Music makes the bourgeoisie and the rebel

[xane]

Music makes the people come together
(Never gonna stop)
Music makes the bourgeoisie and the rebel
(Never gonna stop)

BBC: Global music sales drop

I particularly like this quote:

"You have an entire generation of people thinking content should be available for free, and that's just not a sustainable long-term business model for the labels," said Hank Forsyth, media analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.

IMO, ripping off young impressional people with overpriced and overhyped products is not a "sustainable long-term business model" either. With the advent of manufactured bands and "Pop Idle" wannabes, I think this generation has finally woken up to the scam the music industry has been pulling for 50 years.

Amazing, when you think the latest stars become instant millionaires on one single, just how much more they would have earned if there were no "piracy" !

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

What stars become instant millionaires from a single?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Originally posted by camazotz
"Pop Idle"

Heh Heh

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass
What stars become instant millionaires from a single?

Well, I doubt Gareth Gates will be earning the minimum wage for his next single.

 

[xenon2000]

Same goes for Will :/

 

[Daffeh]

who and who?

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Originally posted by camazotz

Well, I doubt Gareth Gates will be earning the minimum wage for his next single.

Even the highest flying artists earn something in the region of 5/6% of the profits per single. The profits in the case of the singles is somewhere in the region of 50/60p. If you manage to sell a million singles, that's something in the region of £75,000 Taken from that is then all the recoupable costs that the Record Company can levy, the cost of video production, promotion, upfront fee. Most artists are lucky to earn anything more than their salary alone.

 

[throdgrain]

Hmm a rare occasion for me to agree with the bloke above . I personally think that all the free music stuff may well be having a detrimental effect on music, with record companys unwilling to put money into artists as a long term investment, after all how many good bands have you seen coming through lately ?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scooba Da Bass


Even the highest flying artists earn something in the region of 5/6% of the profits per single. The profits in the case of the singles is somewhere in the region of 50/60p. If you manage to sell a million singles, that's something in the region of £75,000 Taken from that is then all the recoupable costs that the Record Company can levy, the cost of video production, promotion, upfront fee. Most artists are lucky to earn anything more than their salary alone.

I think your vision is a little narrow, you imagine that a new star is only earning from profits from singles. I would imagine that promotional material, live appearances and advances from future contracts will more than send young Gareth into millionaire's row.

I don't follow your estimates of 50-60p profit per single. A large amount of costs are linear (marketing and initial production), so a best selling single will earn a much bigger profit anyway.

The "high-flyers" earn nothing from a single, they are rich enough to demand an advance rather than a royalty, they'll get paid millions even if the song or album is a flop.

One point being made is that many stars can survive very comfortably on live appearances and endorsement/sponsership alone, the actual record itself is no more than promotional material and should be given away free.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Sorry, I was concentrating on the single as that's what you said...

Advances, as the very name suggests is a type of loan. the record companies recoup the money from an advance before the Artist will start to earn anything, a massive advance is just a cut of later proceeds, the idea of them originally being the funding for the recording, the really nasty thing is that an advance can normally be recouped over the artists contractually delivered album (obviously down to the nature of the original contract).

I don't have access to any of the actual figures of monies earned from singles (individually or collectively), but I can certainly get my hands on them if you are interested, and I have to say it does make very grim reading, actually, any of the 'how to get ahead in the music biz' books should also contain a breakdown of the figures involved.

 

[old.Kez]

Originally posted by throdgrain
after all how many good bands have you seen coming through lately ?

Fucking tons, largely using the internet and mp3s to put themselves out there, so to speak.

They may not get rich, but if thats all they're doing it for, they're better off in a HomeBase behind a till.

 

[throdgrain]

I havent seen fucking tons, i havent seen fucking any Im afraid. They need to be on the radio or on tv if they are going to sell records (ie make some money).If they dont, well maybe they'l make a couple of records then dissappear. A couple of people (like yourself presumably) will say "god they were a good band , shame they split up" but the rest of the world will go on regardless.

 

[old.Kez]

You're just not looking then.

