' responsibilities to read and understand their contracts, and to research who they're about to do business with. This goes for recording artists the same as people doing any other kind of business.
The bleeding-heart BS on this site about how the RIAA is screwing both musicians and consumers is so nauseating sometimes. It's time to grow up, man up, take responsibility for yourselves, and stop living the delusion that you or your friends are entitled to something that you're not.
would you really buy music (as a real lover) in a store that doesn't have this part musichistory?
Is that an endorsement of allofmp3? There's nothing they didn't have...
Learn to love Alaska
So, you still need a 'publisher' if not 'label' for itunes? Fuck itunes then.
More and more, the big labels are nothing but factories for wholly-fabricated "artists" like Lady Gaga or the finalists of American Idol. They simply skip over dealing with "artists" by fabricating their own. And this does not only apply to pop trash like Gaga. A lot of what's passing for rock and heavy metal is just Archies-style fabricated groups made up of out-of-work actors who basically lipsync and pretend to play their instruments while backing tracks play in concert.
This has always been a complaint, and it's been that way for longer than I've been alive. The music industry has been dirty for over a century.
The thing about these 'music factories' and production companies is that now they are really good, a lot better than most artists. Look at this piece of pop trash, Can't be Tamed by Miley Cyrus. Start with the video, it's top level polished Hollywood quality. Cynical yes, but top level. How often do you see wings like that? The backup dancers are good, better than Miley, but the camera work and directing helps compensate for the the fact that she can't dance. Listen to the orchestration. It has an interesting beat, interesting sub-themes, and it's solid. The sound engineering is a work of art. People who were working on that knew what they were doing.
In fact, the weakness in the composition is the melody, lyrics, and overall organization, and these were the parts written by Miley. She is absolutely the weakest link in the entire piece. Pretty near anyone could come out with an awesome record if they had that production company. Call it pop trash if you want, but pay attention to the fact that there's some very good work going on.
Incidentally, that particular song makes Lady Gaga look good. In contrast, she is usually a strength in her songs, not something that needs to be compensated for.
Qxe4
me of the saying "what is the difference between a pizza and a musician, the pizza can feed a family of four". If you become a musician to become rich and famous you are seriously wrong.
"Citation needed".
I can find no reference to them currently being owned by MS, and they sure as hell weren't when they started.
her persona may not be fabricated, and people may disagree on the quality of her work. That being said her music is way overplayed. Is it overplayed because people want to hear it so much, or because the record companies promote it so much, or because the way top 40 works?
I personally have no desire to purchase an album if the song is guaranteed to be heard on the radio in the next 5-10 minutes.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Why does eveyone think you can only listen to internet radio live?
Because plenty of Internet radio has digital restrictions management designed to make the stream more difficult to save without analog reconversion. This includes stations that play indie music if they also play RIAA music.
Did you hear anything about Lady Gaga's work before her first album?
She was an art student from Tisch who was groomed by an Interscope farm label for eventual Madonna-style splash. Her past "DJ-ing" was basically done during her grooming by Interscope. She was picked on the basis of her "conceptual art" projects at Tisch.
I know her vocal coach from her Interscope days. She was turned from a DJ and club kid into a "singer" during those days.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I see it as less to do with DRM than with education for young musicians. The takeaway should be this: You're not going to make any money selling recorded material. It's advertising. So don't get involved with people trying to sell your advertising to the public - instead, give the recorded stuff away on the internet and get your payday from ticket and t-shirt sales.
If I were running a band there's no way I'd sign a record contract until after the band was popular and I had some leverage.
"Top level polished Hollywood quality"?
There's a difference between something being done professionally and being "top level quality".
Top Level Hollywood quality would indicate something along the lines of Citizen Kane or The Searchers or Raging Bull. I wouldn't call Transformers 2 "Top level Hollywood quality" just because it's done professionally.
And something done professionally does NOT guarantee it being awesome.
And how exactly do you know which parts of the song were "written by Miley"? Because that's what the press release said?
And I really don't have anything against Lady Gaga, but she is definitely product. Like the American Idol finalists, she has ability, but stardom is the end in itself.
