The Recording Industry of America sucks!
- Thread starter FreightTrain
- Start date
And will be responsible for a large percentage of the production costs out of that advance, in most contactual situations. Technically, an artist's "production company" gets the money, and the company covers all of their overhead and the artist gets the remainder. All deals are different though, so I can't say what is or is not in THAT particular deal.
Here's the reality of MOST record contracts with major labels: The artist signs on for a set number of albums. The label lays out all of the money up front, but every penny they spend making, marketing and selling the album is charged back to the artist against their cut. Artist cut for newly signed acts is commonly less than $1 per CD sold. SO... if the label spends $500,000 to hire the studio, producer and musicians, prepare the artwork and packaging, advertise and market the album, and send the artist around the country on promotional appearances... the artist must sell 500,000 copies to fully pay back the label before they ever get one penny in their own pocket. Obviously mega-superstar acts who have had long careers are able to negtiate much better deals for themselves, but they are the rare exception.
Last edited by a moderator:
that's 50€ here.... from what I've heard....
It's only stellar pop acts that receive those kinds of contracts. Most artists, the majority of musicians get very little in comparison.
When they start making songs as good as the 80's 90's ill start buying CD's again. I fucking refuse to pay 20.00 for 1-2 good songs. Fuuuuuuuuuck That
They need to stop being so greedy. Earlier this year I heard they want to charge Radio stations a tax to play their songs on the radio. Thats ridiculous. Havent heard anything since
They need to stop being so greedy. Earlier this year I heard they want to charge Radio stations a tax to play their songs on the radio. Thats ridiculous. Havent heard anything since
There are people out there making outstanding CDs still, even in these turbulent times.
So who exactly is being greedy?
The record industry is greedy. Its a well known fact. They have always been greedy but its just getting worse. If they didnt charge so much for a fucking CD with 1-3 good songs on it. I bet Piracy would go down. They have been busted for price fixing and had to pay a shit load of money and i guess the consumers are paying for it. And now they want to charge a Tax to stations to play THEIR music.
Ok let's break down the cost of a CD and then you tell me if it's expensive or not. This is based on my experience working in the music industry in the UK.
CD manufacture and sleeve printing: 1GBP, often more when coupled with more complex covers, free DVDs and other things like extra inserts. Some discs can cost uc to 3 or 4GBP to manufacture.
Then you've got to cover the cost of the recording. Albums can cost thousands to record in good studios, which can cost upwards of 10,000GBP PER DAY.
Then you've got the cost of advertising and promotion.
Then you've got the cost of administration.
Then you've got to give the artist something. This works out at normally around 1GBP per sale.
So, this so far works out at roughly 6GBP.
Then, the album has to be distributed. The distributor obviously has to make money too, so they then sell the CD on to a record store for around 7 - 9GBP depending on the amount they've paid for it and the demand.
So, before HMV or whoever have received their disc, it's already cost 7 - 9GBP.
Now MR HMV needs to make at least 25% on top of this to make it worthwhile opening their doors. Otherwise they'd be bankrupt.
Which brings the total to somewhere around 12GBP.
The margins in CD sales are shit. They always have been. Record companies do not make vast riches on CD sales. They make them from merchandising, posters, spin offs, greatest hits albums, DVD live concerts etc etc. The only CDs they really make money on are the pop artists like Britney. Decent music nearly looses record companies money. Talk to an independent label and ask them how greedy they're being.
I'll never understand why anyone complains about having to pay 12 - 15GBP for a record. Does anyone realise how much profit car manufacturers make? We're talking OVER 100% here. And people complain about record companies making 5 - 10% on an item that costs a tiny fraction. Incredible.
So you can see, the cheapest a CD can realistically be sold for is 10GBP. Supermarkets are the only places that can sell them cheaper because they use them either as loss-leaders, or they're happy to make a penny on each sale.
CDs are not expensive. They are simply the best value item money can buy. A lifetime of entertainment. If you're complaining about it, you're just buying the wrong CDs.
Radio stations already pay mechanical performance royalties for music.
