The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Billy Corgan - No Money In Music Now
Old 8th May 2012
  #1471
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
don't kid yourself mike, artists have made millions from record sales both domestically and globally, and even more so if they are writers. ask the eagles or metallica if they'd like to surrender their royalties to you because it's "insignificant." good luck with that.

also, all of the other old, established high end ancillary revenue comes from the marketing and promotion that the label pays for to develop the artists brand, which is why now, that sales are destroyed, labels are getting a piece of that as well.

so what new is that things are worse for artists than they've probably been in 50 years. if labels aren't making lady ga ga, justin beiber and edelle into household names, the ancillary incomes don't really exist...

you'd like to separate the two, but you really can't unbake the cake.
The number of artists who've received checks for millions from a record company from royalties on record sales is too small to base a business model on that.

The rest about the marking coming from labels and being connected to record sales is 100% true. That's the problem that needs to be solved for a new band. The same or more money is need for marketing, but the historical source doesn't have what's needed, so where can a band get their start up cash?

One possible source is managment/production companies - any entity that is going to participate in all forms of an artists revenue for their entire career. In fact, doesn't it make more sense for an investor to recoup that way? There have been managers who've funded artists.

Another would be any entity that has the budget to fund a band, but doesn't need to recoup the funding. For that to work, they need to be getting some benefit from the deal other than a direct profit. There are plenty of those sources, and more and more are becoming aware of the benefits of funding music.
Old 8th May 2012
  #1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
The injustice is really the only reason for an artist to fight it. It's not worth it for them financially.
really? tell that to the edelle, the eagles, metallica, guns & roses, etc., etc., etc. not everyone made fortunes, but not everyone was broke either. in the label model even artists who never sold records, still got paid, and more importantly had the opportunity to make a fortune... where is that opportunity now? tunecore? really? seriously?

hip-hop guys resorted to shooting one another over royalty splits, but you think there was no money it... funny.
Old 8th May 2012
  #1473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
One possible source is managment/production companies - any entity that is going to participate in all forms of an artists revenue for their entire career. In fact, doesn't it make more sense for an investor to recoup that way? There have been managers who've funded artists.
essentially, a 360 deal.

What is a 360 Deal? | The Trichordist

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Another would be any entity that has the budget to fund a band, but doesn't need to recoup the funding. For that to work, they need to be getting some benefit from the deal other than a direct profit. There are plenty of those sources, and more and more are becoming aware of the benefits of funding music.
essentially, corporate sponsorship - which is difficult because the corp sponsors generally want the value to already be there.

this is what it looks like for developing artists:
Our Sponsors
Old 8th May 2012
  #1474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
I'll give you two other things that aren't new. First is the complete lack of progress in reducing piracy.
You are totally, 100% wrong on that but under the NEW FORUM RULES we are not allowed to discuss it.

However, you must not read the news much.

You're welcome to PM me to ask what I'm talking about.
Old 8th May 2012
  #1475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
The injustice is really the only reason for an artist to fight it. It's not worth it for them financially.
<incredulous expression>
Old 9th May 2012
  #1476
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVIaverick52 View Post
Make merch, play shows, get money. Money no longer exists for artists in the recording market. Recorded songs are now nothing more than a marketing/promotion tool, live performance ticket and merch sales are where the money is at now.
The thing is, this has always been the case.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
The thing is, this has always been the case.
except there WAS money in recording and publishing revenues from record sales... you've got this huge blind spot mike that no one has ever made any money from record sales ever... it's just simply not true.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
essentially, a 360 deal.

What is a 360 Deal? | The Trichordist



essentially, corporate sponsorship - which is difficult because the corp sponsors generally want the value to already be there.

this is what it looks like for developing artists:
Our Sponsors
The difference between what I'm talking about an a 360 deal is that with a 360 deal, both the manager and the label are taking a cut of everything. With the manager as the investor, there's only one cut of everything.

Chrisso should be along to point out that no one will want to fund controversial artists.

It doesn't have to be corporate sponsorship.

And, there are far more corporations than bands with value in place.

In a lot of cases the corporations need "underground" indie bands to get the cred they're trying to buy. And, so far, the corporations that have done deals like this are hyper-aware of how their actions may be perceived.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1479
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You are totally, 100% wrong on that but under the NEW FORUM RULES we are not allowed to discuss it.