The people in the music "biz" can always eat out on Lady Gaga or American Idol types. They're just not relevant to anything that's happening in the world today. Basically a throwback to the 80's when the record labels still meant something to someone besides their own accountants.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Top Level Hollywood quality would indicate something along the lines of Citizen Kane or The Searchers or Raging Bull. I wouldn't call Transformers 2 "Top level Hollywood quality" just because it's done professionally.
Call it whatever you want. You obviously understand what I meant.
And how exactly do you know which parts of the song were "written by Miley"? Because that's what the press release said?
Dude, did you even listen to the song? The parts that are Miley's are obvious because they are that bad. Besides the fact that she said she wrote parts of it. She would have been better off if she'd let them rework the whole thing.
Basically a throwback to the 80's when the record labels still meant something to someone besides their own accountants.
That is true, in those days the labels were much better at marketing themselves, but they still operated essentially the same way. We always have Right Said Fred as a vivid reminder of that.
They're just not relevant to anything that's happening in the world today.
OK, now you've really caught my interest, what IS relevant to what's happening in the world today? Because as far as I can tell, lady Gaga nails the college age woman who is her target demographic better than anyone else right now (although she may be stumbling, it will be interesting to see if she can keep it up).
Qxe4
Setting aside the possibly fraudulent practice of assigning additional charges to the artist's advance on royalties(this is what the "loan" is called), this is an absolutely standard architecture for publishing deals. This is how most book deals work and how all 3rd party game development works. While it may suck as a developer/musician/author when you're actually successful and don't get paid much, the publishers are being compensated for the massive risks that they're taking. The creative folks are effectively subsidizing all of the flops. I can only speak to the gaming world from experience, but the rule of thumb is that 9/10 projects fail to earn a profit. Publishing is all about seeking out the hits and surviving the flops.
I currently work on a game that will cost well over 50 million to develop, market, and retail. This kind of "crooked" deal is absolutely the only possible way of getting it made. As to whether or not the publisher is charging you for things they shouldn't... don't sign anything a lawyer hasn't vetted and make sure to include the right to an independent audit!
then anything else. NO ONE forced them to sign that contract, NO ONE prevented them from finding a lawyer to go over the contract and AMEND it, NO ONE prevented them from taking the contract and going to the library and looking up every phrase in Blacks Law Dictionary.
They signed the contract because they wanted to get paid and because they had visions of being a rock star, country star, pop star, Folk Star, Rap Star, jsut a BIG Star.
Limo's, Hotel Suites instead of rooms, Lobster, blow and hookers every night! Can ANYONE possibly think this shit is free?
Oh here is your 1959 Les Paul play your hart out Johny! Could ANY person who has been playing guitar for more then a year NOT know that those things are basicaly priceless?
Flying 1st class -v- Flying Coach, Execu-bus -v- a Cargo Van?
I will give you that the Record Companies are blood suckers, but the "Artist" sign a contract allowing their blood to be sucked and most of the time, if not all the time, they signed it without even looking at it.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
citation please?
wikipedia has it. Doh!
Regardless of if the odds are the same (and I frankly doubt it, even from a strictly mathematical standpoint) there is a vast difference between "you lose because the cool little balls with numbers on them didn't come up your way" and "you lose because not enough people liked your music."
Even if you pick your own numbers in the lottery, there's nothing you can do--aside from buying more tickets of course--to improve your odds. An artist's odds change with the appeal of his work. Getting rejected by random chance and getting rejected because people don't like what I produce are not the same.
(Of course I'm not a musician so I don't mean "I" literally.)
Having worked in a development company the games industry, I can say that the way we thought about it, the non-refundable advance (what you call a "loan") was what we considered our pay. We considered any royalty paid a nice bonus, but we didn't try to live off royalties.
What I see as the problem in the description of music business contracts isn't the use of a non-refundable advance. Non-refundable advances are a nice way to align the interests of the publisher (label) and the artist. What I see as the problem is that the label can charge marketing and production costs against the artist's "advance". That totally screw the incentives.
The reasonable setup is that the artist has a lower royalty and a smaller advance, but payback (and further royalties) comes out of the gross. As far as I remember, the games industry royalties were in the order of 10% - but that was of the gross. The publisher (label) bears all costs of marketing and production and breakage, nicely aligning their incentives along with what they have power over (and also aligning with the incentives of the artists.)
