4 ms·

Artists generally don't make money off CD sales anyway, record labels do. The artists make money from doing live shows. The monetization model for the artist

Artists generally don't make money off CD sales anyway, record labels do. The artists make money from doing live shows. The monetization model for the artist is to bypass the record labels, give their music away for free, and build up a fan base who go to their shows to see them live.

williamphipps 17y ago
and this saddens me. what message is this sending out to wannabe musicians hoping to earn a living from their craft? that there is no longer a value in recorded music. most unsigned artists would be lucky to make anything from live shows and many signed artists actually pay to go and support better known acts.
- jcromartie 17y ago
  The money (for artists) in recorded music has always been from royalties. Radio play, commercials, movies, TV shows, video games, etc. are what actually make money. The (professional) musicians I know play gigs for cash, compose for royalties, and record for fun.
- noelchurchill 17y ago
  It's not sad at all! It means technology has enabled the artists to do the recording and production themselves or for very cheaply, and there isn't a need for the big name record label anymore. There IS value in recorded music, just not the need for BigCo music label to get it done.
  - seertaak 17y ago
    All you've pointed out is that the costs of production have fallen. Big deal! It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. Whether or not production costs fall to zero, a musician still needs to eat food. The OP is complaining that in the presence of widespread filesharing the price inevitably falls to zero. This is not some kind of new technological reality that we must accept! It is a reality brought upon by the lack of respect for property rights! If Portobello Road market were not policed, and were known not to be policed, does anyone here seriously doubt that theft would become widespread? Sorry, but people have a tendency of being a bit cheeky if they know they can get away with it (though whats worse is when to the cheek, self-serving rightousness and finger-wagging [evil capitalist labels! evil evil labels!] is added). People keep saying that the crux is that distribution is free in electronic form. That's true, but it's no more relevant that pointing out that the sun that allows an orange tree to grow is free --- it is far from being the only cost. Releasing an album is an expensive business -- it requires a concerted advertising and publicity campaign. These types of campaigns are not cheap. Widespread filesharing decimates potential profits because many of those that otherwise would have the album don't. So it doesn't matter if the filesharer personally "profits" -- he is still harming the artist, because some portion of his disposable income that should have gone to the artist (after all -- the consumer did listen to the music) didn't.
    - noelchurchill 17y ago
      It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. So you agree that musicians are getting screwed by music labels. CD sales have always been a promotional tool to get fans to go to live shows, not a revenue source for the artist (but it's a huge revenue source for the labels). Widespread filesharing decimates potential profits because many of those that otherwise would have the album don't. That's the whole point of embracing file sharing as a method for releasing your music, so that people discover your music who otherwise would never have found it. And don't forget, the musicians don't get profits from CD sales anyway!
      - seertaak 17y ago
        > It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. So you agree that musicians are getting screwed by music labels. Err, no. I don't see how you make that deduction. I would agree that there have been many cases where musicians haven't gotten the best possible bargain, and there are indeed some particularly egregious cases. Still, there is plenty of law (e.g. undue influence) and precedent in place to protect musicians at least from egregiously unfair contracts.
menloparkbum 17y ago
Artists generally don't make money off CD sales anyway, record labels do. This is often repeated but I've never seen a link to the source. Are there statistics somewhere that show this is true?
- noelchurchill 17y ago
  Here is an article from 2000 written by Courtney Love (outlandish woman, i know, but has lots of experience) and she outlines what musicians actually get out of working with a record label. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print....
- jonursenbach 17y ago
  Trent Reznor said he was making 80cents/sale. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/04/trent-reznor-wa/ http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/04/trent-reznor-wa/
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    At several million copies sold, that comes out to quite a bit.
    - jonursenbach 17y ago
      Not really. Reznor profit: 1,000,000 * .80 = 800,000 RIAA profit: 1,000,000 * 18.98 = 18,980,000 4% profit. Fucking chump change to them; and not to mention that _they_ own your music, _not_ you.
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    At several million copies sold, that comes out to quite a bit.

williamphipps 17y ago

and this saddens me. what message is this sending out to wannabe musicians hoping to earn a living from their craft? that there is no longer a value in recorded music. most unsigned artists would be lucky to make anything from live shows and many signed artists actually pay to go and support better known acts.

jcromartie 17y ago
The money (for artists) in recorded music has always been from royalties. Radio play, commercials, movies, TV shows, video games, etc. are what actually make money. The (professional) musicians I know play gigs for cash, compose for royalties, and record for fun.
noelchurchill 17y ago
It's not sad at all! It means technology has enabled the artists to do the recording and production themselves or for very cheaply, and there isn't a need for the big name record label anymore. There IS value in recorded music, just not the need for BigCo music label to get it done.
- seertaak 17y ago
  All you've pointed out is that the costs of production have fallen. Big deal! It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. Whether or not production costs fall to zero, a musician still needs to eat food. The OP is complaining that in the presence of widespread filesharing the price inevitably falls to zero. This is not some kind of new technological reality that we must accept! It is a reality brought upon by the lack of respect for property rights! If Portobello Road market were not policed, and were known not to be policed, does anyone here seriously doubt that theft would become widespread? Sorry, but people have a tendency of being a bit cheeky if they know they can get away with it (though whats worse is when to the cheek, self-serving rightousness and finger-wagging [evil capitalist labels! evil evil labels!] is added). People keep saying that the crux is that distribution is free in electronic form. That's true, but it's no more relevant that pointing out that the sun that allows an orange tree to grow is free --- it is far from being the only cost. Releasing an album is an expensive business -- it requires a concerted advertising and publicity campaign. These types of campaigns are not cheap. Widespread filesharing decimates potential profits because many of those that otherwise would have the album don't. So it doesn't matter if the filesharer personally "profits" -- he is still harming the artist, because some portion of his disposable income that should have gone to the artist (after all -- the consumer did listen to the music) didn't.
  - noelchurchill 17y ago
    It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. So you agree that musicians are getting screwed by music labels. CD sales have always been a promotional tool to get fans to go to live shows, not a revenue source for the artist (but it's a huge revenue source for the labels). Widespread filesharing decimates potential profits because many of those that otherwise would have the album don't. That's the whole point of embracing file sharing as a method for releasing your music, so that people discover your music who otherwise would never have found it. And don't forget, the musicians don't get profits from CD sales anyway!
    - seertaak 17y ago
      > It doesn't matter if production prices fall 50 or 80 percent: if revenues are zero, then the musician is still screwed. So you agree that musicians are getting screwed by music labels. Err, no. I don't see how you make that deduction. I would agree that there have been many cases where musicians haven't gotten the best possible bargain, and there are indeed some particularly egregious cases. Still, there is plenty of law (e.g. undue influence) and precedent in place to protect musicians at least from egregiously unfair contracts.

menloparkbum 17y ago

Artists generally don't make money off CD sales anyway, record labels do. This is often repeated but I've never seen a link to the source. Are there statistics somewhere that show this is true?

noelchurchill 17y ago
Here is an article from 2000 written by Courtney Love (outlandish woman, i know, but has lots of experience) and she outlines what musicians actually get out of working with a record label. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print....
jonursenbach 17y ago
Trent Reznor said he was making 80cents/sale. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/04/trent-reznor-wa/ http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/04/trent-reznor-wa/
- fatdog789 17y ago
  At several million copies sold, that comes out to quite a bit.
  - jonursenbach 17y ago
    Not really. Reznor profit: 1,000,000 * .80 = 800,000 RIAA profit: 1,000,000 * 18.98 = 18,980,000 4% profit. Fucking chump change to them; and not to mention that _they_ own your music, _not_ you.
- fatdog789 17y ago
  At several million copies sold, that comes out to quite a bit.