"Bands make their money from touring, T-shirts"
Ken Nicolson
about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
legend.
On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
Actually, as I type I've remembered in the '80s hearing a factoid that
the group "James" made more money on clothing - they really had
excellent designs. At least I can find a reference to them on the web
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/9446/shirts.html
Ken
Alec Horgan
> On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
> breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
> never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
> supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
> guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
> breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
It depends how much the record company spent to
make and promote the album, but generally
speaking, major-label acts at that level not
only don't make any money from record sales,
they end up in debt to the record company.
They're also not likely to remain major-label
material for very long.
If you can sell those kinds of numbers with an
independent release, you might see a little
money, but you're still going to make the most
from touring and merchandising.
Alec
Ken Nicolson
wrote:
>Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
>> breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
>> never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
>> supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
>> guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
>> breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
>
>It depends how much the record company spent to
>make and promote the album, but generally
>speaking, major-label acts at that level not
>only don't make any money from record sales,
>they end up in debt to the record company.
>They're also not likely to remain major-label
>material for very long.
OK, that is the usual reply, and I have seen enough evidence to
suggest this is true.
>If you can sell those kinds of numbers with an
>independent release, you might see a little
>money, but you're still going to make the most
>from touring and merchandising.
But are you sure, or are you just repeating conventional wisdom? I
want to see a breakdown, a profit and loss account for an average band
doing an average tour. Do bands really keep all the money they make
from touring? Would the profits from touring pay independant recording
costs?
Note I'm not interested in debating the pros and cons of Napster or
any other business model, I just would like to know if major-label
ordinary bands stay afloat thanks to record sales or tours.
>Alec
Ken "Show me the money!" Nicolson
Linda Dunn
an advance and then deducts that amount from their record sales. The whole
purpose of touring is much the same as that of an author going from one
bookstore signing to another: meet the fans and encourage them to buy and
thus increase sales.
Obviously, a band touring with their own van, sleeping in friends' houses,
etc. is going to have lower expenses than a band touring in their company
jet with their own staff of managers, professional electricians, etc.
I have no facts at hand to substantiate anything and I cannot find a web
site which breaks down the expenses you're discussing. It does very much
vary from one band to another depending upon the type of touring they're
doing, etc.
Ken Nicolson wrote in message
<24p02t46vejub86e4...@4ax.com>...
Alec Horgan
> >If you can sell those kinds of numbers with an
> >independent release, you might see a little
> >money, but you're still going to make the most
> >from touring and merchandising.
>
> But are you sure, or are you just repeating conventional wisdom? I
> want to see a breakdown, a profit and loss account for an average band
> doing an average tour.
What's "average"? You seem to want to talk about
low-level major-label acts, who are still well
above average.
I mean, if you accept that the majority of major-
label acts end up in debt to their record company,
then where else are they making money, if not from
touring and merchandising (and publishing,
assuming they aren't getting screwed on that end)?
> Do bands really keep all the money they make
> from touring?
After they pay managers, lawyers, accountants,
sound guys, bus drivers, roadies, and the
opening act, yeah.
> Would the profits from touring pay independant recording
> costs?
It's really impossible to say, not only because
it depends on the level of popularity of the
band, but also what's involved in making a
record for them. Some bands can make a record
in a day, some take months, and the costs vary
accordingly.
Alec
Drew Lawson
Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> writes:
>On 26 Nov 2000 01:52:20 -0500, Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
>>> breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
>>> never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
>>> supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
>>> guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
>>> breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
>>
>>It depends how much the record company spent to
>>make and promote the album, but generally
>>speaking, major-label acts at that level not
>>only don't make any money from record sales,
>>they end up in debt to the record company.
>>They're also not likely to remain major-label
>>material for very long.
>
>suggest this is true.
Not that I don't find this interesting, but wouldn't you be more
likely to find appropriately informed posters somewhere in the
rec.music hierarchy? This looks more like "unsupported claim" than
Urban Legend material.
Drew "though I'd love to see the numbers" Lawson
--
|Drew Lawson | If you're not part of the solution |
|dr...@furrfu.com | you're part of the precipitate. |
|http://www.furrfu.com/ | |
Nathan Tenny
Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> writes:
> On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
> breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
> never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
> supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
> guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
> breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
That's hardly the "average band", you know.
Courtney Love's article is basically a rewrite of a much better one by
Steve Albini, who knows a thing or two about being in low-profile bands
(Big Black, Shellac, usw., along with a whopping string of production
credits for bands with twelve fans who worship them). It's all over the
Web...lessee...here: <http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html>.
Seems to have originally run in something called Baffler and been reprinted
by the magnificent MAXIMUMROCKNROLL.
Short form: The band makes significantly less than minimum wage and ends
up enslaved to the record company because their album didn't "recoup" the
advance out of royalties. Read the article, though; it's worth it.
Admittedly, Albini *is* talking about major-label deals, and I wonder how
the typical band on some little shoestring indie label does. I've known
some who seemed to be making a living at it, but never known them well enough
to casually say "So, how much money do you make, anyway?"
NT
--
Nathan Tenny | Words I carry in my pocket, where they
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | breed like white mice.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> | - Lawrence Durrell
batgirl
Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:24p02t46vejub86e4...@4ax.com...
> Whenever a debate on Napster et al, starts, someone always chimes in
> about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
> T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
> supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
> legend.
>
> On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
> breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
> never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
> supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
> guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
> breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
>
Well, I know the Goo Goo Dolls had major problems of this sort. They got
signed by a major label who did promot them and released one album that did
moderately well. Then they put out the album "Name" was on (most played
song of '97 or '98, I believe) with gave the band multiple hits and made
them rather famous. But at the end of the year, the record company informed
them the band "owed" the record company something like $200,000. The Goos
made no money off that album.
Only through legal maneuvering were they able to get out of that contract.
But the general consensus among fans is that the band's marathon of touring
the past couple years and constant selling of songs to movie soundtracks is
to make up for all the money they didn't make off records.
Catbert
Simon Slavin
Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On the web, I can find no end of articles like Courtney Love's one,
> breakdown of how bands get ripped off by record sales, etc, but I
> never see any figures that look how the average band does, not the
> supergroups selling out stadia at $100 per head, but the mid-ranking
> guys who chug along selling in the tens of thousands, maybe just
> breaking the top 20 for a couple of weeks.
Steve Albini (of (Plant and Page) and Nirvana) wrote this for the
music magazine _Maximum Rock 'n' Roll_:
http://www.surfling.de/musikredaktion/albini.html
Steve Albini isn't 'average' by any stretch of the imagination but
you may find it useful to see his figures which include a break-
down of everything, right down to the cut that the lawyer gets of
the publisher's advance on the first album of a contract.
Anyone who hasn't read Courtney Love's wonderful description of how
the music biz works is hereby recommended to do so. It's one of the
best pieces of writing I've ever seen on the web. (Actually, it was
a speech she made, but you know what I mean.) You can find it at
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | Come to think of it, just what are we going
No junk email please. | to say to an alien race if we make contact?
| "Do you have Napster?"
| "Stop making crop circles!" -- Scott Barber
Derek Tearne
>Whenever a debate on Napster et al, starts, someone always chimes in
>about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
>T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD",
The biggest problem with all the napster arguments are that *bands*
make *lots* of money from anything. Most bands don't make lots
of money. The bands that do make money are usually big acts
signed to big labels and they only make a fraction of what the
label makes.
Most bands sink huge amounts of their own time and money into
their music, either in payback to their record labels or by self
financing recordings etc.
Touring, especially the big stadium gigs, is rarely cost effective
for the band/record company. The bands who are making money
out of touring are the small acts who haven't got an array of
pyrotechnics and play 6 nights a week.
Out of all the merchandise on sale 'T'-shirts and caps probably
have the highest margin - so they're probably making more
per shirt than they are per CD.
However, if napster breaks the major labels, there will be
fewer major stadium gigs (because these are simply to
promote CD sales) and 'T' shirts only sold in real numbers
at such events, so even 'T' shirt sales will be reduced.
However, you should really be asking all this over in the
rec.music.makers hierachy.
Derek "starving musician" Tearne
--
Derek Tearne. --- @URL Internet Consultants --- http://url.co.nz/
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Phil Edwards
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>Steve Albini (of (Plant and Page) and Nirvana)
It's an intriguing thought, and may even be accurate - this isn't
really my area. Doesn't sound right, though. Butch Vig, now of
Garbage, was Nirvana's producer in their heyday, and effectively
invented the manicured-noise[1] sound we now call grunge ("a sonic
airbrush of punk", to quote one of the presenters of _Mixing It_[2]).
Steve Albini was in Big Black, whose speciality was a much messier and
much louder guitar sound; since Big Black he's been in various bands
(currently Shellac) and done a lot of work as a producer, again
tending to bring out bands' loud and nasty tendencies[3]. Predictably,
perhaps, his working relationship with Elizabeth Soderstrom was
shortlived; both parties cited irreconcilable artistic differences,
she claiming that he had no appreciation of the tonal vocabulary of
the later Lieder, while he held that she couldn't tell Eddie Vedder[4]
from Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards, the noted Welsh ski-jump star.
Phil "most of this information is reliable" Edwards
[1] Phrase borrowed from the eighties British band of the same name,
about whom I remember nothing.
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/ and follow the signs. Recommended.
[3] Outstanding (and prima facie unlikely) example: you know the
Wedding Present's version of "Make me smile (Come up and see me)"?
Good, innit? That's Albini, that is.
[4] A musician.
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"Now pluck the string and flex the legs at the same time."
- Derek Tearne lends a hand
Meredith Robbins
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:50:38 +0000,
> sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>
> >Steve Albini (of (Plant and Page) and Nirvana)
>
> It's an intriguing thought, and may even be accurate - this isn't
> really my area. Doesn't sound right, though. Butch Vig, now of
> Garbage, was Nirvana's producer in their heyday, and effectively
> invented the manicured-noise[1] sound we now call grunge ("a sonic
> airbrush of punk", to quote one of the presenters of _Mixing It_[2]).
> Steve Albini was in Big Black, whose speciality was a much messier and
> much louder guitar sound; since Big Black he's been in various bands
> (currently Shellac) and done a lot of work as a producer, again
> tending to bring out bands' loud and nasty tendencies[3].
While Butch Vig produced "Nevermind," Steve Albini most definitely
produced "In Utero." But perhaps you don't consider "Heart-Shaped Box"
and "All Apologies" "heyday" material.
Meredith "Negative creep" Robbins
--
"The magic of VELCRO fasteners unleashes your child's creativity!"
--Package text of VELCRO brand Puppet Magic craft kit
http://www.eclectricity.org | http://www.exileinnetville.com
Phil Edwards
<ma...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>While Butch Vig produced "Nevermind," Steve Albini most definitely
>produced "In Utero." But perhaps you don't consider "Heart-Shaped Box"
>and "All Apologies" "heyday" material.
My point precisely. By that stage the band was quite clearly in
terminal decline, unmistakably signalled by the, um, signals of a
decline that's terminal. Particularly the unmistakable ones.
Phil "either that or I knew even less than I thought I did" Edwards
cwp
> Eddie Vedder[4]
>
> [4] A musician.
Ahem.
Cite?
cwp "red sweater"
Daniel Ucko
>Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Eddie Vedder[4]
>>
>> [4] A musician.
>
>Ahem.
>
>Cite?
>
He's still alive.
Daniel 'and produces music at an even flow' Ucko
Daniel Ucko
cwp
> "cwp" <cwpa...@alve.com> wrote:
> >Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Eddie Vedder[4]
> >>
> >> [4] A musician.
> >
>
> He's still alive.
But does he deserve to be?
Regardless, being alive makes one a musician no more
than being British makes one a ski jumper.
cwp "calling for a hunger strike"
Daniel Ucko
>Daniel Ucko <d.u...@NOSPAM.physics.org> wrote:
>> "cwp" <cwpa...@alve.com> wrote:
>> >Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Eddie Vedder[4]
>> >>
>> >> [4] A musician.
>> >
>> >Cite?
>>
>> He's still alive.
>
>But does he deserve to be?
Is that the question?
And if so, who answers?
>Regardless, being alive makes one a musician no more
>than being British makes one a ski jumper.
Rather less, I think. Britain only has one comedy ski jumper, but
Seattle has lots of musicians. Though not as many as Evanston,
Illinois.
Daniel 'running out of Pearl Jam trivia' Ucko
Alec Horgan
> While Butch Vig produced "Nevermind," Steve Albini most definitely
> produced "In Utero."
He also produced the last Pezz album, "Warmth and
Sincerity," and, to answer one of the original
poster's questions, I just called their bass
player and asked him how much he made on their
tour this summer. His response: "about three
hundred bucks, but then I blew it all when I took
Wesley Willis to lunch at McDonald's."
Alec
Ken Nicolson
(Nathan Tenny) wrote:
>Courtney Love's article is basically a rewrite of a much better one by
>Steve Albini, who knows a thing or two about being in low-profile bands
>(Big Black, Shellac, usw., along with a whopping string of production
>credits for bands with twelve fans who worship them). It's all over the
>Web...lessee...here: <http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html>.
>Seems to have originally run in something called Baffler and been reprinted
>by the magnificent MAXIMUMROCKNROLL.
>
>Short form: The band makes significantly less than minimum wage and ends
>up enslaved to the record company because their album didn't "recoup" the
>advance out of royalties. Read the article, though; it's worth it.
That's exactly the sort of page I was looking for. Thanks! Interesting
that they quote royalties of 13% of 90% or retail, when everyone
"knows" it's only a few cents...
> NT
Ken
Jennifer G.
tours around. They recently came back from playing in Japan and he said
that they made more money from their T-shirts sales there than what they
made form the tour. Also said that next time they go to Japan they will
be bringing many more tees.
This was the only place where the T-shirts made money.
loft...@my-deja.com
> about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
> T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
> supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
> legend.
>
Sorry to be a bit off-topic for afu, but if you are looking for
ammunition against this argument, you could consider that it also makes
the common mistake of assuming that the 'band' are the only people in
all this who might be dependent on CD sales.
It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
(often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
professional recordings). Then there's the sound engineer, the session
musicians. These are not millionaires, they are ordinary working people
whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries are
paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
I think music fans that have no knowledge of the recording business
(and I only have a very basic knowledge) seem to think that if a band
exists, then quality recordings of the band will somehow appear out of
thin air. I have no doubt that people will always make good music
whether they are paid for it or not, but if folks aren't prepared to
pay for someone to make a quality (and I mean quality) recording of it,
then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be scratchy
bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
Hope I didn't offend anyone, back to the legends,
regards,
-LH
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr H
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk wrote:
}Anyone who hasn't read Courtney Love's wonderful description of how
}the music biz works is hereby recommended to do so. It's one of the
}best pieces of writing I've ever seen on the web. (Actually, it was
}a speech she made, but you know what I mean.) You can find it at
}
}http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
Not that I don't think the music industry in country rips-off artists
left and right, but I find a lot of things in this article questionable.
For one thing, her scenario is predicated on the band recording only
one album in a year, and doing no other work -- I've never known any
profesional musician who works this little. For another, even /if/
the band does nothing but record the one album all year, and they
net $45,000 each, that's hardly a poverty wage -- whole families
live on less than half that, and aren't even eligible for public
assistance.
I also question a cost of $500,000 to manufacture 1,000,000 CD copies
of a single album. There is no way it costs $0.50 per CD after the
costs of producing the master -- I can make single copies at home for
less than that.
I suspect that most of the money spent getting from production to
retail sales is not spent on any concrete part of the process, but
in greasing the palms of various and sundry middlemen. This used
to be known as "payola", but apparently it's business as usual
these days.
Dr H
Dr H
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
}In article <24p02t46vejub86e4...@4ax.com>,
} Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> wrote:
}> Whenever a debate on Napster et al, starts, someone always chimes in
}> about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
}> T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
}> supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
}> legend.
}
}Sorry to be a bit off-topic for afu, but if you are looking for
}ammunition against this argument, you could consider that it also makes
}the common mistake of assuming that the 'band' are the only people in
}all this who might be dependent on CD sales.
}
}It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
}recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
}(often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
}other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
}professional recordings).
Yeah, companies like Raytheon, which make some of the high-end audio chips
and also -- incidently -- the guidance electronics for the military's
missiles. My heart bleeds for them.
}Then there's the sound engineer, the session musicians. These are not
}millionaires, they are ordinary working people whose day job just happens
}to be making records. All their salaries are
}paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
Good session musicians can make as much or more than the front people
in popular bands. Many don't work exclusively for one studio, and
nearly all work a variety of gigs. Of course, if the star band happens
to include some actual competent musicians, there is no need for using
studio musicians at all.
}I think music fans that have no knowledge of the recording business
}(and I only have a very basic knowledge) seem to think that if a band
}exists, then quality recordings of the band will somehow appear out of
}thin air. I have no doubt that people will always make good music
}whether they are paid for it or not, but if folks aren't prepared to
}pay for someone to make a quality (and I mean quality) recording of it,
For what definition of 'quality'? IMO, 75% of all commercial studio
recordings are vastly over-produced. What's more important: the
quality of the music or the quality of the production? Some of
the finest music performances ever preserved were recorded in real
time, dangling a single microphone over a live band or orchestra.
}then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be scratchy
}bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
This is a huge fallacy. The same technology which makes Napster possible
has advanced home recording light-years beyond where it was even 10
years ago. It is now possible to make high-quality digital home recordings
on a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, which a decade ago required
a multi-million dollar studio.