No. Fighting tournaments are for...get this...fighting. No one tries to get a record contract for their band because they want to get ripped off.
If you go making analogies, perhaps you should get yourself a clue and try to make ones that don't insult human intelligence.
Actually, TuneCore is a publisher, a "label" as it were
Not sure what you mean here. Speaking as someone who has been a part of an actual record company contract, I can say for sure that there is nothing similar to those type of "label" agreements in my arrangement with TuneCore. I disagree that they're similar to a label, rather they're more of an intermediary between myself and various distribution methods. I get to choose to whom my stuff is available, and most importantly, I keep all the rights to my stuff. Much better than a label, in my opinion.
I suppose you could discover new bands at home
I guess this is the only way left.
or work
One of my employers has had an FM-radio-only policy because it relies on the mainstream radio stations' decency guarantees to avoid the possibility of harassment. K-12 schools often ban possession of music players on school property, and school buses play FM radio.
tavern
A lot of CD and iTunes purchases are made by kids under 21. By the time a music-loving teen is old enough to enter a tavern, the band likely will have broken up.
"The state lottery can give you all that, with about the same chance of success. Do you purchase your lottery tickets regularly? If not, why would you make an exception for the music lottery?"
Hyperbole much? Have you actually stopped to think about the odds at all, or did you just throw out the first comparison that came to mind, however inaccurate?
First of all, i expect that being in a signed band will get you laid, even if you never become a big success. People who buy lottery tickets and don't win don't get squat for it.
Second, where i live the odds of winning the lotto are either about 1 in 40 million or 1 in 175 million, depending on which version you want to play. Wikipedia lists almost 150 "best selling artists", by which they mean artists with cumulative sales of over 50 million. That's just a fraction of the bands who've "won the RIAA lotto," but even with just that number you'd have to maintain that there are over 250,000 signed bands in order to make the odds worse than even the "easy" lotto. (I would work out the actual odds, but finding good numbers for this kind of thing doesn't seem amenable to a quick google search.)
And finally, if you just want your music to be heard because you love the art, being a signed band, even if you never "make it big" is going to do far more for you than a bunch of losing lottery tickets.
So in summation, if you're musically talented then signing with the RIAA provides more benefits and better odds of future success than the lotto. If all you want is money there are probably a lot of better ways to get it, but if you want to make music and want to be well known for it then signing with the RIAA is going to do you a lot more good than buying lotto tickets.
And finally, i do occasionally buy a few lotto tickets when the jackpot is larger than the odds of winning by a reasonable margin.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
And of course, there are places like CD Baby and others that you can sell your CDs on.
And, the best new way to promote your band that I know of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Band_Network
Seriously. Read how it works. Any band can make their song, do the mastering process and submit it to Harmonix. If it is a hit, well, you can sell a half million songs in a few months. If not, well, so be it - it ends up in the recycle bin/deleted from consideration and you try again. But it's not even necessary to have CDs or burn anything anymore.
Only fools sign anything with the RIAA or the major labels these days, since it's never been easier to do it yourself.
http://www.discmakers.com/duplicators/automated/DiscproducerPP100.asp
This is pretty much all you need if you want to churn out a few thousand CDs. Basic units run $300-$500 last I checked, but the professional units are well worth the money. Put a stack of labels and CDs in and come back in two hours - 100 ready to put in cases or sleeves. With a bunch of coffee and a friend to do some work for you, that's an easy thousand in a 18-20 hour long "shift" before a concert. Total cost is way under $1 per CD. (the above 5K for $2000 or so is fairly spot-on if you go to a firm that does this sort of thing). But you can also do it at home as well.
- You can produce yourself. Write, record, mix, and all the rest at home in your own private studio.
- You can promote yourself.(or let others do it for you - some only charge a flat percentage fee per CD (CD Baby comes to mind), which means the artists gets the majority of the money(after duplication costs unless they deliver the goods to the company's warehouse of course)
- You can burn/copy the media yourself if all else fails. Make them at home for 50 cents each and sell them at the concert for $5. Almost anyone will buy a CD at a concert for $5 these days.
There's simply no need to waste time with contracts any more if you have even a little skill and moxie.
