gideongallery

i am the one in favor of radiohead doing this.
I am against the record companies trying to stop this.

tv show producers like Marc Guggenheim want their shows to be shared because

most actual content producers (except for here) are not clueless, it the middlemen who are trying to stop it.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

I am not for the RIAA suing every new technology and trying to keep a stranglehold on artist. I guess my original point is that record companies have always fucked artists over and it is kind of a known thing so anyone who decides to go that route should understand that there is a pretty good chance of this happening.




Sure there are people making money off giving stuff away on the internet. That is not new news. Some of these artists are people who would never have made it on a record a label because the label would have dropped them for not selling enough records.

My point is that the label system gives a chance to a lot of people to take a shot that the internet may not have. If you sign a major label deal there is a decent chance that you will get a reasonable advance that you can use to live off of while you record your album. You can also get a decent budget for recording your album and when the album is done it will end up in stores and get some publicity. All the lechers and sharing and myspace visits in the world are not going to get you near the expose that getting on the radio will.

Maybe there will be a day when that changes. When the radio starts programing based on internet downloads, but for now if you want big exposure you need big dollars and a lot of know how to get it. And really that is what it boils down it. If you just want to be independent artist who plays small venues and puts out their own records and things like that, the internet is a great tool and you can probably do better than you would if you signed with a record label (unless you were with a small indy label that gave you a large part of the profit and had a good distribution system that could work in conjunction with the internet.) There is nothing wrong with that. But if you want to be a very big band who plays large venues and makes a ton of money you are going to need a lot of money and connections to not just make your music available to the masses, but to let them know it is out there and get them to go get it.



Correct and they do this because they see the bands as an investment, not as an art form. If a record label spends millions of dollars building a band up and helping them get big and now the band is selling a lot of records you know that label wants to keep them. The last thing they want is that band now using its fame to give away its music. Doing that cuts the label out so they are fighting to stop that from happening.

Think of it like this. Say you ran a business that provided consulting services to various businesses. You spent a lot of time and money training a group of people to really know what they are doing and to be great consultants. You also spend a lot of money and time promoting your business and getting you some great clients. You provide these employees with a great infrastructure to work within and a great support staff. Then once these people get well known and have made a ton of contacts they quit and go to work for themselves. They work out of their house so they have no overhead, but they keep your clients. Now, that person is now making much more money. They get to bill the client (probably less than you the big company owner was) and they get to keep almost all of the profits. They benefit from your building them up and getting their name out there and now they are going to cash in on that training and publicity that your provided them with. Sure your company made a nice amount of money while they worked for you, but now you have lost that money and will have to spend more to train/promote a replacement. Plus you have also lost some clients that you have worked hard to get. You aren't going to try to stop it? You wouldn't try to prevent this by making them sign a contract when you hired them saying that they would not leave and take clients with them? No compete contracts are very common in business.

The record labels don't want to bands to sign with them then use their money, influence and access to get them famous only to then leave and start giving away their records so that they can sell more concert tickets or merchandise. For every Radiohead (or any successful band) there are dozens that are not successful and many of those are not for lack of trying. I used to write for a music magazine. I would review 3-4 albums a month while I was there. The magazine itself would review about 20-30 albums a month. I would get 30-50 new albums in the mail from record labels every week. They would often send a copy to everyone on staff in hopes that someone would write about it. Now things have changed, this was back pre-internet so you can't fully compare them, but the point is that the music space is very crowded. It is hard to get noticed. The record companies have spent a lot of time, effort and money developing a publicity channel that can help them get artist exposure and make them famous and they want to protect that.

I'm not saying the labels are perfect. They are not. I know most of them are scammers and most artists that deal with them end up getting fucked over by them when it comes to CD sales. Maybe some day this will all change. As of right now it is the way things are. If you want to have huge success you need to get on the radio and on MTV and on things like the tonight show or Jimmy Kimmel and it is very hard to do that without the access a major label can give you. IMO if the labels want to survive they need to get back to selling quality music and using that promotional power to promote good bands that make good records and stop trying to churn out the hit makers so they can sell singles.

One other point, the site you mentioned eventful.com uses the fame of the labels. When I went to the site what was the first thing I see? A rotating banner that featured Britney Spears, Katy Perry and Wrestlemania. When you click the concerts section it has a top concerts list and every artist on that list is huge, famous and in some cases legendary. These acts came up through the label system. Sure there are, scattered in here other acts. Many of these other acts are smaller independent acts and they will benefit from this site, but how many people are brought to this site to see when Taylor Swift or Dave Mathews is coming to town? People come in looking for something they know and they then discover someone they had never heard of.

Are there any sites out there that just promote internet only bands? If so do these sites get much traffic?

After Shock Media

That also is a primary point - people constantly bring up this band doing it and making more money. Where the author comparison in more inline with what we content producers deal with as we can not really take our porn on tour either etc.



Again as I stated it failed hard for Stephen King

__________________

kane

yep. Authors could get a ton of downloads, they just don't have a way of monetizing them like bands do. I guess my point wasn't that King could make bank giving them away, just that he could give a ton of them away if he wanted to because he was famous.

I would bet if he sold his books through a cheap online download only he would probably do pretty well though.

gideongallery

so if you sign with a record company you should be their bitch forever. If the cost of leveraging their promotion is that you have to give up 90% for the term of the contract. IF you happen to have enough talent to become one of those successes you should have the right to fully monetize your fame.





sick puppy could not get on the radio but they yuan mann video


got over 40 million views

all before they ever got a record deal

a similar promotion happened with
maria digby

https://youtube.com/user/MarieDigby


http://www.jonathancoulton.com/
doesn't have a record deal but he wrote and performed the theme song from portal (I'm alive) has some of his song appear in GH.

the point is there are more and more case studies where unknown artist have become famous without a record labels support by leveraging the technology. All of which will be killed record companies are spending the monopoly profits to kill competing technologies.

radio head is testifying to establish that the RIAA is not really representing the wishes of the content creators, and those people sharing are doing so with authority.

again should you be a slave forever because you need their infrastructure to get started.



how much does the "investment" have to pay off before the record companies are satisfied
they are turning a profit. They take 90% of the successful bands so they can fail multiple times. Should they start embracing technology that does the job more efficiently so they cost of failure is less. That would be good business. However they don't want to do that because they would lose their strangle hold on the artists.


first of all your analogy is total bullshit because the artist are making the music, they are producing the content. The record companies are not teaching those people to sing, building up the skills. They have those skills already. The investment is just in the customer aquisition. But here is the kicker the customer don't walk out the door with the artist. The catalog of their old work is still owned by the record company. When those old songs sell the record company still get it 90%. so the artist is actually competing against themselves. All their new stuff competes against their old stuff.


things will never change if the record companies are allowed to sue competing technologies into oblivion. IF they are allowed to pretend that the distribution (sharing) is not authorized by the artist when it really is.

eventful is a community based site, it would be stupid to close the doors to famous artist who wanted to use them. If they do a better job than the record companies marketing machine at a cheaper rate, they should have a right to compete for the artist business. A record company which says the only way we will sign you is if you are forced to use our media services exclusively even though they are charged to you a significantly higher price than our competitors is by it's very nature anti-competitive behaviour.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

Ozarkz

GideoGallery you talk a lot but you don't say much.

You also seem clueless about how record labels work and how they work with the artists.

But continue with your bs.

TheDoc

Sorry to say, for your case and all... He is very on his mark, as usual.

I actually find what he says to be very educational, more people should listen or read what he is writing, it would probably benefit the majority of GFY readers. Hell, at least a lot more than them thinking piracy/tubes, etc actually hurt them.

__________________

Ozarkz

You find it educational because you dont know any better.

You're an idiot also.

Stop ignoring the facts you morons.

Ozarkz

What's that saying?

"The blind leading the blind"

After Shock Media

He tried a pay what you want model.
Also must say it was done in parts as well. In the end he made less than what he would normally have with a standard release. That is also keeping in mind that authors get it more rough than musicians do when it comes to what they make and the deals they get.

__________________

kane

Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. There will always be exceptions to the rule. My point is this: Show me one act that has done a worldwide stadium tour and sold millions of concert tickets based simply on giving away their music online and promoting themselves online? Yes, you can make money promoting yourself online and yes you can get views and yes you can find success, but at this moment it has a sort of ceiling to it. Maybe that will change.


No you should be allowed to walk away whenever you want. Again, my point is not that bands shouldn't be allowed to promote themselves. My point is that people seem to think that the internet is everything when it comes to music and that you can make a ton of money and become a rock star just off the internet. I understand there are some acts that have made it without record label support, but if you choose to go the major label route then after the major label helps make you famous and you use that fame to then bite the hand that fed you, don't be shocked if the major label is not happy.

Should there be a limit on how much a label can get from its investment? To me it is all about the contract. If you sign a 5 record deal at the end of that deal you should be allowed to walk away if you want. And if that means you are now going to give away your albums for free online, so be it. Would it be better for the labels to just embrace the technology instead of fighting it? Maybe. My defense of them is simple. They feel as if they should be allowed to defend their business model. If that means that they eventually put themselves out of business because of it, so be it. I too think they should be allowed to defend it and if that means trying to stop developing technologies that they feel are robbing their business than so be it. If, in the end, it is decided by the legal system that those technologies are not causing harm to the record labels then so be it.



Yes, they have the skill. For sure. Without that they would have nothing to offer. You can even argue that acts like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson have a talent. No they can't sing very well and they don't write their own music, but they look good, are good performers and know how to put on a show and that ability isn't really given to them. You either have that charisma or not. that said, Britney Spears without a multi million dollar ad campaign, a hot video on MTV and a huge push by the label is just another good looking girl singing for tips at a local bar or working as a back-up dance for someone else.

