with apple's marketshare, where will you play the "open" format? ...
There's nothing to indicate that the music companies format will be open, quite the opposite.
I bet the reason Apple wouldn't agree is either DRM or the inability to "break out" the tracks inside if you want to later on.
The only thing I find interesting about this is the idea of a format war between the two so we can lay to rest the idea that Apple is "closed" once and for all. I'm betting Apple's format will make the other one look like the draconian nonsense it probably is.
Well, that and the fact that it's always humorous to see U2 sell their souls (yet again!) for cold hard cash. Hypocritical phonies are always amusing on some level.
I want something like a DVD to replace the CD where i get the music in better quality than the CD, videos and whatever else they can think up of...
Given how some DVD menus are designed, I would not look forward to this approach. If done properly in a lightweight and consistent manner - maybe, but the prospects of waiting through a ten-second 'attract' sequence just to reach the first menu is not my idea of fun. I want fast access to the actual content without all the theatrics.
In any case, I really doubt the record labels, of all people, are capable of designing any solution that isn't choked in DRM and a shitty user experience.
Are the recording companies trying to pull a hulu? It seems they are also making an effort to plant in the public's collective mind that it is they who were the innovators, not Apple, even if Apple is first to deliver the technology, even if Apple's is in some ways different and better, and even if Apple already had similar ideas and plans of its own. News of this is coming out now perhaps because of the rumors of iTunes 9's imminent release, while the labels won't be out at all until November.
Many artists will have their choice of which route to take, no?
i saw a chart somewhere going back decades that showed each format's sale history. you usually see a format peak in sales 10 -15 years after its release and shortly after a new format comes out. The CD peaked in the late 1990's and the only thing we've had to replace it is digital downloads. in the past we've always had an increase in quality every time.
late 1990's we had SACD, but I think Napster and cheap CD burners scared the record companies and we had 10 lost years. i buy in the apps store but not in the music/movie stores. i still prefer physical media since iTunes says i'm supposed to back everything up anyway.
and these days i spend more time listening to pandora and slacker and i like Microsoft's rent a music idea. there is too much music out there to buy yourself and listen to more than once a year
Are the recording companies trying to pull a hulu? It seems they are also making an effort to plant in the public's collective mind that it is they who were the innovators, not Apple, even if Apple is first to deliver the technology, even if Apple's is in some ways different and better, and even if Apple already had similar ideas and plans of its own. News of this is coming out now perhaps because of the rumors of iTunes 9's imminent release, while the labels won't be out at all until November.
Many artists will have their choice of which route to take, no?
Regardless, this should be fun to watch!
i read about this a few weeks ago. the record companies came up with this to try sell albums. selling single songs doesn't generate enough revenue
i think the disagreement is the record companies want control and want the format to work across any device. Apple wants an Apple only version
i saw a chart somewhere going back decades that showed each format's sale history. you usually see a format peak in sales 10 -15 years after its release and shortly after a new format comes out. The CD peaked in the late 1990's and the only thing we've had to replace it is digital downloads. in the past we've always had an increase in quality every time.
late 1990's we had SACD, but I think Napster and cheap CD burners scared the record companies and we had 10 lost years. i buy in the apps store but not in the music/movie stores. i still prefer physical media since iTunes says i'm supposed to back everything up anyway.
and these days i spend more time listening to pandora and slacker and i like Microsoft's rent a music idea. there is too much music out there to buy yourself and listen to more than once a year
I agree that the mp3 format is starting to feel it's limitations, but like your other comment later I am concerned about how Apple just loves to control and thereby limit. Granted they have a huge following as many posts indicate (if things won't work on iTunes or with an iPod, etc...) but this brings up a huge problem; Why won't Apple play with everyone else in this case? I have to think that there is more to the story outside of a simple disagreement on how to develop and create the new format for albums (usually tied to revenue, ownership and control).
BlueRay won the battle of "next gen" DVD so it will be interesting to see who wins the next generation of audio. I feel this is only the start of things to come...
Albums sucks because too many people are just searching for the hit song and consumers now understand that a few hit songs + filler is a waste of time.
Flashy graphics, bios and lyrics to songs I care nothing for isn't going to make me spend extra money.
Though CMX or Cocktail will be a boon for people on the fence about buying individual tracks vs the whole enchilada.
You must listen to a lot of pop music. Pop music since the early 90s has sucked hind tit.
Yeah, and when are they going to start selling chapters of a book individually? Who wants to be forced to pay for the middle bits when all we really want is the juicy first and last chapters?
And speaking of songs... Why do I have to pay 99 cents for a whole one? Why can't I just pay 33 cents for the chorus?
Wrong analogy. When are they going to start selling individual stories from a short story collection?
If you are lucky, one of the collected stories appeared in, say, The New Yorker, which interested a publisher to put out the collection, complete with "filler" that some of which just might have been picked up by the small "literary" magazines.
And if you really want the juicy first and last chapters, go to your public library and check out the book. Last I checked it was 5-7 cents a page to copy. That'll get you five or six pages worth of "chorus."
The technology for an indie artist to make a professional recording in their garage is already here and has been for the last 10 years.. But as sad as it is, unless these artists are independently wealthy so that they can quit their day jobs and pay for videos, promotion and touring (while losing money) until they are established, 99% of them will never be heard by the mainstream.
Touring is very expensive for an unknown artist and costs much more than an average indie band will make in one night. Hotels, vehicle rentals, gas, flights, food... It all adds up to more than the $500 bucks or so they may make at the door (if they are lucky.)
The technology for an indie artist (band or author) to distribute work for profit has been here for the last (I guess) 5 years, at least: it's called the internet. A commercial web site (that can sell things) costs about $20-30 or so a month and you can sell for download MP3s or PDFs for whatever you want (99 cents, anyone?). If you need someone to design and set it up, that may be an extra $1000 or so. As for free publicity, ever hear of podcasts?
The whole concept is an anachronism. There is no reason to buy an entire album if half the songs (or more) are weak. Singles are what consumers want. Anything else is just lining the pockets of useless executives.
Yeah, and when are they going to start selling chapters of a book individually? Who wants to be forced to pay for the middle bits when all we really want is the juicy first and last chapters?
And speaking of songs... Why do I have to pay 99 cents for a whole one? Why can't I just pay 33 cents for the chorus?
The fact that whole albums aren't aired very often suggests to me that your analogy is almost fatally broken and that maybe you didn't really think it through. Entire movies get aired on TV, so entire albums would fit the same model if the album justifies that kind of treatment. But usually it's not, each song is its own story, assuming the song is a story at all, rarely part of a larger story.
The analogy fits only if the song really does fit into the album like a chapter in a book. By proportion, there are very few albums that are like that. Most albums are compilation packages, not cohesive products that compares to a novel.
The fact that whole albums aren't aired very often suggests to me that your analogy is almost fatally broken and that maybe you didn't really think it through.
The analogy fits only if the song really does fit into the album like a chapter in a book. By proportion, there are very few albums that are like that. Most albums are compilation packages, not cohesive products such as a novel.
Of course there are concept albums worth buying, but they are few and far between. I guess the last one I bought was The Flaming Lips' Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.
I think lyrics should be included in the mp3 files just as album art is. That's the only useful thing that seems to come from this "Cocktail". LyricWiki's newly crippled API that stops apps from adding lyrics to mp3's without manually copying and pasting everything is a shame.
A small external app combined with Ogg or MKA (aka MKV) could do the same thing and be completely open source. Apple etc. will never do this but it would be an interesting experiment.
Is it just me or does it sound like the Labels want these to be some kind of embedded java app. That would be light weight!
Wrong analogy. When are they going to start selling individual stories from a short story collection?
If you are lucky, one of the collected stories appeared in, say, The New Yorker, which interested a publisher to put out the collection, complete with "filler" that some of which just might have been picked up by the small "literary" magazines.
And if you really want the juicy first and last chapters, go to your public library and check out the book. Last I checked it was 5-7 cents a page to copy. That'll get you five or six pages worth of "chorus."
Well i didn't expect anyone would take my comment literally as it was dripping with sarcasm, but I guess sometimes tone does not come across in written word.
That being said, as a recording artist who has seen both sides of the fence after been on both a major and indie label, I don't agree.
There is a big difference between a collection of short stories, (which I suppose is how some pop artists view their albums,) and a complete novel ( which is how some conceptual artists view their albums.) The artists who create individual songs as pieces of a complete vision are the ones I was referring to.... sarcastically.
And yes, songs like "Another brick in the wall part 2" were played on the radio and can now be purchased independently.. However, that doesn't mean that Pink Floyd created it as a lone piece. It actually makes much more sense when played in context of the much larger musical masterpiece it was created for known as "The Wall." Hence the term "album artist."
The technology for an indie artist (band or author) to distribute work for profit has been here for the last (I guess) 5 years, at least: it's called the internet. A commercial web site (that can sell things) costs about $20-30 or so a month and you can sell for download MP3s or PDFs for whatever you want (99 cents, anyone?). If you need someone to design and set it up, that may be an extra $1000 or so. As for free publicity, ever hear of podcasts?
There are several million current indie artists with their own websites and even selling songs via iTunes and other sites.. And of those millions of indie artists, very few are able to make a living at it. Even fewer will ever be able to tour and/or get on the radio. Not saying it can't or hasn't be en done, just extremely rare.
How do you think you know who Britney Spears or the Jonas brothers are? Heck, I can't stand either of them, yet almost every home in America knows who they are.. The answer is marketing and promotion, radio and tv. Something that unless independently wealthy, can only be accomplished with the support of a label..
There are millions of Indie artist songs in the iTunes store that no one will ever know or hear. And yes, most of those artists have their own website.
Perfect example: The artist "Mirah." Ever hear of hear? Probably not. She's an independent, kinda folky electronic musician who released her album "advisory committee" in 2001 and sold a few thousand copies (yes, she has a website and is in the iTunes store).. Last year, the FOX show "So You think You Can Dance" used one of her songs in a routine. In the next week she sold almost 50,000 copies of that song.. That's right, 50,000 sales with one airing of her song on a national tv show.. And that song came from an eight year old album that basically up to that point, sold nothing and went unheard..
That's the power of radio and Television. That's what record labels can provide. That's what most Indie artists will never get.
Guys, this discussion many people just don't seem to get it.
The new format will not have DRM, what it is about is making a virtual album, with included music videos, and even making of footage and liner notes. Making a digital album an appealing thing to fans. Apple introduced their own version, which is great. but i think labels want the ability to offer this at many different retailers, not just via itunes.
so ... this is good for consumers, as it will lead to choice and options.
And if people think the album is dead, they just arent listening to good artists. Kings of Leon, Whitney Houston, Laura Izibor, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and so many more are just amazing.
If you are a real fan of an artist, you will get the album... there is alot more to an artist than a radio single. sorry, but i think the people who don't get albums are just lame.... well those who think they are really fans of a specific artist.
artists don't have enough money to run themselves except on a small scale. Beyonce had 5 videos from her last album. my guess is that it cost close to $50 million for the studio and video production costs.
then there is playing live. Last year Frontier Airlines filed Chapter 11 because the CC processor wanted $150 million as escrow in case of financial troubles.
say you sell out a 20,000 seat arena at an average price of $100 per ticket. that's $20,000,000. no CC company will let you sell these tickets without a lot of money up front as a deposit in case you cancel a show. Just because you cancel a show and have to return the $20,000,000 doesn't mean you still don't pay most of the up front costs of setting up a concert. that's why you need Livenation to lend artists tens of millions of $$$
First, do people actually still watch videos? I thought that was so '80's...
From what I understand from someone I worked with who was in a band that had a major contract with the Metal Blades label (same one Slayer was on), it cost the band $12,000 to record their first record and a single, simple video for MTV and that was all done in a real major recording studio in NY and everything, before Pro Tools was even invented. That was in 1994 money. Still, that's nowhere near what Beyonce put into her videos because the record companies would never allow that kind of investment into a new artist.
Now, as far as the concerts, from what I understand, the band doesn't put up the money. The promoters carry insurance for cancelled gigs and everything. His band gets a percentage of the gate, which he disputes as being a realistic number because who's to verify the real number, and usually a base fee for performing. The record company originally setup everything for them and paid for the bus, roadies, etc.
All this comes out of the band's share. When all was said and done on his first album, after spending $12,000 to make the record and all the touring they did on it, and selling approximately 200,000 albums in the US and I'm not sure how much internationally, the record company billed them for $40,000. They didn't make a single cent. He said they were so broke on the tour that they each only ate one meal a day and couldn't afford to party.
Now, 200,000 album sales isn't quite a triple platinum release, but this is probably typical of the bands that don't quite make it. They still tour together, and are still a big hit in Europe and South America, but they've taken a lot of the responsibility of their equipment, travel, and everything onto themselves. They also still release albums, but have also taken the financial responsibility of that onto themselves, but sell fewer of them. They now make money at it - not a lot, but enough to justify doing it on a part time bases.
Guys, this discussion many people just don't seem to get it.
The new format will not have DRM, what it is about is making a virtual album, with included music videos, and even making of footage and liner notes. Making a digital album an appealing thing to fans. Apple introduced their own version, which is great. but i think labels want the ability to offer this at many different retailers, not just via itunes.
so ... this is good for consumers, as it will lead to choice and options.
And if people think the album is dead, they just arent listening to good artists. Kings of Leon, Whitney Houston, Laura Izibor, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and so many more are just amazing.
