Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Will piracy kill off prog rock ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWill piracy kill off prog rock ?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 11>
Author
Message
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 2.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
octopus-4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13431
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 04:49
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

55 bands played Isle of Wight in 1970, 500,000 attended - ticket sales = £1.5 million (equivalent to £22 million today)

over 100 bands played 2014, 58,000 attended - ticket sales = £11 million (equivalent to £750K in 1970)

...that's twice the bands for half the money.

No matter how you divide it, bands earnt less for playing in 2014 than they did in 1970.

This means that each attendee has paid the equivalent of about 5 times the price in 2014 than on 1970...
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.
My poor home recorded stuff at https://yellingxoanon.bandcamp.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 05:07
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

55 bands played Isle of Wight in 1970, 500,000 attended - ticket sales = £1.5 million (equivalent to £22 million today)

over 100 bands played 2014, 58,000 attended - ticket sales = £11 million (equivalent to £750K in 1970)

...that's twice the bands for half the money.

No matter how you divide it, bands earnt less for playing in 2014 than they did in 1970.

This means that each attendee has paid the equivalent of about 5 times the price in 2014 than on 1970...
Correct.

In 2014 attendees paid more and the musicians earnt less than they did in 1970.

In 2014 10 times fewer attended the festival than did in 1970.

In 2014 twice as many bands played than in 1970.

In 2014 the organisers staged a 4-day festival for less money (and with better facilities) than they did in 1970 for a 3-day event.

The argument is that musicians cannot earn a living from album sales but make up for that in earnings from live performance because ticket prices have increased (by a factor of 5 or whatever). This is a fallacy, they are earning less from gigs because fewer people attend.
What?
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 16432
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 05:11
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...
Today it doesn't work like that because we broke the music business, now the music business couldn't give a flying fart about esoteric music and niche markets like Prog because we broke it. Now the artist has to pay for everything, up front and out of their own pocket, the modern equivalent of the record label (Bandcamp, Soundcloud) pays for nothing. What do we get for that? Artist integrity? Think again. Every musician needs to eat 

Prog on, Sign in, Log out

In the end this is far better than before, with the exception that folks thinking that a free ride to heaven is the way to go.

Dream on!

It's not perfect, never was, but you having full control of your work, should make it better in the end. The problem is, that somewhere along the way, you get a wife and a kid and need a home, and you drop the music. Oh well, I guess it did not mean a whole lot to you anyway!

The business is business and bless his colored socks or the colored balls, but in the end, others got ripped. Gong and others are still owed money, they will never get. Not to mention the lies among the number of sales, anyway.

The rip off's are all relative. You are suggesting that the small band gets hurt more than Led Zeepadingaling, but you are not mentioning that the number of folks ripping off the unknown band is miniscule. It would still be the same dollar for each 30 or 40 or more, I bet! 

There is more to gain from the bootlegs, than there is from the "artist" that you bought the album from. The album is already full of make up, costumes, this and that and you do not see the real person behind it. In many bootlegs, you find out quickly, and many times, as is the case with the Beatles, they are far more interesting and wonderful than the middle class fascination with the stars in books, cds and the new LP craze. The music may be great but it is so sanitized that there is no person behind it. And maybe that is what the 20th century was all about ... hide it all like the movies, so we gullible folks buy it ... because otherwise we wouldn't!

Who the fudge are you kidding?

Music, or any of the arts, has always been around, and more of it was never supported by a "company" or a "business" than otherwise. So why the big business and social defense now? 

The whole progressive music thing has more to do with the artistic freedoms of the time, than it does the business side of it. You're making it sound like any of krautrock'rs got paid, and the answer is, none of them ever did, enough to get a new car, but it was enough to survive. At least, they will be better remembered than the thieves!

And it was the same in London, with more bands not getting anywhere than the handful that got any moneys off it. Or NY, when it was known that the "gods" got all the money and the rest got kicked in the ass. You only have to read Patti Smith once to learn that and it was a known fact ... it always was actually, since like London, NY has its own mafia that runs the money in the arts, and new ones don't fare well at all ... geeeee ... I'm not about to go kiss their bums, or what's his name in London, either, simply because there is no competition in the market.

You really should study and read the story of black musicians in America in the 50's and 60's and how the movies (inadvertently, not intentionally I don't think!) in Hollywood, almost single handed killed so much black music. It was a tribute to its own strength that eventually it made it ... 

We need the piracy. We need some sort of checks and balances. The business world, has not been about the arts, it has been about the greed and the steal, and your houseboat! That's not to say that it did not happen anywhere else, but the numbers are smaller and easier to deal with. But we can only think in terms of the big names losing their profit, and one story about colored socks ... and colored balls!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 16432
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 05:23
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

...
You want to completely erode the musician's right to own and make a profit off his labour so that your perceived rights as a consumer are not infringed. The only difference between music and other consumer products is that people feel it is OK to steal music because you likely won't get caught.
...