I've been running small labels on and off since the mid 80s and have done work with major labels as well.What big labels get you that small labels can never match is reach. Sure big labels charge lots of money for those services but a one or three person small label just does not have the time, resources or pull to deal with promotion, fulfillment and all the other crap that goes into getting The New Footgazers some mind share to Joe & Jane Q. Public.
/. and the precious snowflake generation of the Web, those companies know lots more about entertaining the public than you give them credit for.
Also as far as "pop trash" goes, kindly stuff your elitist attitude where the sun dont shine. Simple fact is The New Footgazers or their like just wont appeal to regular folks who listen to the radio, buy CDs and go to concerts. The shocking truth is no one forces Millie Teengirl to buy Weekly Pop Diva, Millie Teengirl shells out her shekels because she genuinely likes that kind of music.
Another unpleasant truth of the biz is that about one in one thousand Footgazers can actually do the work it takes to build anything like a career as an entertainer. Playing hundreds of under attended gigs, touring, unreliable income, unstable relationships due to frequent absences all take their toll on people and are often reasons bands break up. There is also the issue that many bands are just lousy at giving interviews which does not help when it comes to building up an image or any kind of buzz. Lots of folks have no head for business or just blindly trust some venal manager to handle everything, never even bothering to read "This Business of Music" much less bothering to lawyer up before signing anything.
I'm fairly confident your claims of "big music being in its death throws" will be proved wrong. For all the pissing and moaning of
Circa 2003, I thought of a way to help bands gain their independence and, finally, level the playing field. My idea is called LIMB; League of Independent Musicians and Bands. For details, you can read my blog post on the topic. I know someone who used to work for the RIAA. He told me first hand that he didn't like their business practices and left. Yes, the RIAA deals a big blow to musicians, but the record label conglomerates don't help either. Many of them STILL take away the composers' copyrights to their intellectual property. Sure, a few musicians/bands get their fair share of reimbursement, but that doesn't stop the record labels from doing whatever they want with the music. "Oh, you want to take a couple of years off to spend time with your family? Well, you said that you'd crank out 5 albums in six years. You've only given us 4 albums. Don't worry. We'll release a 'Best of' and pocket all of the profits." And everyone knows that the RIAA frowns on bootlegging because it takes money out of their pocket; not the band's. You know there are thousands of bootlegs recorded directly from the soundboard. In many cases, probably not all, that's the band telling the sound crew, "Slip a little something out there for our fans so we don't have to spend money for studio time and other expenses to release an official live album." Sometimes these are even released by the band several years later as "official bootlegs". Heck, Genesis used to encourage the trading of bootlegs on their official site. Many other bands still do. I'm an amateur musician. If I ever did go pro, the only 2 record labels I'd consider are Discipline Global Mobile and RealWorld. All the conglomerates and the RIAA can take a long walk on a short pier.
-- Rather than asking "Where are you?", ask "where will you be?". They might not be where they were when you get there.
>> "Own your own stuff" - Joan Jett ...
> Also notable: Mick Jagger, London School of Economics '63.
Apropos, I contemporaneously read a ~1976-?1979 Rolling Stone article as a child whilst bored out of mind, somewhere (then as now, unimpressive writing, over-hyped boomer scheisse yes), on the Rolling Stones. It examined how they were defrauded, by their former (money?/financial?/lawyer?) manager I believe, and how they were still paying, literally the consequences. Something to the effect that they did not own their royalties but that the manager owned them, received them, and it was legally unchallengeable. Ownership to several records or a vast amount of their theretofore oeuvre.
The article had to had been prior to 1979 as Thatcherism would've solved, ameliorated the other chord of the piece. At the zenith of fame, adulation, which would continue for decades they were a facade of wealth. Their personal fortunes were a pittance, discordant from their enormous album sales and touring incomes. They were being eaten alive by the exorbitant taxes of their times and their citizenship and, or incorporation. You might not remember, I remember the silliest stuff ("we fought for nothing in Vietnam," "we're running out of petroleum", Mr. Goodbar craze), I do not know why, yet I don't in detail remember early childhood vacations, friends. They were lambasted at the time for being unpatriotic, arrogant, avaricious; they incorporated in the Caribbean, I think---and became rich!
