Members Instrospection Posted February 28, 2009 Members Share Posted February 28, 2009 Again, for cds to be even ten bucks, no label or band can cover costs with this, if they are doing it the traditional way of paying for a studio to record in, an engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, duplicating lots of cds, getting art design, paying for packaging, etc. And the most astute people know that promotions cost THE MOST in the whole scheme....you could spend ten to fifty thousand on a recording, and then spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on it. For years, I thought that the RIAA's Minimum Advertised Price law was crap. I've since realized that even though there was a certain amount of price gouging that they were for, that the inadvertent run off of keeping prices equal so that smaller stores could compete with bigger stores was good, and that it was a protection to get artists and labels paid. The RIAA has not always been crooked--alot of the time, yes, but all the time, no. Because when HMV has offered a cd at 7.99, 8.99, 9.99, those are loss leaders, which undercut other stores, and I believe that they had to make up the difference in payment in which they were under the MAP law, but I don't know if the RIAA did away with that law or not or what stores had to pay that violated the MAP laws. Sure they sell in higher volumes, but the record companies and artists aren't making that much on those releases. Then the average person got the idea somehow that cds should always be that amount.....and failed to realize why HMV's regular priced cds were 23, 24, 25 bucks? Music has simply never been able to really be offered at such low of a price point, like 10 bucks......because they've got to be able to sell that much more volume, and with file sharing, that cut into alot of those sales anyways. Look at how many newer artists hit the charts these days just to be told that they're losing the label money. In fact, newer artists have always been in hock to their record companies for the first few albums, until they've consistently sold enough over the course of a few albums, to repay the loans for recording and duplicating and tour advances, tourbuses and promotions and whatnot. It's all a tax writeoff in the meantime until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 1, 2009 Members Share Posted March 1, 2009 Again, for cds to be even ten bucks, no label or band can cover costs with this, if they are doing it the traditional way of paying for a studio to record in, an engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, duplicating lots of cds, getting art design, paying for packaging, etc. I agree. So, then, the traditional way of doing things is going to die, because most people have no intention, any more, or paying more than 10 bucks for a CD. In our society, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Period. If the majors want to stick around, they'll have to rethink how CD's are made. Do the majors turn into minors? I have no idea how the biz will look ten years from now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pjrake Posted March 1, 2009 Members Share Posted March 1, 2009 I agree. So, then, the traditional way of doing things is going to die, because most people have no intention, any more, or paying more than 10 bucks for a CD. In our society, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Period. If the majors want to stick around, they'll have to rethink how CD's are made. Do the majors turn into minors? I have no idea how the biz will look ten years from now... with how quickly technology advances, i would say in five years we'll probably see a huge revolution in the music business. wasn't it like ten years ago napster came around (1999). i don't even think iTunes is that old, either. -PJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteinbergerHack Posted March 1, 2009 Members Share Posted March 1, 2009 So, then, the traditional way of doing things is going to die, because most people have no intention, any more, or paying more than 10 bucks for a CD. Why do you say that? People are still buying CDs; speaking for myself, I have absolutely NO problem paying what they are worth. Unless the entire industry simply stops producing high-quality recordings, I don't see how the low-price model can work. I, for one, really hope that this DOESN'T happen, because I don't want to see the end of serious recording. The fact that you can produce a quick-and-dirty digital recording in your basement doesn't imply that you can create the next Dark Side of the Moon for $10K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MartinC Posted March 1, 2009 Members Share Posted March 1, 2009 If you invent or produce a product(original music cd in this case) you get to set the price. Period end of story. Consumers can decide to pay that price or not. People who say cd's should cost 1, 7, 10, whatever, should record one and sell it for that. But that's about the extent of their control over what a cd, or anything else, sells for. Proclaiming how much cd's should cost just shows a lack of experience in any related endeavor. Proclaiming how much one would pay is another story. You can proclaim all you want, but if you want the music you pay the price set by the maker. Unless you steal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 2, 2009 Members Share Posted March 2, 2009 Why do you say that? People are still buying CDs; speaking for myself, I have absolutely NO problem paying what they are worth. I say that because CD sales are decreasing at a rate of roughly 25% per