And sometimes I think this is the real issue. If you do it by yourself, the "public" has no right to you or your work. But if you do it via a company of business, then you do owe them something, which makes you a slave. And I like that one artist's comments (musician, too!!!) that said that he felt like a COW ... just milk me!

And it is a serious issue, that is highly visible in this board, with folks taking any band their own right to do as they see, and think they should, simply because it is not satisfying the reviewer's butt! And it is, the most pathetic and boring type of review and example, of what happens in a public place, like this one, and Dean is the number one social advocate, of a system that has shown time and again, that it lied, cheated, robbed, maimed, and killed for their greed!

Sorry ... the individual and the art is more important, or the individuality necessary to create great work, as was the case with the progressive music we love, will not take place ... again! It wasn't Virgin that made Gong, or Tangerine Dream ... it was themselves! And Mike, for all his socks, doesn't need any more money except what his greed thinks he deserves, since his music isn't showing it anymore.

Go ahead, Dean ... kill it all!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 19958
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 06:26
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...
Today it doesn't work like that because we broke the music business, now the music business couldn't give a flying fart about esoteric music and niche markets like Prog because we broke it. Now the artist has to pay for everything, up front and out of their own pocket, the modern equivalent of the record label (Bandcamp, Soundcloud) pays for nothing. What do we get for that? Artist integrity? Think again. Every musician needs to eat 

Prog on, Sign in, Log out

The rip off's are all relative. You are suggesting that the small band gets hurt more than Led Zeepadingaling, but you are not mentioning that the number of folks ripping off the unknown band is miniscule. It would still be the same dollar for each 30 or 40 or more, I bet! 

I didn't understand most of that post but this is bit is incorrect - ask Pendragon (to give just one example) how much they are hurt financially by illegal uploading of their CDs and DVDs.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 06:47
*sigh*
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

...
Today it doesn't work like that because we broke the music business, now the music business couldn't give a flying fart about esoteric music and niche markets like Prog because we broke it. Now the artist has to pay for everything, up front and out of their own pocket, the modern equivalent of the record label (Bandcamp, Soundcloud) pays for nothing. What do we get for that? Artist integrity? Think again. Every musician needs to eat 

Prog on, Sign in, Log out

In the end this is far better than before, with the exception that folks thinking that a free ride to heaven is the way to go.

Dream on!
Ermm probably. 
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:


It's not perfect, never was, but you having full control of your work, should make it better in the end. The problem is, that somewhere along the way, you get a wife and a kid and need a home, and you drop the music. Oh well, I guess it did not mean a whole lot to you anyway!
Pardon? I have a wife and kid and a home and full control of my music. What's your point?

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

The business is business and bless his colored socks or the colored balls, but in the end, others got ripped. Gong and others are still owed money, they will never get. Not to mention the lies among the number of sales, anyway.
I wasn't defending Virgin, and it is clear that they behaved like arseholes to all their artists, just ask Andy Partridge. When negotiating with record labels (which I have done), the philosophy is simple: keep your ears and eyes open and your mouth shut, sign nothing without reading it and get expert advice before signing anything. A recording contract is a legal document written by people with law degrees, only an idiot would sign one without fully understanding what they were signing.

I was explaining the mechanics of how a label works and how funds are used, this affects the perception of how much money is made by each artist and by each album sale. The assumption that if you sell 10,000 albums you should get royalty payment for every album is poor understanding of economics and accounting, a poor understanding of how albums are produced and a poor understanding of how to run a business. If you want I can give a worked example of the economics of how albums are made and sold but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

Artists being ripped-off by their record label does not justify ripping them off by selling bootlegs or ripping them off by downloading albums.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

The rip off's are all relative. You are suggesting that the small band gets hurt more than Led Zeepadingaling, but you are not mentioning that the number of folks ripping off the unknown band is miniscule. It would still be the same dollar for each 30 or 40 or more, I bet!
That wasn't the point being made, and that's some seriously bad maths you're computing there. They are relative but they are not proportional, I kinda expected you to understand what that meant but it is clear that you do not.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

There is more to gain from the bootlegs, than there is from the "artist" that you bought the album from. The album is already full of make up, costumes, this and that and you do not see the real person behind it. In many bootlegs, you find out quickly, and many times, as is the case with the Beatles, they are far more interesting and wonderful than the middle class fascination with the stars in books, cds and the new LP craze. The music may be great but it is so sanitized that there is no person behind it. And maybe that is what the 20th century was all about ... hide it all like the movies, so we gullible folks buy it ... because otherwise we wouldn't!
And your point is? Pay the pirates not the artist?
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:


Who the fudge are you kidding?
Not you that's for sure.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Music, or any of the arts, has always been around, and more of it was never supported by a "company" or a "business" than otherwise. So why the big business and social defense now?
So the Catholic Church and the Austrian Court are/were not run like a business... I'm glad we cleared that up.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

The whole progressive music thing has more to do with the artistic freedoms of the time, than it does the business side of it. You're making it sound like any of krautrock'rs got paid, and the answer is, none of them ever did, enough to get a new car, but it was enough to survive. At least, they will be better remembered than the thieves!
So what are you complaining about? 

Back then if the business side didn't make the albums you wouldn't be listening to them today. It would not have been such a great loss of course because we would never have heard them so would not miss them. What of all those bands that never secured a record deal... 

...for every album on your shelf there are 1000s that never got recorded. Music that is forever lost to the world and those erstwhile unrecorded artists sit and dream of what could have been if some record label had given them the big break they so deserved... 

Damn those record labels. Damn them to heck. Angry

Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

And it was the same in London, with more bands not getting anywhere than the handful that got any moneys off it. Or NY, when it was known that the "gods" got all the money and the rest got kicked in the ass. You only have to read Patti Smith once to learn that and it was a known fact ... it always was actually, since like London, NY has its own mafia that runs the money in the arts, and new ones don't fare well at all ... geeeee ... I'm not about to go kiss their bums, or what's his name in London, either, simply because there is no competition in the market.
You can only read Patti Smith because she became famous. I still wouldn't kiss her bum.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

You really should study and read the story of black musicians in America in the 50's and 60's and how the movies (inadvertently, not intentionally I don't think!) in Hollywood, almost single handed killed so much black music. It was a tribute to its own strength that eventually it made it ...
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

We need the piracy. We need some sort of checks and balances. The business world, has not been about the arts, it has been about the greed and the steal, and your houseboat! That's not to say that it did not happen anywhere else, but the numbers are smaller and easier to deal with. But we can only think in terms of the big names losing their profit, and one story about colored socks ... and colored balls!
...and coloured bulls*it it would seem.

No artist ever needs to be ripped off. Being ripped off by the "business" does not justify being ripped off by piracy.

You cannot justify a wrong with another wrong, that's just idiotic.


Today we have condoned mugging. Artists are expected to give their music away for free, because of "artist integrity" and "doing it for the love of it", and if they object we'll take it anyway and there is nothing they can do to stop us. Does this sound in any way, shape or form, fairer to you? If it does then you are an idiot, and a dangerous one at that.


Edited by Dean - September 26 2014 at 07:59
What?
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 07:35
I'm going to agree with a lot of the posters here that there IS a lot of shoddy, slapped together music out there. The general public have had enough of paying through the nose for execrably bad "product" labelled as music. There has been a long and steady decline in musicianship, songwriting and .... general care... since the mid 1970's. 

However. The one good thing about technology is that it now allows a lot of musicians, who'd have never got near a studio 30 years ago, to record music and release it. There's no longer a huge capital outlay required in instruments, studio time, etc. No one tells you what to do, there's no record company demanding you release a three minute single or all dressing up in pageboy outfits to be popular. So that's good.

The problem is that this means there's a mass of utter rubbish out there released by people who really shouldn't be playing. A lot of people who listen to music can't distinguish good musicianship from bad musicianship, they either like something or they don't. So the problem is that the general public wade through masses of rubbish to find the odd jewel.

But. Please do all of us musicians who care, try and be innovative and try and release the best stuff they can a big favour and support us by buying our music, folks. I know people on this site will. They're the exception rather than the rule. I'm not in this game for the money, I just like making music. I'd give it all away but every now and again, as an artist, you need to know that someone likes what you're doing. Otherwise you will eventually throw the towel in. The problem is that a lot of people now think all music - good or bad - is free. Without support, good music will become rarer and rarer. I'd love to do live gigs but the problem is guaranteeing an audience and having to effectively gamble financially that I can fill even a small venue.

Please don't pay for crap. But do support good musicians, and think before you download torrents. Nothing, unfortunately, is really for free. ;-) As a PS, this really isn't a self advert, but more a concern about the general principle. 

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 07:44
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

...
You want to completely erode the musician's right to own and make a profit off his labour so that your perceived rights as a consumer are not infringed. The only difference between music and other consumer products is that people feel it is OK to steal music because you likely won't get caught.
...


And sometimes I think this is the real issue. If you do it by yourself, the "public" has no right to you or your work. But if you do it via a company of business, then you do owe them something, which makes you a slave. And I like that one artist's comments (musician, too!!!) that said that he felt like a COW ... just milk me!

And it is a serious issue, that is highly visible in this board, with folks taking any band their own right to do as they see, and think they should, simply because it is not satisfying the reviewer's butt! And it is, the most pathetic and boring type of review and example, of what happens in a public place, like this one, and Dean is the number one social advocate, of a system that has shown time and again, that it lied, cheated, robbed, maimed, and killed for their greed!