In the early 2000s I saw on MTV/VH1? Behind the Music? Keith Richards broaching this subject (I think I remember it said that they do not own the royalties, as I said, to Satisfacion, etc. Yes, that fundamentally, cool, kewl Stones' scheisse is not theirs! Guao!). Questioner: so X screwed you on Y how do you feel about it now? Keith Richards: That was a long time ago. You can't hang on to that, it'll eat you from the inside. ***I look at it as `the price of an education.'***"
Since I found 1970s punk band "The Avengers" in the early '80s and listened to their "the avengers died for your sins"[1] Paint It Black by the Stones I learned to respect the Stones and was primed to realize the treasure that is Keith Richards, a rhythm guitarist, a composer, and a lyricist. When I heard that essence refracted through the prism of Penelope Houston's furious canto I was given an education that is still paying off. We all get it somewhere. But I remember where mine truly began, riding through Long Island somewhere listening over and over again on my Walkman(R) to Penelope Houston, Danny Furious, Greg Ingraham, Brad Kunt, Jimmy Wilsey.
But, Jagger's degree wasn't of much of help to them for at least the 1960s and 1970s, although by the 1990s, 2000s I read they coldly, brusquely, nakedly used their considerable heft to realpolitik, as it were, their way to venues, contracts, marketing that they claimed as their rightful desserts. I still love Richards but I don't hold to anyone's reins with unexamined appreciation. My last Stone's album that I dig is Tattoo You, and T&A is just sunshine when I remember the tune and lyrics when the Lords of terrestrial radio programmed Start Me up, aka the Windows95 marketing song.
True: When Jagger was informed that Bill Gates wanted permission/rights to Start Me up for the campaign Jagger annoyed with whomever was this Bill Gates and disdainfully, fuckoffedly uttered, tell him it's eight million dollars! When Jagger was informed of the response he was incredulous, "OK, says Bill Gates" he was informed, he quickly inquired who the hell was Bill Gates and what he sold, and why dumbly he hadn't asked for more. Checkit.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_(album)
Lady Gaga.
She even has one of those "360 degree" contracts.
Let's see what happens to her.
I personally am not a huge fan of 360 deals because they compete with the services our company offers bands. It's the only reason we've lost clients in the last few years. That said, some of our clients that have signed these types of deals are pretty happy with them. The goals of the label and artist are aligned. They aren't asked to play free promotional shows just to promote an album release like they were previously because the label doesn't make any money. Instead they are set up with paying gigs and everyone profits.
In general, I've worked with alot of artists and the ones that treat the label like a business partner, watch their expenses, turn down extravagant extras (because they do come out of their earnings) do well. They also self promote, build their own email list/facebook fans, and handle a portion of their own production so they can bring something of value to the bargaining table. This allows them to BARGAIN WITH THE LABEL (ie. we partner on music sales and touring, we keep control of our online business). Artists who expect a free lunch find out as with all businesses, you aren't going to get one.
I could go on, but bottom line, labels can work well for artists who know how to work the label.
Actually, RIAA needs all the money that they are making. They need it because, they can pay their lawyers $16million every year to recoup $391K.
All the crappy teen age bobble heads that record labels sign these days don't deserve to get paid anyway. It's a problem that is built into it's own solution. Now if the record companies signed REAL bands and ripped them off, that would be a different story. But I don't really give a shit if Taylor Swift and Justin Timberlake get ripped off by Sony. It's like one disgusting head of a hydra eating another head. No consequence at all on myself, or anybody who has half a brain and doesn't listen to that corporate garbage.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
iTunes is wide open. However Steve takes a giant cut of every track you sell. But as an indie you CAN sell stuff on there. Not that anybody will ever know to download you when you are not on MTV, Clearchannel, etc..
I speak from direct experience here. *sigh*
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
To put this another way...my company develops engineering grade software. We're just interested in the technology portion. Agreements in the past with a distributor partner usually results in a 50/50 or 45/55 split. The take the hit to market, sell, train and support the software. Now considering these performers who don't write their own stuff, or provide their own editing and final cut, well I can see the take dwindling, but *still* to some hard percentage free and clear.
If the band does write the stuff themselves, the copyright sale should be hard cash on the table above and beyond. The deal should give the producing company right of first offer, but nothing beyond that.
These deals are very clearly unfair. Also it brings into serious question the rediculous copyright terms currently in the US especially if the bulk of these aren't held by the individual artists, but by a few big media houses.
