Members ViLo Posted September 12, 2006 Members Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'm talking about when they signed with Sony, EMI etc. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members where02190 Posted September 12, 2006 Members Share Posted September 12, 2006 Keep, you mean how much to they owe don't you?Artist must repay label for the cost of everything, from the recording itself to advertizing, promo, tour support, development, and this can quickly add up to millions and millions. Many artists fall prey to this, and end up basically owned by their label because they are so in debt to them. Thus is the price of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted September 12, 2006 Members Share Posted September 12, 2006 From what I've heard, the labels also cook the books to keep the artists in debt as long as their records sell. There are a few exceptions - Led Zepplin, for one, had excellent management and always came out with very advantageous financial set ups.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ViLo Posted September 12, 2006 Author Members Share Posted September 12, 2006 Originally posted by philbo From what I've heard, the labels also cook the books to keep the artists in debt as long as their records sell.There are a few exceptions - Led Zepplin, for one, had excellent management and always came out with very advantageous financial set ups.... So $0.00??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blackpig Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28band%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 In an interview I read about 10-12 years ago, Sting claimed that he made about a dollar from each CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Volitan Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 I read that each member of Guns N Roses stood to make about $.25 from each copy of Appatite for Destruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members arellspencer Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 seven cents a track is what one dude got what had a minor hit many years ago tole me. he uh said it was the average rate at the time for certain folkeses. of course He did'nt have ozzys wife kickin ace for him. I love her.. Sharon!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alndln2 Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli In an interview I read about 10-12 years ago, Sting claimed that he made about a dollar from each CD. That's actually quite high even for a high profile artist, most deals are in terms of cents, in the case of newer artists it's in the lower range of cents. It all comes down to publishing points which Rec. Companies demand the lions share, and like Where pointed out, they expect you to also pay for the advance through your points. You also have to have some points to barter for booking agencey's etc. Most succsessful acts don't really make any money off CD sales until about 3 or 4 CD's later, and that's if they sell well enough for renegotiation. If your the type of act that doesn't promise commercial succsess right off the bat your better off with a small independant, then gather distributers as you grow or make a deal with the bigs for distribution only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 $0.85 per sold CD, according to the agreement between my record label and the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Volitan Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 I stand to make about $1.34 from each cd sold with my band. But we're independant and we have a very different agreement than what most band have I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ViLo Posted September 13, 2006 Author Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 OK, If most are getting about 1 % of the CD revenue, as an Artist: Do you worry about pirated music [YOur Music]?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members arellspencer Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 I would'nt worry about folkeses shareing my music files and downloading free copies cause the CORE of sales is people who wish to have a SOUVENIR or real momento. a MP3 is no real loss to me and can only entice whoever to get my latest ceedee or to come to a show. So I win or I win . either way uh I um ahahah! WIN! I'm a winner now yeehaw! oh wait I still gotta sell some ceedees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alndln2 Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 Originally posted by ViLo OK, If most are getting about 1 % of the CD revenue, as an Artist: Do you worry about pirated music [YOur Music]?? Depends. If your signed to a big company yes, but if your an independant, that can act as your promotion. Then there's the grey area in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 If I were in it for the money, I'd have become a cosmetic surgeon long ago... I tend to give away CDs, donate them to charity auctions, and play for free (or at most, enough to cover my costs). Music is like a great idea - - if kept to yourself, it is totally worthless. If shared freely, its good effects are multiplied a thousandfold (okay, maybe a hundredfold). OTOH, if ownership is passed to a record label, the value immediately goes negative and never sees zero again. So... Why would anyone in their right mind do business with a record label? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gtrbass Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 Originally posted by philbo So... Why would anyone in their right mind do business with a record label? There are two reasons. One is ignorance, and the second is denial that the truth is in fact the truth. When I bagen to learn how the system worked back in the '80's, I was like "this can't be right, because none of these guys are making any money." I was always wondering how these guys got by. They'd have a nice apartment and a hot chick and sometimes a fancy sportscar yet they weren't making much income if any at all. Then I discovered the secret: A stripper girlfriend. A stripper girlfriend is the only person on Earth more gullible than a drummer. A stripper girlfriend will take care of a lazy rocker guy because "he's gonna make it big" and then she won't have to get naked and slide up and down that brass pole at Bob's Classy Lady for all those "icky" guys. After a while when rocker dude just isn't going to pan out, stripper girlfriend starts to get wise and the relationship sours. Rocker guy simply finds a new stripper girlfriend, and the old stripper girlfriend hooks up with Lance, a Porno producer from Chatsworth, but that's another story altogether. So what's any of this have to do with making money being signed to a label? Nothing ... everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted September 13, 2006 Members Share Posted September 13, 2006 Why would anyone go with a record company? 1. they have a sophisticated sales pitch and they chew up and spit out dozens of greenhorns like you before lunch every day. 2. they might advance some $$. Later. 3. it's been your dream all these years. 4. it sounds so legit to tell your friends/family/old high school mates, "we have a recording contract with so and so". 5. if you happen to have a career as successful as, say, Sting, or Eminem, or Aerosmith, then maybe you'll make some real money and hey, they have big company recording contracts, right? 6. if all else fails, it's EXPOSURE - that word that carries such magic, such appeal, such hope, such utter lack of substantial meaning... nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted September 14, 2006 Members Share Posted September 14, 2006 I guess that pretty well sums it up! I wonder if any record company folks have anything to say re: this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted September 14, 2006 Members Share Posted September 14, 2006 I was a partner in a label once. We leased the product to a major label (Warners) who distributed the product. We returned 18% of 90% of RRP (recommended retail price) for the first 10,000 sales and it increased stepping up to around 20% over 100,000 and 22% beyond 500,000 sales. Out of the 18% we were responsible for paying for the recording costs, producers fees and royalties and paying the artist/s. Video clips costs were shared between the distributor and ourselves. Basically the artist received 5% for mechanical royalties (return from record sales) and whatever share of the publishing royalties they had arranged with the publisher. The publishing royalties amounted to another 5%. So the artists got 10% and we got 8%. So if you were a band member you received your share of the 5% royalty, if you were one of the songwriters you received your share of the 5% publishing royalty. The publishing royalty was ongoing as it came from radio airplay whereas the mechanical royalty lasted only as long as the record sold. McCartney's 1.2 billion comes from the publishing royalties of all the artists that have recorded his songs and the airplay royalties of his own work. So a solo artist like Sting who writes his own songs is likely to return around 8 - 9% of RRP. less on compilation and marked down sales. In fact I have no doubt that in his position he would be demanding much more and getting it. You can see how bands could easily get upset. Lets say you are member of a 5 piece band where the guitarist writes all the songs. Each band member would get 1% of mechanical royalties. The songwriter would get his band 1% PLUS his share with his publisher of the publishing royalty so he could easily end up with 5% or 5 times what the band members get plus his royalties continue after the record sales cease through the publishing royalty. I'm pretty sure the system is similar in the US. Only difference is that in Australia the RRP is $30.00 cheersjohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted September 14, 2006 Members Share Posted September 14, 2006 Originally posted by gtrbass There are two reasons. One is ignorance, and the second is denial that the truth is in fact the truth. When I bagen to learn how the system worked back in the '80's, I was like "this can't be right, because none of these guys are making any money." I was always wondering how these guys got by. They'd have a nice apartment and a hot chick and sometimes a fancy sportscar yet they weren't making much income if any at all. Then I discovered the secret: A stripper girlfriend. A stripper girlfriend is the only person on Earth more gullible than a drummer. A stripper girlfriend will take care of a lazy rocker guy because "he's gonna make it big" and then she won't have to get naked and slide up and down that brass pole at Bob's Classy Lady for all those "icky" guys. After a while when rocker dude just isn't going to pan out, stripper girlfriend starts to get wise and the relationship sours. Rocker guy simply finds a new stripper girlfriend, and the old stripper girlfriend hooks up with Lance, a Porno producer from Chatsworth, but that's another story altogether. So what's any of this have to do with making money being signed to a label? Nothing ... everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cheeky_m0nkeys Posted October 23, 2007 Members Share Posted October 23, 2007 There's a weekly radio program on Alternative and Rock History here, and they did like