Album Prices should drop to 1 ...

[f.sciarrillo]

This is a cool article ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11547279

[moxham123]

A British pound would be about $1.60 U.S.; so, according to the article, if we could get an entire album for less than $2, the economies of scale would increase profits based on exponentially more purchases and also drive concert and merchandise sales and profits for the artists as well. In the perfect world, that would be great and I can see how it can work to an extent and people would be more likely to buy an entire album than donwload songs for $1 each. However, recording piracy is another topic that the article hopes to see decline if this approach was in place but piracy seems to be here for a long time.

[moxham123]

A rebuttal to the original article.

Music Is Worthless
http://www.stevelawson.net/2010/10/music-is-worthless/

[f.sciarrillo]

I was talking to another person about this the other day. What I think is that music cd should be free - The artists can then make money from the concerts and merchandising ..

If you look at the way the record companies screw the artist, giving the cd's away for free won't make a difference ..

[Sapo]

What I think is that music cd should be free - The artists can then make money from the concerts and merchandising

What about the royalties to the songwriter? If the songwriter is not a band member how do they make any money in this model? What about the producers and engineers, etc.?

[f.sciarrillo]

What I think is that music cd should be free - The artists can then make money from the concerts and merchandising

What about the royalties to the songwriter? If the songwriter is not a band member how do they make any money in this model? What about the producers and engineers, etc.?

When I said the record companies screw the artist, I meant them also ..

What could happen is another form - Whoever was involved in the making of the album in anyway, as far as production, songwriting, back up musicians and the like; gets a cut of what is made from the that particular tour, or merchandise being sold to promote said album.

If they happen to get lucky and have a song they helped on get picked up for endorsements, like commercials and the like. They should get a cut of that as well ...

There are ways they people can get paid from the cd's without charging for the cd.

[bassist_25]

[

What about the royalties to the songwriter? If the songwriter is not a band member how do they make any money in this model? What about the producers and engineers, etc.?

When I said the record companies screw the artist, I meant them also ..

What could happen is another form - Whoever was involved in the making of the album in anyway, as far as production, songwriting, back up musicians and the like; gets a cut of what is made from the that particular tour, or merchandise being sold to promote said album.

If they happen to get lucky and have a song they helped on get picked up for endorsements, like commercials and the like. They should get a cut of that as well ...

There are ways they people can get paid from the cd's without charging for the cd.

So you're saying that engineers and producers should offer their services by sharing in the risk of a tour? If an architect designs a store and a contractor builds it, should they put off initial payment and instead base their pay on how well the store does financially?

[FrigoRecording]

As a recording studio owner and engineer, I still think the engineers, producers, studios, etc, need to get some money up front. I understand sharing in the long term profits of a project, and I'm all for that, even to the extent of perhaps taking less money up front in exchange for a share in the band profits in some cases.

Having said this, I've worked on some amazing records with great bands and artists only to have the bands subsequently break up, or simply not promote themselves and get out there to tour, sell merch, etc, so I certainly don't want to rely on being certain that each band or solo act I work with will take care of business and promote themselves and work hard at making money off of their music. That's where I see most bands and artists failing - when it comes to taking care of business!

Here's a good website that can really help bands and solo artists do what they need to do in order to make a living off of their music: www.theholodigm.com. The creator of this site, John Hartmann, is a 50 plus year music industry veteran who has managed the Eagles, among several other top acts, and has worked in many other capacities in the industry. He has a ton of great insight on the post-modern record era and how to do things that fit today's market. He shows you how to do it yourself, without a label.

[f.sciarrillo]

[

What about the royalties to the songwriter? If the songwriter is not a band member how do they make any money in this model? What about the producers and engineers, etc.?

When I said the record companies screw the artist, I meant them also ..

What could happen is another form - Whoever was involved in the making of the album in anyway, as far as production, songwriting, back up musicians and the like; gets a cut of what is made from the that particular tour, or merchandise being sold to promote said album.

If they happen to get lucky and have a song they helped on get picked up for endorsements, like commercials and the like. They should get a cut of that as well ...

There are ways they people can get paid from the cd's without charging for the cd.

So you're saying that engineers and producers should offer their services by sharing in the risk of a tour? If an architect designs a store and a contractor builds it, should they put off initial payment and instead base their pay on how well the store does financially?

Hmm, I didn't think of it that. Maybe, if the record companies wouldn't be out to screw the artist and line their own pockets, the lame idea wouldn't have come up lol .

Then if you think about it. The record companies are basically doing the same thing with gambling on the record sales. So what is the difference if a producer does it as well? It is all an investment and nothing is every guaranteed, if that was the case, everyone would be doing it ..

[FrigoRecording]

Hmm, I didn't think of it that. Maybe, if the record companies wouldn't be out to screw the artist and line their own pockets, the lame idea wouldn't have come up lol .

Then if you think about it. The record companies are basically doing the same thing with gambling on the record sales. So what is the difference if a producer does it as well? It is all an investment and nothing is every guaranteed, if that was the case, everyone would be doing it ..

The problem is that the record companies are working on a business model that is no longer valid in today's market. Yes, they have made some changes as to where they see their profits coming from, but what artist really wants to see their music diminished to how much money they can make on ringtones? I'm not saying it's wrong to make money there, but this has now become one of the primary goals of some of the labels in terms of profits.

If you're saying that the producers should simply take the place of the labels, then I think we're still in the same boat. The producers end up replacing the labels with the same invalid, broken business model.

What has to happen is the artists and bands themselves step up and take responsibility for their own success, investing in themselves in terms of time and money, and managing themselves and their business in an efficient manner. The bands that are doing that are having more financial success as "unsigned" artists than many of the major label artists, because the labels are taking the majority of profits from all income streams that the band has, and recouping 100% of their investments before the band sees a dime of profit.

If you are a band or solo artist, set yourself up a business entity, such as an LLC, and include all band members, the manger, and maybe the producer and engineer so that everyone has a vested interest in making this happen. Of course this will require serious, dedicated people, so that's the first step. Then the band members can invest in making a record, an EP, or even just a few singles.

These days, with proper pre-production, you can make an amazing full 10 song album for $5,000 or $10,000 (maybe even less), plus the costs of duplication and distribution. An EP would be half the cost, and singles a tenth of the cost. I'm talking super high quality, on par with the top selling albums. This is a small investment to make to get a good business started, and to own 100% of the profits, as opposed to the 12% a label will give you AFTER they recoup their initial investment of $50,000 to $250,000, plus promotion costs, depending on the deal.

[f.sciarrillo]

Maybe they should just eliminate the record companies then? that would solve a lot of issues? O maybe the record companies should get people working for them that care about the artist and know what they are doing?

You made some great points in your post, Marc. Thank you for the information. It does show me a different light of it..

[FrigoRecording]

Maybe they should just eliminate the record companies then? that would solve a lot of issues? O maybe the record companies should get people working for them that care about the artist and know what they are doing?

You made some great points in your post, Marc. Thank you for the information. It does show me a different light of it..

That's exactly what I'm saying, Frank. The labels are antiquated, but it's up to the artists and bands to see this, and take charge of their own business model, according to today's market, and changing as necessary as the need arises. There are absolutely still a number of major label artists out there who are doing quite well in that model, but it has become the exception to the rule.

These days, a band almost has to be doing well on their own in terms of sales, tours, etc, to even have the opportunity to get signed to a label. Then it begs the question "is this deal going to help us, or hurt us?" Some bands turn down deals because they see it will ultimately hurt them, either financially, creatively, etc, or in several ways. Some bands take the deal, use it to help boost their fan base for one or two albums, then return to independent status. To sign or not to sign can be a tough question that needs some serious thought these days!

[bassist_25]

Then if you think about it. The record companies are basically doing the same thing with gambling on the record sales. So what is the difference if a producer does it as well? It is all an investment and nothing is every guaranteed, if that was the case, everyone would be doing it ..

I think you're failing to realize how the "investment" model of putting out a record works. Let's use the typical investment model in other business as an example. Say some cat wants to start an airline. He was a VP for United Air and has a lot of managerial experience with running an airline. Most normal folk do not have the start up capital or resources to form their own airline. He gets investor interest and incorporates. The investors put up their money and take on the risk. The former United Air VP becomes the CEO. If the airline makes money, the investors have increased stock value and get nice dividends. If the airline is not profitable, there is some messy stuff concerning liquidating assets and that sort of thing; however, the investors took the risk. The former VP doesn't necessarily owe anybody any money.

The difference with a record deal is that even if an album tanks, the artist is still on the hook for the money it costs to make and market it. It's not an investment...at least an investment in the traditional sense. It's more of a high interest loan and the record company is the loan shark.

Steve Albini's commentary is always a very good read when this topic comes up: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

[f.sciarrillo]

Then if you think about it. The record companies are basically doing the same thing with gambling on the record sales. So what is the difference if a producer does it as well? It is all an investment and nothing is every guaranteed, if that was the case, everyone would be doing it ..

I think you're failing to realize how the "investment" model of putting out a record works. Let's use the typical investment model in other business as an example. Say some cat wants to start an airline. He was a VP for United Air and has a lot of managerial experience with running an airline. Most normal folk do not have the start up capital or resources to form their own airline. He gets investor interest and incorporates. The investors put up their money and take on the risk. The former United Air VP becomes the CEO. If the airline makes money, the investors have increased stock value and get nice dividends. If the airline is not profitable, there is some messy stuff concerning liquidating assets and that sort of thing; however, the investors took the risk. The former VP doesn't necessarily owe anybody any money.

The difference with a record deal is that even if an album tanks, the artist is still on the hook for the money it costs to make and market it. It's not an investment...at least an investment in the traditional sense. It's more of a high interest loan and the record company is the loan shark.

Steve Albini's commentary is always a very good read when this topic comes up: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

So what you are saying is that the record companies give the artist an advance? And everything he makes from record sales, tours and merchandising goes to the record company to pay them back before they start making any profits ...

With that being the case, and with how little record companies give the artist, I can see why more and more artist are starting their own labels ..

[ToonaRockGuy]

Honestly, with a little research and hard work, anyone can do what the labels attempt to do. The method to doing what we all are after on one level or another is simple, when you break it down...

1. Good songs.
2. Good recording.
3. Good marketing.
4. Good distribution.
5. Hard Touring.

Wow. Rocket science, eh? The key to the whole thing is #4. Finding a way to get a quality disc out there. I've heard plenty of recordings from this region that could easily be spread nationwide with a little elbow grease and a few bucks. Distribution is key to getting your stuff out there, and that (IMO) is where the big labels have the advantage. But with so many digital media outlets in existance now, anyone can do it if you really put your back into it.

Conceive what you want to do with your band. Believe you can do what you want to do with your band. Then take the steps and do the work to Achieve what you want with your band.

"What the mind can conceive and believe, you can achieve." - W. Clement Stone

Words to live by.

[FrigoRecording]

1. Good songs.
2. Good recording.
3. Good marketing.
4. Good distribution.
5. Hard Touring.

"What the mind can conceive and believe, you can achieve." - W. Clement Stone

Words to live by.

Agreed 100%. Number one on your list is huge. If you don't have some good songs, you don't have anything! Of course we could easily expand on each of those 5 points, and what goes into each one, but those are absolutely the key factors.

Love that quote, too. I don't think I've heard that exact one, but many along those same lines.

[f.sciarrillo]

I agree, good points, Kevin ..

[moxham123]

The main issue with recorded music is that there are numerous people involved with the creation, production, marketing, and distribution of songs, albums, or digital downloads who are are entitled to be paid for their services as well as the musicians and songwriters. I totally agree that everybody in the process needs to be paid for their work. The people who should acquire the greatest level of risk for the recorded songs are the band members and record labels since they own the businesses trying to sell the products and services. That is no different than owning a nightclub, restaurant, or any other business. You would have to pay a plumber, beer distributor, attorneys, employees, advertiser, etc. for work they perform for your business. The owner's profits are based on promoting and selling their products and services.

The posted article is trying to say that by increasing the sales through a lower market price will result in a greater total profit for all involved. To agree with FrigoRecording's post, the people behind the scenes still need to be paid up front for their work, regardless if the record sells or not.

I can see that lowering the overall price of music to the consumers would generate more sales for the musicians, songwriters, and record labels and generate additional revenure streams through tickets sales, merchandising, licensing, etc. The big question is, "How much are consumers willing to pay?"

As far as other methods for musicians and songwriters to make money other than actual record sales, refer to this recent post.

http://rockpage.net/phpbb2/topic28421.html