Why would/wouldnt the HipHop philosophy work in rock?!

[CISUM]

So, I sat back and thought about it......

Would or Wouldn't the hip hop model of business work for rock music?!

Rap artists dont tour really, put out and album, sell it, gets played on the radio, and people like "the bird man" or "Lil Wayne" are estimated to be worth millions.

Passion, drive and doing what you love is not always about the money, but why would this not work for rock or any other genre of music when talking about the new business model at hand?

[Dean Roddey]

Perhaps because a core part of their constituency hasn't quite the access to the means of music theft that their white suburban counterparts have, and therefore they can actually still make some bucks selling albums for the time being?

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Perhaps because a core part of their constituency hasn't quite the access to the means of music theft that their white suburban counterparts have, and therefore they can actually still make some bucks selling albums for the time being?

ehhh, I dont know if I would say "white counterparts" or bring in any sort of race comments bro. I'm not black or anything, but really doubt its a white or black issue.

BUT, I can tell you thats definitly not the situation. There are people downloading left and right from hiphop albums, but the fact is they still turn out a profit.

I think the fact is that radio and "pop" culture has shy'ed away from the rock sound now, and is in need of uptempo, drive in your car, make you feel like your in a club music.
just my thoughts, but really looking forward to hearing everyone elses

[Dean Roddey]

Talking about race is only a problem if you are bigot. If you aren't, and you are just discussing valid possible demographic differences, it's not. I was just putting forward one possible answer. The young audience for rock/pop music in this country probably has a very high adoption of broadband internet access and portable players with high capacities. Maybe that's not as high in more urban areas.

Anyway, it's just a SWAG. But, I guess I'd have to ask, how do you know what they are making good money? Is it because you know the numbers or because you see lots of videos with rappers wearing gold? And the other question would be, if you do know the numbers, what are they compared to 5 years ago? If it's been trending downwards, then it may just be a slight delay in one genre vs others.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Talking about race is only a problem if you are bigot. If you aren't, and you are just discussing valid possible demographic differences, it's not. I was just putting forward one possible answer. The young audience for rock/pop music in this country probably has a very high adoption of broadband internet access and portable players with high capacities. Maybe that's not as high in more urban areas.

Anyway, it's just a SWAG. But, I guess I'd have to ask, how do you know what they are making good money? Is it because you know the numbers or because you see lots of videos with rappers wearing gold? And the other question would be, if you do know the numbers, what are they compared to 5 years ago? If it's been trending downwards, then it may just be a slight delay in one genre vs others.

lol, well ok then I can ask you the same thing for figures my friend. How do you know the statistics that show more homes with broadband are white vs urban territory where lets say they use... dial up???

Plus I know a lot of artists in hiphop. I can tell you that per weekend for 1 hour these guys probably make more than anyone working a 9-5 would in single pay period. thats a fact...

and lastely, I do know times have changed, and back when 2pac was around, the guy didnt have a single cent to his name. But again its the contract he signed...

Fact is music is changing and its going into the direction of ultimatly being a secondary artilery weapon, then your first. I think its an easy way to brand your name, and have your name market different products you can make a lot more money on...
*cloths
*perfume
*merch
*movies
*production

[Dean Roddey]

I didn't say I knew it was a fact, I just said it probably is the case that surburban teens are a lot more likely to have access to broadband, and that maybe that could be at least partly to do it with. I don't know if it is, I was just throwing it out there as an idea for discussion.

Plus I know a lot of artists in hiphop. I can tell you that per weekend for 1 hour these guys probably make more than anyone working a 9-5 would in single pay period. thats a fact...

But that would imply that you mean they are making it playing live, not selling albums, right?

Fact is music is changing and its going into the direction of ultimatly being a secondary artilery weapon, then your first. I think its an easy way to brand your name, and have your name market different products you can make a lot more money on...

In which case though, you really aren't a musician, so I'm not sure if it even matters if that's what it turns out to be.

[Doc Mixwell]

To mE: Hip hop is stolen/borrowed/used/appreciated from all forms of music. It sees no boundaries, unless it SUCKS like anything else musically related. I am picturing your question being asked in a record exec meeting, asking themselves, trying to figure they're way around music as a "business" rather than simply "music" that would apply across a plethora of people because its "good". There are many views about our wide spanning musical culture, but I think production value holds equal water for all musical counterparts. "Sucking" is universal to me, but if you are good, you are timeless, no matter if you're a teeny bopper or a misogynistic, human sacrificial death chanting group who each play the same sine wave. Rock, Rap, R&B Jazz, Blues, Easy Listening, New Age Healing, LOFI, Comedy, Country, Western, Country and Western.......Its all music. Quality really IS universal. I guess the musical lesson of the day is that you can still sell platinum records, and win Grammy's even though you're covered in syrup.

[CISUM]

But that would imply that you mean they are making it playing live, not selling albums, right?

No, I just gave an example. Lil'Wayne sells OVER 450,000 THE FIRST WEEK. Same figures for 50 cent and Kanye West last two albums.
BUT in regards to making money for live shows, I dont think what they do for an hour is worth it... personally.. but they still more money than a rock band would for playing an hour

In which case though, you really aren't a musician, so I'm not sure if it even matters if that's what it turns out to be.

