From: Bill Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:49:44 MDT
I have to wonder why I am replying in this thread. I suppose it's
because I can easily show you where some of your misinformation is
located without wasting more than a minute or two of my time. Though I
am willing to bet this goes in one ear and out the other.
I suppose I will just point out where you are wrong on this. Suffice it
to say that there is not a correct statment except possibly the math,
which I did not check, in relation to the following paragraphs.
"still, on the other hand, the average band that just got signed to a label
has to sell on average roughly half a million (500, 000) CDs, Tapes, Etc...to merely brake even. the band pays for studio time, production, concerts, music videos, a good portion of travel, distribution...they pay for that themselves (making one wonder why a label is needed if they [the band] do the dirty work themselves...) money from sales, royalties, etc...go to the recording label, the producers, the representatives, etc...and on average from a $15 (US$) CD, the band will make $1, to be split between the band members.
so you have four band members (US$0.25 per CD sold apiece), and about 500k CDs sold...[yay! i can do basic math! watch...] that's 125K per person in a four piece band, or 500K collectively. now....production of US$0.50/CD (that includes the cover art, recording the music onto the cd, disc art, etc...for a final product). now if the band produces only an initial 500K CDs, hoping merely to break even, that still comes out to $1 million [in cost]...
if the initial demographics for the band are appeasing to the industry Big Wigs, they'll usually pay the difference, and appropriate the revenue that was supposed to go to the band (payment for the comp), as well as raise the retail price of the CD [raising the retail from usually 10% - 25%]...if there is a remander in the overall revenue (after the amounts are sliced and fed to the appropriate respective heads), that remainder (usually pitifully small and meager) goes to the band, finally split between the four (not including the managerial cut) as their final profiet (if there was one to begin with)"
You are wrong on who pays for studio time, production and music videos or distribution.
You are wrong about where the money goes as well - you seem to have just lumped them together in the form of "money to the record company".
You completely ignore the main sources of a musician's income. hint - it is not CD sales! In fact, CD sales, unless you are someone like Madonna or the Stones, play a tiny part to completely indignificant part. We all knew when signing our contracts that the money wouldn't come from CD's, and even plotted ways to take over more of the production and distribution (a mistake - as distributers are near-impossible to deal with without label backing).
My guess is that whoever originally strated spreading this misinformation has zero actual experience in the field and ahs spent too much time reading from others with the same level of experience - none. The blind leading the blind.
I'm not going to go into the detail for you guys, as you are still trying to figure out that the "wheel is round" so to say. I just have to wonder who would give out such poor info and then who would be sucker enough to believe it. Anyone willing to believe the paragraphs I quoted, is going into the discussion completely ill prepared and with false information. Anyone person that made the statements listed in the quoted paragraphs at an industry gathering would look quite the fool. It's my advise that you actually speak to pros aside from a "knownothing" like me. (an electronic or punk musician with no main stream appeal are NOT the people to be talking to as they are very far from the actual business end of music - and usually idealistic dreamers to boot - as in they think their product is far more valuable than it is). Letting musicians that were in the Sex Pistols, or any other non-selling band give industry tips and advise is like asking a ditch digger to explain the science of geology.
I typed this fast without error checking - sry in advance for typos or grammar errors.
A final relevant song:
Gimme Some Money
By Spinal Tap
Stop wastin my time
You know what I want
You know what I need
Or maybe you don't
Do I have to come right flat out and tell you everything
Gimme some money, gimme some money
I'm no-bodies fool
I'm no-bodies clown
I'm treating you cool
I'm putting you down
But baby I dont intend to leave empty handed
Gimme some money, gimme some money
oh yea!
Don't get me wrong
Try getting me right
You're face is ok
But your purse is too tight
I'm looking for pound notes, loose change, bad checks, anything
Gimme some money, gimme some money
athe nonrex wrote:
>you know...it's all rather funny and amusing...
>
>i personally use a few p2p networks....
>
>i found this particular part amusing though:
>
><snip>
>
>
>Prime example of a practically perfect person
>
>View Profile WWW Instant Message (Offline)
>Re:The law and what might have been
>« Reply #12 on: 2003-07-17 10:39:34 » Reply with quote
>New Bill Seeks Prison Time for File Swappers
>Source: dc.internet.com
>Authors: Roy Mark
>Dated: 2003-07-17
>
>Legislation to make illegal file swapping a felony was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday by John Conyers (D.-Mich.) and Howard Berman (D.-Calif.).
>
>The bill carries penalties of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for uploading a copyrighted file to a peer-to-peer (P2P) network.
>
><snip>
>
>i've never been aware of being able to "upload " to the p2p network itself. i was more under the impression that people downloaded from other people VIA the network. i should like to find some information on exactly what p2p allows you to store the music on the network, and not your own computer...it would greatly decrease my downloading time, as people would not be downloading from me personally and i would not have *my* bandwidth stretched.
>
>aside from my semantical rant in the key of Tangent Minor, the issue of MP3's, while undeniably over-exaggerated and rather exaserbated, even dramatically torrid like a romance novel (i call 'em cheap housewife porn), the issue does remain...
>
>it is fairly cut in half, too. on the one hand yes, it is music, music is indeed art. you don't charge someone to look at a painting (normally), or to view a inner-city mural dipicting cultural diversity and communal unity.
>
>*a bit of recording industry background*
>
>still, on the other hand, the average band that just got signed to a label
>has to sell on average roughly half a million (500, 000) CDs, Tapes, Etc...to merely brake even. the band pays for studio time, production, concerts, music videos, a good portion of travel, distribution...they pay for that themselves (making one wonder why a label is needed if they [the band] do the dirty work themselves...) money from sales, royalties, etc...go to the recording label, the producers, the representatives, etc...and on average from a $15 (US$) CD, the band will make $1, to be split between the band members.
>
>so you have four band members (US$0.25 per CD sold apiece), and about 500k CDs sold...[yay! i can do basic math! watch...] that's 125K per person in a four piece band, or 500K collectively. now....production of US$0.50/CD (that includes the cover art, recording the music onto the cd, disc art, etc...for a final product). now if the band produces only an initial 500K CDs, hoping merely to break even, that still comes out to $1 million [in cost]...
>
>if the initial demographics for the band are appeasing to the industry Big Wigs, they'll usually pay the difference, and appropriate the revenue that was supposed to go to the band (payment for the comp), as well as raise the retail price of the CD [raising the retail from usually 10% - 25%]...if there is a remander in the overall revenue (after the amounts are sliced and fed to the appropriate respective heads), that remainder (usually pitifully small and meager) goes to the band, finally split between the four (not including the managerial cut) as their final profiet (if there was one to begin with).
>
>and this is the best case senario if the band gets signed, does the bare minimum in production, and the record execs don't screw the band over completely (which is almost stadard practice to the point of being an unofficial rule for the industry).
>
>we may very well be seeing one of two things here:
>
> (1) possibly a sort of industrial darwinianism, where natural selection applies to types of music, as well as individual bands, possibly even to recording labels as a whole. this is not a new concept of even a revelation of any sort.
>
> (2) possibly the decline of an entire industry. (in another post i'm commencing in just a few moments after i finish this one, called "jobs and human history as a whole," there are a few related themes you may be interested in if you like this so far...)
>
>we could also be seeing any number of other things happening, but these two seem relatively more likely to me for whatever reasons...
>
>
>leaving you now, with regards to this thread (for now at least)....
>
>-mo cara,
>athenonrex
>
>
>
>----
>This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28770>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
>
>
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind Bill Roh --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:48:01 MDT