However, you must not read the news much.

You're welcome to PM me to ask what I'm talking about.
Hahah, forum rules in this place? I've heard of closing the barn door after the horse has left, but who tries to do that after the barn has collapsed??

Regardless this is a business discussion and not a discussion of piracy.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1480
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
<incredulous expression>
The only thing for anyone to be incredulous about is how someone who has no understanding of the basic math of a record deal can be so confident in their perceptions of the music business.

Or if you do understand, please tell us how many records must be sold for a band with four members to make $5k each, on an advance of $50k.

And explain your math.

I had a band's manager once offer me one point for the work I'd done on the record. He characterized that as being very generous. I asked him how much he thought it was worth. He said he had no idea, but he thought it was a generous offer.

You have a blind faith belief in the the income record sales provides for a band. Once you finally have someone show you an actual deal and plug in actual numbers, you'll see that playing that it's pretty much like playing the lottery.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
The thing is, this has always been the case.
I totally disagree with this concept that recordings are not a product in themselves, deserving of a price.

We should celebrate studio bands, they made a lot of amazing albums and either didn't tour, or were terrible live.
Do most people talk glowingly about 'Bridge Over Troubled Waters', or the time they saw Simon and Garfunkel live?
Is Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert' one of the greatest ever jazz albums, or was the event solely enjoyed by the few who were lucky to be at the recording?
Were a lot of the most innovative and revered Miles Davis albums created by editing together literally hours of studio recordings?
The whole playing live and merchandising thing is no more than telling Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt to work for free unless they're willing to play provincial theatre.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1482
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
except there WAS money in recording and publishing revenues from record sales... you've got this huge blind spot mike that no one has ever made any money from record sales ever... it's just simply not true.
Publishing is not record sales. Neither is PRO money.

And while a writer may get royalties from record sales, not every band member gets writing credit, and not every singer/artist writes their own material.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
You have a blind faith belief in the the income record sales provides for a band.
Nevertheless, bands made money from record sales from the 1970's to about 1997.
No matter how many times you come on here to deny it, it doesn't change the facts.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I totally disagree with this concept that recordings are not a product in themselves, deserving of a price.

We should celebrate studio bands, they made a lot of amazing albums and either didn't tour, or were terrible live.
Do most people talk glowingly about 'Bridge Over Troubled Waters', or the time they saw Simon and Garfunkel live?
Is Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert' one of the greatest ever jazz albums, or was the event solely enjoyed by the few who were lucky to be at the recording?
Were a lot of the most innovative and revered Miles Davis albums created by editing together literally hours of studio recordings?
The whole playing live and merchandising thing is no more than telling Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt to work for free unless they're willing to play provincial theatre.
Telling them now, or 10 years from now when bandwidth is fast enough for the movie business to have caught up?

Once someone can afford to make The Expendables, you can see where the business is headed.

Catherine Zeta Jones would have done very well if she acted for free and lived off of her T-Mobile income only.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Publishing is not record sales. Neither is PRO money.
Both are impacted by sales however.
Sales beget sales. Sales are power. Plus sales make for better publishing deals. Sales power radio plays. Do a best selling album and a much lesser selling album enjoy equal radio and television plays?
Old 9th May 2012
  #1486
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I totally disagree with this concept that recordings are not a product in themselves, deserving of a price.

We should celebrate studio bands, they made a lot of amazing albums and either didn't tour, or were terrible live.
Do most people talk glowingly about 'Bridge Over Troubled Waters', or the time they saw Simon and Garfunkel live?
Is Keith Jarrett's 'Koln Concert' one of the greatest ever jazz albums, or was the event solely enjoyed by the few who were lucky to be at the recording?
Were a lot of the most innovative and revered Miles Davis albums created by editing together literally hours of studio recordings?
The whole playing live and merchandising thing is no more than telling Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt to work for free unless they're willing to play provincial theatre.
It's not a question of whether they are deserving of a price, it's how they function in the context of an artist's income.

If I sign with Sony and make an album of my songs, who's album is it?

It's Sony's. They own the recording. That's what it means for them to own the masters. And when it's sold, the profit sharing will reflect that. My 10-15 points works out to under 10% of the profit, and that's only if the album sells enough copies.