I dont know if your refering to me or the examples I gave to you... Yes I am a musician... and I can sit here and tell you what I have done and been through...
But for example purposes. So you mean to tell me Metallica and AC/DC are not musicians for wanting to put their "brand" on DC shoes?!??! lol
no fact is there is other avenues of money now... The time when everyone was called a sellout for doing that, is now the trend...

I mean lets fact it, im sure you wouldnt turn down a multi million dollar contract with a company who knew they would make money of your name alone would you??!

[Azuresaeolian]

I think there is much more collaboration in hip-hop. Plus, DJ's and mixtapes all create huge exposure. Personally, I like artists that got that air that they don't need the money anyway. I picture Tony Soprano waking up one morning and deciding to get into making music when I hear lines like "partner, I'm still spending money from '88." That should be the requesite, you know, being a self-made individual before picking up a mic instead of trying to be the next Brittany Spears or American Idol of the hip-hop world.

[Dean Roddey]

No, I just gave an example. Lil'Wayne sells OVER 450,000 THE FIRST WEEK. Same figures for 50 cent and Kanye West last two albums.

That's three poeple, and those aren't necessarily huge numbers by pre-downloading standards for the big sellers and how many do they sell after that? I'm sure that there are still some folks who got their exposure while the label system was still working and marketing them heavily and all that, who can still sell some albums. But if they are the top dogs in that genre that isn't going to translate to others necessarily.

Pearl Jam's Vs. sold just shy of a million in its first week, just as a comparison. Vitology sold almost 900K in the first week. And you have to look at whether that's just an immediate pent up demand and how much more it sells over time. Stone Temple Pilots sold something like 40 million albums altogether, Pearl Jam something like 60 million, etc...

450K might sound like a lot, but even he cleared $2 each himself, that's only $900K, which you find out quickly isn't squat when you are running a company. By the time you pay four or five employees with taxes and benefits, and other expenses for the year, if that was all he had coming in, he might not have a lot left over.

I dont know if your refering to me or the examples I gave to you...

I was referring to the examples. The thing is, if that's why you are doing it, then fine. But it's something to discuss on a business forum, it has nothing to do with music. It's the death of music just as much as not making music at all is, or just short of that.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

That's three poeple, and those aren't necessarily huge numbers by pre-downloading standards for the big sellers and how many do they sell after that? I'm sure that there are still some folks who got their exposure while the label system was still working and marketing them heavily and all that, who can still sell some albums. But if they are the top dogs in that genre that isn't going to translate to others necessarily.

Pearl Jam's Vs. sold just shy of a million in its first week, just as a comparison. Vitology sold almost 900K in the first week. And you have to look at whether that's just an immediate pent up demand and how much more it sells over time. Stone Temple Pilots sold something like 40 million albums altogether, Pearl Jam something like 60 million, etc...

450K might sound like a lot, but even he cleared $2 each himself, that's only $900K, which you find out quickly isn't squat when you are running a company. By the time you pay four or five employees with taxes and benefits, and other expenses for the year, if that was all he had coming in, he might not have a lot left over.



I was referring to the examples. The thing is, if that's why you are doing it, then fine. But it's something to discuss on a business forum, it has nothing to do with music. It's the death of music just as much as not making music at all is, or just short of that.

I agree...
Trust me bro im not going to sit here and try to argue when I can be shown a clear example. I agree with what you have to say about the record sales... In my eyes I think 450,000 is still good for everyone downloading this day and age. Yet as you showed an examples of the employees and splitting things up, I can see where your coming from...

But the only thing I gotta tell you is, maybe the fact people/musicians are using their name to brand clothing and shoes is an example of why music is dying... maybe its because they can make money in it so they have to do other things, i believe that... and thats why its happening..

what are your thoughts?

[Louiseven]

I was doing some work for Universal about 4 years ago. I was in a meeting with a then VP now since gone to a more visual music company He showed me a stat report that showed at the time 88% of Hip Hop music is purchased by suburban kids. Not that the Urban kids do not listen or like or support Hip Hop they do, They are just not the main consumer. I'd also like to note that it may be a correct assumption that one would more likely find Broadband connections and fast computers more prominently in suburban households than low-income urban homes. However, you would be hard-pressed not to find a guy selling boot-legged Hip Hop CD's alongside pirated movie DVD's near most populous shopping and dining areas in and near urban parts of Southern California.

[CISUM]

Originally Posted by Louiseven

I was doing some work for Universal about 4 years ago. I was in a meeting with a then VP now since gone to a more visual music company He showed me a stat report that showed at the time 88% of Hip Hop music is purchased by suburban kids. Not that the Urban kids do not listen or like or support Hip Hop they do, They are just not the main consumer. I'd also like to note that it may be a correct assumption that one would more likely find Broadband connections and fast computers more prominently in suburban households than low-income urban homes. However, you would be hard-pressed not to find a guy selling boot-legged Hip Hop CD's alongside pirated movie DVD's near most populous shopping and dining areas in and near urban parts of Southern California.

sweet. so I guess the new generation just pisses on the rock/alternative sceen, and is all over the hiphop genre. That should mean we as musicians/producers and also business people need to "monkey see monkey do", and let our pride down and go into hiphop to make a living?!

[narcoman]

hip hop doesn't tour? You gotta be kidding me - club "jams" are the equivalent of the band touring in the shitty van. And there are plenty of big shows out there.

As for turning a profit? Airplay, syncs, adverts THEN sales.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

Perhaps because a core part of their constituency hasn't quite the access to the means of music theft that their white suburban counterparts have, and therefore they can actually still make some bucks selling albums for the time being?

Two words: Popeye's chicken

I'd say 75% of the Popeye's chicken I've been to have a table just down the road with bootlegged cds.

[crufty]

rap is pretty well organized. street teams etc. it is all about promotion. When a rapper comes through town, if you listen to rap, you definitely know it. When you listen to a rap song, you know who the rapper is. you can 'buy' rap mix cds for like $2 with funkmaster flex screaming the rapper name / song title over laser sounds 'pew pew pew' and explosions 'BOOOM'. the mogul aspect is a little cliche and I think representative of how some parts of rap are almost completely farmed out--beatmakers cum producers, writers, freeing the label's 'talent' to be marketed effectivey.

I think it would work, if tuned for the right market. I imagine ladies in pearls hocking coldplay posters at junior league meetings, priest exhorting their flock to go see slayer, etc ;0 So I guess it would work.

somehow rock and roll got pretty boy and hiphop went gangsta. At one point, hiphop seemed like it as going to steer into house / arrested development territory when gangsta showed up and snatched rap from the jaws of art (i kid i kid).

ps. i was thinking about that too Dean re-450k copies. I guess that's only one day but $900k, is that after corp taxes? Then you have income tax and before too long brother can you spare a dime Still, 2 mill albums sold in 2008, not too bad at all. $4 mil after taxes after taxes is still fine living.

[equallyscrewed]

Originally Posted by narcoman

hip hop doesn't tour? You gotta be kidding me - club "jams" are the equivalent of the band touring in the shitty van. And there are plenty of big shows out there.

As for turning a profit? Airplay, syncs, adverts THEN sales.

Exactly!

I cant think of a single major hip hop star/rapper who doesnt come here every year...

xcx

[Backhousepro]

Originally Posted by CISUM

So, I sat back and thought about it......

Would or Wouldn't the hip hop model of business work for rock music?!

Rap artists dont tour really, put out and album, sell it, gets played on the radio, and people like "the bird man" or "Lil Wayne" are estimated to be worth millions.

Passion, drive and doing what you love is not always about the money, but why would this not work for rock or any other genre of music when talking about the new business model at hand?

Actually, that business model was applied to rock — back in the late '80s when record labels stopped paying tour support after they realized that they could sell a million records without a band going on tour. Also, rappers were discovering that even thought there first album sold platinum, they were lucy to break even. Hammer was also estimated to be worth millions, and he was, right up until he discovered that he was paying for everything after the labels dropped the hammer. Ever since the sixties, the only place a rock band ever made money was in touring. That's why once every year or so, the Stones dust off their walkers and hit the road.

The record label's business model has always been about keeping as much as possible and letting the artist find a clever way to realize a profit. That business model hasn't changed. And as soon as the internet appeared and artists thought that this would be the clever way they were looking for to not only finally get the lion's share of their productivity and stick it to the man as well, the labels found themselves in the state they're currently in: whining about piracy (ironic coming from pirates) and desperately looking for a new license to steal . . . I mean, business model.

Here's a business model for you: Don't f@#$ the golden goose or your customers.

-B-

[Dean Roddey]

So you are trying to claim that Springsteen, Madonna, Morrissette, STP, Nirvana, u2, etc... made no money from their record sales? That all their money came from touring? I find that pretty hard to believe. I don't find it hard to believe that a new artist doesn't make much, since they came to the label without any proven track record. But an established artist should be able to demand their cut when they have a proven record of sales.

[Backhousepro]

Yes, the bigger an artist the more of a cut they can demand. But initially, touring was considered advertising for the album and where the artist got paid, and the album became advertising for the live concert.

What I forgot to say in my original post was that how much money you make off albums sales is more about who your management team and lawyer is than anything else — and what kind of deal you signed up front.

After all, with 4.75 cents per mechanical as the songwriters share, and 10% (and not a real 10% unless you were lucky) of net sales after the label recoups expenses, I'd say that making a profit from album sales was slanted just a tad towards the labels. The big bucks came after you made a name and renegotiated.

I also seem to recall a Bruce Springsteen that was $187,000 dollars in debt and unable to record for two years while he slugged it out in court. Don't forget Prince's silly name period so that he could get out from under the deal he signed. The statistics are that of all the people who make big money in music, which is around 10%, only 10% or so of that group actually keep it. And most of their money comes from other investments. As Donald Passman explained in his book, the difference between a rock star and an executive is that the executive will make a few million over a lifetime, while the rock star (and not low- or mid-level either) will get his few million at once. What determines how well he does after that is how wisely he invests.

-B-