year, and the biggest amount of sales are coming from WalMart, which sells CD's for mostly 10 bucks or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 2, 2009 Members Share Posted March 2, 2009 If you invent or produce a product(original music cd in this case) you get to set the price. Period end of story. Consumers can decide to pay that price or not. And if they don't buy it, you don't make any money. End of story. Yes, theoretically, you can charge whatever you want, but the public is in control. If they buy it, you make money. If they don't, you lose money. I don't personally believe that CD's should sell for a buck - I think that's totally crazy. But if artists want to charge $18.99 for their releases, they need to be prepared for a serious lack of sales. The price point in the minds of consumers today can be easily found... at Walmart. It's $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members yollyp Posted March 3, 2009 Members Share Posted March 3, 2009 What's in a CD? If its good, its worth the big price. Nothing can beat a good music, no matter what the price is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CellarOwl Posted March 3, 2009 Members Share Posted March 3, 2009 CDs for a dollar, without any of the frill totally devalues the package and the experience. It's just a piece of plastic that may as well be on your computer, where it will be less likely to experience physical damage or get lost. Ripping it onto a computer would actually protect the music over the physical property. CDs are pretty worthless, but that would only prove as the final nail in the coffin. At least the industry is still trying to pretend that there's some inherent value behind a crappy slip out with a plastic circle that runs at pressing value for pennies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 4, 2009 Members Share Posted March 4, 2009 CDs for a dollar, without any of the frill totally devalues the package and the experience. It's just a piece of plastic that may as well be on your computer, where it will be less likely to experience physical damage or get lost.Seriously? You do know that the real cost of a CD is not in the materials, but in the production, right? Good luck getting a top notch studio, engineer, mastering lab, producer, musicians, publisher, lawyer and promo firm for a buck a CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lastdreams Posted March 4, 2009 Members Share Posted March 4, 2009 What's in a CD? If its good, its worth the big price. Nothing can beat a good music, no matter what the price is. this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members primativ Posted March 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 4, 2009 A buck....... carry on:wave: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MartinC Posted March 4, 2009 Members Share Posted March 4, 2009 I have to respectfully disagree. The public is not in control unless you are desperate or decide to give them control. The "public" is also different at every event. A college bar crowd won't pay what an audience of fifty year olds at a corporate will. A concert is yet another story. The poster who thinks it should be a buck yet another. I have sold cd's for as much as 20. and as little as 6. Lower price does not always mean more sales. If people don't like the music they aren't even accepting money to listen( see the thread about the group that pays people to download) If they do like it, they will pay. How much is not so simple. The airlines, hotels, etc, use complicated formulas and software to determine pricing at a given time and place. Even supermarkets price the same item differently at different times. Gas, same deal. A live performance is where a cd is worth the most, perhaps the net is where it's worth the least. Setting a price in stone is simply not the best way to deal with it, IMO. And letting the "public" determine the price......which public? And how exactly are you determining what the public is saying? I think the most important thing is they WANT your cd. Everyone who does wants it in different degrees. Being a sole operator, you have the option to price your product as you see fit, at any given time and in any given situation. And if they don't buy it, you don't make any money. End of story. Yes, theoretically, you can charge whatever you want, but the public is in control. If they buy it, you make money. If they don't, you lose money. I don't personally believe that CD's should sell for a buck - I think that's totally crazy. But if artists want to charge $18.99 for their releases, they need to be prepared for a serious lack of sales. The price point in the minds of consumers today can be easily found... at Walmart. It's $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lionslicer Posted March 4, 2009 Members Share Posted March 4, 2009 Again, for cds to be even ten bucks, no label or band can cover costs with this, if they are doing it the traditional way of paying for a studio to record in, an engineer, mixing engineer, mastering engineer, duplicating lots of cds, getting art design, paying for packaging, etc. And the most astute people know that promotions cost THE MOST in the whole scheme....you could spend ten to fifty thousand on a recording, and then spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on it.......Look at how many newer artists hit the charts these days just to be told that they're losing the label money. In fact, newer artists have always been in hock to their record companies for the first few albums, until they've consistently sold enough over the course of a few