You don't need to be popular to be a good band, and in this day and age you don't need a huge label behind you to release music to the masses.
The rest of the world are welcome to go on regardless, its nice to know that I'm listening to good music, even if you're not

 

[throdgrain]

Nonsense. Music ended with the Clash anyway everyone knows that. ;p

 

[throdgrain]

As for a serious answer, no of course you dont have to be popular to be in a good band. You are talking to a fan of the Fall here after all...
BUT, it does make a difference for a lot of the people in the bands, you cant live of inspiration for ever , no matter how good it tastes

 

[Sar]

What about Britney Spears? She's great.












































Hold on a sec, she sings too?

 

[old.Jas]

And acts (allegedly)

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Jas
And acts (allegedly)

go on admit you watched the movie

 

[Skyler]

The only music I buy is what deserves to be bought imo. I support the Vinyl artists who struggle to press their next production, and depend on the sales of their 300 initial presses to press more, and then to press their next track and so on. They deserve support, as they make much better music than the engineered bollocks on cd's atm.

If I like something I will buy it, but most I just have on mp3

 

[FUCKINGLAMENESS]

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end, holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.

Everyone who gives a shit about music (as in, the artists themselves) should read this and take note - The problem with music. Steve Albini knows what's up.

 

[(Shovel)]

The problem is at the record companies door for now. But rather than do something about it, they will close off into their own little world by getting artists on annual contracts and manufacturing them into something the unaware pre teens will buy.

There is a long term risk as far as major label signings go. However, I think that there will simply be a growth in smaller lables who will simply take over the space the majors don't want.
RCs like XL, Source, Rough Trade and Twisted Nerve will all benefit from this cause they have enough to market a band a bit, but also have a knack of picking out good bands.

People will only download entire albums if they think the CD is a rip off. I usually download a few tracks then buy the album if its any good. And even then I wont by it for more than £12.
We all know that £16 is too much for an absolete shiney disk.

What happens next is at the record companies door. If they wake up and stop ripping us off then problem solved. The world carries on as it was, CD sales go up and we get less fucking angst bands.
If they pull out of signing new alt.music then the smaller lables will do it instead and sell it for a better price themselves.

I quite like the alternative.

 

[xane]

As the conversation was drifting around to the actual "real music" bands I was trying to locate that Albini piece, very good essay.

Piracy often affects the record company only, it has minimal impact on the bands earning, in fact, if the recorded media product were considered promotional material the band would probably be happy to see songs distributed widely as it gets an audience ready for when they do a gig or when they get marketed products in the shops or if they get chosen for sponsorship of another product, which is where the real money lies.

Albini writes from a perspective of an inexperienced band, but the Boybands-R-Us and Popeye Dolls have the backing of some major recording industry figures who will be sure to get a contract hanging on the right side of the profits. This is only possible because the moguls behind them know that hyping and marketing are the key to earning cash, not having talent.

A new upcoming band should consider this; use any one of the basic recording studios to get your song on some sort of media, cut to an MP3 and distribute it, publicise, and then arrange gigs, can take a majority cut of the entrance takings. By cutting out the record company altogether a band will have a lot more control and profit from their work. Reliance on selling recorded media is shakey at best, and if have to go through a record company to do it, then kiss your profit goodbye.

Look at how many successful bands got rid of the record company early on and did it themselves and even offered the service to other bands, if you consider the internet a free distribution medium then you have to consider why you need a company to provide record production in the first place, I'm not saying this is a viable long-term plan, but certainly in the early years of the band they can prove their worth first and demand a much better price from a record company later on.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Established record companies aren't going to bother trying to find solutions to the problems of music distribution and artist earnings mainly because leaving the status quo (aha, *sigh*) ends up with 90% of all profit from music ending up with said record company.

Gigging nowadays is also, sadly, not very profitable. Most bands that I know of in and around London gigging don't manage to break even doing so. In fact, the most I know of someone earning is around the £2000 pound mark. That was for a 5 piece playing covers at the Oval. After costs the profit was £1800. The band 'leader' as booker took £270 (15%), each band member took £306. As I say, this was an exceptionally well paid gig, and they have never earned as much form playing their own stuff. The guitarist for the band recently toured with Emma Bunton (boo-hiss) and earned the more money acting as a session player than he has done playing his own stuff.

If I didn't Love music so much, it'd really depress me.