Sorry ... the individual and the art is more important, or the individuality necessary to create great work, as was the case with the progressive music we love, will not take place ... again! It wasn't Virgin that made Gong, or Tangerine Dream ... it was themselves! And Mike, for all his socks, doesn't need any more money except what his greed thinks he deserves, since his music isn't showing it anymore.

Go ahead, Dean ... kill it all!
Your inability to full comprehend the words I type is matched only by your inability to write a coherent sentence. That's quite an achievement. I would take my hat off to you but I fear some pirate would steal it.

So, what have we here? (sarcasm alert)

Tangerine Dream would have made records without Virgin, and this is indeed true, their first three albums were released on Ohr and they of course sold millions of copies, they toured the world and got paid oodles for their efforts, damn, you couldn't turn on the radio in those days without hearing Ultima Thule being blasted over the airwaves, the BBC couldn't make a documentary without using their music and William Friedkin dare not make a film without first phoning Edgar Froese first to see if he would score it for him. Ah, happy days. Then Virgin came along and spoilt it all. Damn them, damn them to heck! ... oh, wait...

How fortunate it was that BYG recorded Gongs biggest selling albums before those criminals at Virgin ruined everything, they even had the audacity to sell Electric Cheese for less than it cost to press and distribute and then failed to pay Gong royalties for every album sold, damn them, damn them to heck! Oh well, at least someone had the foresight to distribute their albums to those hapless Americans or they would have disappeared forever... I mean Gong, not the Americans... oh wait...

And Mike Oldfield (damn his cotton socks) is such a greedy b*st*rd how does he sleep at night? Counting money I would imagine, the greedy b*st*rd. In fact he's too busy counting all that ill-gotten loot he hasn't time to make good music any more, we need to fix that. He needs motivating. We really need to put a cap on how much an artist can make from their art just to keep them hungry enough to feed our desire for new music, nothing inspires an artist more than starving to death. Kick him in the wallet, that's the only thing he feels now. So oh no Mr Oldfield (damn your cotton socks), you've sold far too many copies of Tubby Bells you have to give me that for free now, so off you toddle back to the studio and write something new, we're so tired of hearing that old record now you don't need to sell it any more 'cos we're not going to buy it anyway, ooooh, is that Hergest Ridge? I haven't got that. How many of those did you sell? Millions? Okay, I'll take that too. Oh now, stop your crying, I'm not hurting you, you can always make Hergest Ridge II, we'd love that and we might even buy it, unless we can download it for nothing of course... Speaking of which, we downloaded Man on the Rocks last week, oh dear, what were you thinking, we're so glad we didn't buy it...






Is it dead yet?


Edited by Dean - September 26 2014 at 08:06
What?
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 08:13
Originally posted by Davesax1965 Davesax1965 wrote:

Absolutely. ;-)
The worrying thing is that prog rock means that you have to spend a long time learning to play. If there's nothing financially at the end of it, a lot of the next generation will say "might as well just churn out crap, then. " 

I really hope that doesn't happen. 
I dont think people are learning to play, because they might (or might not) get rich from it.
The question is more if you will be able to collect the music, and how. As Dean said, it looks like it will be streaming, as producing CD will be a non profit effort. 

Edited by tamijo - September 26 2014 at 08:14
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 26 2014 at 08:29
Hi Tamijo, I define "learning to play" as "This will take the rest of your life", not "Shall we strum a few open chords on a guitar ? " ;-)

After 38 years, I'm still learning to play. If someone in 1976 had said "And by the way, you'll make more money busking" then I'd probably have done something else. ;-)

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 08:23
It is clear from Pedro's emotional response to my posts that he, and perhaps others, think I am defending the record labels here. I am not. I merely described the reality and made no judgement on whether that is right or wrong or good or bad. It is also clear that he, and perhaps others, finds the idea of making records being a business distasteful and somehow cheapens the art, but that's another topic of conversation and not what we are discussing here.

It is a reality that for every twenty albums a Label releases only one of those will ever make any money for anybody.

The profit from that one album pays for the losses incurred by the other nineteen. A royalty is a share of the profit, not a share of the selling price.

To account for this the royalty share offered to the Artist by the Label is typically around 10-20%, leaving the remaining 90-80% to pay for the 95% non-profit albums, the overhead costs of running the Label and for all the Advances paid to all the Artists. That 80% is not net profit for the Label.

At first glance this seems like "bad maths" by the Label, and since they are a business with paid accountants to work all this stuff out then evidently this isn't the case, so how does it work.

First off, a 20% royalty deal does not mean the Artist gets 20% of the retail price of an album, these percentages are calculated from the wholesale price after deducting the cost of manufacture. The wholesale price is the money the label earns from each CD, that is, before the retailer and distributor have added their mark-up. 