a 5 episode series on how artists make their money and selling out something, and i think on average, the artist makes something like $1 or 2.75. Even though that isn't a lot of money, consider: a) you go gold or platinum: youve made at least something like $700,000 b) look at the savings they make on everything else: free equipment, food, living costs, per diems, etc. as well as money you EARN from endorsements and advertisements That definitely makes a difference too And if you're lucky enough to earn royalties and rights to songs and albums, you're set for life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted October 23, 2007 Members Share Posted October 23, 2007 Keep in mind though, that it's not like the record company is getting the $15 or $18 that people are buying the record for. The record company only gets a two or three bucks per CD itself, as I understand it. So if the artist is getting 50 cents, that's a fairly good percentage of the take, given that the record company is the one that has to eat the cost of the failures, and risk the capital to fund you. Yeh, in theory you own them the money for your video, but if you tank and end up working at Burger King or delivering pizza, it's going to be a long time, if ever, before they get that money back, and a lot of it I'm sure that they have to just write off. If the artist was getting the bulk of the money that made it that far back up stream, the record companies wouldn't bother being in that business probably. As to why people sign up with them, well it's easy to be cynical about it. But not all those people are ignorant. You have the choice to go with them and get the benefits of a big advertising and marketing engine and money to invest in studio time and videos and all that. That's not something to turn your back on lightly. With the noise floor out there these days, getting your stuff in front of a lot of people so that they will even hear it and decide if they like it or not isn't easy or cheap. The internet won't do that. You can put it up there, but getting a lot of people to listen to it is another thing altogether. Maybe you'll get lucky and the right person will hear it and it'll get featured somewhere where it gets you a lot of exposure, but you couldn't hardly count on that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted October 23, 2007 Members Share Posted October 23, 2007 This is an old thread that got bumped. The same topic came up in a few recent threads. The thing with old-line "major label" deals is that the artist pays for everything. The money is advanced against expected income from record sales. That means recording, advertising, videos, etc. If you are lucky and have a hit, then you might make enough to get back to even and start the cycle over with disc #2. I know guys who were in "successful" hair metal bands where they had a mega-hit with their third album and all that did was pay off the debts from the making three albums, videos, and leave them with nothing. That's why you see washed up bands to continue to tour, playing tiny venues in the boondocks, it's the only way to get any income. As has been pointed out, for the indie artist, they may not have the exposure afforded by a big media conglomerate, but their overhead is lower also. Keep the overhead and debt under control, and when you do catch a break on some positive exposure, the income comes to you, not your creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Smart Alec Posted October 23, 2007 Members Share Posted October 23, 2007 A stripper girlfriend is the only person on Earth more gullible than a drummer. SIG MATERIAL!!! :D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted October 23, 2007 Members Share Posted October 23, 2007 It's very similar to an entrepreneur looking to start up a business. You basically have two options. You can bootstrap and spend your savings and maybe borrow some money from friends and family, or you can go to the venture capitalists. If you bootstrap, you take all the risk yourself and you spend all your own money. And you don't have the money to make a big splash and come out of the gates looking like a big player. But, if you make it, then you own the whole sand boxy. If you go to the VCs, and they put up the money, then they get their very big cut. But, you get a level of funds that you'd never get any other way to get yourself fully up and running as a real business. A lot the decision depends on the circumstances, but lots of people still go to the VCs, because it's a proven way to success. It doesn't mean you'll succeed, since that depends on the product and market, but so many have succeeded that way, that it is a well proven mechanism and therefore many people risk the loss of control of their own company in order to get the benefits it provides. On average, back in the bubble years, the average founder who went to the VCs right out of the door with just an idea would end up owning about 6% of his own company by the time it went public. So he no longer owns the company he created, by a long shot, but if the company ends up northwards of a $100M company, and most are that go public, then the payoff is still quite good. Of course in the entrepreneurial world, there are also angel investors these days. In the art world, that would be the equivalent of a patron, which doesn't really exist anymore. It's too bad since I think that would be a nice way to go about things. If you are wealthy, find a band you think is worthy and fund them because you think that they deserve it, but take a piece of the pie. If they do well, then you will get more than your money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.