Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Almighty Buck Entertainment

Recording Deals In The Digital Age 140

Posted by timothy from the deal-me-this dept.
cascadefx writes "There is a really interesting panel wrap-up over at the National Association of Recording Industry Professionals's website. The Incredible Shrinking Profit Margin panel discussion looks like it included some interesting discussion into the deals that are made with performers now that the rules have changed. These notes offer interesting (perhaps hopeful) business predictions about Britney Spears' career as well as answering the (new)-age-old question about just how much an artist makes off of an iTunes download. Check it out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Recording Deals In The Digital Age More

Recording Deals In The Digital Age

Comments Filter:

  • Question is (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dosius ( 230542 ) <bridget@buric.co> on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:41PM (#10281061) Journal
    Why sell through the system at all anymore?

    FP?

    • Because (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:44PM (#10281081) Homepage
      If you sell through the system, talent is optional.

      If you sell outside the system, though, you have to succeed on your own merits.

      • Re:Because (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fermion ( 181285 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:04PM (#10281234) Homepage Journal
        Lets be fair. There are thousands of highly talented people out there. In the group that I run in, which is admittedly an artistic bunch, there are potential boy bands, folk trios, rock combos, rappers, 2D and 3D visual artists, performance artists, actors, writes, etc. All plenty talented to meet any local requirements, and possibly national requirements. Some are and have received limited success on their own merits.

        But to be a national act or international act, which is what the labels want, there has to be more. The act has to compete with the cheaper local stuff. The act has to have a basis to make the large newspaper and magazines. The act has to have a hook that can be spun and promoted and manipulated. The act has to want to be that famous so that it will make the artistic compromises.

        It is true that the compromises for a pop artist, to those of us that evaluate on artistic merit, are particularly gruesome. But I think all successful artists make these compromises. I often wonder if the music in a classical symphony enjoys playing the overture for Swan Lake for the millionth time in the exact same way. It probably does not matter as long as the rent gets paid.

        Ultimately pop music sells, so they must be doing something right. When classical was pop the reviews predicted the end of the art form. IIRC, the composers were called uncreative and barbarians. Spears has some cool stuff. She was nowhere near as creative as Madonna, and hopefully she spells the end of that particular formula, but if we are open we see that it is not as awful as we once thought.

        • I just got an XM radio and have been looking up biographies of the bands I have been listening to from the 1980s and 1990s. Invariably they talk about "getting a record deal" or "signed with a label".

          What exactly does this mean? Who gets what and who is obligated to do what? Why were they so eager? This is the old model, of course.

          A post farther down here states that support staff don't get their cut if you download off iTunes Music Store and similar under the new model, so maybe some insight there would
          • Artists need the channels that a label can offer, mainly distribution.

            I know that my band is currently looking into things of this nature right now, and let me tell you, it's hard to get your stuff into stores right now. There is such a fierce competition for the dollars of the consumer, and a label seems like an amazing avenue to make things happen.
            • As someone in the DMS business, let me tell you that it is *much* easier to deal directly with labels and/or content aggregators (CDBaby, the Orchard, etc...) than it is with hundreds and thousands of individual artists. First of all, dealing with labels/aggregators means a single point of contact. It also means one check to be sent out. Finally, it means that I do not have to worry about royalties being paid to the artists... that is up to the labels/aggregators. It makes my life easier.

              That being said, i

    • Re:Question is (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Amiga Lover ( 708890 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:47PM (#10281118)
      > Why sell through the system at all anymore?

      Because you don't have a huge marketing machine behind you.

      Alright, that's only relevant to those artists who NEED a huge marketing machine behind them. There are plenty, PLENTY of good solid music producing people who can succeed on their own merits, given good enough distribution.

      • Re:Question is (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lavar78 ( 573962 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:58PM (#10281191)
        Alright, that's only relevant to those artists who NEED a huge marketing machine behind them. There are plenty, PLENTY of good solid music producing people who can succeed on their own merits, given good enough distribution.
        But the problem is getting good enough distribution without the huge marketing machine.
        • We're on shlashdot, allow me the arrogance?!

          You are stating it wrong.

          => But the problem organizing on one's own merrits enough sales, without the huge maketing machine, to be able to get decent distribution , so to no longer have to worry about distribution .

        • Re:Question is (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dirtside ( 91468 )
          But the problem is getting good enough distribution without the huge marketing machine.
          That's what the Internet is for.

      • Re:Question is (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        True, but they don't make as much as they would with larger companies behind them. There are some bands behind very small record labels that get popular completely through word of mouth, but they don't get THAT popular. I'm not saying EVERYONE would like them if they heard them, but more people than the amount needed for a song to be played 5000 times a day on the radio. Some examples: Something Corporate, The Starting Line, Copeland, Hidden in Plain View, Fall Out Boy, The Early November, Brand New, and
        • And they all have more talent than Britney Spears.

          But that's not really saying much...



          (Really, but I've heard all of those bands and I agree that they are very good... Although I have to wonder if they're not that popular because they don't play the right style of music.)
          • >>And they all have more talent than Britney Spears.

            I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from we call what she has talent. Now her voice, that's a totally different question!

    • Re:Question is (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because the system is so embedded it's all people know, and people work subconsciously for the system. A friend of mine who produces his own electronica used to distribute it via his webpage through his ISP. (iinet, in australia). Twice they pulled his account due to complaints about his offering copyrighted works. No explanation was given as to the nature of the complaints; not whether it was from people who claimed to be the true copyright holder, or just from mischievous people feeling good about "dobbin

    • Re:Question is (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why sell through the system at all anymore?

      We all know that the old saw "build a better moustrap and the world will beat a path to your door" is a load of crap. Nothing sells without Marketing and the best product is often buried by dreck because the dreck has better marketing.

      Linux only got traction beyond geek hobiests when there were companies (RedHat, IBM etc.) marketing it.

      It amazes me that folks that can realize that fact for the computer industry think that all a performer needs to be succes

    • How about the Prince Model (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:25PM (#10281347)


      Reading an article recently on Prince's sales model. He makes $7.50 for each $10 CD. He controls distribution, handling advertising everything. If you've noticed the bill board charts lately his latest CD is doing well. My GF is a member of his sight where she can hang with other fanatics, or famatics as they call themselves. Prince has even managed to circumvent Ticketmaster to an extent. He sells a percentage of the floor seats through his site directly to his fans. I think everyone will agree that he is also the opposing force to any manufactured talent out there.

      • Re:How about the Prince Model (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:46PM (#10282232)
        The only problem is, that the Prince name itself has a huge value when it comes to (self)promotion, including fan base, existing connections and just in "brand recognition". I would say, it could worth easily a 7 figure. This is exactly the very similar marketing power the big labels use to promote their favourites. Not to mention, that Prince made enough money previously to self finance his next project.

        Now, how does a no name garage band, with no capital compares to this?
      • Prince's sales model includes something most unknown artists don't have -- a (mostly) sold out tour. Prince hands out a copy of his latest CD at the door and counts each concert ticket sold as a sale for his CD. If you don't count people who've been to a concert, his sales haven't been that good. How's an unknown supposed to make that work when (by definition) they're not able to sell out large venues? Prince couldn't have built his reputation this way, he's only able to capitalize on his existing reputa

  • Brintey Spears' Career? (Score:5, Funny)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:42PM (#10281068) Journal
    Is she going into pr0n? At least in that case, if she opens her mouth, it'll be for a good reason!
    • Many bad people behave only because they fear punishment if they get cought.

      Yes I know this is off topic, mod me down anyway.
    • Is she going into pr0n? At least in that case, if she opens her mouth, it'll be for a good reason!
      Even if she's opening her mouth for the aforementioned, er, "good reason," I don't think we can take the risk that she might actually say something instead, thus causing a total cockblock meltdown. I'm just sayin'.

  • share croppers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by loid_void ( 740416 ) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:45PM (#10281088) Journal
    Artists have always been share croppers for the man (record co's.. iTunes is the beginning of change. Artists, with guts, can make their deals direct with the new distribution channels, and they should, especially, anyone with a name that has a contract up for renewal.
    • Makes sense, with only one problem: getting lots of distribution through the new channel, without the huge marketing resources of the major labels. For the most part, talent should take care of this, and then let survival of the fittest take over.

      For the most part. Not always. So, it would seem that going indie is a great possibility for established bands nearing the end of their current contract, and I would suggest that any established band with a contract should consider it.

      They Might Be Giants has g
      • Yes, the labels are marketers for the biggest acts, and pay-ola still exists at the radio level, but the bands, whether it was The Beatles or, eh hem, Britney Spears, have always had to "hit the road" to build the audience. It will be intersting to see what comes out of it all. Linkin Park has a huge following and besides touring, they have used their web site as an incredible marketing tool, and many new acts are finding their way to the fans through the Internet. If video killed the radio star, then perha
    • Sharecroppers is a pretty good term, but indentured servant almost applies, since many artists end up owing the label money, with their work tied up legally so they can't rerecord it, and sometimes contracts they can't escape from. Most artists don't earn jack from the record label (even fairly big and well known artists). If something gets a lot of airplay (or clubplay, or anything that BMI/ASCAP collect money for), they may get some money from publishing, but even that's iffy for a lot of artists who ha

  • No web site (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    narip.com is /.ed even before the first post?

    Anyone has a cache?

  • All Hail the Great Predictor (Score:5, Funny)

    by cephyn ( 461066 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:45PM (#10281093) Homepage
    The prediction about Britney's career?

    "Britney Spears' career, as a pop artist, is over."

    Wow. That's some Insightful commentary. I mean, backing up a statement like that with support and facts and information is cool and all, but just one hopeful sentence like that is even COOLER.

    I'm going start predicting stuff like that. Hey, I predict that computer games will be different in the future.

    • Re:All Hail the Great Predictor (Score:4, Funny)

      by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:47PM (#10281113) Homepage Journal
      I'm going start predicting stuff like that. Hey, I predict that computer games will be different in the future.

      I'm predicting computer games will be the same in the future. Hail Doom MCMXVIII!
    • Britney, no matter what you think, will suprise them all and having someone at that Assc. make predictions is no better than a prediction from a 5 dollar card reader, and what a shitty site..., oh, I have a prediction, it crashes any second, 1,2,3...
    • Britney's carrer as an aritst I don't think is over... but her ability to produce a #1 "pop" hit is something she'll likely never regain.

      There's a point beyond "cool" called "worn out"... and pop artists of all kinds have to avoid going there. Once you hit that point, you've made all the money you're really going to make and hopefully have the financial planning done so that you can live the rest of your life with break-even art the rest of the time.

  • There's A Hope? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:45PM (#10281095) Homepage Journal
    "Britney Spears as a pop artist is over."

    It isn't Britney Spears I fear, but what comes after her. Seems to me that each iteration of manufactured talent is more sickening than the last. (One reason I don't watch American Idol, which seeks out the next 'talent' that fits the cookie cutter.)

    But consider that much of Spears' success was the performance. Sing, dance, strut about the stage, before spending the next few decades going from one failed relationship and addiction to the next until appearing on Good Morning America and announcing she's cleaned up, totally focused on life and ready for a comeback (no, not as a signer, but the next president.) Music downloads don't leave much room for performance, unless you plan to watchs someone frolic about on that miniscule screen on your cellphone. Admittedly, some acts have never had a top-ten song or little chart success anyway, but have enormous cult-like followings (i.e. Jimmy Buffet, are you a parrot head? ;-) and without enough curiousity or word-of-mouth, will people attend shows?

    • Re:There's A Hope? (Score:5, Funny)

      by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:46PM (#10281109)
      Sing, dance, strut about the stage

      Sing?
      • Ob MST3K ref:

        "Strut, pout, put it out, that's what you want from granma."
      • Very good point. She lip-syncs. Any wonder why she can't perform if there's no electricity, or in a tiny venue? Strange that she can cavort around stage exercising and sweating, but she never ever sounds out of breath.

        Similarly, Shania Twain a couple of Superbowls ago. She was clapping her hand to the music, against the wrist of the hand holding the microphone. Funny, though, the sound of her clapping didn't come through. Sure could hear the music & voice, though.

        • Re: Not funny. Insightful. (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Actually, all Super Bowl halftime acts go pre-recorded, not just Shania Twain. Most artists agree with the network that the potential for error and embarassment is too great when you're performing for literally a BILLION people.

          Sub-trivia: Want to guess the one exception to this rule? U2. When they performed a couple of years ago, they threatened to walk if they couldn't do it live on the spot. Pretty cool, if you ask me.
      • Sing?

        Dance?

    • On Britney Spears (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @08:18PM (#10282076)
      Do please believe me: the last thing I am is a Britney Spears fan. I couldn't even remember a tune from her.

      But to get things straight: She's been professionally singing and performing in Musicals on Broadway since about the age of 10. _professionally_, _singing_, _performing_, _age of 10_. Get it?
      The age when us kind was gaming on atari or SNES and was at least 3 years away from even doing our first lines of basic. She's a performer and an entertainer, and, believe it or not, she's damn good at it. With the support of an uber-patient mother and father she's worked herself up from that girl next door to somebody who's got a licence to print money. 'Tell you what: Go eat your hearts out.

      Bottom Line: I'd suggest the slashdot crowd quit babbling on stuff they can't summon the slightest shade of competence on (popular stage performance and entertainment) and go back to comparing sendmail and postfix. After all, that's what we're actually good at.
      Thank you.

  • Since it's slashdotted... (Score:5, Informative)

    by notyou2 ( 202944 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:47PM (#10281112) Homepage
    Obligatory google cache [66.102.7.104].

  • Another interesting resource... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:50PM (#10281132) Homepage Journal
    I happened across Frontline: the way the music died [pbs.org] the other night (PBS program watchable online in low or high bandwidth.)

    Good stuff -- they interview record execs and former/current/hopeful musicians and explain the sorts of problems the industry is facing. While people stealing music online is a factor, lesser-known factors are also discussed including the fact that sales figures may be sinking because people are finished replacing their record collections with CDs.

  • Changing industry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sefert ( 723060 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:54PM (#10281162)
    The music industry is changing, along with the movie industry. Distribution channels are changing, and as such the method of getting your margin is going to change too. The RIAA's job of seeming to try and protect what is soon to be an outdated distribution scheme is pointless for the long term, and irritating for the short. A slimmer profit margin is no big deal, when you consider that it's not a few hundred companies trying to support their insfrastructure, but rather a half dozen online firms supporting theirs. Let's not forget that online distributors will never get caught with extra inventory. It's hard to run out of warehouse space. They have to worry less about shipments. In short, thinner margins that are consistent fit the business model. It's nothing to whine about, though of course the RIAA always has to find some large stick to shove in the wrong place.
    • I don't think the distribution is such a big part of the cartel's leverage anymore. With an ever-expanding amount of choices available to the average consumer, the important thing now is the money for advertising and promotion. How do acts that sign strictly with iTunes get their name into the public conciousness? The cartel brings that money and promotional power to the table.
      • Touche - but this cash always has to come out of sales. Ultimately, isn't ITunes and crowd going to control the marketing (at least the online portion of it)? Cartels still have the power to promote, but it's hard to promote an individual album - and concert promoters are generally happy to do little better than break even. Distribution was easy money - sell 1 million albums - make 4 bucks off each album. With the distribution gone, who will now pay the cartels to promote and advertise? They have no
        • Well, for the most part I think that sales follow promotion. That is, the industry will generally keep to its sales figures if it follows the same promotional model. It's not that I believe that iTunes is not cool or not a good step in the right direction, because they are both those things. I just don't think that iTunes, or even the current online sales model alone, is a sea change to the entire record industry.
    • Distribution is not changing. At least not yet for the majority of the world. OK, you, the uber-geek Slashdot reader can go out and download whatever you want and faithfully are ready and waiting with credit card in hand to purchase music online.

      What about the rest of the world?

      • Broadband is up to around 60% penetration in the US, up from 53% recently. What about the rest of the world? It varies. The US isn't necessarily the highest penetration, but other large-population countries I believe are signif
      • I gotta disagree. Although you're right that it's early in the game, I think that it's coming sooner than you think. Take movies, by example. Up here in Canada a couple of our big cable providers are already providing movies on demand - movies that you can pause, rewind, etc. Companies like Blockbuster video are suffering serious losses as a result, and when the cable companies can start providing a selection as large as the video store, which is likely within the next two or three years, the retail v

  • Seems to be more of the same tripe... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:57PM (#10281189) Homepage Journal
    They say that their core buyers aren't buying. IIRC, every year, the recording industry beats inflation in terms of revenue and profit growth but they keep saying that they are going down the drain. And now this recording professionals group seems to be parroting the same line. That is one drain I'd like to go down.

    I'm not saying file sharing is necessarily good for them but it seems to be a case where they are trying to get enough people to say they are losing money often enough such that everyone believes them even if the facts are the opposite.
  • .... thats not good enough!!!!!

    It can be done much better.

    Lets face it, a sales person gets at best 30%... Typically 10-15%

    Why should it be any different here?

    Because the sales person can be automated.

  • Bad deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:02PM (#10281217)
    EA (Electronic Arts) will clear 60 masters, then use just 15 songs in a game, all at low rates. And they want to pay these low rates on a buyout basis, with no share of revenue, no points, and no step-deals.

    That's nice. I'd like a convertible with bucket seats and a six-speaker audio system. "They want" "They want" "They want" It's nonsense.

    Here's the product. Here's the price, LICENSED for a limited period in a specific market excluding all others. 15% advance in TALL LONG GREEN CASH DOLLARS WALKIN' DOWN THE BOULEFUCKINGVARD starting day one with a double-the-rate step up when the clouds part. Two minutes and we fold up the card table. Here's a pen.

    Artists own 100% before they sign the deal. The best way to make a good deal is not to make a bad deal.

    Phone companies take 50% of all downloads

    Only if the artists agree.

    "The phone could replace the iPod

    Everyone wants to be Apple.

    • Re:Bad deal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:33PM (#10281423) Homepage
      Fair enough. But then again, maybe there's a distinction to be made between music that is produced as art and music that's produced as product.

      A friend of mine was approached by Electronic Arts to record maybe a couple dozen songs for a Sims expansion and The Sims 2, at a rate of $1,000 per song (buyout, as cited -- all rights included). He accomplished this, with the help of a few local musicians that he paid very little, in roughly 48 hours of studio time. He did it as product; nothing more, nothing less. As far as he's concerned, he got a pretty good deal.

      Now, this case is sort of an exception, because all of the lyrics to the songs have to be in Simlish. Pretty hard to find a market for that outside the franchise. But even if that weren't the case, is he really screwing himself, in your estimation?

      As a magazine editor, I regularly publish lots of work by authors who give up all rights to the material they produce. Very few of them have ever come back looking to reclaim those articles. They did that writing for money, just like my friend recorded those songs for money. And I've done the same, and I don't really regret it.

      Seems to me this notion of artists licensing their work to labels is just some kind of backlash to all this talk you hear about corporations wanting consumers to "license" their software and recordings. The way the corporation wants it, you never buy a CD, you license it. You never buy a disc of software, you license it. That sucks. So, great -- is the solution really for individuals to start acting like corporations?

      Whatever happened to getting hired to do a job and doing it, or producing a product and selling it, getting paid, and moving on to the next thing with the satisfaction of being an ethical businessman?
      • But even if that weren't the case, is he really screwing himself, in your estimation?

        Well, the Sims grossed about $325 million. Two dozen songs at $1000 each is $24,000. That's pretty thin for a nine-figure gross.

        They did that writing for money, just like my friend recorded those songs for money. And I've done the same, and I don't really regret it.

        Yeah, if it's a work for hire, that's one thing. But an author owns their work under copyright law. It really should be up to them and they should un

      • Now, this case is sort of an exception, because all of the lyrics to the songs have to be in Simlish. Pretty hard to find a market for that outside the franchise.

        Or with one of the music game companies. Players of Konami's Dance Dance Revolution series, for instance, frankly don't give a flying if they can't understand a song's lyrics. They just want a beat so they can step on arrows. Does EA make music games?

      • The difference is that Music artist/novelists write the music/novels intending to use their constitutional "right" to copyright protection and royalties. They are just looking for somebody to market their stuff the way Toys-r-US markets action figures. The issue is that somewhere along the line the publishers figured out they could hire a zillion people to work on a project and call it "work for hire" there by cutting out any one or two individuals from any direct profits...

        There are many differences bet

      • Choice...

        If I want Windows, I have to buy it (in some way, shape or form) from Microsoft. If Microsoft wants some background music, they have any number of artists to choose from. Its about who wants what. Consumers want a very particular item, the corporation wants a generic item. Wanting something very specific limits your power in negotiations, and if the other side can walk away and look for other opportunities, you're pretty much stuck.

  • The Price IS Right! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ngkdc ( 810481 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:02PM (#10281223)
    They just don't get it ... do they? They charged admission to hear this great theory of business. Oh, and you can get a CD of the proceedings ... for $20. Quite accurately, they pointed out that their target audience just isn't buying records anymore. Oh the shock and horror of it all! Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results -- according to Einstein. Maybe that's it ... that's the answer ... the recording cartel (let's not pretend that it's an industry) is collectively insane. That's a much kinder, gentler (though less accurate) view than to say that the recording cartel is stupid and clueless. Even though I'm outside their demographics (no, I'm not at the low end!), I'll continue to buy music I like ... from the artist directly.

  • On Spears and the record labels. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:04PM (#10281232)
    If everyone shares the general opinion that people like Ms Sears and the rest of the crap spewed by the record labels isn't worth paying for, then who is doing the buying? I hate to break it to you, but there just isn't that much baby sitting money going around for the CDs to be purchased by pre-teens. Spears, Backstreet Boys etc SELL! Thats why they exist. Whats more, saying that the music is crap so they shouldn't get mad when I download it is basackwards. If its crap, there should be zero piracy. Why would you want to download it? If music is worth the download, its worth the 15$ for the CD. Everyone proclaiming the music to be bad seems to just be trying to come up with a reason to justify their disregard for the work of others.

    That having been said, I think the music is crap. But you wont catch me downloading it. For music I like, the cost of the CD is nothing VS the amount of enjoyment I get from it.

    • If music is worth the download, its worth the 15$ for the CD

      Er... no. If it's worth the download for free, it might be worth some amount of money. It might be worth the $0.99 for the iTunes download (or whatever they raised it to). It might be worth $5 for the used CD. But just because the recording industry decided they make the most money by charging $15 for a CD doesn't mean it's gonna be worth $15 to everyone.

    • If music is worth the download, its worth the 15$ for the CD.

      Um ... not just no, but hell no. There's a HUGE difference between paying $0 (the case in downloading) and paying $15 and going through the hassle of making MP3's (the case in CD-buying).

      My point? People who're willing to listen to crap music for free are not necessarily willing to buy crap music for $15.
    • I don't think you have taken into account that most cd's from even great artist only have a few good songs and a bunch of bad songs. So with that in mind I will have payed $17.99 plus tax and drove to the store so I could listen to 3 good songs. I could download it for free or pay $3 for three tracks. Seems like a good deal, but it's a bad deal for the artist either way. This is a new distribution model too. No time flat they will change it and in some way or form it's going to screw the consumer. And
    • general opinion that people like Ms Sears
      Oh no, Britnney has gone that far done the crapper that she is now Bob Villa's bitch?

  • Buying music online = ripping off support staff (Score:5, Interesting)

    by killbill! ( 154539 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:09PM (#10281259) Homepage
    Slightly offtopic since this is not mentioned in the article at all, but since we're talking about recording deals...

    Don't buy music from sites like the iTMS or Napster. Ever. According to this article [macbidouille.com] French Apple enthusiast site Mac Bidouille [macbidouille.com], support personel (eg dancers, clip director, sound techs etc) are not getting their cut from legal online sales.
    The reason? Record labels are unwilling to change their contracts, which ties royalties to the sales of physical media, not the song itself. That's outrageous. That's outright theft, pure and simple.

    (Article is in French. Grab a translation here [killbill.org].)


    Support the little guys. Download your albums off Suprnova NOW! ;p

    • Re:Buying music online = ripping off support staff (Score:5, Informative)

      by bhny ( 97647 ) <bh AT usa DOT net> on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:44PM (#10281498) Homepage
      dancers, clip directors, sound techs have never got any money from music sales.
      • I think the article he links to is actually talking about the producer. I don't see any references to dancers in it, and from the description of an art director, that sounds like a producer. It also says that the artists don't get paid royalties from internet sales. While it may not be illegal, it is certainly evil.
      • Just to clarify... in France they do.

        French copyright law is slightly different from UK/US copyright law. Its basis is not "copyright" (the right to copy), but "droits d'auteur" ("author rights"). It does not revolve about control of the work, but rather around making sure authors get fair compensation.

        Under French copyright law, sound techs (in post-production), dancers, clip directors are considered as co-authors, as much as the songwriter, musicians or the main performer, and thus get a cut from sales.
    • Hmmm, why is someone trying to protect the identity of this "evil" label in this article? Why was the label's name edited out? This article and claim is very fishy, and therefore I give it zero weight.

      In any case, if true, it sounds like someone stupidly agreed to a bad contract. ALWAYS get a lawyer before agreeing to a new contract. They're there to protect YOUR rights. Don't pay attention to people who say that you don't need one, or that they're evil. COVER YOU BUTT.

      IANAL.

    • You know, when I buy music I like to imagine that DANCERS are not getting me money, mainly because I cannot SEE them.

      Perhaps (and only perhaps) I could see them getting a cut of video sales. But even then I'm iiffy on it They are hired to do a job. They don't have to dance.

      Why should everyone get a percentage instead of just a payment? I'm technical myself but I think there are very few people in the chain that really deserve a cut for every album sold. If a local band records a demo in a rented stud

  • What do you mean, *only* ten percent? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Angst Badger ( 8636 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:32PM (#10281411)
    Don't get me wrong -- I have great sympathy for musicians, other artists, and everyone else trying to get their fair share, but I can tell you that my salary as a programmer would be in the high six digits if I was paid 10% of the revenue my software generates for my employer. The artists' percentage alone is not really cause for much sympathy.

    What is royally fucked is the fact that artists could command much higher percentages if the music industry wasn't dominated by a cartel with the aid and abettance of easily-purchased legislators.
    • What is royally fucked is the fact that artists could command much higher percentages if the music industry wasn't dominated by a cartel

      And the labels took a big chunk of any money customers paid for a record.

      It was a deal with the devil.

      The major record labels were just a bank to finance the artists' distribution & marketing, a specialized bank for artists and musicians but just a bank nonetheless. The artists might as well go to a Credit Union--they've got much lower rates I hear. hehehehe

  • "CDs of program available: $20."

    Score: +17, Still-don't-get-it

  • CD of the discussion (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @07:07PM (#10281615)
    Can I get this on Kazaa?
  • The article states:

    In addition, the NARIP-supplied "iTunes Artist-Producer Royalty Calculation" sheet was fascinating because it answers the question all artists on iTunes keep asking: "How much of a 99-cent download do I get to keep?" While indie artists do better, for major label artists, Apple collects 34 cents, the label keeps 55 cents, and the artist gets a dime.

    Ah yes, a dime. Some things never change.

    And this shows exactly why Apple isn't a friend to the musician. IF they were , they would allo

    • Re:A lousy dime. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pknoll ( 215959 )
      Yes, they all take their cut. Because printing, advertisement, research, distribution, promotion, transportation, development, bandwidth, storage, administration, and a million other things along the way (depending on whether you're Apple or MCA or a record store or a truck driver) all cost money.

      I know musicians who are in the self-publishing space. They don't have labels, or promoters, or any of that stuff, and they're not on iTunes. So, not only are their choices for distribution more limited, but wh

    • Despite the silly name, CDBaby rocks balls. I've ordered a number of amazing indie discs from them (The Big Creak's "Just Left Town" [cdbaby.com] comes to mind) and they've always been inexpensive, friendly, and rediculously fast. I mean like ordered on Monday and the disc arrived on Tuesday type stuff. They're a model for all other music distributors.

  • Most of you all have seen the cartoon of a tree swing made by committee. (?)

    http://www.businessballs.com/treeswing.htm

    It reminds me of the record business.

    Seriously, some of the talent scouts really CAN tell what's really good just by listening (some got the job from their uncle/auntie).
    That's where the trouble starts, no one can make a decision-much less a decent pitch without invoking the gods of pop for comparison.
    The reason no one is buying is because they're picking stinkers.

    Example:
    Bonnie Raitt's
  • Did Timothy actually read the article before greenlighting this?

    post: interesting (perhaps hopeful) business predictions about Britney Spears' career.

    article: Britney Spears as a pop artist is over.

    That's interesting? That's even a prediction?

    This article is a mixture of record company jargon -- "step deals... EA will clear 60 masters... buyout basis..." -- and outright bullshit -- "There is new music coming, real diversity of music, and it will be a rebirth of the record industry."

    What a waste of sp

Slashdot Top Deals

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Close