Re: tpb

["Ben Holland" <user=122@nabble.blu.org>]

 Aye, but this is the new age thing with myspace and other free file sharing 
sights. The best way to distribute music is via word of mouth. Playing new 
cd's that you got from online for a few friends who go, wow i'll have to 
pass this on, it's really awesome, has made what I would consider the record 
labels need to scrounge up with a new source of revenue, and that is coming 
from suing people. At least that is my idea. Basically we went from what I 
see as big brother telling us what to listen to a grass routes campaign to 
distribute the new up and coming people. Studios have been renting out the 
night time slots for wicked cheep and you get anyone basically who can make 
a cd, sell 100 of em and you've more then covered cost, which I could easily 
see being as little as 5 shows if you get a good audience. 

On Feb 4, 2008 8:23 PM, Matt Shields <[hidden email]> wrote: 

> On Feb 4, 2008 6:37 PM, Kristian Erik Hermansen 
> <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > On Feb 4, 2008 11:49 AM, Ben Holland <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > > Musicians get most if not all of their money from their live 
> performances. 
> > 
> > I think Radiohead stated that self-distribution gave them more money 
> > than ever.  Don't know how much that compares to live performances 
> > though.  Typically, I heard it is about $1 per album sold goes to the 
> > band, which is a very low amount indeed.  A great article on the music 
> > industry and their extravagant spending is below.  It doesn't sound to 
> > me like the record companies are being fair to the consumers with such 
> > antics (passing costs on to paying customers)... 
> > 
> 
> The actual amount depends on a lot of different things.  Usually 
> there's around between $1.50 to $2.50 per album to distribute.  This 
> amount depends on what was negotiated in their contract, but it 
> doesn't all go to the band/artist.  It's split between the performer 
> and the authors.  So the artist usually gets around 50% for performing 
> the songs, plus a percentage if they wrote/co-wrote any songs. But 
> this is were the math gets complicated.  If this is a new artist (3-4 
> or less albums), they are usually already in the hole from money 
> prepaid upon signing, plus all sorts of costs that the labels can come 
> up with.  What it comes down to is usually the first 2 albums the 
> artist doesn't make very much to live off of, usually because the 
> artist has sold his soul to the devil (the labels).  So the way they 
> make up for not getting any of the sales is from touring and 
> merchandise which the labels don't usually get anything from.  Also, 
> albums that the band sells themselves (like at performances) the band 
> usually keeps a higher cut, because they have purchased them at the 
> wholesale cost and are selling them at a large markup.  Also, if they 
> were smart they kept the rights to sell their own merchandise.  Like I 
> said, some artists are so eager to sign, they give away everything, 
> sometimes even foolishly the rights to their songs. 
> 
> So in the end, yes and artist will make more money on their own.  But 
> the reason artists are so eager to sign with labels, especially in the 
> past, is because of the national or international exposure.   If you 
> look at all the performers, how many have made it on their own.  The 
> labels are also at an advantage, because they deal with so many 
> artists, they get better deals for production, distribution and 
> marketing.  How many retail outlets that you know of want to deal with 
> hundreds of thousands of individual artists and purchasing and 
> royalties. 
> 
> And my parents said a degree in audio engineering and production was 
> worthless.  Guess those classes on contracts and copyright did come in 
> handy, I'm glad I paid attention. :) 
> 
> -- 
> -matt 
>