If the album costs $250k to make and it sells 500,000 copies, they will not be cutting a check even though they've made a $2 million+ profit.

Realistically there's going to be far more than that $250k to recoup.

Recouping doesn't mean that there has been enough profit that the label has made back $250k, it means that they've sold enough albums that the artist's share of the profit is $250k and that they can afford to pay back the label out of their own net, not the overall gross.

Why do you think artists do club walk-throughs? Do you think they're that greedy? It's because that's the only way they have to make money for themselves.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Both are impacted by sales however.
Sales beget sales. Sales are power. Plus sales make for better publishing deals. Sales power radio plays. Do a best selling album and a much lesser selling album enjoy equal radio and television plays?
Radio plays are not created by record sales. They are created by radio promotion and popularity.

Popularity is what drives both radio play and record sales. That's why videos were so important.


I'm curious about a situation we'll call hypothetical. Let's say that an artist signed a deal where they would get zero percent of any record sales income. Do you think that they would be more like to make a good living off of their publishing, performance, touring and merch income if the record label spent $X on promotion and sold the album vs spent the same $X and gave it way.

Really the question is whether you think that all things being equal, do you think recordings would spread to a wider audience if they were free than if people had to pay for them?
Old 9th May 2012
  #1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Nevertheless, bands made money from record sales from the 1970's to about 1997.
No matter how many times you come on here to deny it, it doesn't change the facts.
Of course bands made money from record sales. The question is what percentage of the bands did and how much?

If it's $1 million out of $100 million how much does that really matter? When you take out all of the percentages of lawyers and managers and divide by four you're going to be somewhere between $150-180k.

So they have one fewer Bentley. It's insignificant on that scale.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1489
Lives for gear
 
toneguru's Avatar
There are lot of statements on this thread that are not entirely correct.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1490
Your examples are always based on bands spending $100k or more on recording.
I did many albums in the 80's that were recorded in off beat studios, over two to four weeks, without name producers or mixers.
You could still have hits.
Kraftwerk worked in their own studio from about the third album.
Johnny Marr and Bernard Sumner (The Smiths and Joy Division) were recording at home on ADATs at the beginning of the 90's, even though they were big stars and selling plenty of records.
You're right, many bands made no money, especially if they hired the top producer du jour and wasted days on end playing pool and pacman in the games room instead of recording songs.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Really the question is whether you think that all things being equal, do you think recordings would spread to a wider audience if they were free than if people had to pay for them?
No.

More copies might be distributed but fewer people would actually listen to them. I get given free records but I rarely if ever listen to them.
Old 9th May 2012
  #1492
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by toneguru View Post
There are lot of statements on this thread that are not entirely correct.
... and little agreement on which statements are correct / incorrect.
Old 10th May 2012
  #1493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
... and little agreement on which statements are correct / incorrect.
I'll make it easy, I'm right, just read my posts.
Old 10th May 2012
  #1494
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
... read my posts.
I almost heard that in a Clint Eastwood voice...
Old 10th May 2012
  #1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Of course bands made money from record sales. The question is what percentage of the bands did and how much?

If it's $1 million out of $100 million how much does that really matter? When you take out all of the percentages of lawyers and managers and divide by four you're going to be somewhere between $150-180k.

So they have one fewer Bentley. It's insignificant on that scale.
mike, your numbers are bonk. just plain out bonk. you pulling these numbers out of thin air to support an otherwise unsupportable argument. if record sales and the publishing from it was so insignificant why would artists bother fighting for it?

You desperately want to believe there was no money in record sales for the artists, that the labels made all the money? Let me assume for a second that your claim is accurate. Even on that level, even if the label is making all the money from album sales, even if the publishing is making all the money from albums sales (which is impossible due to writers splits), but let's just assume everything you are saying is true (which its not).

Than, that ROI on record sales was the incentive for labels to pour millions into artist development, to build them as a house hold name, so that artist could then secure the ancillary revenue from endorsements, etc.

Remove that ROI from record sales and there's no incentive to make the investment. So even in using your faulty (or misunderstood) logic, there is no winning in the new digital economy. What you have is an Exploitation Economy.