OK, the sound engineer is lacking, but that is a profession almost
universally learned through hands-on experience. Ordinary musicians
can acquire these skills through practice.
}Hope I didn't offend anyone, back to the legends, regards,
Didn't offend me; I just disagree with some of your position.
Dr H
Marc M Reeve
>}> Whenever a debate on Napster et al, starts, someone always chimes in
>}> about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
>}> T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
>}> supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
>}> legend.
>}
>}ammunition against this argument, you could consider that it also makes
>}the common mistake of assuming that the 'band' are the only people in
>}all this who might be dependent on CD sales.
>}
>}It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
>}recording.
>
>}Then there's the sound engineer, the session musicians. These are not
>}millionaires, they are ordinary working people whose day job just happens
>}to be making records. All their salaries are
>}paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
>
> Good session musicians can make as much or more than the front people
> in popular bands. Many don't work exclusively for one studio, and
> nearly all work a variety of gigs. Of course, if the star band happens
> to include some actual competent musicians, there is no need for using
> studio musicians at all.
>
Toto spring to mind immediately...
>}I think music fans that have no knowledge of the recording business
>}(and I only have a very basic knowledge) seem to think that if a band
>}exists, then quality recordings of the band will somehow appear out of
>}thin air. I have no doubt that people will always make good music
>}whether they are paid for it or not, but if folks aren't prepared to
>}pay for someone to make a quality (and I mean quality) recording of it,
>
> For what definition of 'quality'? IMO, 75% of all commercial studio
> recordings are vastly over-produced. What's more important: the
> quality of the music or the quality of the production? Some of
> the finest music performances ever preserved were recorded in real
> time, dangling a single microphone over a live band or orchestra.
>
Fine performances, sure. Fine recordings? Not necessarily. While I concur
on the over-production of the majority of commercial recordings (particularly
the over-use of reverb to make marginal singers sound at least semi-
talented), there's a certain level of tweaking that most recordings need
to sound good.
>}then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be scratchy
>}bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
>
> This is a huge fallacy. The same technology which makes Napster possible
> has advanced home recording light-years beyond where it was even 10
> years ago. It is now possible to make high-quality digital home recordings
> on a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, which a decade ago required
> a multi-million dollar studio.
>
> OK, the sound engineer is lacking, but that is a profession almost
> universally learned through hands-on experience. Ordinary musicians
> can acquire these skills through practice.
>
Hell, even non-musicians can aquire the skills through practice. Helps
to have some musical background, though.
Marc "one of those marginal vocalists who sounds better with
copious reverb, or at least hidden in the depths of a chorus" Reeve
--
Marc Reeve cmr...@SPAM.ucsc.edu
"I recall disliking Washington National in the early/mid '80s because
it was of the "only ticked passengers beyond this point" sort."
-Drew Lawson
Alec Horgan
> I also question a cost of $500,000 to manufacture 1,000,000 CD copies
> of a single album. There is no way it costs $0.50 per CD after the
> costs of producing the master -- I can make single copies at home for
> less than that.
Complete with jewel case, full-color 12-page
booklet and inlay, artwork on the CD itself, bar
code, and shrink wrap?
And what you do at home is CD-R duplication,
which is a completely different process from CD
manufacture.
Alec
JoAnne Schmitz
>It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
>recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
>(often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
>other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
>professional recordings). Then there's the sound engineer, the session
>musicians. These are not millionaires, they are ordinary working people
>whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries are
>paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
Artists, photographers and printers are involved too.
JoAnne "not to mention the Harry Fox Agency" Schmitz
Nathan Tenny
Marc M Reeve <cmr...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>}I have no doubt that people will always make good music
>>}whether they are paid for it or not, but if folks aren't prepared to
>>}pay for someone to make a quality (and I mean quality) recording of it,
>>
>> For what definition of 'quality'? IMO, 75% of all commercial studio
>> recordings are vastly over-produced. What's more important: the
>> quality of the music or the quality of the production? Some of
>> the finest music performances ever preserved were recorded in real
>> time, dangling a single microphone over a live band or orchestra.
>>
>Fine performances, sure. Fine recordings? Not necessarily. While I concur
>on the over-production of the majority of commercial recordings (particularly
>the over-use of reverb to make marginal singers sound at least semi-
>talented), there's a certain level of tweaking that most recordings need
>to sound good.
On the other hand, listeners base their expectations partly on other
recordings, so there's a self-fulfilling aspect---how recordings are
supposed to sound is partly defined by how recordings *do* sound. If all
the reverb boxen in the world exploded tomorrow, people would go on recording
without them, and eventually all those old CDs would sound artificial and
spacey and we'd all say, good heavens, why would anybody *choose* to record
it that way?
>>}then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be scratchy
>>}bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
>>
>> This is a huge fallacy. [...]
If we're going to try to forecast the Future of Commercial Music, everyone
really needs to go read that Steve Albini article. The economics of music
are such that most musicians are doing it as a labor of love *now*. (The
exceptions, the arena-filling manufactured acts who actually make a living,
are precisely the ones whose passing I wouldn't mourn much. Even the ones
I like---I'd trade them in a heartbeat for broader availability of weird
music by unknowns.)
What record-sale profits support isn't the *making* of music but the
*distribution* of music. There's no question in my mind that Napster (or
something like) is a threat to Tower Records, but I don't know what it could
possibly take from musicians (with a very few exceptions) that the music
industry hasn't already taken from them. The opportunity to owe the label
fourteen thousand dollars?
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>Then there's the bands formed by studio musicians. Led Zeppelin and
>Toto spring to mind immediately...
I wouldn't bracket Toto with the New Yardbirds, dude.
Phil "when will it end?" Edwards
rockf...@my-deja.com
of things like radio and media promotion (they own, or manipulate $$$
their acts into being "stars").....when $100,000 should get a band wide
spectrum layout on ads in high profile mags, the real cost for the
mainstream is higher for a full year's cost accross the spectrum,
because #1. too many of the biggest media are owned by the biggest
distriubutors/manufacturers, and #2, if the cost is high in
the "market" only the wealthy can compete so lets advertise the the few
the most we can get from them (the market, though at this space it's
outrageously high becuause you are competing ad space and cost against
a wealthy major), and say we have $$$, you have space, we buy.... put
that on top of most of the publishing companies with the top 200 in the
sales charts are primarily owned by the recording labels or
distributors, then you have more of a monoploy because not only do they
pay one another (IE a big firm owns the pressing plant as well as the
media they allocate and charge the band for (we'll not get into
royalties or per hire things now...lots of time later for the real
steal)..but they pay publishers collecting 50% or so of these fees,
which they either own outright or a majority...damn, no wonder they
call it "selling your soul"..
they own your ass...anyone else with experience know this scene?
wise up
loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <24p02t46vejub86e4...@4ax.com>,
> Ken Nicolson <knic...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Whenever a debate on Napster et al, starts, someone always chimes in
> > about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
> > T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
> > supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
> > legend.
> >
>
> Sorry to be a bit off-topic for afu, but if you are looking for
> ammunition against this argument, you could consider that it also
makes
> the common mistake of assuming that the 'band' are the only people in
> all this who might be dependent on CD sales.
>
> It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
> recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
> (often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
> other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
> professional recordings). Then there's the sound engineer, the session
> musicians. These are not millionaires, they are ordinary working
people
> whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries
are
> paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
>
> I think music fans that have no knowledge of the recording business
> (and I only have a very basic knowledge) seem to think that if a band
> exists, then quality recordings of the band will somehow appear out of
> thin air. I have no doubt that people will always make good music
> whether they are paid for it or not, but if folks aren't prepared to
> pay for someone to make a quality (and I mean quality) recording of
it,
> then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be scratchy
> bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
>
> Hope I didn't offend anyone, back to the legends,
> regards,
Sweeney
> Sorry to be a bit off-topic for afu, but if you are looking for
> ammunition against this argument, you could consider that it also makes
> the common mistake of assuming that the 'band' are the only people in
> all this who might be dependent on CD sales.
>
> It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
> recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
> (often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
> other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
> professional recordings). Then there's the sound engineer, the session
> musicians. These are not millionaires, they are ordinary working people
> whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries are
> paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
No they aren't, they're paid a fixed amount up front -- this is part of
what the band's "advance" is meant to cover, and is not affected by record
sales. The only one who might get a cut is a major name Producer.
Tony.
Charles A Lieberman
www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<3A27B0A6...@pioneeris.net>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
plonk
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "French people are so weird."
Brooklyn, New York, USA | -Meredith Robbins
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
No relation.
Drew Lawson
rockf...@my-deja.com writes:
>..but the music mafia
Rhetoric tip for the day: whether you're knowledgable or not, you
demonstrated in your first sentence that the rest of the text is
almost certain to be biased, black helicopter, loon-speak.
Drew "top posting, deja addressed wanker" Lawson
--
|Drew Lawson | So many newsgroups |
|dr...@furrfu.com | So little time |
|http://www.furrfu.com/ | |
Drew Lawson
Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
>loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries are
>> paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
>
>No they aren't, they're paid a fixed amount up front -- this is part of
>what the band's "advance" is meant to cover, and is not affected by record
>sales. The only one who might get a cut is a major name Producer.
Unless the recording industry uses the word differently (which
wouldn't surprise me), there is a difference between an advance
and, for example, a "signing bonus."
In must companies, an advance is just a payout against expected
revenue. It's like taking out a loan. The money in the advance
is balanced against what the advance-or would owe you. So the
advance is ultimately paid by the sales.
Drew "I'm ultimately paid by sick people and pregnant women" Lawson
Scott Craver
>Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
>>
>>No they aren't, they're paid a fixed amount up front -- this is part of
>>what the band's "advance" is meant to cover, and is not affected by record
>>sales. The only one who might get a cut is a major name Producer.
>
>wouldn't surprise me), there is a difference between an advance
>and, for example, a "signing bonus."
Um, there appears to be some confusion here. Sweeny
was saying that the _band_ is given an advance to cover
the fixed costs of the studio, not that the studio
techs themselves are given an advance.
I would be surprised to hear if studio techs' earnings
are dependent at all on the number of albums sold. Can
anyone back up this claim? I only know one person who has
a small recording business, and his job is finished when
the band has a master. I'm pretty sure he just gets
a fixed fee up front.
-S
Simon Slavin
sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
> I would be surprised to hear if studio techs' earnings
> are dependent at all on the number of albums sold. Can
> anyone back up this claim? I only know one person who has
> a small recording business, and his job is finished when
> the band has a master. I'm pretty sure he just gets
> a fixed fee up front.
Generally, a studio tech is paid like any permanent worker: so
much a month for being on the premises during working-hours.
They get paid the same whether they're working on Fleetwood Mac
or Flobby and the Spittoons. They knock off on time or get paid
overtime.
There are several engineer/mixer/producers who are themselves a
big-name product. They get paid per project, for doing that
particular project whenever the artist requires it. Quincy
Jones, Hugh Padgham and Fatboy Slim can all ask for whever they
want: they're not employees of the studio.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | Come to think of it, just what are we going
No junk email please. | to say to an alien race if we make contact?
| "Do you have Napster?"
| "Stop making crop circles!" -- Scott Barber
Tony Sweeney
> In article <90br1u$30q$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
> sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
>
> > I would be surprised to hear if studio techs' earnings
> > are dependent at all on the number of albums sold. Can
> > anyone back up this claim? I only know one person who has
> > a small recording business, and his job is finished when
> > the band has a master. I'm pretty sure he just gets
> > a fixed fee up front.
>
> Generally, a studio tech is paid like any permanent worker: so
> much a month for being on the premises during working-hours.
> They get paid the same whether they're working on Fleetwood Mac
> or Flobby and the Spittoons. They knock off on time or get paid
> overtime.
>
> There are several engineer/mixer/producers who are themselves a
> big-name product. They get paid per project, for doing that
> particular project whenever the artist requires it. Quincy
> Jones, Hugh Padgham and Fatboy Slim can all ask for whever they
> want: they're not employees of the studio.
Which was exactly my point several posts back. Studio costs don't come out of
(or leastways aren't proportionate to) record sales. They're an up front fixed
cost.
Tony.
Alec Horgan
> Simon Slavin wrote:
> > There are several engineer/mixer/producers who are themselves a
> > big-name product. They get paid per project, for doing that
> > particular project whenever the artist requires it. Quincy
> > Jones, Hugh Padgham and Fatboy Slim can all ask for whever they
> > want: they're not employees of the studio.
>
> Which was exactly my point several posts back. Studio costs don't come out
> of (or leastways aren't proportionate to) record sales. They're an up
> front fixed cost.
They do come out of record sales, though, in
the sense that those up-front fixed costs are
recoupable from the band's royalties. And
the big-name producers Simon's talking about
generally do in fact get paid based on record
sales (in addition to their fixed fee).
Alec
Eric Bohlman
> loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> It takes a lot of money and very talented people to make a quality
>> recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
>> (often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
>> other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
>> professional recordings). Then there's the sound engineer, the session
>> musicians. These are not millionaires, they are ordinary working people
>> whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries are
>> paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
> No they aren't, they're paid a fixed amount up front -- this is part of
> what the band's "advance" is meant to cover, and is not affected by record
> sales. The only one who might get a cut is a major name Producer.
I think his point was that if the records weren't selling, there would be
no money to pay the studio people up front, which certainly sounds
reasonable. However, this brings up the question of what percentage of a
typical studio's revenues come from recording work involved in creating
records for sale to the public, versus work on things like commercial
jingles, incidental music for movies and TV shows, corporate in-house
training tapes, and other areas that have nothing to do with the retail
music market. Anybody know?
Scott Craver
>Tony Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
>>
>> Which was exactly my point several posts back. Studio costs don't come out
>> of (or leastways aren't proportionate to) record sales. They're an up
>> front fixed cost.
>
>fixed costs are recoupable from the band's royalties.
That's just where the money comes from to pay the guys.
The question is, whether or not the record doesn't sell beans,
do the studio techs get paid the same?
I believe this was regarding a claim that all these other folks
rely directly on record sales, and hence suffer from piracy.
>And the big-name
>producers Simon's talking about generally do in fact get paid based on record
>sales (in addition to their fixed fee).
Yes, the producers. But this takes a bit of wind out of the
argument that piracy hurts all these other people. Folks are
more likely to think "poor studio techs" than "poor big-name
producer."
The general theme here, I think, is one of putting a face on the
recording industry to which people can be more sympathetic.
In spats over MP3.com and Napster, the industry tried to
characterize the conflict as hackers vs. artists, rather than
hackers vs. the big record companies. This is part of the
reason we were all so surprised when the industry got some
aide to (isn't this against the law?) rewrite the text of some
passed satellite home recording act, to redefine recorded music
as "works for hire." There was no way they could have not
gotten caught, and just made enemies with their own celebrity
representatives.
>Alec
-S
Nathan Tenny
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@omsdev.com> wrote:
>Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> wrote:
>> loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> recording. Let's start with the folks that designed the studio. The
>>> (often small) companies that produce the recorders, microphones and
>>> other sound equipment (equipment that has no market outside of making
>>> professional recordings). Then there's the sound engineer, the session
>>> musicians. These are not millionaires, they are ordinary working people
>>> whose day job just happens to be making records. All their salaries are
>>> paid, at the end of the day, out of sales of the finished product.
>
>> No they aren't, they're paid a fixed amount up front -- this is part of
>> what the band's "advance" is meant to cover, and is not affected by record
>> sales. The only one who might get a cut is a major name Producer.
>
>no money to pay the studio people up front, which certainly sounds
>reasonable.
...but which isn't how it works. If *no* records are selling, obviously the
label has no money, can't pay the band an advance, the band can't pay for its
studio time out of its advance, and if a record is going to be made money has
to come out of pocket. But no studio is going to work on a royalty basis;
they charge for their time and resources, period, and how the band comes up
with the money is its own problem. A band with a record deal will normally
get an advance on royalties out of which they pay for studio time among other
things. If the record doesn't sell enough for the royalties to cover the
advance, the band is in debt to the label (and badly screwed---a lot of good
bands have died of label indebtedness), but the studio isn't going to give
the money back---they did their bit.
A few highly involved folks like the producer generally get a fraction of
royalties, but to my knowledge they don't normally get an advance---they get
a flat fee plus a small percentage.
Exceptions for weird situations, like my friend who's launching a micro-label
as kind of a showcase for the bands he's producing---thus label and studio
are the same organization and there isn't so much flow of money. But that's
an anomaly.
>However, this brings up the question of what percentage of a
>typical studio's revenues come from recording work involved in creating
>records for sale to the public, versus work on things like commercial
>jingles, incidental music for movies and TV shows, corporate in-house
>training tapes, and other areas that have nothing to do with the retail
>music market. Anybody know?
Well, it certainly varies a lot by studio. The people I've known in the
industry have mostly worked at places that did one or the other---"regular"
records or commercial tidbits, exclusively. These have all been small
places, though.
Scott Craver
>Eric Bohlman <eboh...@omsdev.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think his point was that if the records weren't selling, there would be
>>no money to pay the studio people up front, which certainly sounds
>>reasonable.
I don't think so. Records fail to sell well all the time,
and the label still can afford to invest in new recordings.
Maybe a small label could go out of business with bad sales,
but for this to effect studio techs?
The scenario of studio people suffering because nobody has
any more money to hire them is ... quite a doomsday scenario.
In any case, this is a very indirect, long-term relation to
record sales, rather than the apparent implication that these
people get paid from record sales like the band does.
> NT
-S
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Which was the point of those two articles which artists
wrote that someone pointed to in this thread. If you read both
of the hypothetical pieces, basically what they indicate
is that virtually everyone is getting their money up front.
The producer is footing these bills. They are recouped out
of the artists share of the income stream. Turth is, even
the band is usually given some "advance money". The producer/
record company is basically giving an unsecured loan. It
isn't even backed by the band per se in that if income doesn't
cover the costs, the band isn't in debt to the producer. What
the artists are complaining about is that all of these up
front costs aren't SHARED with the producer, yet the royalties
are in that the artists apparently are getting about 10% of
the gross.
Although I think alot of bands are surprised by the details
of these deals, I also think alot of folks don't understand
that this is how ALOT of industries work. If you "invent"
something and get a patent, you'll be lucky to find anyone
to "produce it". It's probably even harder than getting
a record contract. Then, you may be lucky to get 7% of
SOMETHING, probably net profits, which will be vastly smaller
than gross revenues. If you don't show up with cash to help
produce your product, you are basically in the same boat
as someone seeking venture capital.
Getting anything "to market" be it a mouse trap or a
CD is an expensive proposition. Alot of people you will
need will want cash up front. The rewards for almost
any creation rarely come up front. They tend to be in
the out years when up front costs have been recouped
and it is mostly a "pure profit" situation. That, unfortunately,
is what Napster is about, the "out years". Popular
recordings sell for YEARS afterwards. Go into your favorite
CD store and look at the recording dates of any section.
I'd bet that only 20% was recorded this year, the rest is
stuff that is STILL selling. That's the profit makin' years
for the artists. It can be unfortunately also the time
that a pirated album can be most available.
Whether artists like it or not, this is how most industries
like this work. I'm not saying it's right. But find out
how much a rancher gets paid per pound for beef and how much you
are paying. That sign at the auto dealer that says they charge
$75/hour for labor isn't how much mechanics are paid. I met
the guy that designed that Gerber baby bottle with the hole
in the middle. He got something like 7 cents a bottle. Gerber
was making a whole lot more than that on each one. Being the
"creator" is rarely the way to get the lions share of the income.
Nathan Tenny
Scott Craver <sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Nathan Tenny <nten...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
...nothing in the quoted post. Caveat attributor, please.
jgmc...@my-deja.com
> The funny thing about this is a friend of mine is in this local band
> that
> tours around. They recently came back from playing in Japan and he
> said
> that they made more money from their T-shirts sales there than what
> they
> made form the tour. Also said that next time they go to Japan they
> will
> be bringing many more tees.
> This was the only place where the T-shirts made money.
>
> Ken Nicolson wrote:
>
> > Whenever a debate on Napster et al, starts, someone always chimes in
> > about "bands can and do make lots of money from touring, selling
> > T-shirts, etc, versus their cut on each CD", but I never see any
> > supporting documentation, and to me it seems like just another urban
> > legend.
An article in the Raleigh News and Observer quoted Roger
McGuinn (from the Byrds, and someone who should know with,
oh, at least 10x the experience with such things vs. Ms.
Love) saying similar things:
(begin excerpt of article)
By the time he finished [speaking at a college class],
there was time for a few questions. One student asked
McGuinn's opinion of the ongoing controversy about
Napster, the Web service that enables computer users to
duplicate copyrighted music. The guitarist's response
was a harsh lesson in rockonomics.
"As an artist, the most benefit you get from a hit
record is the publicity it gives you for concerts,"
said McGuinn, who does not approve of Napster or the
record companies that are suing to put it out of
business. "The record companies do not play fair.
They don't pay you. You might make something from an
advance, but after they charge back all the videos
and independent promotion, you never make anything
afterward."
(end of excerpt)
The full article (from September 13, 2000) is
available on the N&O webpage ( http://www.news-observer.com ).
I can't provide a specific page link (since they now
require a sign-in), but you can search on McGuinn and
find it easily.
JGM
Scott Craver
>Scott Craver <sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>Nathan Tenny <nten...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>...nothing in the quoted post. Caveat attributor, please.
Sorry about that. I realized just after I sent it off.
-S
Drew Lawson
sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) writes:
>Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com> wrote:
>>Tony Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
>>>
>>> of (or leastways aren't proportionate to) record sales. They're an up
>>> front fixed cost.
>>
>>fixed costs are recoupable from the band's royalties.
>
> That's just where the money comes from to pay the guys.
> The question is, whether or not the record doesn't sell beans,
> do the studio techs get paid the same?
I suppose that is *a* question.
The comment from several posts back (attribution lost, sorry) that
started this is:
All their salaries are paid, at the end of the day, out of
sales of the finished product
I still agree with that. The whole industry is financed off of
sales of the product. Counter-droids at McDonalds have their
minimum wage paychecks paid by sales of the food. That doesn't
mean that their pay is contingent.
That's just my reading of the comment. I can't say whether that
was the intended meaning.
Alec Horgan
> The comment from several posts back (attribution lost, sorry) that
> started this is:
>
> All their salaries are paid, at the end of the day, out of
> sales of the finished product
>
> I still agree with that. The whole industry is financed off of
> sales of the product.
Sales of some product, which may or may not be
sales of *the* product. I.e., if my record is
a flop, the studio people who worked on it are
going to get paid from sales of Britney Spears
or the Eagles' back catalog.
Alec
JoAnne Schmitz
>Drew Lawson <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote:
>>Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>No they aren't, they're paid a fixed amount up front -- this is part of
>>>what the band's "advance" is meant to cover, and is not affected by record
>>>sales. The only one who might get a cut is a major name Producer.
>>
>>Unless the recording industry uses the word differently (which
>>wouldn't surprise me), there is a difference between an advance
>>and, for example, a "signing bonus."
>
> Um, there appears to be some confusion here. Sweeny
> was saying that the _band_ is given an advance to cover
> the fixed costs of the studio, not that the studio
> techs themselves are given an advance.
>
> I would be surprised to hear if studio techs' earnings
> are dependent at all on the number of albums sold. Can
> anyone back up this claim? I only know one person who has
> a small recording business, and his job is finished when
> the band has a master. I'm pretty sure he just gets
> a fixed fee up front.
There would be fewer and smaller fixed fees paid up front if no one ever bought
a CD ever again.
The point of the original claim, something like "at the end of the day this is
all paid out of profits from selling the album," is quite obviously true in the
case of a successful music label, else it would not be a successful music label.
It wasn't a claim that per-CD fees are paid, just that if the label is a
standard capitalist business it will not employ techs if no economic advantage
is to be gained from it.
Someone else mentioned that there's plenty of amateurs out there who buy
high-quality home recording equipment which means that good quality recordings
would still be available if all labels folded tomorrow.
That may be true, but there would not be the same level of research money put
into top-of-the-line recording equipment if big labels don't exist to buy it.
Few individuals have the money to do so. The benefits of audio research trickle
down to these home recording units. Without it, we could enter a technological
dark age.
JoAnne "cosmikness often fails" Schmitz
Scott Craver
> sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) writes:
>>
>> That's just where the money comes from to pay the guys.
>> The question is, whether or not the record doesn't sell beans,
>> do the studio techs get paid the same?
>
>I suppose that is *a* question.
>
>started this is:
>
> All their salaries are paid, at the end of the day, out of
> sales of the finished product
Still disagree. Their salaries are paid before the finished
product is ever sold, and even if the finished product doesn't
sell a single copy they still got their money, and get more
money for the next job.
Moreover, the studio is a separate entity from the label.
Wherever the client gets its dough to pay the studio,
and what it wants to do with the final product (sell a
record, put a soundtrack in a TV show) is mostly the client's
business.
If I pay the studio for a recording session, then I
suppose one can say that their salaries are paid, technically,
out of sales of whatever _I_ sold to raise the money. If
I sold hard drugs to save up for a master, then I guess
their salaries are paid out of sales of hard drugs.
But that had nothing to do with them, and if the hard drugs
biz takes a dive it has no effect on the studio.
>I still agree with that. The whole industry is financed off of
>sales of the product. Counter-droids at McDonalds have their
>minimum wage paychecks paid by sales of the food. That doesn't
>mean that their pay is contingent.
This is a problematic analogy because McDonalds both makes
the product and sells it. Hence the relation between
sales and salary is obvious. Here we're talking about
two separate companies. One manufactures/sells the
product. The other company, the studio, has the first
company as a client. What's the relationship between
the sales by company A, and the salaries of company B?
A better analogy might be that of a construction company
McDonalds contracts to build one of them McBuildings.
To say that those fellas' salaries are paid, at the end of
the day, out of sales of the hamburgers is misleading.
-S
Drew Lawson
sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) writes:
>Drew Lawson <dr...@furrfu.com> wrote:
>>The comment from several posts back (attribution lost, sorry) that
>>started this is:
>>
>> All their salaries are paid, at the end of the day, out of
>> sales of the finished product
>
> Still disagree. Their salaries are paid before the finished
> product is ever sold, and even if the finished product doesn't
I posted that to clarify what I was responding to, and what it was
that I was saying. I'm not looking for a disecting of economics.