As for the old label retaining the catalog that is true in most cases. A few artists own their masters, but most do not, but sales of old albums are not nearly what sales of new albums are. If a popular band gets new fans some of these fans might go back and buy the older records, but realistically in today's world they will just download them from a torrent site. That back catalog is only really a profitable machine if they have some access to the publishing so they can license it to things like movies and TV shows and commercials and video games etc. Again, there are acts that sell a lot of old records, but many do not.



I said myself that most artists don't care if their stuff is traded/stolen/downloaded or whatever. This is why most of them don't speak out about it. Some of them don't like it, but most don't care. As long as their records get out into the public they are happy because they know most of their money will come from touring, radio play and publishing.

My point with the eventual comment was that you made them out to be some type of portal where people can go and find these indy/internet only acts and as a way of promoting them. I was pointing out that while they may do that, they also bank heavily on the name recognition of very famous acts so they too are using the work of the big labels who helped make these famous acts to get visitors to the site.

kane

Yeah I remember his doing this. It was called The Plant or something like that. I think it failed for a couple of reasons. First if you have the option of paying or not, most will not pay and as we said an author really has not other revenue streams other than book sales and second it was done in a series and I think a lot of people just want the full book all at once and they don't want to have to wait.

I would bet if he released a full book that was just available online and he charged like $3-$4 per download he would make a good amount of money.

Also, like you say, authors tend to make more per sale of a book that a musician does on the sale of a CD.

TheDoc

Well, rather than posting anything of logic, you spew this puke all over GFY.

So... It's your opinion, that you stated a fact, about an something that can be argued, thus more of an opionion than a fact.

What is fact though... With out the talent, with out great talent... Talent from the person, not from the studio/label - without the talent - they would have nothing. It's not the other way around.. While some wouldn't have made it - the good talent would have.

And if we didn't have the studio/labels - we wouldn't have been over charged for music - prob selling more music, making the need for piracy less, and making the artist more money.

Oh, btw... I missed your facts..

__________________

kane

See I happen to think without the big labels we would be awash in garbage music that we would hopelessly be sloshing through to get at something good.

When I wrote for a music magazine I got 30-50 CDs a week from labels wanting me to review them. Most of them were from acts you never heard of, for good reason. They put out one bad CD on a small indy label then broke up and got a regular job. And the bands just sucked. Most of what I heard sucked. Most of what is out there sucks. The labels have a system in place. They have A&R guys that go out and find bands/singers who they think are good and can offer something interesting and they help develop them. They get them in a studio and have them record some demos and they take those demos to the label heads. They use this system to filter out the junk. Yes, in the process good acts get passed up for sure and bad acts still get signed because in the end the labels want to make money so they will sign an act that might not be that good, but has a catchy song and a look they can market (again see Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson as prime examples.)

All of this takes money. It takes money to find bands and to record albums and get the albums in stores. If the system worked in a way where anyone and everyone had equal shelf space and everyone shared the same space online and it was up to each band to build its own fan base and get exposure we as music fans would be awash in shit. There would be thousands of terrible acts out there and you don't ever want to listen to them, but you have to filter through them to find something you like. Eventually the really good acts might be able to find a way to rise above the junk. But they would have to get a team behind them and group of people who know more about marketing than they do to help them get their names out there. Those people cost money and that money is going to have to come from somewhere.

The music industry is evolving. Now you can download the full CD from a band for $10-$12. I think that is a fair price for something you are going to listen to and enjoy over and over again and again. Just like if you buy a DVD and pay $15 but watch the movie a bunch. You get your money's worth. But what if they cut out the major label system? What if because of this you were able to pay $5 an album? That sounds great. the problem is where are you finding these albums? If you are getting them at a store how did you hear about the band? If you haven't heard of them before will you be willing to plunk down your money for something you have never heard of? For that matter how many people will be willing to just download 100 different records online and listen to them all in hopes of finding a few they like. Or how many people will spend hours surfing websites, myspace and Youtube looking for something new and cool? There will be some, but not that many. For most music is a leisure activity. They listen it the car or at work or while they are doing something else. They hear a song on the radio they like and they go get it. Of all the friends I have I don't know any of them that actually go online and look for new music. That is not to say that people don't, because they do. Just not as many as some would like to think.

My entire point in all this rambling is this: Sit down and really look at how you find the music you listen to. Was it on the radio or on MTV or was it a video someone sent you? Chances are there was some way that music was marketed to you. That marketing takes money. Yes, bands can make some money online. Yes acts can have success. Yes, acts need to have some form or talent to have long term success. But in the end how successful and act is will be determined by their ability to get their work in our ears. If we can't find them and hear them, it doesn't matter how good they are and for most people finding new music is not something that they spend a lot of time on, they just take was is convenient and convenience means money and someone has to pay for that.

Agent 488

there are tons and tons of music communites that have popped up in the last couple years where people discover, filter and share music without the help of record labels and mass media, with thousands of active members.

have been just looking into it the last week and it blew my mind how far along things have come and changed. it's quite incredible, really.

nin and radiohead are just the public face of a major change in the music "industry." and i am a skeptic of techno solutions to everything.

TheDoc

The micro part about the Internet or technology, being able to help people get promoted - is kind of the point for today. It simply doesn't work for 20 or 50 years ago. The studio/label was needed by most - or at least the ones without the money to do simply do it.

Today though, even after the boom of the Internet - it has now changed. Local bands, that really do rock that were never given a chance, that could only sell the cd's they made locally - have now actually made a name.

They don't need to be the next Jackson - they just want to be paid for what they love doing and have created.

And honestly, I'm not willing to pay more than a $2-$5 for a full CD of music. I can't name a single CD I have ever purchased worth more than that. Now Movies, I'm willing to spend as much as $10 for a new release - and $3 for a old movie.

This is why the Internet boom has been so big for new Music. We can sample it, we can rate it, we can share it, we can tell friends about it, we make them popular - not the studios, radios, and people like you - that have no idea what I like.

I will pay for Live Entertainment - And depending on the entertainment, the price isn't ever a factor.

__________________

gideongallery

who says you have too, if you don't have to give away 90% of the money, you can be 1/10 as big and make the same money.

That the point. oh and by the way
i already did
maria digby

but the point is that the record label is suing a radio head fan for sharing radio head music claiming he had no authorization and owes them $500 buck a song and radio head is testifying that they want their fans to share their music. how the fuck is that biting the hand that fed them. Should they keep quiet and let their fans get screwed.

and the bands should have a right to stand up and say we want the technology to exist. we are ok with our fans sharing the music. you are lying when you claim they did not have any authorization to share the music.




doesn't matter that difference is enough to discredit your anology that is why i mentioned it. the fact that they only make money liciencing it to tv shows and commercials still represents the artist competing against themselves for that revenue stream.


well i fall into the new breed of music consumers who find music using the torrents
i happen to live in canada where we have a piracy tax and the supreme court has recognized that cede tax represents the consideration in a standard contract (offer acceptance and consideration) so my actions are in fact licienced.

Right now that piracy tax screws independent musicans because if they buy a cd to record their own music to sell at the local concert halls they have to pay a tax that goes to the CRIA to compensate establish studio artist like britney spears.

I don't listen to the radio, i don't watch mtv i simply download a song listen to it and toss it if i don't like it.

Torrents are my radio.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Sure enough. There are many ways now for bands to make some money. A lot of bands don't care to be big and just want to play live in their local area and make a few extra bucks. For something like that the internet is great.

Here is what I don't understand. You say that you are not willing to pay more than $2-$5 for a CD. Why? You said yourself in a previous post: "What is fact though... With out the talent, with out great talent... Talent from the person, not from the studio/label - without the talent - they would have nothing." Yet you are willing to pay $10 for a movie. So the talent of an actor, and film crew/cast/writer is worth $10, but the "great talent" of a band or singer/musician is only worth $2-$5? I'm curious why that is.

Also, I'll ask this and please be honest in your answer. What were the last 5 CDs you bought (or downloaded) and why did you buy them? Where did you first hear about them? Again, please be honest and don't just try to list stuff to make a point.

Here are mine:
1.The new AC/DC album (can't remember the name of it) - they have been huge since I was a kid.
2.Grant Lee Phillips new album - I loved him in grant lee buffalo which I first saw when they open for REM and now he has gone solo.
3. The new REM - they too have been huge for years
4. Tom Waits new record - I've loved him forever and first heard about him when I read a review of a record of his in a magazine.
5. The new Christ Cornell record - I am a huge soundgarden fan and love Chris, but this new album is not that good. I bought it just because of who he is and was pretty disappointed. Had a read some reviews of it beforehand I wouldn't have gotten it.
6. I think I got this at the same time as the cornell record. That is the new Lily Allen album. I liked her first song smile which they played on a local radio station and then I saw the video for the song The Fear and thought the song was great so I got the record.

candyflip

It's not the artists making the huge stink about it. It's the record companies. Because they stand to lose the most.

The artist can only gain from this model. Most are embracing it and even writing songs about it.

Download This Song - MC Lars

It's 2006, the consumer?s still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I?m writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed
$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It?s all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic?s up in my face like, ?Don?t steal our songs Lars,?
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R?s
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it?s wrong

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke?s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can?t compete
It?s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don?t need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!
Their finger?s in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can?t sell bottled water when it?s freely flowing
Record sales slipping, down 8 percent
Increased download sales, you can't prevent
Satellite radio and video games
Changed the terrain, it will never be same
Did you know in ten years labels won't exist?
Goodbye DVD?s, and compact disks!

Hey Mr. Record Man,
What's wrong with you
Still living off your catalogue
From 1982
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the new artist model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You?ve overcharged us for music for years, and now we?re
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but?
Welcome to the future.

Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke?s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can?t compete
It?s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete

__________________

Spend you some brain.
Email Me

After Shock Media

Most actually tend to make less. Like music industry the book industry funds poor selling authors, flops, etc. by what the more successful authors bring in. Most if not all of an authors money comes in via the advance, few are lucky enough to reach sales figures that get them money per copy sold. Then like I said the music industry does not buy back unsold copies of stuff like the book industry does.

He very well "could" profit if he released a full book at a low price. He was curious about several aspects though. One of which was would the public support the development of a book - in essence replace that advance most authors need to live on while they write. Assuming there was not some large publishing company behind them doing well what the publishing (or recording) companies do.

__________________

kane

So Maria Digby has done a world wide stadium tour? What I mean is a metallica/U2 kind of tour where every night she plays in front of 20-50K fans? Seeing as her first album came out less than a year ago I highly doubt that.

This whole argument goes back into the realm of whether torrent downloads of music that you have never purchased are legal or not. You think that if someone goes and downloads the entire Radiohead catalog from a torrent site that it is okay. I don't. It is a fundamental difference that is not worth arguing because we will never change each other's minds.




Sure, I will concede that the artist could potentially compete against themselves, but only under certain circumstances. If their old record label owns 100% of the bands publishing then the band could compete against itself, if not they will continue to profit from licensing situations. If that is the case that leaves the label who owns the back catalog left to rely on sales of those albums to make money and as I stated before many people will just download them and not buy them.


I won't argue the points of a piracy tax because I don't know much about it.

I will say that you are someone that is non-typical when it comes to music. There are always people who scour the landscape for new music. That has never changed. The internet makes that scouring different (and in some ways easier) so people like you (and myself to some extent) who like discovering new bands and don't mind searching now have more access to artists they may have otherwise never been able to find. That is all fine and great, but I don't think any time in the near future that is going to be the norm. As I said in another post music for most is a leisure activity and they spend very little time and effort into finding it. For some acts that is going to be just great. They didn't care about being big famous bands, they just want to make a little money and lay some music, but for others it just isn't going to be enough.

TheDoc

It's not a few extra bucks... I know several people that live off of this. I do know of a Canadian band that was making it, from online, but broke up because the singer wanted to go to college.

This is just me.. this story repeats across millions. As an example, my Dad which has had a band with his brother since they were teens. They are the example of a few extra bucks... but that extra $100 or so they have earned - It has driven them to actually make songs rather than copy songs.

Why, because the talent doesn't get the money in music.. which means I'm paying for bullshit over talent.

I'm willing to pay more for movies because they cost millions more to make, millions more to market, and the staff is godly sized.. Has nothing to do with the acting.


To me, none of these entertainers are worth what they are being paid... unless your ass is live and people are willing to pay the cost you set. But people are paying, so it's going to happen.


Really, not a fair question for me. I quit buying them so long ago I can't remember the last CD I actually purchased. No Artist has ever created a full CD that I like every song on - so I don't buy what I don't like.

But I have stacks of burned CD's of legal music I own.

Most of the CD's I listen to, aren't played on any U.S. Radio Stations, not a single one is sold in stores anywhere in this Country, none on any TV in North America. I don't know why but you just can't find good trance/house etc in America - but you can't.

I find my music from streaming sites, sites you don't want me to list. It isn't marketed to it, it's found... And I found Manson came out with a new CD.. I downloaded it, killed the trash, purchased 3 of the songs.

Funny thing is, I only know who AC/DC is, and I know the name REM. No idea who Chris Cornell is, but I know who soundgarden is. I can only tell you one song that AC/DC sings, no wait.. two.. tnt and black and black - are those the names?





That's the marketing these guys do... and why people telling me what music I like, I have to listen to on the radio or in stores - is why the industry is dieing. They have no idea... AC/DC sucks ass... but they still play it.

BTW, I love Classic rock - never paid for it though.

__________________

kane

I know far too well how authors are paid. I have a development deal with a publisher for a book I am finishing up.

Like you said most will not see more money than their advance but that is because of sales. For example a typical deal might bring an author $1.50 per hardback sold and 50-75 cents per paperback. If they got a 20K advance then they sell 100K hardbacks and 300K paperbacks they are doing pretty well and will get some nice royalty checks, not to mention a much larger advance for the next book. If they get a 20K advance then sell 500 hardbacks and 2K paperbacks they don't make back the advance money.

So they don't make more because of sales. In the music business the artists get a decent rate (often around $1 per cd sold) but they have to pay for everything from their royalties and the labels often use shady accounting practices to hide profits so that they don't pay royalties. Read a book called Hit Men it is about the behind the scenes world of the music industry and you will see just how shady some of these guys are.