"Touring and T-Shirts" is an ADMISSION that there is no viable and sustainable revenue model for artists online, as it is a specific direction to bands that they MUST make their living OFFLINE.
Old 10th May 2012
  #1496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Publishing is not record sales. Neither is PRO money.
Publishing money is earned from record sales, just ask the Harry Fox Agency, C'mon Mike, you know this. You're reaching. AND, the PRO money is from record sales in Europe where publishing is collected at the plant (or now on digital point of sale).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
And while a writer may get royalties from record sales, not every band member gets writing credit, and not every singer/artist writes their own material.
Sure if not every member of the band is a writer, but that doesn't mean the writers are not earning money from record sales. The publishing money from record sales is still in the ecosystem, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, the songwriters ARE getting paid from the publishing on those record sales which is especially important if the writers are NOT the performers who can tour or get ancillary income from touring, and endorsements!

remove the record sales and the ecosystem crumbles (as it has been) and as yet there's been nothing to replace the lost revenue. everything you are suggesting as a replacement is not new, the only thing that is new is the LOSS of revenue from the drop in record sales.
Old 14th May 2012
  #1497
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
really? tell that to the edelle, the eagles, metallica, guns & roses, etc., etc., etc. not everyone made fortunes, but not everyone was broke either. in the label model even artists who never sold records, still got paid, and more importantly had the opportunity to make a fortune... where is that opportunity now? tunecore? really? seriously?

hip-hop guys resorted to shooting one another over royalty splits, but you think there was no money it... funny.
That makes my point. You don't shoot someone because you're getting royalty payments, you shoot someone because you're not.
Old 14th May 2012
  #1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Publishing money is earned from record sales, just ask the Harry Fox Agency, C'mon Mike, you know this. You're reaching. AND, the PRO money is from record sales in Europe where publishing is collected at the plant (or now on digital point of sale).



Sure if not every member of the band is a writer, but that doesn't mean the writers are not earning money from record sales. The publishing money from record sales is still in the ecosystem, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, the songwriters ARE getting paid from the publishing on those record sales which is especially important if the writers are NOT the performers who can tour or get ancillary income from touring, and endorsements!

remove the record sales and the ecosystem crumbles (as it has been) and as yet there's been nothing to replace the lost revenue. everything you are suggesting as a replacement is not new, the only thing that is new is the LOSS of revenue from the drop in record sales.
It's not about finding a new source of revenue, it's about increasing revenue from the existing sources by rolling a different business plan as an artist.

The only thing that an artist needs to find new, is the funding to get things started.
Old 14th May 2012
  #1499
Old 15th May 2012
  #1500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Quote:
“I have a whole wall of bootlegs in my house, not of us, but of other bands. So it would be a little hypocritical if I started getting angry at everybody else now.
So he's into the bootleg record culture and is self-justifying.

Quote:
I think it’s a great thing and don’t know why bands have ever fought people recording shows because it’s a great advertisement for your product.”
Assuming that you're already big enough to have a product that will make you enough money when you give away your primary.

Giving away razors to sell blades.

Quote:
So in part these torrent sites act as a promotional tool. And that’s exactly the reason why Counting Crows is partnering with BitTorrent.
So it's a loss leader for their touring business. It's utterly hypocritical to suggest that as a model for other, less successful acts because without the support of the traditional industry they never would have got big enough to pull that off. It's a classic case of biting the hand that fed you.

The fact is that touring only is profitable for the very biggest acts - all others are lucky to break even.

Quote:
“Giving songs away will draw people to the record, it will also draw people to the tour that’s coming up. Those are pretty big things. The fact that you can give something to that many people is not a small thing,” Duritz says.
EDIT: on re-reading the article it appears that they're not giving away the entire record, only part of it. That actually makes better sense - it's "free samples", which is really no different - or radical - than putting up a couple tracks for download on one's website.

The partnering with Bittorrent might raise a few hackles, but I don't really see much problem with it*. BT is a tool. The problem is with the users who use the tool for illicit purposes, not the tool itself. BT isn't a specific service like Napster or Limewire - it's a transmission protocol. <redacted> use FTP servers, too - should we therefore be against FTP?


* - other than the fact that the <redacted> supporters will try to use it as propaganda, of course.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump