You know, I agree that things are relatively fair -- today. However, the big record labels make a lot by leveraging their back catalogues, and many of those contracts certainly were not fair, because at the time, options were so limited that you'd sign literally anything. I think you know that. Furthermore, one of the reasons things are fairer today is because with advances in technology, artists now have options other than big record labels. As a result, record labels have have to be reasonably fair, else they risk losing artists going a different way.
I think we are closer than you might think.
Edit: I think it is safe to assume that new technology has, at least to some degree, hurt the likes of BMG, but it has probably helped artists get a fairer deal by giving them more options and leverage when negotiating contracts. That does not mean there is room for every artist to make it big.
It has always been difficult when dealing with personal contracts. When industries mature, things usually get better. It's almost a natural law.
But, royalty payments are fixed by bodies out of the control of the companies, or artists. After the negotiations are over, it's out of the hands of the industry. ASCAP, and others make sure that artists get their due.
What most people don't understand about the system, is that there are a lot of people involved. They all have to get paid. The artists are just one more cog in the machine.
It isn't fair. It isn't unfair. The artists can't exist without the industry, and the industry can't exist without the artists.
If an artist gets an advance payment of $20,000, because (s)he is an unknown, but is thought to have a chance of doing fairly well, that's in addition to all the money that artist is getting in the practical sense as well.
Recording studio time, at several thousand dollars per day (or hour, in the best studios!). Payment to the studio musicians, if any. Payment to the producer. Payment to the arranger. Agent, manager. Clothing for costumes, and events, hotel rooms for the intro tour. Airfare, limo's. People to ensure that they get where they are supposed to go (intact!!!). Advertising. The pressing of the albums. Sending the albums to the radio stations, tv shows, and other venues. Plus, of course, the costs of the companies expenses as well.
After 6 months, or so, if the albums fail to sell, as will most likely happen, the company is out a million dollars or so, possibly much more. Should the act pay that back, including the advance, which has likely been spent?
The artist (and I use that lightly), gets paid after a certain number of albums get sold. Not before. Why? Because the company must get paid for the money it has put out. Otherwise, no company.
More often than not, the income from sales are less than the money invested in the act. The few acts that are at the top of the pyramid must make up for those losses. They don't like it, of course. After all, this is a cutthroat business. No matter what any artist may say, they never want to help pay for new artists coming up. Those new artists push them off the charts, so, why should they?
But, it's the system that provides the money to finance those new acts.
One might like to talk about indie acts, but they are but a small fraction of music sold. Anyway, the same system is in place for the indie companies. Just on a much smaller, poorly financed, scale.
The only real difference is that the sales are smaller, and the money is less.
Don't think that the name "indie" means anything other than what it does: Independents - i.e., small record companies. If anything, they are much sleazier than their larger counterparts.
True independent artists have to depend on low paying jobs in small clubs, constantly traveling in third class settings. don't believe otherwise. They have no money for promotion. They live for the day when a large record company will find them, and give them a contract. They may whine later, but if they get it, they count their blessings every night.
It isn't fair. It isn't unfair. The artists can't exist without the industry, and the industry can't exist without the artists.
I don't disagree with you, but that's a little like saying the slave cannot exist without the master, and the master cannot exist without the slave. It might be true, but don't expect me to like it.
I think my point stands: one of the reasons things got fairer (read: old deals were like slavery for a lot of people), is because it is more realistic today for an artist to make it without a big record deal. There are independent artists who, through the current system and by doing their own promotion, are making a pretty okay living. And of course anybody would like to be picked up by a big record company if the money is right, I never questioned that. I also don't question that record companies will always be around, but they are becoming more irrelevant (relative).
I don't disagree with you, but that's a little like saying the slave cannot exist without the master, and the master cannot exist without the slave. It might be true, but don't expect me to like it.
I think my point stands: one of the reasons things got fairer (read: old deals were like slavery for a lot of people), is because it is more realistic today for an artist to make it without a big record deal. There are independent artists who, through the current system and by doing their own promotion, are making a pretty okay living. And of course anybody would like to be picked up by a big record company if the money is right, I never questioned that. I also don't question that record companies will always be around, but they are becoming more irrelevant (relative).
Your term "slavery" is extreme to the extreme. I'm sorry, but you don't know this industry at all if you say that. Artists have been very well taken care of over the decades by the entertainment indusrty. Most don't make it, as I've said. But you are not reading what I've posted, or you simply don't care to believe it. In that case, I suggest that you do some real research of your own, rather than just stating things that aren'y true.
As I've said also, there is always going to be a sleazy part of every business, this one included. But that doesn't mean that the industry is sleazy itself.
One can throw words around to justify one's actions (yes, I know you've bought music), but, a desire to believe something to justify them is meaningless.
I said some, not all. And if you were not aware of that, it is you who does not know the industry very well. I also said that in general, artists are treated pretty fairly today.
Sorry, but that still doesn't justify pointing people to AllOfMP3, regardless of whether you also pointed to an indy site.
Thank you. You'll have a point once record companies stop insisting that Apple and other online stores must insert DRM into music bought legally. Tag it if you want, but please don't get in my way while I am trying to listen to content that I paid for.
If you want to pirate something, DRM won't stop you. If it's convenient, however, and the price is right, it isn't worth trying to pirate an inferior quality file when you could be buying tracks for cents from iTunes, or 10 bucks for an album.
And don't even get me started about DVD region codes... I keep throwing money at them, and they keep throwing up roadblocks. It's starting to make the buying experience a real pain. So far I've continued to pay, and in addition to about $1000 I've bought in DRM-encumbered music, I've spent thousands over the last few years on CD's and DVD's. But with every move they make that makes it harder for me to enjoy my legally purchased content, the more I am starting to think they don't care about or even want my business.
I said some, not all. And if you were not aware of that, it is you who does not know the industry very well. I also said that in general, artists are treated pretty fairly today.
Comments
Originally posted by Robin Hood
You know, I agree that things are relatively fair -- today. However, the big record labels make a lot by leveraging their back catalogues, and many of those contracts certainly were not fair, because at the time, options were so limited that you'd sign literally anything. I think you know that. Furthermore, one of the reasons things are fairer today is because with advances in technology, artists now have options other than big record labels. As a result, record labels have have to be reasonably fair, else they risk losing artists going a different way.
I think we are closer than you might think.
Edit: I think it is safe to assume that new technology has, at least to some degree, hurt the likes of BMG, but it has probably helped artists get a fairer deal by giving them more options and leverage when negotiating contracts. That does not mean there is room for every artist to make it big.
It has always been difficult when dealing with personal contracts. When industries mature, things usually get better. It's almost a natural law.
But, royalty payments are fixed by bodies out of the control of the companies, or artists. After the negotiations are over, it's out of the hands of the industry. ASCAP, and others make sure that artists get their due.
What most people don't understand about the system, is that there are a lot of people involved. They all have to get paid. The artists are just one more cog in the machine.
It isn't fair. It isn't unfair. The artists can't exist without the industry, and the industry can't exist without the artists.
If an artist gets an advance payment of $20,000, because (s)he is an unknown, but is thought to have a chance of doing fairly well, that's in addition to all the money that artist is getting in the practical sense as well.
Recording studio time, at several thousand dollars per day (or hour, in the best studios!). Payment to the studio musicians, if any. Payment to the producer. Payment to the arranger. Agent, manager. Clothing for costumes, and events, hotel rooms for the intro tour. Airfare, limo's. People to ensure that they get where they are supposed to go (intact!!!). Advertising. The pressing of the albums. Sending the albums to the radio stations, tv shows, and other venues. Plus, of course, the costs of the companies expenses as well.
After 6 months, or so, if the albums fail to sell, as will most likely happen, the company is out a million dollars or so, possibly much more. Should the act pay that back, including the advance, which has likely been spent?
The artist (and I use that lightly), gets paid after a certain number of albums get sold. Not before. Why? Because the company must get paid for the money it has put out. Otherwise, no company.
More often than not, the income from sales are less than the money invested in the act. The few acts that are at the top of the pyramid must make up for those losses. They don't like it, of course. After all, this is a cutthroat business. No matter what any artist may say, they never want to help pay for new artists coming up. Those new artists push them off the charts, so, why should they?
But, it's the system that provides the money to finance those new acts.
One might like to talk about indie acts, but they are but a small fraction of music sold. Anyway, the same system is in place for the indie companies. Just on a much smaller, poorly financed, scale.
The only real difference is that the sales are smaller, and the money is less.
Don't think that the name "indie" means anything other than what it does: Independents - i.e., small record companies. If anything, they are much sleazier than their larger counterparts.
True independent artists have to depend on low paying jobs in small clubs, constantly traveling in third class settings. don't believe otherwise. They have no money for promotion. They live for the day when a large record company will find them, and give them a contract. They may whine later, but if they get it, they count their blessings every night.
Originally posted by melgross
It isn't fair. It isn't unfair. The artists can't exist without the industry, and the industry can't exist without the artists.
I don't disagree with you, but that's a little like saying the slave cannot exist without the master, and the master cannot exist without the slave. It might be true, but don't expect me to like it.
I think my point stands: one of the reasons things got fairer (read: old deals were like slavery for a lot of people), is because it is more realistic today for an artist to make it without a big record deal. There are independent artists who, through the current system and by doing their own promotion, are making a pretty okay living. And of course anybody would like to be picked up by a big record company if the money is right, I never questioned that. I also don't question that record companies will always be around, but they are becoming more irrelevant (relative).
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I don't disagree with you, but that's a little like saying the slave cannot exist without the master, and the master cannot exist without the slave. It might be true, but don't expect me to like it.
I think my point stands: one of the reasons things got fairer (read: old deals were like slavery for a lot of people), is because it is more realistic today for an artist to make it without a big record deal. There are independent artists who, through the current system and by doing their own promotion, are making a pretty okay living. And of course anybody would like to be picked up by a big record company if the money is right, I never questioned that. I also don't question that record companies will always be around, but they are becoming more irrelevant (relative).
Your term "slavery" is extreme to the extreme. I'm sorry, but you don't know this industry at all if you say that. Artists have been very well taken care of over the decades by the entertainment indusrty. Most don't make it, as I've said. But you are not reading what I've posted, or you simply don't care to believe it. In that case, I suggest that you do some real research of your own, rather than just stating things that aren'y true.
As I've said also, there is always going to be a sleazy part of every business, this one included. But that doesn't mean that the industry is sleazy itself.
One can throw words around to justify one's actions (yes, I know you've bought music), but, a desire to believe something to justify them is meaningless.
Originally posted by Chucker
Sorry, but that still doesn't justify pointing people to AllOfMP3, regardless of whether you also pointed to an indy site.
Thank you. You'll have a point once record companies stop insisting that Apple and other online stores must insert DRM into music bought legally. Tag it if you want, but please don't get in my way while I am trying to listen to content that I paid for.
If you want to pirate something, DRM won't stop you. If it's convenient, however, and the price is right, it isn't worth trying to pirate an inferior quality file when you could be buying tracks for cents from iTunes, or 10 bucks for an album.
And don't even get me started about DVD region codes... I keep throwing money at them, and they keep throwing up roadblocks. It's starting to make the buying experience a real pain. So far I've continued to pay, and in addition to about $1000 I've bought in DRM-encumbered music, I've spent thousands over the last few years on CD's and DVD's. But with every move they make that makes it harder for me to enjoy my legally purchased content, the more I am starting to think they don't care about or even want my business.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I said some, not all. And if you were not aware of that, it is you who does not know the industry very well. I also said that in general, artists are treated pretty fairly today.
That response is like saying "No, you".
Originally posted by melgross
That response is like saying "No, you".
Glad to be of service; I was simply setting the record straight (no pun intended).