If I were, this where I would chose to discuss it.
Drew "but don't let me stop you" Lawson
--
|Drew Lawson | Mrs. Tweedy! |
|dr...@furrfu.com | The chickens are revolting! |
|http://www.furrfu.com | |
JoAnne Schmitz
[quoted from way back]
>> All their salaries are paid, at the end of the day, out of
>> sales of the finished product
>
> Still disagree. Their salaries are paid before the finished
> product is ever sold, and even if the finished product doesn't
> sell a single copy they still got their money, and get more
> money for the next job.
I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I don't think it was ever meant
to imply that the salaries are paid after the finished product is sold or that
payment is directly attached to the individual product they produce. It just
means that if the products don't get sold, there's no money in the future for
more salaries.
Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "at the end of the day"? It means "in the
final summation" or "when you figure it all out." It has nothing to do with any
specific period of time elapsing. It has to do with the long view, and taking
all factors into account.
JoAnne "end times" Schmitz
McCaffertA
(Scott Craver) writes:
>A better analogy might be that of a construction company
>McDonalds contracts to build one of them McBuildings.
>To say that those fellas' salaries are paid, at the end of
>the day, out of sales of the hamburgers is misleading.
How so? No burgers, no building. No building, no job.
Anthony "Cow Blood Money" McCafferty
Olivers
JoAnne's turned up the voracity oven here and is prud'near right. Among
the few exceptions to the practice are a handful (How many?) of
legendary studio musicians who are summoned to accompany the "stars'
(and without whom some of the stars would lack some glimmer. The
onliest one of my ken is an elderly fiddler, Mr. Johnny Gimble of
Clifton, TX, who travels regularly to recording parlors, receives some
front money, but on a couple of occasions has "gone shares" on the
proceeds of an album. I suspect that are one or more highly thought of
"sound magicians" who are similarly rewarded for making succeesses out
of otherwise mundance, talentless gigs due to their skillfull
editing/blending/inventiveness.
Glenn Dowdy
Olivers wrote in message <3A2E5701...@calpha.com>...
>JoAnne's turned up the voracity oven here and is prud'near right. Among
>the few exceptions to the practice are a handful (How many?) of
>legendary studio musicians who are summoned to accompany the "stars'
>(and without whom some of the stars would lack some glimmer. The
>onliest one of my ken is an elderly fiddler, Mr. Johnny Gimble of
>Clifton, TX, who travels regularly to recording parlors, receives some
>front money, but on a couple of occasions has "gone shares" on the
>proceeds of an album. I suspect that are one or more highly thought of
>"sound magicians" who are similarly rewarded for making succeesses out
>of otherwise mundance, talentless gigs due to their skillfull
>editing/blending/inventiveness.
I've got a friend who is a rather successful studio drummer out of Nashville
and Muscle Shoals who explained a bit of the business to me. As a union
musician, a percentage of every contract is put into a trust, which is paid
out, IIRC, annually. It's also possible to receive royalties on your work,
even if you weren't the songwriter. He told of receiving a sizeable and
completely unexpected check from the label of a song he had recorded years
before that never sold one copy. It seems the whichever network it was that
televised the Olympics decided that they wanted to use bits of that song as
background music every time athletes from a particular country were
on-screen. A price was negotiated between the network and label, and each of
the musicians got a chunk. His happened to arrive at a time when he had just
moved to Nashville, business was slow and Christmas looked bleak.
Glenn D.
Dr H
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
}On 4 Dec 2000 23:57:54 GMT, sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
}
}[quoted from way back]
}>> All their salaries are paid, at the end of the day, out of
}>> sales of the finished product
}>
}> Still disagree. Their salaries are paid before the finished
}> product is ever sold, and even if the finished product doesn't
}> sell a single copy they still got their money, and get more
}> money for the next job.
}
}I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I don't think it was ever meant
}to imply that the salaries are paid after the finished product is sold or that
}payment is directly attached to the individual product they produce. It just
}means that if the products don't get sold, there's no money in the future for
}more salaries.
}
}Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "at the end of the day"? It means "in the
}final summation" or "when you figure it all out." It has nothing to do with any
}specific period of time elapsing. It has to do with the long view, and taking
}all factors into account.
To return to the theme in the subject line, do bands really "make
their money" from touring, rather than studio work? We've seen ample
deliniation of the various and sundry expenses involved with producing
and marketing a recording. But there are also considerable
expenses involved with touring.
In addition to personal travel, food, and lodging expenses for the band,
one must arrange to transport as much as tons of equipment around the
country (or around the planet), or suitable gear must be rented at each
concert site. Sound engineers are still needed for live performance;
technicians and roadies are required to get things set up and operating
properly. There are costs for the performance spaces, usually involving
several layers of union labor. There are insurance costs; there are
security costs, which may include paying overtime to any number of local
police, if the venue is big enough. There are road managers and stage
managers to consider, and any crew that travels with the band has to be
housed and fed as well. There are additional expenses for lighting and
stage effects, not needed in the studio. Royalties still need to be
paid out for any non-original material performed by the band. Local
backing musicians may have to be hired. There may be additional
payoffs involved (as in the case of a local outdoor U2 concert, in
which the band was heavily fined for violating several local noise
ordinances, though the cops wouldn't pull the plug for fear of
agitating the considerable crowd.)
At "the end of the day" I doubt that the /average/ band makes much
more from touring than they do fro recording. The fact that most
bands find it necessary to do both in itself says something.
Dr H
Alec Horgan
> Royalties still need to be
> paid out for any non-original material performed by the band.
That's an expense borne by the venue, not the
band, and one they have to pay whether or not
the acts they bring in are playing all-original
material.
Alec
Bassman
Dr. H.:
Bands get a fixed sum per concert, plus a percentage of ticket sales.
Light and sound is always an additional rider on the contract, as is
security, concessions, and hospitality.
The show promoter (the guy who hires a band to play a particular
venue) pays out the expenses you list here.
Bands make money from touring long after their album sales have
stopped. The company I work for books many acts that are firmly in
the "I thought they were dead" column. However, they are still
getting $10,000 a night in Laughlin, NV....when they can get it...
John "Lynrd" Leonardini
MCSE
e-mail: bassman "at" nashville "dot" com
Charles A Lieberman
www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<yiilmtr...@zorro.msci.memphis.edu>
>> Royalties still need to be
>> paid out for any non-original material performed by the band.
>
>band, and one they have to pay whether or not
>the acts they bring in are playing all-original
>material.
Well, no keywords. When a band covers something not in the public
domain, royalties must be paid to the writer(s) of the song.
Mike and Elaine can do Rachmaninoff for free.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "French people are so weird."
Brooklyn, New York, USA | -Meredith Robbins
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
No relation.
Alec Horgan
> Alec Horgan 07 Dec 2000 18:42:06 -0500
> www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<yiilmtr...@zorro.msci.memphis.edu>
> >> Royalties still need to be
> >> paid out for any non-original material performed by the band.
> >
> >That's an expense borne by the venue, not the
> >band, and one they have to pay whether or not
> >the acts they bring in are playing all-original
> >material.
>
> Well, no keywords. When a band covers something not in the public
> domain, royalties must be paid to the writer(s) of the song.
The relvant question isn't whether the song
is in the public domain, but whether it's
published with one of the PROs that collects
royalties. And that's the real point: if
you operate a venue that hosts live music,
you will eventually get a visit from the
folks at ASCAP and BMI, who will hit you up
for an annual fee, and protesting that your
acts only play Rachmaninoff isn't going to
help.
Alec
R H Draney
>
> Charles A Lieberman <yvro...@voicenet.com> writes:
>
> > Alec Horgan 07 Dec 2000 18:42:06 -0500
> > >
> > >band, and one they have to pay whether or not
> > >the acts they bring in are playing all-original
> > >material.
> >
> > Well, no keywords. When a band covers something not in the public
> > domain, royalties must be paid to the writer(s) of the song.
Not strictly speaking the same thing...a band can be playing
all-original material that is not in the public domain...at which point,
the venue has to pay the *publisher* royalties...my songwriting buddy
and I got into this in some detail back in the late 70s...because of the
way it's structured, songs we wrote as a team are published by a company
we own *as* a team; songs written by either of us alone are published by
a company owned by the other...net result, we each get 50% of the
combined composer/publisher royalties on anything in our catalog....
> The relvant question isn't whether the song
> is in the public domain, but whether it's
> published with one of the PROs that collects
> royalties. And that's the real point: if
> you operate a venue that hosts live music,
> you will eventually get a visit from the
> folks at ASCAP and BMI, who will hit you up
> for an annual fee, and protesting that your
> acts only play Rachmaninoff isn't going to
> help.