Honest question: are any online stores offering lossless (flac or otherwise) files? I don't really care about buying physical CDs but I'll put up with a closet full of CDs as long as the alternative is a lossy format that will have awful quality if I ever choose to convert the files to something else. Last time I cared to check I couldn't find an online retailer offering lossless formats.
And I've been waiting over a month for Amazon to get an album back in stock and ship it to me >:(
Because Amazon does its stinking best to prohibit me from buying music in mp3 format.
iTunes doesn't have DRM either. And they act like it is because its the biggest, and most well known.
So.. I can put an iTunes purchased song on as many players as I like? Plug an iPod into any computer and play from the iPod, through the compute speakers, etc? Without going through any intermediate steps such as making a CD, and re ripping?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Not sure what you're on about the iPod bit for, but yes, you can play a song purchased from iTunes on as many players as you like. As long as the player supports the format (which is an open, industry standard format) you can just drag and drop it to your player and play it.
Not *entirely* true - good blowjob skills don't help you win the lottery.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
erm, i the beatles thing might be about apple music taking apple to court over their music store?
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Because a hit album usually leads to a hit tour in large venues and lots of sales of TV Shirts and other marketing materials. Artists usually get a good chunk of that money and for most, that's where the bulk of their income comes from.
It IS the musician's fault.
I worked for 18 years in music; from retail on up through live sound, studio recording and all the way to the top of the Contracts dept. at a Major Label. I am also a musician.
I admit I was as lazy as most musicians in thinking that my world didn't involve contracts, legal documents, loans (far in excess of a simple bank loan for the same amount), copyrights and the rest of the business of music. IT IS A BUSINESS. Thinking you can just "party hearty" and "seek your soul music" is great, as long as you aren't IN BUSINESS.
But if you are... you'd better learn to read a contract; figure out if a collateral loan from a bank would be cheaper in the long run than a loan from the record sharks; read up on dirty accounting tricks in the business (the example above is so true; I've seen bands billed for videos that were never shot, "promotional materials" never made nor shipped, padded studio time bills, expense accounts including corporate jets for the Suits to fly their temp-babes in to see a concert... on and on and on and on) and be prepared to DO BUSINESS.
That said... thank god the majors are choking in their own dung and vomit; thank god for alternative distribution methods (that's why The Majors came begging for the B-52s, Talking Heads, Gang of Four, et al) and thank god for the internet and website distribution and CD Baby and all the rest of it. It almost killed my love of music working in that industry, it was so sickening and disgusting.
Here's another nasty secret that has been said before, but my opinion is well-known and taken for granted in the Industry: RECORDS DO NOT MAKE YOU MONEY. RECORDS ARE A PROMOTIONAL ITEM. This has been known all the way back to Sun Studios and before. You do not make money on records. You make money on all the markup items (tshirts, promo posters, tickets, etc). If you are a musician, you're going to make money PLAYING MUSIC. Period. Every record exec knows this. Every musician should, and try not to get sucked into the drug-dream of some platinum record making you enough to comfortably retire, cause it Ain't Gonna Happen. The Company will see to that.
Except for when you have a small group of individual companies colluding to corner the entire market on production and distribution. What do you call it then?
Stop trying to claim it's a capitalist free market when no such thing exists anywhere on the planet.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
In a round about way though, the RIAA is protecting the artists by protecting themselves and the labels.
Artists make money from concert tours, T-Shirt sales, clothing lines, product endorsements, etc. But to do that, they need to be famous. An album is the price they pay to a major marketing firm, aka a record label, to make them famous. If the record labels can't make money from selling albums due to piracy, then their incentive to make people famous goes away and artists suffer.
And as people have said, you don't have to use a record label. You can always try to become famous on your own. A few people have become famous by putting their music on Youtube and Myspace and such. And there's always reality shows like American Idol. And for the better looking women, they can always try a sex tape. But if all that fails, giving an album of music over to a record label is still a viable choice.
Most people also forget the number one reason for album companies, promotion. We all know who nickelback is....
they probably fall under the same problems most musicians do, however if they decided tomorrow to leave their record label and start their own, they now have a fan base, so most fans will go to their website to know where to download (itunes) their next album from...no one knows who "collusion fall" is because there are a band without any real recording label, but has some great music...try finding where to download it from, it is almost impossible, bootlegs aside...
and you end up earning only as much money as you would have if you have given your album out like radiohead did. difference is, latter took only 4 hours for radiohead to make as much money as they could with 1 year of concerting.
