Members Stackabones Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 Or how they don't ... http://www.zenlala.com/ Read the Oct 8, 2009 entry: "Sara answers a question from her Yahoo chat group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I took between five and ten minutes scanning over that article (it would help her blog a lot if she learned to not put a carriage return at the end of every line she typed... by the time I enlarged the tiny type [she must have one of those kiddie computers with an 800x600 screen that makes everything on the web look huge], the article looked like an ee cummings poem. ). Anyhow, people wonder why I'm cynical... they should read that or any of a number of other similar breakdowns of how the music biz supports (edit: has supported) itself and the musician so often toils for a tiny slice of the money generated from their music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Elias Graves Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 No different than farmers really. They grow the wheat and Hostess makes the money. The few farmers I know who make money not only grow something but they turn it into a product, market it and sell it themselves. The angora goat rancher I know never made a dime until he started selling yarn and blankets. Maybe we could learn something there. EG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LetsJet Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 looks about right...... She is very open about her numbers. I commend her on that.... Seems she is working better deals now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members smallbutmighty Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 The angora goat rancher I know never made a dime until he started selling yarn and blankets. Maybe we could learn something there. EG It seems musicians are doing just that. We grow songs, and turn them into t-shirts. That's how we make our money now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted October 8, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 8, 2009 It seems musicians are doing just that. We grow songs, and turn them into t-shirts. That's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I should have been a plumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Boydog Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I should have been a plumber. or possibly a plumbin goat herder :poke: I can see it now I'm shearin all my sheep can't seem to make a profit but I do get plenty o sleep might write a song about it 'bout how it came to be me a simple goat herder without a pot to pee.......in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 or possibly a plumbin goat herder :poke: I can see it now I'm shearin all my sheep can't seem to make a profit but I do get plenty o sleep might write a song about it 'bout how it came to be me a simple goat herder without a pot to pee.......in That works too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cazual Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Or how they don't ... http://www.zenlala.com/ Thanks for posting that. Fascinating reading. It would have been more complete if she'd been prepared to be a bit more up front about the amount of the "advances" - as it seems that it many cases that's the amount the artist actually makes. On the one hand some artists don't always seem to understand the deals they're being offered. But if I was putting the real cash up front and paying for all the production and promotion costs (which can be huge), and taking the risk of losing it when the album tanks, then you can be sure that I'd want to get paid back first too - wouldn't we all? It also made me think about the whole notion of whether artists should expect to continue to get paid for each subsequent "use" of a song. Is that sustainable? Will it continue like that or change? Look at it this way. If you made a collection of a tables and sold them to a restaurant you would get an up-front fee. The buyer may then use those tables over and over again, for years. Should you be able to charge - let's say an additional 5c per patron who sits at them? Presumably you'd all say no. Unless of course you hire them out instead. But in that case you still bear all the production costs, not the restaurant. So why should a musician expect to have somebody else pay all the production costs, and be paid an up front fee, and still get payments for subsequent uses? Should they be surprised that the deals they get offered are not generously in their favour? Just asking. I'm not saying that the labels are wonderful and the artists naive. But the old model does seem to be coming apart at the seams so perhaps the future holds a completely different structure for selling music? For instance, why not just sell a song for a fixed fee (as you would a table) and let the buyer with the marketing organisation make whatever profit or loss that they can from it? Could we see monthly song auctions, offering outright ownership? The complete rights to your latest song put on eBay? Or would we all prefer to get peanuts, yet retain the dream of a big strike later on? Alternatively, why not just retain all the rights and don't look to sign with anybody? Do it all yourself. This appears to be exactly what Sara Hickman has done. According to her website "Sara releases all her cds on SLEEVELESS, her independent label. She oversees marketing, distribution, licensing and creation of the projects." In other words you need to be able to replace all the necessary steps in the process, from creation to the studio, from production to distribution, financing, management, promotion, marketing, etc. In reality that means hiring other people to do some of the work, and running your own label - something that few artists would be capable of doing, or would want to do anyway. I enjoyed the challenge of running my own businesses, but when it comes to music I'm kind of glad that it's my hobby. It's a jungle out there... Anybody want to buy some lyrics? Going for a song..... Chris Any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeonardScaper Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 I should have been a plumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Matximus Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 This is a startling article. Jesus. I knew generally that recording contracts were a racket. I didn't grasp the details. It almost seems indentured service, they way the record companies keep them under water on recouping the recording costs. Why would anyone with any sense strive to be a professional recording artist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stackabones Posted October 9, 2009 Author Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Why would anyone with any sense strive to be a professional recording artist? The record companies tend to sign 'em up young ... 30 years old is pretty much the cut-off. It's rare for a 21 year old musician to have a lot of savvy when dealing with a corporate monolith with a couple of high rise floors in a skyscraper chocked full of lawyers writing up record contracts. Flash some cash, hookers and blow and just sign on the dotted line -- *poof* yer gonna be a rock star (restrictions apply). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chicken Monkey Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 This thread seems to have died, but it's kind of on the subject: http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=2456764 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cazual Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 The record companies tend to sign 'em up young ... 30 years old is pretty much the cut-off. It's rare for a 21 year old musician to have a lot of savvy when dealing with a corporate monolith with a couple of high rise floors in a skyscraper chocked full of lawyers writing up record contracts. Flash some cash, hookers and blow and just sign on the dotted line -- *poof* yer gonna be a rock star (restrictions apply). I'm sure that the standard stereotypes of the recording industry being chock full of heartless sharks exploiting innocent artist has plenty of truth to it. However, there is another side to the story that we on the creative side of things are less willing to be up front about. In my experience the truth is a lot less one sided than popular version admits. I'm neither a recording exec nor a working artist, but I have worked in other areas of the industry. In the 70s I was a partner in a graphic design and photography business that did album cover designs, publicity photos, etc for a local record label who were situated just down the road from us. Some of the bands we worked with built successful national careers, some made it internationally, and a couple are still successful on the international stage (e.g. AC/DC). But the majority had a dash at it and then fizzled out. The major reason that they fizzled out was not because they got screwed by greed-heads in suits - it was because they were unprofessional and unable to keep delivering the goods required to sustain a working career. The amount of self-indulgence, laziness and flat out dimness on display was often breathtaking. If you think execs are all about 'me, me, me,' you should try some of the artists for size... Trying to keep bands together, on track, on task, and working together could be as achievable as the legendary cat herding. A great deal of time, money and effort spent went down the drain. The labels weren't easy to get money out of, but the only time we got deliberately ripped off was by a band... In the early 90s I owned a CD shop, specialising in Classical music and some Jazz and Blues, so I had the opportunity to be personally screwed by the really big guys. As you would expect, they set pretty stringent conditions, and mostly weren't that bothered about one small shop with a modest turnover. But then why should they be? There were exceptions too. Deutsche Grammophon bent over backwards to help me, not just with promotional and display material for the shop but with a stack of heavily discounted stock to help me fill the shelves, bending the usual ordering condition while I was getting established and so on. The guy in charge at the time was passionate about the music and genuinely committed to getting it out there and nurturing a system that was sustainable for all those involved. Mostly, the people I dealt with were much like the vast majority of folks employed at all levels of the industry - reasonable individuals doing a regular job somewhere in what is a pretty long chain of production, promotion and sales. Pinning all the blame on the 'suits' is a handy fall-back, but the reality isn't quite so straightforward. In my opinion anyway... Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stackabones Posted October 10, 2009 Author Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 Pinning all the blame on the 'suits' is a handy fall-back, but the reality isn't quite so straightforward. In my opinion anyway... Hey, I hear ya ... but it's rather difficult to name recording artists who have been signed after 30. A friend of mine was turned by the suits when they found he was 30 -- they dug everything: the sound, the look, but not the age. There are plenty who made carreer comebacks in their 30s, but they usually had something going on early on. 30 is probably arbitrary and anecdotal, but I can only think of two ... KT Tunstall ... though iirc she was 29 Pascal Parisot ... if you know about him. Maybe the folk scene has more, but it's not exactly for the suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cazual Posted October 10, 2009 Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 Hey, I hear ya ... but it's rather difficult to name recording artists who have been signed after 30. A friend of mine was turned by the suits when they found he was 30 -- they dug everything: the sound, the look, but not the age. There are plenty who made carreer comebacks in their 30s, but they usually had something going on early on. I expect you're right on the money there, but it hardly seems surprising. I would imagine that the 'youth market' would comprise the lions share of the consumers of popular music, and who are they most likely to want to follow - somebody of their own generation or their Dad's or Grandma's? I would think that the over 30s would be a less attractive bet on two counts- firstly who they would appeal to, but secondly the number of years they'd be likely to want to keep up the required traveling, touring and promoting before wanting a more 'home and family friendly' day to day life. It costs a lot of money to build a successful career profile, so if you want somebody else to pay then you have to fit what they're looking for. Run your own show and then you get to do what you like. But you'd better like working 24/7... It's just the way life is. There are also many other industries where you're getting past your use by date at 30 (many sports for instance) and numerous others where youthful looks and/or outlook are pre-requisites. Of course there are exceptions. I didn't take up guitar until I was 58 and at, 62 I'm already a Legend in My Own Lounge-room. Stardom must surely be just around the next corner?? I'll make sure I keep some free tickets for everybody here. Chris Almost Unknown. Soon to be Obscure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stackabones Posted October 10, 2009 Author Members Share Posted October 10, 2009 Almost Unknown. Soon to be Obscure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members prolog Posted October 11, 2009 Members Share Posted October 11, 2009 Hey, I hear ya ... but it's rather difficult to name recording artists who have been signed after 30. A friend of mine was turned by the suits when they found he was 30 -- they dug everything: the sound, the look, but not the age. There are plenty who made carreer comebacks in their 30s, but they usually had something going on early on. 30 is probably arbitrary and anecdotal, but I can only think of two ... KT Tunstall ... though iirc she was 29 Pascal Parisot ... if you know about him. Maybe the folk scene has more, but it's not exactly for the suits. This is what terrifies me. Two years to go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Elias Graves Posted October 11, 2009 Members Share Posted October 11, 2009 Then there's this option... EG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeonardScaper Posted October 11, 2009 Members Share Posted October 11, 2009 Funny thing about that.....I managed the first Domino's shop that came out of Michigan.....Burlington, VT. They wanted me to go to UMass and take on the next three shops in their expansion program. Hell no, I said. Wanted to play in the band. Still playing in the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Elias Graves Posted October 12, 2009 Members Share Posted October 12, 2009 EG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fridgit Posted October 12, 2009 Members Share Posted October 12, 2009 How does this work for just songwriters? Not singers, just those artists that use other songs written by other songwriters. Is it pretty much the same, or even a little different? Say if I were to write a song & someone like Rascal Flatts or Tim McGraw used this song, how would that work? Also, I don't understand how you can still have your copyright & not be the owner of your song???!!! Please help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stackabones Posted October 12, 2009 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2009 Also, I don't understand how you can still have your copyright & not be the owner of your song???!!! I think there may be a couple of ways that could happen. You could own the copyright on the song, but not own the licensing rights. Copyright isn't licensing, and licensing is where the money comes in. One thing I've heard about. You record an original song for a label, but the label decides not to release it. While you own the song, and perhaps the arrangement of the song, you don't own the studio recording of the song. Since it is on the studio's/label's tape (or sound file or whatever), you don't own that. IIRC this is what happened to Sara Hickman. She recorded an album for a label; they decided not to release it; she had buy back (not cheap) the masters so that she could release it herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fridgit Posted October 12, 2009 Members Share Posted October 12, 2009 Thanks. I guess a lot of it is dependent upon how marketable a song is as well. I have not listened to Sara's songs, but my guess is her style of music would be less marketable??? If the song is radio friendly and marketable, my guess is that one would yield more royalties - but the question is, how much? Would be even worth becoming a songwriter in the music industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.