Helps, though, if the talent have written their own stuff and can
demonstrate to the PRO that it's not under either's domain....r
--
All this talk about Chad and not one word about Jeremy....
loft...@my-deja.com
ah.. That wasn't quite the original point anyway. Sure someone pays a
fixed amount up front for the studio equipment, engineers time,
musicians' time, etc. etc. But how do they get that money back? By
selling the product. The less money generated by a project the less
anyone will be willing to invest in good people and good equipment the
next time. Thus CD sales are ultimately the generator of all the money
that pays for the people who made the recording.
It's just like saying the police are paid for out of taxes, it's true
even though you don't write your cheque to any individual policeman.
regards, LH
loft...@my-deja.com
dr...@furrfu.com (Drew Lawson) wrote:
> In article <90gkqf$sut$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
> sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) writes:
> >Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com> wrote:
> >>Tony Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
> >>>
don't come out
> >>> of (or leastways aren't proportionate to) record sales. They're
an up
> >>> front fixed cost.
> >>
up-front
> >>fixed costs are recoupable from the band's royalties.
> >
> > The question is, whether or not the record doesn't sell beans,
> > do the studio techs get paid the same?
>
> I suppose that is *a* question.
>
> started this is:
>
> sales of the finished product
>
> sales of the product. Counter-droids at McDonalds have their
> minimum wage paychecks paid by sales of the food. That doesn't
> mean that their pay is contingent.
>
> was the intended meaning.
Hi, it was my original comment and the intended meaning was exactly as
you put it.
cheers,
-LH
loft...@my-deja.com
sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
> Alec Horgan <al...@reservoirtips.com> wrote:
> >Tony Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> writes:
> >>
> >> Which was exactly my point several posts back. Studio costs don't
come out
> >> of (or leastways aren't proportionate to) record sales. They're
an up
> >> front fixed cost.
> >
> >They do come out of record sales, though, in the sense that those up-
front
> >fixed costs are recoupable from the band's royalties.
>
> That's just where the money comes from to pay the guys.
> The question is, whether or not the record doesn't sell beans,
> do the studio techs get paid the same?
>
> I believe this was regarding a claim that all these other folks
> rely directly on record sales, and hence suffer from piracy.
No, the claim was not that they rely *directly* on record sales, just
that they do *ultimately* rely on them. I thought I was careful to make
this point, but obviously not careful enough. Over time, if less money
is paid by the end consumers, less money is available to pay the
(rather large) costs of making future records. By all means disagree
with me, but please disagree with the point I actually made!
Note I don't care to enter the hot and muddy waters of a Napster
debate. I just point out that the day *may* come when nobody finds it
economic to make the records any more. We may all cheer loudly when the
evil greedy Raytheon pull out of the pro audio business, but when we've
finished cheering will we find we needed (whatever it is that Raytheon
makes) after all?
btw. Anyone wanting to hear the difference between a professionally
produced record and an amateur one should go to www.mp3.com and listen
to the non-techno genres. I've even got some amateur stuff on there
myself.
regards,
loft...@my-deja.com
Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> }then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be
scratchy
> }bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
>
> This is a huge fallacy. The same technology which makes Napster
possible
> has advanced home recording light-years beyond where it was even 10
> years ago. It is now possible to make high-quality digital home
recordings
> on a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, which a decade ago
required
> a multi-million dollar studio.
>
What you said is the fallacy. Go listen to www.mp3.com to see what
individual bands home recordings sound like. Some of them are very
good, some of them are very, very good. But they don't sound as good as
an average professional CD.
Anyway, I have a 'home studio'. I started 16 years ago with a very
expensive 4-track cassette, but today use hard disk and minidisk and
burn CD-R's. Yes the quality is light years better than 10 years ago
but it's still light years away from a multi-million dollar studio.
They spend thousands on a single *microphone*.
It also depends what kind of music. Modern home computer based
recording really lends itself to any of the techno/electronica genres
but how about recording a classical orchestra at home?
> OK, the sound engineer is lacking, but that is a profession almost
> universally learned through hands-on experience. Ordinary musicians
> can acquire these skills through practice.
>
I think you dismiss the talents of sound engineers and producers too
lightly. These are highly specific skills, as specific as playing any
instrument. I have come to this conclusion after many, many years of
trying to mix my own music. For one thing the time investment is huge -
non-pro's simply don't get the experience.
> }Hope I didn't offend anyone, back to the legends, regards,
>
> Didn't offend me; I just disagree with some of your position.
>
I meant hope I didn't offend anyone by being a bit off-topic for afu.
Disagreement I expect. This is usenet, right? 8*)
cheers,
- LH
> Dr H
loft...@my-deja.com
sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
> Nathan Tenny <nten...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >Eric Bohlman <eboh...@omsdev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>I think his point was that if the records weren't selling, there
would be
> >>no money to pay the studio people up front, which certainly sounds
> >>reasonable.
>
> I don't think so. Records fail to sell well all the time,
> and the label still can afford to invest in new recordings.
> Maybe a small label could go out of business with bad sales,
> but for this to effect studio techs?
>
Not the same thing. I was talking about the theoretical situation where
hardly anyone pays for *any* CD's any more because you can download
whatever you want for free. Hell, you can do that today, it's just that
the home computer hasn't yet become the 'mainstream' entertainment
device in most homes. But it will.
> The scenario of studio people suffering because nobody has
> any more money to hire them is ... quite a doomsday scenario.
>
..but entirely possible. It's not so much about people suffering, they
will find other jobs (eg making tv ads or radio jingles). What worries
me as a lover of well recorded music is that it won't be profitable for
anyone to make good records anymore, so they won't do it.
> In any case, this is a very indirect, long-term relation to
> record sales,
nevertheless, that was the point I was making....
>rather than the apparent implication that these
> people get paid from record sales like the band does.
>
No such implication was intended.
cheers
-LH
John Francis
>
>Not the same thing. I was talking about the theoretical situation where
>hardly anyone pays for *any* CD's any more because you can download
>whatever you want for free. Hell, you can do that today, it's just that
>the home computer hasn't yet become the 'mainstream' entertainment
>device in most homes. But it will.
A similar example has just hit a lot closer to home, for me:
One of the print magazines I subscribe to ("On Track") is folding.
This is, by and large, attributed to a lack of demand now that most
of the content is available free of charge on the 'net.
Scott Craver
>
>A similar example has just hit a lot closer to home, for me:
>
>One of the print magazines I subscribe to ("On Track") is folding.
>This is, by and large, attributed to a lack of demand now that most
>of the content is available free of charge on the 'net.
I'd be really interested in more information here.
Was the content made available by the magazine itself
in an online version of their magazine? Are they just
discontinuing a print version?
It's hard to imagine the print magazine going out of
business due to, say, online piracy of its content.
-S
Tony Sweeney
> >
> > I believe this was regarding a claim that all these other folks
> > rely directly on record sales, and hence suffer from piracy.
>
> No, the claim was not that they rely *directly* on record sales, just
> that they do *ultimately* rely on them. I thought I was careful to make
> this point, but obviously not careful enough. Over time, if less money
> is paid by the end consumers, less money is available to pay the
> (rather large) costs of making future records. By all means disagree
> with me, but please disagree with the point I actually made!
Your argument is based on a false premise: that free downloads hurt
sales. People who are into downloads actually buy more CDs that those that
aren't. Furthermore, the disposable income of these (many are students) is
such that they have a "CD budget", which will get spent regardless. What
really bites the majors (and artists such as Metallica, who have profited
nicely from them) is that unlike commercial radio, they have _no_ control
of "airplay", which has largely been what has driven sales for the last
forty years.
>
>
> Note I don't care to enter the hot and muddy waters of a Napster
> debate. I just point out that the day *may* come when nobody finds it
> economic to make the records any more. We may all cheer loudly when the
> evil greedy Raytheon pull out of the pro audio business, but when we've
> finished cheering will we find we needed (whatever it is that Raytheon
> makes) after all?
Missiles, mainly.
>
>
> btw. Anyone wanting to hear the difference between a professionally
> produced record and an amateur one should go to www.mp3.com and listen
> to the non-techno genres. I've even got some amateur stuff on there
> myself.
The MP3 format uses lossy compression, and is inherently inferior to CD.
>
Tony.
Charles A Lieberman
www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<914e75$qrc$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
> It's hard to imagine the print magazine going out of
> business due to, say, online piracy of its content.
No it's not. It just hasn't happened yet (ie prior to it happening to On
Track, if indeed it did).
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "Trying to fit reality to that statement is like
Brooklyn, NY, USA | trying to write a natural history of leprechauns"
No relation. | --Ian York
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
John Francis
The main content of "On Track" was reports on the results of
motorsports events (primarily F1, initally, but later expanded
to cover a far wider range), dates of future events, etc.
Back in the days before the 'net it was next to impossible to
obtain most of this information in any other way.