TheDoc

Damn, that's all they make? So if you sell like 500k books you make $750k? That's correct?

It must kill these guys to hear e-books that have pulled millions and make money every day and will for years to come... even as others are released, a new book can be re-released in a new area online......

__________________

Ozarkz

You stupid mother fucker.

Are you IGNORING reality on purpose?

Radiohead has been selling out Stadiums for over 10 years.

This 1 album they sold "Pay what you want" did VERY LITTLE to increase their already VERY LARGE fan base.

fuck me. you idiots can talk all you want but it's just bs.

After Shock Media

Well a little less actually. The publisher gets the advance money back first and then your commissions begin to kick in. Milestones add a bit more to your commission as do number of printings. The publishers also do have to front the PR and such as well.

__________________

kane

I guess my point is that people can and do use the internet to make money with their band and it gives them a chance to get exposure that before they couldn't have gotten without a record label's help. That said I think that most of these bands are not making a ton of money. They are surviving, but for how long? The half-life of a band is about five years. I guess if you can make a living for five years playing music it is a good deal and you will have some great stories to tell down the road. Most acts don't last that long though and most don't have much success and the reason is because most of them don't have the talent to succeed and because in the end artistic people are kind of flaky. I'm not saying that as a slam, it is just the reality. Bands are like dysfunctional families. Sometimes they work, sometimes they crash and burn.



This makes no sense to me. So you are willing to pay for a movie because they have a huge crew/cast and cost millions to make and market, but you won't pay for a CD because the money doesn't go to the artist?

When you go to the movie theater your money isn't going directly to the writer, director or cast. They get some of it, but most of them were paid via salary upfront and unless the movie does really well they won't get anything more from it - and in most cases the deal is that they would never get any more no matter how well it does at the box office (although they might get some from DVD sales and other media outlets via deals with the unions). They are often hired help. It is the same with music. The band gets an advance on record sales. Most of the time they never get anything more than that advance unless they sell a truckload of albums and even then it is hard. So cast/crew/creative team being hired by a studio to make a movie that cost millions to make and market = good enough to pay for, but band being paid an advance and recording a record that cost (potentially) millions to make and market = not good enough to pay for.

To me is is messed up logic.






I love classic rock too, but can't stand house/trance music. So on that we differ. Again, you are an exception, you are not the rule. There are a lot of people who like trance/house music, but as I said before most people don't care enough about music to take the time to look into it and discover what they really like. Most hear things on the radio and buy the CD or download the song they like. They don't dig deep into themselves and decide what they like or for some music just doesn't mean that much. If they can shake their ass to it or it makes them bob their head or they can sing along, that is good enough. IMO until that changes there will be no internet music revolution.

kane

For your big name authors they can often make more than that, but for many that is the starting point.

That said if you start out and your first book sells 500K copies, chances are the advance on your next book will be in the millions.

Porko

just made that with the last albums. a lot of ppl buys their cds. and 90% o the money
comes from shows.

__________________

TheDoc

You seem to miss the point that without Radiohead - the label/studio wouldn't be here.. It's the talent that 'should be running the show' and not the people that don't care about the music but rather the bottom line.


And now your retarded question...
Let's think of the logic on this... In 10 years what has the Internet done for Bands? It has given them millions of more fans, it has given them the ability to move away from the lies the studios told them.

Local wise - I know the Internet has produced rather large concerts for people. A great example would be a Rave and that one Country Music Festival in Texas was all Internet, then the Radio picked up... not the other way around. Again, this is what I know - no way I can keep track of the world - so I'm sure this easily in the 1000's....

Give the Internet born bands another 5-10 years. Give them the same years they need to develope and grow a business, and learn an entire new Industry... and I guarantee you, you will hear of major world wide concerts from 'internet born bands' within 5 years.

__________________

kane

You need to calm down and read.

My argument all along in this thread has been that Radiohead cannot be used as a good example because they have been popular for years and have been selling out around the world for years. They got that popularity through the marketing and help of a major label.

They will sell out every place they play no matter if they gave their last album away or not. They would sell out even if they had no new album.

My question still stands: Show me one act that has sold out stadiums world wide who's only avenue of promotion is via online? Don't give me an established act like NIN or Radiohead that has been huge for years then ditched their label and gave away their album. Give me someone who has done it on their own.

kane

This will be interesting to see. In the next 5-10 years we could start seeing major acts born from the internet. We may not as well. I personally think that until the radio/TV model changes that internet will be the home of those acts that can make some money and sell some tickets, but that don't quit make it to that big level of stardom. A lot with music is simply the bands ability to put on a good live show and their willingness to tour non-stop and build up a fan base. Those that are willing to do that and can use the internet can find success.

TheDoc

No no... The CD wise the dude gets like $1 - and the assholes get the rest. So me paying $10 or whatever or a music CD is screwed up. Now when I pay for a DVD - I know the talent is making money, writers, a crew talent and people - far far far larger than the Music Industry costs..