Speaking as someone who hasn't bought CD in....a rather long time. It MIGHT actually have been a Dandy Warhols CD, THAT'S how long ago is was. Anyway the point is I haven't bought one in ages, just because I don't see why I should when it's so easy to get them via other means and has been for years. Sure it's illegal but only if you get caught, which I never have, and now I'm listening via legal means (Spotify) never will. Most likely anyway. Sire it's NICE to have a nice shelf full of CD's which look nice and everything, but at the end of the day you're just listening to them, you're not entering them into 'best looking CD's competitions', you're not taking pictures of them and sneding them to 'CD's wives', you are just listening to them. Which is the other reason I don't choose to pay, I can get a very good quality of listening quality from downloading it/Spotify, it's about knowing where to go. Plus I don't think the music industry really give a fuck anymore, if they did it would have been shut down a long time ago and there would ONLY be iTunes/Spotify around. It's pretty much the same with the wrestling industry. I own (and I've mentioned this before) every single WWE, WCW, ECW PPV ever, every episode of WCW Monday Nitro, Most Raw's, every single Clash Of The Champions, Old AWA/NWA/MSW from the 70's and 80's, Every single WWE DVD and some TNA DVD's. For two reasons, one is you can't buy most of that in shops anymore, and not online either, and the other is financially it's absolutely unaffordable for me to own all thta, so why not do it this way? Sure it's illegal, but I doubt a few thousand pounds is much to a multi billion dollar company. Now onto the Movie industry, and you'll love this one, but I haven't been to the cinema in 15 months. I went to see Final Destination 4. The only reason for that was because it was in 3D and I wanted to see what the fuss was about. Anyway as I said I haven't been since and that's because I watch movies online. Now the reasons aren't financial as I actually get into the cinema for free as my cousin is a manger at one, so no, that's not the reason. The reason is because I really don't give a big enough shit about a particular film to justify going to a cinema, sitting with a load of other people and watching a film for two hours that might turn out to be shit. I'd rather sit on my arse at home and watch it there because at least I can turn the film off if I don't watch it. I could walk out of the cinema I guess but that feels awkward. Plus I hate being with people for any length of time. So yeah, watching at home in the comfort of my own room is much better for me than having to traipse to a darn cinema and watching with other people.
Regardless of what a company makes if everyone stole the artists work, be it movies or music etc, the artist would end up working for free. How long do you suppose that would last? Probably as long as you would put up with it.
A thief is a thief and if you walk into my house you better keep your hands clapping so I know you ain't stealing my shit. If you make the mistake of putting something in your pocket and I catch you you're gunna make medical history.
A thief is a thief and if you walk into my house you better keep your hands clapping so I know you ain't stealing my shit. If you make the mistake of putting something in your pocket and I catch you you're gunna make medical history.
Will never happen, there will always be people paying for it. CD's will never go under, iTunes never will because they are all popular enough to maintain an artist's income from that.
So your telling me the Price Fixing never happened? get the fuck outta here lol Price fixing =Greed
I guess things are different in the UK then they are in the States
20.00 for 1-3 good songs is BS. Im not gonna pay that to listen to 1 or 2 songs. Thats fucking ridiculous.
If Cd's were cheaper, then more people would by them. its as simple as that. The profit is still about the same if they would sell 400,000 CD's at 10.00 VS 200,000 at 20.00 as an example.
Itunes prices went up, Sales went down.
Its not hard to grasp at. The ridiculous high costs of shitty music is making people download.
I guess things are different in the UK then they are in the States
20.00 for 1-3 good songs is BS. Im not gonna pay that to listen to 1 or 2 songs. Thats fucking ridiculous.
If Cd's were cheaper, then more people would by them. its as simple as that. The profit is still about the same if they would sell 400,000 CD's at 10.00 VS 200,000 at 20.00 as an example.
Itunes prices went up, Sales went down.
Its not hard to grasp at. The ridiculous high costs of shitty music is making people download.
****** It's amazing how thieves try to justify their actions. ******
I'm not justifying anything, I'm simply stating a fact. The music industry will never go under because there is always going to be people buying CD's and using programs like iTunes. Sure, call me a thief all you want, I really don't care. The likelyhood is I wouldn't buy these CD's anyway, so really the music industry wouldn't make any money anyway considering I don't give a shit about the artist enough to buy a CD from them.
I download a lot of albums, and then buy the cd. And then their other CD's, and then go see them on tour.
It's a very strange type of stealing that helps line their pockets lol
It's a very strange type of stealing that helps line their pockets lol
I'm sorry but I'm probably the poorest person on this forum at this moment in time and I STILL think CDs pose great value for money. Name me one other item you can buy for the same money that can provide you with a lifetime of enjoyment? I know you can't because they don't exist. Music is cheap. Make the most of it.
If you're buying a CD with only 1 -3 songs on it then you're choosing the wrong music. That's not the record companies fault, that's yours. Choose better artists. Choose better labels. No one is making you buy shit music. That's your own fault.
I don't know about price fixing. In my local record store here the cost of a disc varies between 5 and 30€. Doesn't seem like anything is fixed at all.
People will steal irrelevant of the price. I seldom pay over 10€*per disc. I look for the bargains to be had. And there are ALWAYS bargains at your local music store.
The last two CDs I bought, for example, were both 10€. The Fuzz, a Spanish metal band and La Roux, the British pop outfit. Both albums are amazing, every track is superb and I will enjoy listening to these til the day I die. What a bargain! I'm more than happy with those purchases. I load them into my iTunes and then shelve the CD. I'm a very happy bunny.
If you think 10€ or 20€ for something that wil entertain you forever is "ridiculously high" then you're a mad person and need help.
Crikey, 10€ gets me a bus ride to the nearest city from here. 10€ gets me a kebab meal. 10€ gets me 3 pints of beer. And you consider that expensive?????!!!!!!!!
But you're assuming that everytime a song is played or heard, the artist is normally to be paid for it. That is NOT the case. Record labels spend millions (of dollars they will charge back to the artist, BTW) giving away free promotional copies and begging (and sometimes illegally paying ) for radio airplay. There is a formula that's been in place for decades that is used. A certain level of "free" exposure is not only accepted... it's considered ESSENTIAL to promote and raise awareness of the song/album.
And as I said before - from the artists standpoint - the sales of the CD are not in most cases a source of income. The CD is released into the marketplace to make people want to see and hear your music in hopes that you will become such a fan you will pay big bucks to attend concerts, buy promotional swag, and yes, buy future products to make the label some profit so they will continue to back you financially.
So the recording industry has ALWAYS WANTED a decent percentage of consumers to get the music for free. More exposure snowballs into much larger streams of revenue beyond just the sale of a single song. They've always understood that fact. Where things have gotten WAY out of whack and led them to start suing the shit out of their own customers was the evolution of technology that made it so much easier and convenient to buy single songs as opposed to an entire album collection. Back in the days of vinyl records, 45rpm "singles" were sold at a loss or a very tiny profit. Labels picked one or two of the "best" songs from the album and put them out as singles - knowing people would often buy ONE single. But once most people heard a second or third song from the same album that they liked they would then decide they wanted to own the entire album... and boom, you had a bigger sale. Today, the marketplace has shifted to an entirely song-driven marketplace. Yet the labels were VERY late in embracing the technology and the shifting marketplace. They priced legal downloads from i-Tunes and the likes at the same level they did for 45rpm records, thinking things would work the same way. What they found was that it DIDN'T. With iPods everywhere the idea of buying a complete album, for the most part, went away.
They gambled that people would never embrace this new way of buying and using music and they were dead wrong. Combine that with the fact that it's also infinitely easier for a musician today to produce studio-quality music in his own living room, design artwork on a home PC, and put his music into a retail marketplace via the internet - without needing huge sums of money upfront. Labels have become obsolete in many ways. The lawsuits against tiny numbers of consumers are only for show... a desperate attempt to try to change the mindset of the consumers to go back to thinking they must have a physical piece of product in their hands. But that genie is already out of the bottle, and the labels now have begun to admit it. They have publically announced that they are giving up on the lawsuit strategy, though a few cases already in the works are being allowed to continue through their end - not because the music industry wants them, but because the attorneys already have so much billable time invested in them that the music industry would rather not have to pay the lawyers out of their own pockets.
Long answer, but the gist is that I don't believe downloading is the same thing as stealing. The labels never believed that either. Their business has always been based on the "try before you buy" philosophy. And there's another reality that they will never admit to: The most downloaded (free) songs historically equal the biggest SELLING songs. Essentially, free downloads have become the modern equivilent of free radio airplay.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm with him on this. I still support great artists by attending concerts, buying their merchandise, buying some cd's, and raving to others about them. Some artists only have one or two decent songs on an album, so they don't get the same treatment. I've never known of anyone running into legal trouble by taping a movie from cable or their favorite soaps on a daily basis. That's been going on since the 80s with the invention of the videotape. I pay plenty for internet and cable, so I see no theft in recording songs on occasion. Hell, what about the popularity of mixed tapes recorded from the free radiowaves? That's been going on for many years, too.
I dont buy shit music.If I like a song or two from a certain artist. How is that shit? How can you not understand where im coming from. If im gonna sit there and can enjoy listening to the whole CD or the majority of it, yeah I would buy the CD no problem. Infact there have been a couple CD's that I broke and went right out and bought it again. The Beatles 27 #1 hits if you want to know it one, a Bon Jovi CD is another. I love those CD's
Im a fan of Hinder but only like 3 of their songs. I wont pay 20.00 for those 3 songs. Especially when I can hear them on the radio for FREE. I like Disturbs 'Down with the Sickness' I wont pay 20.00 to listen to that one song. How hard is that to get??
I would much rather to download a song for .99-1.29 and put it to my IPOD then to have a CD that is gonna collect dust.
and yes I think your bus ride, your meal and 3 pints of beer is fucking expensive. I can get a bus ride to the nearest city for 2.00, a meal for 5.00 and 3 pints of beer for 4.50 in the states. and 20.00 for 1 song I want is REALLY fucking expensive and ridiculous. especially when I can hear it on the radio for free or go to youtube and type it in the search bar when ever I want.
Now throw a Chicago, Journey, Beatles, Benny Mardonez CD in front of me for 20.00 and hell yeah I would buy it.
Last edited by a moderator: