Quote:
Originally Posted by herecomesyourman  There's a reason unfiltered music from non major label sources is selling so well in larger pools of smaller numbers combined. Those artists aren't at a level corporately where music literally becomes the LAST thing they need to worry about on a day to day basis.
So they make incredible music, and try to build fan bases...and guess what, when it's good, it's good...you don't need millions in advertising to sell 10-50K of a great record, as long as you're willing to tour hard for it. |
I think this is what it's coming to for most artists. Not much in it for major labels. At $10/CD, you're looking at $100,000-250,000 for a successful record. How long does it take to sell that quantity? How many people split that revenue? What are the costs along the way?
So, let's make up some numbers. Say it's an average band of four people, taking a year to reach these sales numbers. Let's say they spent $20,000 on recording and manufacturing. That means that the individual band members would make $25,000-58,000 on the record, plus the publishing, touring income and merchandising. Minus lots of miscellaneous expenses. Not a bad income at all, wouldn't you say? Not MTV Cribs, but still pretty good.
So, if the old system meant that a small group of people made millions and a whole bunch of people ended up with nothing (I'm thinking the Albini editorial), and the new system means that practically nobody makes millions but a whole bunch of people make a decent living, what's wrong with that?
Looking at it from this perspective, I'm having a hard time seeing how my interests would have been better served in the "old" system than the "new" system???