That isn't a fact at all... It's not even a good lie.



And with Radiohead - So you think the talent should be locked away and controlled by someone else, forever? Isn't it the talent that 'really' is doing everything?

Without the talent, what would the studios and labels have? Without some of the most amazing singers/players in the world - these studios wouldn't ever gotten a name, and attracted other amazing people...

What I see is an industry that 'forces' music on us and doesn't allow us to naturally select the the best people, all because of money, looks, etc. So what Radiohead did - was exactly what was done to them.

FACT: Record companies fuck over artists on royalty payments. They often have to audit the books and many artist never see a dime more than their advance no matter how many albums they sell. Why do you not see a ton of artists speaking out against piracy? Because they don't care. They know they aren't going to get paid much if anything for album royalties to begin with so people downloading the record doesn't effect a lot of them.

FACT: These same artist make most of their money off of publishing royalties, radio performance royalties, touring and merchandise sales. It is not uncommon for an act to do $15 per person in merch sales at a concert. So if they sell 1,000 tickets the merch sales just put another 15K in their pockets (less expenses of course)

FACT: I have said before and will say again bands like Radiohead and NIN are terrible examples of the free download working brilliantly. Why? Simple. Record companies have spent years, thousands of hours and millions of dollars marketing these bands. These bands have toured for years while enjoying the support of major labels that can get them on the radio, on MTV and in the best venues in the world. Job Bob's Garage band doesn't get that and even if Joe Bob's garage band is supremely talented it takes a lot of effort to get noticed so until they do they will continue to play for 20 people in a bar. Radiohead has millions of fans that they have built up over many years and while the bands talent and brilliant records are ultimately what keeps the fans coming back, many of those fans first discovered them through MTV or on the radio or in a magazine or some other media device that most likely was paid for by a major record label.

Think of it like this. If you were a bestselling author that had many major big selling books many of which were made into very successful movies then you decided to put up a book for free online the media would jump all over it and you would get a ton of downloads. Why? Because everyone knows you. How? Because when you started out the publishing house put a lot of time and money behind marketing you.

If JK Rowling puts a book online there might be so many downloads it could crash the server. If unknown writer #2 puts his new book online tomorrow, nobody would notice.

Radiohead is not the norm. NIN is not the norm.

Yes, the record companies are unfair, but it is a trade off. The successful bands make a lot of money touring and the record industry keeps most of the money for album sales which allows them to sign and market new bands or continue to market existing bands.

You make a really good point here.

The record labels used to be in the art business. They signed acts they believed in and developed them over a number of years. They helped them build up a fan base and because of that we have acts like Neil Young and Bob Dylan and Springsteen. If these guys came out today there is a decent chance they would dropped from the label before ever getting a chance.

The labels then got away from that. They found it "easy" to get a hit record. They could get a good looking singer who could sing just enough so that they could fix it in the studio and match them with some hit songwriters and producers. They produce a song, focus on the singers looks and market the hell out of it. If it hits they get to sell a ton of CDs.

The internet changed that. People got sick of paying $12-$15 for a CD that has one or two good songs on it. Now they can just pay a couple of bucks and get those songs. It is a great deal for the consumer and not a bad deal for the artist who can now sell the song as a ring tone, for commercials and tour like crazy while they are hot, but the record label all of a sudden is in trouble. Almost overnight the music industry went from being an album driven industry to a singles driven industry. They no longer seem to sign acts that they think can put together a great record or will have longevity, they are just chasing the next hit and while in the past a hit song meant a $12-$15 sale it now means a 99cent download. The record labels are shitting their pants.

When the music industry gets back to trying to find the best singers and the best artists and producing art that people will want to buy they will find buyers for it. As long as they insist on shit like American Idol and signing acts that are one hit wonders, they will fail.

I would venture to guess that the members of Radiohead are all millionaires several times over. At least, to say, they have earned that. Nobody knows how they spend their money, but they have made some serious money.

First off they have sold a decent amount of records. So assume they have made nothing or very little from those. Second, they are touring all the time and they sell out everywhere they go. I read that if you want to hire them to play a festival or to do a show it is upwards of 400K for one night. They fill every venue they play and they make a ton off of that. With those ticket sales they most likely sell a decent amount of merchandise. Add in that they own their own publishing so when the songs get played on the radio or TV or in anything they get all the money from that. That alone is probably worth a few million dollars a year if not more.

They aren't making money like U2 or the Rolling Stones or Metallica, but they are making some real money.

agreed but the problem is these establish artist have paid their dues, and can now leverage their fame to make way more money using the new technology.

think of like your sales funnel, you take the losses in the begining (loss leader) or give away most of your profits on the original sales, to build a customer base that you can sell higher profit items too. Or do repeat sales more cost effectively.

That business model would work .... if the RIAA didn't use the money they ass raped you out in the begining to sue the new technology into oblivion.


of course we are starting to see example where unknown artist are making money leveraging the technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Coulton

sites like eventful.com allow you to vote for an artist to show up in your town. Those sites collect your email (so you can be informed about his upcomming appearance) and keep stats (so sponsors know how many potential fans would be comming to see the show)

it starting to get there. You could make a better living, selling less stuff (because of the freebie leachers), for a bigger percentage.

but that the point, if that was what they were doing the bands would have no problem with them. The problem is they are using those profits to KILL the distribution channel that will free the artist from the unfair deal. They are using that money to try and destroy the network which (once famous) can easily make them an order of magnitude more money. And which is evolving to be an alternative marketing vehicle to the unfair record contracts.

i like poo

LOL @ wanna be pornographers telling real artists what to do and how to run their business. YOU guys have it all right and Radiohead has it wrong.

Keep the laughs coming guys.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5LeLAELIxKY :Oh crap

what the fuck is the point of arguing if Radiohead is right or wrong? really? in the year 2009, we still can't let a free market decide? if what they do works... it works. if it fails, it fails. if they've satisfied their contractual obligations to the label, got famous, made both sides money and then decide to give music away... uhm... they have every right to do so. they created it... its theirs. its an argument that Gideongallery just can't accept. that the content creator/owner gets to decide what the terms of use of the content.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

GideoGallery you talk a lot but you don't say much. :1orglaugh

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

But continue with your bs.

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.

You find it educational because you dont know any better.

You're an idiot also.

Stop ignoring the facts you morons. :1orglaugh

What's that saying?

"The blind leading the blind" :1orglaugh

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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. :winkwink:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.