Nowadays it's trivially easy - almost every racing series,
team, driver, ... have their own websites. You can even get
live timing and scoring from many series.
Apparently not enough people are interested in a hard copy
magazine that arrives two weeks (or more) after the event is
over. I'm disappointed, but not particularly surprised.
Scott Craver
>Scott Craver <sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>John Francis <jfra...@dungeon.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>One of the print magazines I subscribe to ("On Track") is folding.
>>>This is, by and large, attributed to a lack of demand now that most
>>>of the content is available free of charge on the 'net.
>>
>> I'd be really interested in more information here.
[ Thanks for the more information: ]
>The main content of "On Track" was reports on the results of
>motorsports events (primarily F1, initally, but later expanded
>to cover a far wider range), dates of future events, etc.
>Back in the days before the 'net it was next to impossible to
>obtain most of this information in any other way.
>Nowadays it's trivially easy - almost every racing series,
>team, driver, ... have their own websites. You can even get
>live timing and scoring from many series.
Ah. Thus the magazine folded because the kind of
information it provided became available easily for
free, but was not its own copyrighted information.
There are actually numerous examples of this, where
new technology suddenly facilitates what used to be
so difficult that a cottage industry surrounded it.
It is unfortunate when a shifting landscape causes
companies to fold, but this is a ``natural'' process
in a capitalist economy. CDs become popular,
companys who press vinyl LPs either adapt or go out
of business (to provide an example relevant to the
recording industry, yes?)
Not that piracy is a ``natural'' process like this,
of course. But the usual drill in the case of a
shifting landscape is that companies watch closely
and adapt. When the recording industry AA took
legal action against Diamond Multimedia, it was
exactly this principle that was being questioned.
Was the new technology an evolution to which the
industry must adapt, or was the onus upon Diamond
and other MP3 player manufacturers to just cut it
out with these new gadgets?
>Apparently not enough people are interested in a hard copy
>magazine that arrives two weeks (or more) after the event is
>over. I'm disappointed, but not particularly surprised.
In a situation like that, I guess the only thing
for a company to do (other than diversifying)
is taking that data everyone has access to, and
adding value to it in a way that doesn't already
exist. It is unfortunate when hard copy publications
go, because their online counterparts are often
considerably more likely to disappear, and considerably
less accessible after they do so.
-S
Brett Frankenberger
Tony Sweeney <swe...@addr.com> wrote:
>
>Your argument is based on a false premise: that free downloads hurt
>sales.
Disclaimer: I am taking no position on whether or not Napster harms
record comapny revenues. I am only commenting on the statistics you
present below.
>People who are into downloads actually buy more CDs that those that
>aren't.
The fact tht people who download music buy more CDs does *not* imply
that the availability of downloads does not reduce CD sales.
For example, the "download crowd" that buys, say, three times as many
CDs as the rest of the population might be buying 5 times as many CDs as
the the rest of the population, if downloads weren't available.
>Furthermore, the disposable income of these (many are students) is
>such that they have a "CD budget", which will get spent regardless.
Correct, but that doesn't mean that the availability of downloads
doesn't reduce CD purchases. It only means that it doesn't reduce
*everyone's* Cd purchases.
-- Brett
Karen J. Cravens
<916h0...@news1.newsguy.com>:
>The fact tht people who download music buy more CDs does *not* imply
>that the availability of downloads does not reduce CD sales.
>For example, the "download crowd" that buys, say, three times as many
>CDs as the rest of the population might be buying 5 times as many CDs as
>the the rest of the population, if downloads weren't available.
Yeah, but no one seems to be able to pin down hard numbers to those "might
be"'s. I, f'rinstance, am a countercite... there's no radio station in
Wichita (anymore) that plays the sort of eclectic stuff I like. So I can
go down to the lo cal record store and pester the employee with the nose
ring to turn down the heavy metal on the overhead speakers so I can listen
to what little bit they've got in stock (because it's not locally popular
because there's no radio play because it's not locally popular, rinse,
repeat), or I can run around on the Internet and download stuff until I
find something I like, and then I'll go buy it and listen to it through the
big Boses on the Real Stereo instead of the bitty Labtecs on the computer.
It's really hard to put numbers to these things. I mean, I might be the
only person in the world in this situation.
--
Karen "data point of light" Cravens
Miriam Rocke
<snippity doo dah>
:
: It's really hard to put numbers to these things. I mean, I might be the
Y'aren't the only one. I mean, not that I'm in precisely exactly
completely absolutely the same situation -- but I don't buy, like,
random CDs that I don't know, because it's a damn expensive gamble.
Whereas, if I find something I like, I will then go out and get the
CD, because I like CDs a lot better, on the whole, than mp3s played on
my dinky little computer. Case in point, actually, today: someone I
know recommended Dream Theater. Without the internet, I'd go "cool,
whatever" and file DT away in the dark recesses of my memory where it
probably wouldn't see the light of day again. Whereas, in reality, I
downloaded several mp3s, found I actually *did* like them, and they're
now on my Christmas list.
But it *is* hard to put numbers, especially because what people say
they would do, and what people actually *would* do, are different
things entirely. So whereas we could conceivably get a sample of,
say, 95 out of 100 people who buy more CDs if they can listen to stuff
off the internet, we don't know if all hundred people are actually
telling the truth (i.e. whether they *believe* that they would do
that), and don't know if that's what they actually would do if dumped
into a different situation with no warning.
And now I think I have babbled far too much, so I will shut up.
Miriam "Really." Rocke
--
Miriam Rocke "Just so we're clear, you guys
mrr...@ucdavis.edu know you're nuts, right?"
http://handel.cipic.ucdavis.edu/~mrrocke/ --BtVS, "Gingerbread"
Dr H
On 7 Dec 2000, Alec Horgan wrote:
}Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> writes:
}
}> Royalties still need to be
}> paid out for any non-original material performed by the band.
}
}That's an expense borne by the venue, not the
}band, and one they have to pay whether or not
}the acts they bring in are playing all-original
}material.
Granted, but they will find a way to recoup the expense if
possible, perhaps via higher ticket prices.
Dr H
Dr H
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 loft...@my-deja.com wrote:
} Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
}>
}> }then in the future all we will be swapping on Napster will be
}> }scratchy bootlegs made on amateur home-recording equipment.
}>
}> This is a huge fallacy. The same technology which makes Napster
}> possible
}> has advanced home recording light-years beyond where it was even 10
}> years ago. It is now possible to make high-quality digital home
}> recordings
}> on a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, which a decade ago
}> required a multi-million dollar studio.
}
}What you said is the fallacy. Go listen to www.mp3.com to see what
}individual bands home recordings sound like. Some of them are very
}good, some of them are very, very good. But they don't sound as good as
}an average professional CD.
That's a matter of engineering experience and personal taste. To
my ear, most commercial recordings are over-produced to the point
of sterility.
}Anyway, I have a 'home studio'. I started 16 years ago with a very
}expensive 4-track cassette, but today use hard disk and minidisk and
}burn CD-R's. Yes the quality is light years better than 10 years ago
}but it's still light years away from a multi-million dollar studio.
}They spend thousands on a single *microphone*.
Cost of equipment means very little. You can buy a microphone for
$200 now that surpasses in quality anything available for $1500
ten years ago. It's not the equipment, it's knowing how to use
it. The Beatles recorded Sgt. Pepper on a 4-track reel-to-reel.
}It also depends what kind of music. Modern home computer based
}recording really lends itself to any of the techno/electronica genres
}but how about recording a classical orchestra at home?
That's a little beside the point of the discussion thus far. Unless
you're talking about private orchestras touring and selling their
wares over Napster.
}> OK, the sound engineer is lacking, but that is a profession almost
}> universally learned through hands-on experience. Ordinary musicians
}> can acquire these skills through practice.
}
}I think you dismiss the talents of sound engineers and producers too
}lightly. These are highly specific skills, as specific as playing any
}instrument. I have come to this conclusion after many, many years of
}trying to mix my own music. For one thing the time investment is huge -
}non-pro's simply don't get the experience.
I don't dismiss their talents; I just said that those skills can be
acquired by anyone dedicated enough to do it. I've heard more
recordings ruined by engineers than made by them.
}> }Hope I didn't offend anyone, back to the legends, regards,
}>
}> Didn't offend me; I just disagree with some of your position.
}
}I meant hope I didn't offend anyone by being a bit off-topic for afu.
}Disagreement I expect. This is usenet, right? 8*)
You bet. ;-)
Dr H
Alec Horgan
Sure, businesses seek to recoup their expenses,
but the point is it doesn't affect how much
the band makes, at least not any more directly
than any other expense involved in operating a
live-music venue. Paying the ASCAP and BMI
fees is just a part of running that kind of
operation, no different from getting a liquor
license, insurance, or paying the rent and
utilities.
Alec
Dr H
Depends on the rep of the band. Higher ticket prices not
infrequently translate into lower ticket sales.
Dr H