albums, to repay the loans for recording and duplicating and tour advances, tourbuses and promotions and whatnot. It's all a tax writeoff in the meantime until then. Oh come on. You and I both know that labels massively overcharge artists for everything. Go ask Primus how much of a record label assraping they saved themselves from by recording a major label CD in a home studio (and getting a better product for it). Recording (etc)is a necessary cost, but what about all the unnecessary ones that they stick the artist with - like it or not? Oh yes, it is so {censored}ing productive to plaster expensive posters for your nu metal band one after the other in business districts, where 75% of the traffic are people who listen to Bruce Springsteen. The label forces signed bands to not only pay all of this CRAP, but to pay them the cost PLUS margin! Get it? The labels are taking a ridiculous % of music sales to begin with and then forcing the bands to pay more than the actual cost of the services they provide. "but but, the band signed the contract..." There is a term for what the labels are doing: it's called predatory lending.I am actually a fan of a well regulated, but free market and I think that free market principles can apply well to musicians, but the time is long past for regulatory action against the labels. Capitalism is great and all, but there are clearly some areas where allowing corporations to make profits is detrimental to both product and consumer. Personally, I think it is time to revoke label's corporate charters and force them to pay for a non profit organization that will provide musicians with the required services AT COST. Labels {censored} the artists AND the consumers - beyond their shareholders, how are they benefiting society? Kick these leeches to the curb and there will be a music Renaissance. If you want my dollar (and I have plenty to spend on FAIRLY PRICED music), ditch the label and sell me stuff at your shows or on your website. I haven't bought a new major label CD for over 10 years now, but I have bought a crapload of $10 CDs from the bands directly at shows. "For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall... ...Echoes with the sound of salesmen - of SALESmen." "Now the sound of music comes in silver pills - Engineered to suit you, building cheaper thrills" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 a well regulated, but free marketOxymoron. allowing corporations to make profits Allowing corporations to make profits? WTF? Why do you think they exist? Kick these leeches to the curb and there will be a music Renaissance. More like Dark Ages from what I see. Never has so much poorly produced mediocrity been made so availabe for so little. The peasants have stormed the gates and ransacked the castle with nothing to replace it and now success has been dumbed down to the point of being almost valueless. Notoriety is the new currency for the attention starved mass of "musicians" who have no business making records in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 I highlighted and bolded real exspesnvie part for you. You do realize you have to pay money to get your music played on the radio and now that Clear channel has pretty much taken over ever market they have the ability to manipulate spin rates unlike anything ever seen before. recording an album can be done for under $50g's these days unless they studio is using big tape reel to reels. The cost of making a CD is not in manufacturing or the materials. It's in the production of the songs. How do you propose to pay the recording studio, the engineers, the mixing and mastering labs, the producers, the bands, the songwriters, the publishers, the distribution and promotion, the art work, etc etc etc? That's because most movies you get on DVD have already gotten most of their money back on theater runs, where several hundred thousand people paid upwards of 8-9 bucks to see the flick before it ever hits the stores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lionslicer Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 More like Dark Ages from what I see. Never has so much poorly produced mediocrity been made so availabe for so little. The peasants have stormed the gates and ransacked the castle with nothing to replace it and now success has been dumbed down to the point of being almost valueless. Notoriety is the new currency for the attention starved mass of "musicians" who have no business making records in the first place. There have always been garage bands. It is easier to find them now - just like it is easy to find all forms of information. Yes, the information glut means people have to filter it and find new ways to learn about good music. Anything is better than some profit minded corporation shoving their "silver pills" down your throat. Besides, what is worse: a bunch of poorly produced mediocrity that you can find for free? Or a bunch of polished turds that the labels force feed us? There is a better way for music to be spread, but we need to get rid of the obstacle of labels who cling to a buggy whip model and use their lobbying power to regulate the cars to create an unfair advantage. Pandora is a good example of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Judging by your avatar, I'll assume that you are a Rush bot that has been voting for the republicans who give lip service to "small government" and lower taxes while they allow their friends to plunder our treasures at record levels.Judging by this comment I'll assume that you have drunk deep from the well of Kool-Aid currently being pushed by the current government and that your head so far up Obama's ass that you can count his teeth from the back. It's making assumptions about people you don't know fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 A live performance is where a cd is worth the most, perhaps the net is where it's worth the least. Setting a price in stone is simply not the best way to deal with it, IMO. And letting the "public" determine the price......which public? And how exactly are you determining what the public is saying? I think the most important thing is they WANT your cd. Everyone who does wants it in different degrees. Being a sole operator, you have the option to price your product as you see fit, at any given time and in any given situation. I would totally agree with that. You have to price your CD to the market you're selling in. My point is this: You score a big major deal and somehow, against all odds, get your music into WalMart. So your CD is there on the shelves, with all the other CD's that are new and hot and cost 10 bucks, and yours is $18.99. That is going to seriously hurt your sales. It's actually a fantasy scenario, because WalMart's not going to sell your CD for $18.99. They're going to say "If you sell through us, the price will be $9.99." But yeah, I charge 99 cents per song for my music on iTunes, $9.99 at CDBaby, and $5 at gigs. I discovered I could sell 4 times as much music at $5 each as opposed to $10 each at gigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lionslicer Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Judging by this comment I'll assume that you have drunk deep from the well of Kool-Aid currently being pushed by the current government and that your head so far up Obama's ass that you can count his teeth from the back. It's making assumptions about people you don't know fun? Boy, you sure do have that republican troll thing down. If you had actually read my post, you wouldn't have said that. Thanks for making it clear that you are a troll and not worth having a real discussion with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Boy, you sure do have that republican troll thing down. If you had actually read my post, you wouldn't have said that. Thanks for making it clear that you are a troll and not worth having a real discussion with. Says the guy who's been here for two whole months. Yeah, you know all about me. What a douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Notoriety is the new currency for the attention starved mass of "musicians" who have no business making records in the first place. I agree up to the word "who." Notoriety is the new currency, but it's not just starved masses of musicians - it's everyone, including the junior high kids and grandma. This is the content creation era, where everyone is a content creator. Blogs, MySpace, err, I mean, Facebook, Twitter, and so on and so forth. Everyone wants a voice. I don't think that's a bad thing. I also don't think that I, or anyone else, should have any say whatsoever as to who has business making a record, or doing a podcast, or writing a blog. If anyone wants to make a CD, I think that's great. If they think it's good and they want to sell it on iTunes, I don't mind. If they don't have a single sale because the product is crap, I don't care. What I DO mind is people who think that just because they can write a song and rhyme all the words, they think they deserve to make a LIVING at the music business doing their own music. It doesn't work that way, it never did, it never will. Too many people confuse having a voice with this, um, sense of entitlement. This is the worst possible time in the last 40 years to attempt a career as an original musician, and the greatest number of people ever seem to be attempting to do it. It just doesn't add up. Mostly what this creates is shattered dreams and expectations. Music is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. People pin their hopes and dreams to these unrealistic goals, they get their dreams smashed, and they get bitter and turned off to music. Make it a hobby, keep it fun, and you can enjoy it until you die. (Or write a hit song and prove me wrong. That works, too.) Sorry. I get on my soapbox sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Says the guy who's been here for two whole months. Yeah, you know all about me. What a douche. Happens all the time. I will say this, though - when one uses a political avatar, one should not be surprised when it comes up in conversation. But you're correct in this one... coming in as a newbie and hurtling insults about people you don't know is not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lionslicer Posted March 5, 2009 Members Share Posted March 5, 2009 Says the guy who's been here for two whole months. Yeah, you know all about me. What a douche. I gave you a clear opportunity to clarify your position and you ignored it and slammed me for making an assumption about you that was totally justified. All I know about you is what you sold me and based on you doing two posts where you blatantly take my words out of context as a strawman set up for your rush-like slam, it is pretty hard to not think you are yet another rightwing trollbot. And WTF does my two months here compared to your 8 years have to do with anything? Sounds to me like my post made you feel out of your league since you failed to refute any of my positions and instead chose to pull off a typical rightwing troll "avoid the real issues" strategy. When you are ready to have a grown up conversation, I'll be waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.