Typically in any retail market the retailer's mark-up (ie gross profit) is 35%, if you are a big retailer with lots of buying power (i.e., clout) this mark-up can be (and usually is) much higher and can be as much as 80%. Since the retail price remains more-or-less constant the difference between 35% and 80% comes from the wholesale price, that is, a big retailer gets the album from the Label at a cheaper price so the wholesale price is affected, not the retail price. If an album is sold in Wal*mart then the Label earns less per copy sold than it does from a brick'n'mortar record store, but it can sell far more copies so it is advantageous in the long-run. 

There is another odd thing regarding CD retail that is somewhat unique to the Recording Industry, and that is Returns. Record retailers work on a Sale or Return basis, albums that do not sell are sent back to the Label for a refund, often this refund is paid out after the royalties have been calculated since they are calculated on the number of wholesale sales not retail sales. To account for this a Label will often predict the number of returns and subtract that from the total number of wholesale sales they have made - this isn't a wild guess but one made by looking at how well an album has been received (reviews) and how well it is selling (chart position). Breakages are also deducted from the total, but for the sake of clarity I'll lump them in with the Returns.

Then there is the cost of sending out free copies. These are also deducted from the wholesale sales. If the Label sends out 1000 free copies and sells 10000 copies to retailers then the cost of the freebies is deducted from the money received from the retailer. This sounds wrong but it is not - the Label presses 11,000 copies, it gives 1000 away and sells 10,000 so the net earning is equivalent to 9,000 sales. 

If we assume that the retailer mark-up is the lower figure of 35% then a CD that retails for $10 has a wholesale price of $6.50, and if it cost 50¢ to make the CD and the booklet then that is $6.00.

So the Artist gets 20% of $6.00, which is $1.20 right? Well, almost.

Before the Label pays the Artist his $1.20 it subtracts the Recoupables. In simplistic terms Recoupables are expenses paid out by the Label to the Artist to make the album, such as (some) studio costs, (most) promotion costs and (often) the cost of ubiquitous promotional video. The biggest part of that is the Advance. 

The Advance is not a gift it is a loan - if you go to your boss and ask for an advance on your salary he pays you a sum of money in advance of the pay-cheque you would normally receive in the following month, and he will deduct that sum from your next pay-cheque - it is an interest-free loan. A record company Advance is the same, it is a payment of royalties in advance of any forthcoming sales, so when those sales start coming in he deducts the sum of money advanced from the Artist's royalty pay-cheque. If sales are good then the Artist gets paid. Again, for the sake of clarity in this explanation I'll lump all recoupables into the Advance, but in reality they are deducted separately.

If the Advance was $10,000 and the Label sells 10,000 copies to retailers then the 20% royalty is $12,000 so the Artist gets paid $2,000 from which the Label can make further recoupable deductions. If there are a predicted 10% Returns then the total number of sales is only 9,000 so the 20% royalty is only $10,800, and after subtracting the Advance the Artist gets paid $800. If the Label sent 1000 free copies to reviewers, distributors, radio stations etc., then the total number of sales is calculated at 8,000 so the 20% royalty is only $9,600 and after deducting the Advance the artist is $400 in the red and gets paid nothing... not looking so good now is it...

Bad maths says hang on, 10,000 copies at $10 each is $100,000 ... subtracting the Advance from that leaves $90,000 and 20% of that is $18,000, how come the artist gets nothing The answer is simple: Read the damn contract before signing it

If the Artist's royalties are less than the Advance then the Artist gets paid nothing and the Label takes the difference as a loss, he does not demand that money back. If the band was moderately successful the way he gets it back is by demanding a new album (the "obligatory contractual album"), if the album was a dud then the Label cut's his losses and the Artist is dropped. Those losses come from the "80%" cut the Label takes from sales of the albums from all his Artist, whether they are successful or not.

Sometimes an Artist has to release several moderately selling albums before the Advances from each are full paid-off, and sometimes you will hear an Artist say they never earnt a penny from those albums, but that isn't the whole story, they were paid in Advance.

Tales of Artists blowing their Advance are legendary and few realise that the money they are spending is money from their future earnings, so when that future arrives and they have no money the bubble bursts and it ends in tears.

This is not because the Artist is irresponsible, it is because they have high-expectations, and sometimes those expectations are unrealistic. No Artist signing a recording contract ever believes they are going to record a dud, they all expect that their album will sell and make lots of money; they all have the expectation of fame and fortune and their future earnings will be much greater than any Advance they are paid. Even an Artist in a less popular genre signed to a small label who will never sell millions of albums expects to sell enough albums to pay off their Advance.