Read radical news here
Assuming a band can crank out an album once a year, the band members are making $45K per year. AFTER TAXES. While yes, I agree, that's hardly a rock star salary, the article isn't talking about rock stars. It's talking about the artists that never sell enough CDs to recoup their loan.
Also consider the fact, that the loan never HAS to be paid back. If the band only sells ONE CD, they don't have to pay back the advance. $1 million is hardly chump change to most people. And yes, you can produce an album a lot cheaper than that. Some decent instruments and recording equipment, a CDR burner and you're all set. And if you can make more than $45K per year doing that, go right ahead. Nobody's stopping you. The record company is providing the artist with a completely risk-free proposition, and all they have to do is give up 90% of the earnings, and pay back all the loans before they see royalties.
Of course, an artist in that situation is smart enough (or SHOULD be anyway) to realize that the money for the artist isn't made on CD sales, it's on tours. Radio stations play your music, people buy your CDs, and then line up for hours to buy tickets for your shows whenever you come relatively close to wherever they live.
Of course, all of this is before the internet changed how music is distributed. We don't NEED the CDs anymore, since it's just as easy to find the songs online.. for free. On the other hand, if the internet is the primary distribution for an artist's work, through piracy or some other means, there's really no need to get involved with the record company at all. Just do a decent recording and distribute it as an mp3. Sell the song, or even the whole album for a buck on itunes, and you will make more than you would through a record company deal. Ultimately, this should result in better record deals for the artists as the RIAA attempts to compete for the small time (but still profitable) artists who will never recoup their investment. They might start earning more than 10% of the sale. But if not, at least today, there are other options available.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
There are still good stations out there, and with the Internet, you can listen to them wherever you are. Check out 89.3 The Current out of Minneapolis. Great stuff.
Okay, I can't access them via the radio (seeing as how I haven't lived in Minneapolis for several years), but they are still a good radio station who's going strong. At least, until everyone discovers them, runs up their bandwidth costs, and forces them to drop the live Internet stream. On second thought, forget I mentioned them. :-)
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
Fat Wreck Chords
http://www.fatwreck.com/
The way a record company should be.
Shoot, iTunes isn't my favorite store. I was a Napster user, and now a Rhapsody user, because they have an iPhone app. $15 a month all you can listen to sounds like a fair deal to me. Yet in the past four months, I have spent about $200 (not including apps) on iTunes? Why? Cause its so easy to tag a song with Shazam and buy the song straight from iTunes. If Rhapsody would just introduce song tagging, ability to store the downloads on the device, and the ability to have more than, what's the limit, 800 songs in your library, I would never buy another song from iTunes.
Other music lovers get on me becuase they say that the sound quality on iTunes is not up to par with CD quality. I listen to music in three ways 1) iPhone with my headphones, 2) in my car on my factory insalled speakers, and 3) and this is rare, at home, on my sound system. As the ways I normally listen to music is through less than ideal speaker conditions, the sound quality on iTunes and Rhapsody is fine for me.
There are only two reasons I ever buy CDs - I will buy them directly from the artists (mainly independant), or I I can't find them on iTunes (mainly international artists - don't know why iTunes restricts music searches by country - if you have a direct link to the artist, you can still download them in the US). A few of my friends in the music business say that they get about the same amount of money from me getting their songs on Rhapsody through a subscription as they get if I buy the album from Amazon or a store - it averages out to about 20 cents or so per album sold. If you buy the CD straight from them, they make about $5-$10 per CD. That is the independant artist. I have one friend who is signed, and they make far less than that, but sell way more.
Correct. That's been the case since January 2009 when Apple strong-armed the music industry into allowing them to remove the DRM from the iTunes store.
Seriously? I personally don't know anyone that listens to music radio stations anymore. NPR sure, but other than that it's CDs, burned CDs, and iPods. Because clearchannel took over and turned the airwaves into bland mush.
Fuck you whoever moderated this as Offtopic as well. You're a cocksmoker.
I don't agree that it's not the musician's fault. The only rteason these third party criminals get away with it is because the muscicians allow them to.
There must be legitimate record makers out there who aren't crooks, and they probably advertize. A unified denial of utilizing the crooks' services and going to a small number of non-criminal producers would put a stop to such core criminality.
You a trivializing what goes on in the RIAA. They are crooks top to bottom. You must work for them no?
That's not true, rock and roll was never some synthetic, plastic marketing gimick like these Nickelodeon-created fantasies, rock sprang from the black ghettos, from rythem and blues, and an honest rebellion against the stale hypocricy of swing and jazz.
And "rap" was created as a *political* form of protest, it was never intended to be liked in any context other than a rebellion by blacks against the honkey white oppression.
When "Three The Hard Way" came out in 1974, that was the start of the *political* emergence of "rap" as virtually a weaponized version of non-music, it was specifically intended to not be "music as the white man knows it."
Even better, they're a Beatles cover band made up of Muppets.
Make a store like itunes but for heterosexuals.
hum... it's actually worse in the software industry, I gather(*). The average developer sent to a client's facility pays his monthly salary with a two-day mission, the rest goes to his employer, so 18 days of work :-(
(* : I sell software to cities)
No, just saying that artist who have been screwed by the labels have the right to screw right back. They just don't, either because they believe the contract is actually a binding agreement, or they use it as an excuse for inaction.
In your neck of the woods, maybe. :)
how is babby formed?
The real reason that the RIAA doesn't want pirates from "stealing money from artists" because *THEY* want to steal the money from the artists!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Radiohead was already "Radiohead" when they did that. A band that had been built up by record labels since 1991. And much of the success of 'In Rainbows' was based on the novelty of a well established band letting people decide what to pay for their album. An new artist who tried that would be lucky to get enough to buy a value meal at McDonald's if they tried it.
and what does that matter ?
radiohead was radiohead, and as radiohead they made enough money in 4 hours just as much as they would be able to do with touring for a year for a label.
if, randomschmuck band is randomschmuck band, they will make as much money in similar time in a similar fashion. the novelty of 'pay as much as you want' is accounted for in this calculation. in case you have missed, that album is STILL selling and raking in money as of now, instead of NOT making any money as it would have, if it was given to a label.
the point here is, labels fuck artists. artists can make as much, no, actually MORE money than what they would do with a label, if they do it themselves. radiohead can still go to concerts in their own accord and make money.
Read radical news here
+1 on the Jayne quote. 3 (-:
I couldn't agree more. The quality of the work by the production crews is often top-notch in spite of the lead performer being unworthy of that sort of treatment. Highly polished turds, with quantum odor removal.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Yes, to all of those.
iTunes songs from the store are normal AAC files, with no DRM or other protections. They *are* tagged with your apple ID in one of the metadata fields, but this does not affect any other player's ability to play them. I use a great deal of my iTunes music on Ubuntu, for example, with no need to do anything to the track - download it from the store, and my Ubuntu box sees it in my music folder (via network) and can play it right away, although you can also move the file via USB stick etc. It is not protected or limited in any way.
It matters because Radiohead had hundreds of thousands of existing fans willing to buy their album no matter how it was released. Metallica, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, AC/DC and other such bands could probably make tons of money self releasing albums too because they, like Radiohead, have a huge existing fanbase that was built through many years of promotion by record labels.
Look at Chris Daughtry. He independently released 3 albums with 2 different bands which sold less than 1000 copies each. He had to go on American Idol to get fame and has now sold millions of albums. Ditto for Carrie Underwood (she had 3 albums released before Idol), David Cook, Adam Lambert and several others.
Another example is Michelle Branch who self released Broken Bracelet in 2000. It sold less than 1500 copies. She signed with a label and her next album sold 1.9 million copies.
And Radiohead signed a deal with Warner Chappell Music Publishing which is a division of Warner Bros. Records to sell physical copies of In Rainbows in stores. If self publishing a digital download makes more money than going through a label, why did Radiohead go and do that?
guy. you still miss the point.
things wouldnt change for a less known band if they signed up with a label. if they are less known, label will fuck them more, their terms will be harsher. if they are better known, lighter. it is as simple as that. its relative. in either case, it is better for bands to sell their own stuff.
Read radical news here