If something costs more to make, I'm willing to pay more for it.. that's VERY easy to understand.

[QUOTE=kane;15710359]When you go to the movie theater your money isn't going directly to the writer, director or cast.

No theaters - ever now.. Period.

A new band - does not cost millions to make music for or market.. Music and Movies - Very different ball park. The smallest - cheapest movies are still more expensive than just about any music production, in cost.

How the people are paid out, or when.. it doesn't make a difference. That's business.


More people dig deep into music than you think. Canadians for example - my god them people are MAD about music -- ask any Canadian they are very proud of it.

I figure this is why the Industry is prob hurting the most - people are 'still looking.'



The Internet is quickly becoming the central Entertainment center for families. People are starting to turn to it first, then turn to the real world.

But time will only tell.. I do think it will happen.. It may take them a bit longer to get moving, but someone with some cash flow is bound to step up to the plate and show us all how it's done one day.

__________________

TheDoc

Some great info - I had no idea that it sucked so bad for them. No wonder they produce book after book after book... besides getting a name, I get that - but out of the huge group of books they produce, only a few are good - but now I understand why.

__________________

gideongallery

world wide tour no
but she did play a stadium
she is part japanese, has a good fan base there so she played in tokyo (given their population density) she was in a major stadium (60k)

it took U2 years to get to the point of doing a world tour, where every night they were playing to packed house in every country so it would be unreasonable to expect someone to match that instantly by internet promotion.

But that was not what you asked, you asked about someone who successfully played at the stadium level, given the conditions (japanese heritage, strong fan base in that country, high population density, limited engagement dates) she met your criteria.

In the future she may get to the britney spears level.


actually it has nothing to do with what i believe about downloading. and everything to do with weather the RIAA is telling the truth or not. They are claiming that downloader (in this case) has recieved no authorization from artist. Well if the artist says, it ok to share/download my music, that is in fact authorization.

I realize it is hoop the RIAA does not want to jump thru (finding out if the artist has ever authorized the sharing) before they file suit. But i believe they should, and i don't think admitting that they don't care, and that the RIAA is lying about no authorization thing is wrong.

so we both agree your consultancy analogy is bullshit good.



i don't scour the internet

i subscribe to mininova music catagory feed
and run a filter on it for my music preferences

http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?cat=5

it goes right into my torrent client, and automagically downloads all that music
i simply put the newest stuff on my ipod/zune/stereo and listen to it.
If i don't like the song, click delete, gone.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

I guess it all depends on the band/music.

A small band or indy band can record an album, mix it and master it pretty cheaply. If you have the space for a studio you can buy all the stuff you need for about 20K and do it all yourself.

If it is a major act it will quickly reach big money. Jive records had about 8 million invested in Britney Spears before her first song was ever even on the radio. There is a great book called, "so you want to be a rock star." It is written by one of the guys that was in a band called Semisonic. It is a great insight into just how much money goes into marketing a band to the masses. You might be shocked. No it isn't that of movies because their are different mediums and have a lot of different expenses. To me it is just different forms of art and choosing a price point for one is kind of like saying, " I will 20K for this panting by this artist because it is a painting and took a lot of effort to make, but I will only pay 3K for this drawing because drawing is easier and takes less to make."


I know a lot of people do dig for music, it is just not the masses. The masses watch American Idol then buy the CD of the winner. The masses tune into TRL (before it was taken off the air) and buy the music of the videos they like. The masses listen to the popular radio stations. There are diggers, but they have nothing on the masses.

TheDoc

The Britney thing is a great example of HORRIBLE music forced on us by people willing to dump money into total shit until it makes it's money back.

I know it costs big money, but even if it costs 20, 50 or 100k or even a million.. It still doesn't even come close to the cost of a Movie.. well, most movies.

Or maybe if we look at movies they know will make it vs. singers they know will make it. Both big time... I don't have exact numbers but I'm pretty sure nobody boasts about the cost of making a Music CD or even the overall costs of the Music Videos...

Not like Movies at least.

__________________

kane

Maybe she will. Maybe she won't. Again, my point is that U2 benefited from millions in promotion from Island records. It is going to be very difficult for the internet to match that type of ad machine.




See to me it is a slippery slope. For me a record label deal is a partnership. It is the artist that creates the music, but they have a partnership deal with the label to sell it. If the artist gives the okay to give the music away and the label doesn't should they still be able to?

I a way I still think my consulting business thought holds some water. My thought is that the owner of the business helped that person get to a level where they could then walk away and take many of the clients with them. Sure the business still has other clients and may be able to profit on the work that person had done for them in the past by reselling it, but what if that work was now available for free online? That business might not be the best analogy but look at it like it is a software company. The company helps a programmer get enough notoriety that they can walk away and work on their own and take many of the companies clients with them. They still have the software that the programmer made for them to sell, but what if the programmer then told everyone, "Just go here and download it for free?" Now you could argue the programmer is hurting the company.





While you may not spend a lot of time doing this, I would still venture to guess you spend more time than most. As I have argued before for most music is something of convenience so they listen it he car or at work or while doing the dishes. They don't put a lot of thought into seeking out new bands. Maybe I am dead wrong about this, but I think the masses don't care enough about music to look any further than their radio dial.

kane

I would disagree. Most labels spend about 200-500K per video shoot and if they think an act is going to make it big they will often shoot 2-3 videos before the album even comes out. Add in a million plus to hire promoters to get you on the radio and the cost of flying the act anywhere and everywhere they can to promote it and it adds up really fast.

The thing about both industries is that there is no sure thing. You can make a movie with big name people and an idea you think will be a hit and it bombs and then you have a small movie come out of nowhere and do huge business. The same can be said for music.

Britney Spears is a great example, to me, of what the music industry has done wrong. They have gotten away from selling art and are selling a "product." She has fans and they love her. I don't like it, but millions do for whatever reason. That said, the success of Britney will allow that record label to sign a dozen other acts and try to develop them. Maybe they will be successful, but most of them will fail. It is that way in movies too. A movie does huge numbers and it helps support the dozen other movies that don't turn a profit.

In the end the costs are not the same, but they are different mediums. To distribute a movie you have to make a few thousand prints and get it in theaters. For music it is on the radio and people can "consume" it while driving down the road or walking on the treadmill. No they are not comparable when it comes to how much it costs to make them, but I guess it still boggles me why that should be relevant to how much you are willing to pay for it. To me art is art and the format of it shouldn't determine the price.

Ace_luffy

__________________

Ozarkz

The ignorance in this thread is mind boggling.

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life

this doesn't change anything regarding what a faggot you are if you listen to radiohead...

Ozarkz

Without record labels how would Radiohead had this much success over the last 10+ years? Radiohead is BEFORE the internet being mainstream.

The record labels do an incredible amount for the band and it costs an incredible amount of money.

Are The Rolling Stones broke?

In 10 years the internet has given bands the ability to cut out the record label.

and reach fans more easily.

The internet also created a easy way to pirate music and if you look at the NUMBERS THE SALES FIGURES.

The numbers have done nothing but go down the last 10 years.

What the fuck does that have to do with torrents and stealing music?

Dude this thread is not about "Is the internet a good marketing tool for bands" that is fucking obvious.

If the fans don't pay for the music.... HELLLLOOOOOOooo

topnotch, standup guy

AFF ads painted on the sides of their tour bus

Ozarkz

One Republic is really the only band to sell out stadiums thanks to the "Internet" and even then it wasn't until Timbaland and his label worked with them before they took off.

and their Fan base is mostly females.

FACT: Women pay for music.

You guys live in a Fantasy World were people are "Good" and only use torrents to "Try" and if they like it they buy.

You fuckers have your heads soo far up your asses it's not even funny and it's costing us all money.

D Ghost

thats awesome

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life

i haven't bought an album in like 3 years

After Shock Media

PS I only brought up the Stephen King issue because his experiment also showed that the internet (free to pay what you want people) were not supportive enough to have him finish a project and this includes his own core fans.
If someone who is known can not produce enough to justify project (not even his lifestyle, he was not expecting same results), then how in the hell often will an unknown pull it off.

Hence the whole damn radiohead could not do it before they were famous argument.

__________________

TheDoc

Are you slow to understand that if the studios didn't screw over the bands, that if they didn't force the bands hand on every issue, like piracy - which most bands don't have a problem with - because it makes them more money - the bands would stay the band wouldn't hate them for attacking the fans directly....

Why in hell would you stay with anyone that keeps burning your fans? Why would you support an Industry that is dieing because they will not listen to the bands - that is killing the entire Music Industry?

I understand what they are fighting for... it's not what the are fighting against.



Are you talking about all music sales, across everything or just the music industries sales of over priced cd's that the majority of the world was bitching the day CD's came out?

Because overall music 'sales' is far from being down... More bands are selling more music today than ever before in History. The amount of music sold is way up, now if income is down... well, sounds like something was over priced then - and that's how the market works..



~

__________________

TheDoc

I don't think its his fan base isn't supportive enough - I just don't think it's big enough and his ego played into that. For example, I knew what radiohead doing, like most of us. But I had no idea SK did this, I asked my Dad which is a SK fan, he had no idea.

The guy let his ego kick in, which he really has - and his marketing sucked balls.

Maybe it's just the Music aspect? I just don't see a book author packing stadiums around the world, hell.. even bars to the level as some local bands do.


But.. then again, some of these online book sales are rocking it. You own it, no hassles - you can set your prices, drop it based on age. So many mediums online you can cover, so many ways to market it, the exposure can almost be instant and it's endless, for sure. And some of these guys started to produce series with monthly subscriptions.. brilliant..


Stephen King must have sucked...

__________________