Secondly (yeah, I'd forgotten all that was just a "firstly" too), this 20% Royalty is not the total royalty paid out for each album sold, it is what is termed the Recording Artists Mechanical Royalty. It is only paid to those musicians who played on the recording, excluding any sessions and guest musicians, and it covers all their expenses - if they have a manager, roadies and other employees then they are paid from this 20%. Any sum paid to sessions musicians generally came from the Advance as a one-off payment, though some do negotiate a percentage of the royalty and that is a percentage of the 20%, not the total - a friend of mine was offered the choice of a lump payment or royalty for guesting on an album, I recommended he took the one-off payment, he took the royalty instead and so far has earnt nothing. Other royalty payments are not under the control of the Label.

If the Artist is also the songwriter then the Writer/Publisher Mechanical Royalties are negotiated and calculated separately - the Label pays the Publisher and the Publisher then pays the Writer, the Artist negotiates that royalty payment with the Publisher. This payment by the Label is comes from their 80% and is not subject to the recoupable deductions apart from manufacturing costs and promotional deductions, so selling 10,000 copies at 20% Writer/Publisher Mechanical Royalty nets $7,680 for the Publisher and if he is on a 50:50 split with the Artist then the Artist gets paid $3,800... assuming they wrote every track on the album, if they only wrote half of them then they get $1,920. If an Artist isn't getting his Writer Royalties then his dispute is with the Publisher not the Label. If the Publisher isn't getting paid then their combined dispute is with the Label.

Obviously $3,800 for writing album that sold 10,000 copies is much better than the nothing you got for just playing on it, and this disparity is a huge cause of argument among band members.

The next set of Royalties are the Performance Royalties, again these are not under the control of the Label and are collected and paid out separately. Performance Royalties are also divided into Writer and Recording royalties, with Writer royalties being paid for both radio & streaming plays of the album, all live performances and cover versions, whereas the Recording Performance Royalty is only paid for radio & streaming of the actual recording. Again this disparity is a huge cause bitterness in a band.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Record Labels are not squeaky clean, nor are they outright dishonest, (they have to deal with the IRS just like anyone else). As I have said many times before, they are a business not a public service. Irrespective of the dreams of the Artist they exist to make money and that money is subject to the fickleness of the buying public. The business-model is a terrible one, no other business would survive on a 5% success rate, no other business would survive making 19 loss making products for every 20 they make. Even the film industry can make a profit from a dud movie, a dud album will never turn a profit and the cost of making those 19 poor selling albums is paid for by the one successful one. A poor selling album will not even make enough money to pay Writer Royalties. To turn a profit the Label will play dirty, it will play crafty accounting with the numbers and exaggerate the costs of making an album while understating the number of sales, it will load the dice in its favour. It will hold a seasoned and experienced Artist to the contract they signed as a wide-eyed and naive 17-year old, a contract is a legally binding document. Eyes open, mouth shut, sign nothing without expert advice. 


Edited by Dean - September 27 2014 at 09:14
What?
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 08:42
Woo, huge post there, but I completely agree with it. Thanks, Dean. 

I really must put up a blog at some point which details how much the average musician doesn't get. I think a great number of non musos would be quite astonished at how little money people make from music. A very few people certainly do very well out of it.

The whole music industry is predicated on "Wannabe". The way it goes is that most kids start off wanting to be rich and famous. They avail themselves of the cheapest electric guitar possible, learn a few simple chords, teach themselves some tab, strum away, join a band, play some cheap club, bask in the adulation. Actually, they can't really play, they can't improvise, have no idea what they're doing (if you said "now do it in another key" or "and a solo at this point, please", they'd have no idea) - but they wannabe famous. And rich. And adored. Almost no one learns to play for the love of it any more. Sorry, Tamijo, most people who are coming along in music now wannabe musicians. Well, they want to strum a few chords and wake up the next morning playing like Jimi Hendrix. ;-) I've gone into my local music shop, picked up a guitar, played a bit of blues and been told by the staff (on more than one occasion) that I'm the only person they've had in that morning who could actually play. Properly. 

So, let's see. What does a Gibson Les Paul Classic cost nowadays ? About $2000. How many do you think Gibson would sell if they said "You're 90% likely NOT to learn to play this, it'll take you years, even if you do, there's no money in music any more ? " ;-)

And one guitar, folks, is the tip of the very iceberg if you're a touring musician. At the same time, people are unwilling to support artists, unwilling to go to gigs, so it all becomes more and more precarious. Remember the time when supermarkets first opened and everyone abandoned their local shops for convenience shopping ? Now there are no local shops - not in the UK, anyway, the supermarkets run rampant, we all get ripped off and Joe Public say "I wish we still had local shops, the food was better, you got better service"......... as if the local shops would or could stay open for them without their patronage. 



Edited by Davesax1965 - September 27 2014 at 08:59

Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 08:53
Perhaps more to the point than my rambling, geriatric posts, here's a clip from the internet-thingy....

"Illegal-filesharing topped 33 million albums and 10 million singles in H1 2012 in the UK, according to a new report.

Musicmetric has released a study that suggests that more than twice as many albums were downloaded illegally over the six-month period as were legitimately bought through digital outlets.

Conclusions have been drawn from the data suggesting that the illegal download activity equates to £500m in lost revenue at retail, although that assumes that all illegal downloaders would have bought a particular album had piracy not been an option."


Back to Top
silverpot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 19 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 841
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 08:56
Excellent description, Dean. Star

It's almost the same as in the book business where I work.
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 09:01
Hi Silverpot, yep, same kind of thing, I expect. 

Everyone thinks it's so easy to make piles of money and be rich and famous. Trouble is, the world isn't set up like that, no matter what industry you're in and everyone who actually has made it will set the dice against those trying to do so. 

If it's so easy, why isn't everyone doing it ? ;-)

Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 09:26
The upshot of all that is we will see more and more part time musicians.  There will be just the pop music factory, for as long as it sustains itself, and a bunch of small artists who are already aware they cannot be in it for the money and operate accordingly.  It will have consequences for the kind of music that is churned out and people will compare them to old classics and lament the loss of quality, making the situation even more depressing in turn.  Another thing, independent of piracy, as people have got exposed to too much conventional melody too soon.  Maybe being deprived of it, at least in contemporary music, for a long time might rekindle their enthusiasm for it.  Because that is a good starting point to make a pop song that is both infectious and memorable.
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 10:13
Absolutely, Rogerthat, spot on the money. Sadly. 

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 10:21
In another thread I talked about the band I once managed. I wasn't Mr 20%, I took no fee from them and wasn't even a signatory to the band's bank account that I got them to set up. We spent five years chasing "The Dream", sending out demos, inviting people to gigs, talking to journalists, appearing on Total Rock radio and touring the land and I have a pile of rejection letters in my file from all the record labels that turned them down (those that bothered to reply anyway)Most of the band had studied music and music performance & production at the Academy of Contemporary Music under Bruce John Dickinson and Bill Bruford; and the singer was a graduate from the University of Surrey and a member of the National Youth Choir. The instruments those guys used were top-notch, Ibanez & Gibson LP guitars, Roland keyboards and drum kit that would make your eyes water and your ears bleed, all the amps were Marshal Valvestates stood upon top-flight 4x12 stacks, for a bunch of 20-yo kids this stuff was up there with the best. They also knew how to play them, all practised their craft and rehearsed until they were note-perfect, at one time they supported DragonForce (at that time still called DragonHeart) and in my biased opinion, blew them off the stage. If there was one thing you could not fault them on it was commitment - they had invested everything in the band, time, energy, money, the lot. So those record Label rejections did not deter them and the grass-roots following they were building spurred them on. 

The next step was to self-release. If a Label wouldn't sign us then we'd record a full-length demo and release it our selves. As I described in the other thread, we did this in a disused cow shed using a DAW and a computer, we sound-proofed it with carpet, heavy blankets and mattresses and built a vocal booth out of an old wardrobe. I paid for the DAW and the computer software and provided that, and my time, for free. We then paid for this to be mastered, pressed and packaged and sold it at gigs for £10 a go. It sold very well and people liked it, we even had good reviews in the Metal mags. A group of people who worked in the music industry heard this and formed a record Label just to sign the band. They offered to pay for the extra studio time to polish the demo recording and pay to have it pressed, re-packaged and distributed. After so many rejections, and even though the band had essentially presented them with an album that was almost ready to release, the band signed on the dotted line. The deal included Management, so I gracefully stepped down, I actually felt relieved at this point, looking after six temperamental egos for five years was very draining and everything we had worked for had led to that moment. I'd done all I could and now it was up to the professionals 

Unfortunately timing of the the CD's release was a little off, so when the band played the biggest gig of their career, sharing the stage with the likes of Within Temptation and After Forever before 5,000+ people, the merchandise stall was bare of CDs, the band weren't even permitted to sell the few demo copies that remained (they live in a box in my attic), still, the T-Shirts I designed sold-out so that was good. I tagged along to this gig now as a fan and not part of the entourage, and it felt great to stand and watch instead of worrying about the equipment and the performance, and for once I didn't have to miss their set because I was manning the merch stall. For the first time in five years, I actually enjoyed myself (I also got quite drunk and fell asleep during Cathedral's set, which was annoying as I had been looking forward to seeing them all day). 

When the album was finally released it sold well, and would have been in the Top-10 metal charts at CDNow and Amazon.uk if EMI hadn't released remastered versions the complete Iron Maiden back-catalogue that week. I don't know how many copies it sold (I never asked), but it wasn't enough, the record Label went broke and no one made any money. 

You can buy a copy if you like, it's discounted at £2.99 at Amazon at the moment.



PS: the band is still in existence, though they haven't played live for many years now (I think the last was a joint-headline with Haken in 2009), I recently heard they are still working on the follow-up album they débuted when supporting supporting Threshold at Summer's End back in 2008.
What?
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 16432
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 14:03

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

It is clear from Pedro's emotional response to my posts that he, and perhaps others, think I am defending the record labels here. I am not. I merely described the reality and made no judgement on whether that is right or wrong or good or bad. It is also clear that he, and perhaps others, finds the idea of making records being a business distasteful and somehow cheapens the art, but that's another topic of conversation and not what we are discussing here.

Incorrect.

I'm not anti-business any more than I am anti-idiocy!

However, too many of us "artistes", do not want to have the patience necessary to deal with an accountant, to learn something simple about business that will get you going fairly well. In America, you CAN do this as a business and take your best shots at it. I don't know that the same "legal/commercial/tax-design" is a satisfactory idea for most people.

One of the issues in "business", and I ran two restaurants, is that there is ALWAYS a small percentage that you are going to lose ... as the lettuce did not move fast enough, and you had to throw away half a case, and there goes the money. Likewise in a record business, there is a percentage that doesn't move, or in our example, was "stolen". Considering that we did not exactly "spend" money to create that stolen product, all you are accounting is INVISIBLE MONEY that you might have made, NOT LOST! It's money that you could have gained.

Just so you know, some of the biggest sellers of bootlegs and other illegal stuff, happened to be the same record executives, trying to buy off radio folks and this was huge enough in Los Angeles as to set off a massive payola thing, that is still not quite resolved, but showed how the place has changed, not to mention radio.

What is weird, is that I don't hear Bob Dylan complaining, or the Grateful Dead, and they were the 2 highest numbers of bootlegs out there. And they will be remembered. This has helped me re-think the steal thing, and the reason why I have no respect for Metallica or a handful of bands, that want the money and don't care about anything else ... in other words, they are merely defending their lifestyle! NOT YOURS, OR MINE, btw ... because the law is designed to protect them!

I'm not a great fan of the piracy side of things. Because that is nasty and un-cool. But the bootleg side, FOR ME, is not about "piracy", and I think this is where I made the error, in your discussion. Piracy, in your desctiption, is stealing the CD, relabeling it and selling it. Yes, I would castrate that fudger as fast as you would! But the bootlegs, is another story. It's like night and day with the bootlegs, and what you learn from the artist is far more exciting and beautiful in the whole context of the artistry involved, than otherwise. This was the case of the "big ones" with the bootlegs. They were magnificently different, and you learned something about the persons behind it. You can not see that in the LP's at all! The 15 different versions of "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" are magnificent. So are the 15 different versions of "Echoes". So are the 15 different versions of "Atom Heart Mother". You might say they were bored, but you and I are the listeners, and we experience different things when hearing something different. This is the benefit of the artistry in the bootleg area.

But the whole "piracy" thing, is not something that I will stand by or accept. And whatever you do, please at least understand this about me. I'm about the artistry, not the piracy ... even though I have had a screenplay stolen, and will never be able to get another one sold because mine are now protected at a couple of national libraries. And this intimidates a group of business folks, that are looking to make money, and don't really give a darn about your work.

Btw, I DID PRODUCE a record album, for Guy Guden. The total cost for 1000 copies was $2800 dollars (sorry, don't remember the exact figure), or about $2.80 per album. This was in 1978, by the way. That included the hard cover and the cellophane and Guy's design and such. It did not include the "master" which the folks at the place did for a nominal small fee, since their money was obviously in the number of LP's done. I did not lose on that deal and we got the money back for it, and the rest was saved. It featured Guy's comedy. Just like the discussion here, the album was fine but Guy's work on the air in his comedy was far superior to the album, even if he was hoping to use it as a lead in to his acting ability, which was exceptional and quite disciplined on the stage.

All in all, just don't confuse what I posted. I do not support piracy, and will not even REVIEW an album that I do not have the CD of! Why? ... I LOVE THE MUSIC I HAVE ... you know and understand that, and I do not wish to corrupt that love and appreciation. that appreciation was acquired from a long time of buying a lot of LP's, imports, all the way to 1985 and 1990, because it was the only blood that fed this vampire. Piracy, for me, was always theft, as it still is.

But I have seen theft on my own work. But waiting for a nickel to arrive in my mail tomorrow is not something that I can live with or from. Besides that, I'm an "enfant terrible" and like many of us here, extremely independent, but I will tell you, that if someone robs me, go ahead, but that person's kharmic disposition is going to take a severe hit, and hopefully it won't destroy their life or family!



Edited by moshkito - September 27 2014 at 14:06
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2014 at 14:09
kin'ell - a coherent post. Shocked

I need to lay down for a minute to recover.




brb.
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.