If you are a real fan of an artist, you will get the album... there is alot more to an artist than a radio single. sorry, but i think the people who don't get albums are just lame.... well those who think they are really fans of a specific artist.
These are good points - I hope this is what we get. I have a couple of favourite artists that would embrace this sort of thing.
However;
this is good for consumers, as it will lead to choice and options
don't ever ever write this phrase again unless you intend to spend eternity in an especially disagreeable pit of hell reserved for the most repugnant and corrupt politician.
The death of radio has played a big part of why the labels are where they are today. When the Clear Channels gobbled up all the markets and programming was being done out of the corporate office, it removed the program director & music director from the equation. A return on how the music business operated in the mid '70's along with todays technology would be quite exciting! Bring back the payola, the indie promoters, bands willing to make the sweat investment of living out of a van while on the road, have corporate get out of the way and all will be good.
Comments
with apple's marketshare, where will you play the "open" format? ...
There's nothing to indicate that the music companies format will be open, quite the opposite.
I bet the reason Apple wouldn't agree is either DRM or the inability to "break out" the tracks inside if you want to later on.
The only thing I find interesting about this is the idea of a format war between the two so we can lay to rest the idea that Apple is "closed" once and for all. I'm betting Apple's format will make the other one look like the draconian nonsense it probably is.
Well, that and the fact that it's always humorous to see U2 sell their souls (yet again!) for cold hard cash. Hypocritical phonies are always amusing on some level.
I want something like a DVD to replace the CD where i get the music in better quality than the CD, videos and whatever else they can think up of...
Given how some DVD menus are designed, I would not look forward to this approach. If done properly in a lightweight and consistent manner - maybe, but the prospects of waiting through a ten-second 'attract' sequence just to reach the first menu is not my idea of fun. I want fast access to the actual content without all the theatrics.
In any case, I really doubt the record labels, of all people, are capable of designing any solution that isn't choked in DRM and a shitty user experience.
Many artists will have their choice of which route to take, no?
Regardless, this should be fun to watch!
late 1990's we had SACD, but I think Napster and cheap CD burners scared the record companies and we had 10 lost years. i buy in the apps store but not in the music/movie stores. i still prefer physical media since iTunes says i'm supposed to back everything up anyway.
and these days i spend more time listening to pandora and slacker and i like Microsoft's rent a music idea. there is too much music out there to buy yourself and listen to more than once a year
Are the recording companies trying to pull a hulu? It seems they are also making an effort to plant in the public's collective mind that it is they who were the innovators, not Apple, even if Apple is first to deliver the technology, even if Apple's is in some ways different and better, and even if Apple already had similar ideas and plans of its own. News of this is coming out now perhaps because of the rumors of iTunes 9's imminent release, while the labels won't be out at all until November.
Many artists will have their choice of which route to take, no?
Regardless, this should be fun to watch!
i read about this a few weeks ago. the record companies came up with this to try sell albums. selling single songs doesn't generate enough revenue
i think the disagreement is the record companies want control and want the format to work across any device. Apple wants an Apple only version
i saw a chart somewhere going back decades that showed each format's sale history. you usually see a format peak in sales 10 -15 years after its release and shortly after a new format comes out. The CD peaked in the late 1990's and the only thing we've had to replace it is digital downloads. in the past we've always had an increase in quality every time.
late 1990's we had SACD, but I think Napster and cheap CD burners scared the record companies and we had 10 lost years. i buy in the apps store but not in the music/movie stores. i still prefer physical media since iTunes says i'm supposed to back everything up anyway.
and these days i spend more time listening to pandora and slacker and i like Microsoft's rent a music idea. there is too much music out there to buy yourself and listen to more than once a year
I agree that the mp3 format is starting to feel it's limitations, but like your other comment later I am concerned about how Apple just loves to control and thereby limit. Granted they have a huge following as many posts indicate (if things won't work on iTunes or with an iPod, etc...) but this brings up a huge problem; Why won't Apple play with everyone else in this case? I have to think that there is more to the story outside of a simple disagreement on how to develop and create the new format for albums (usually tied to revenue, ownership and control).
BlueRay won the battle of "next gen" DVD so it will be interesting to see who wins the next generation of audio. I feel this is only the start of things to come...
Albums sucks because too many people are just searching for the hit song and consumers now understand that a few hit songs + filler is a waste of time.
Flashy graphics, bios and lyrics to songs I care nothing for isn't going to make me spend extra money.
Though CMX or Cocktail will be a boon for people on the fence about buying individual tracks vs the whole enchilada.
You must listen to a lot of pop music. Pop music since the early 90s has sucked hind tit.
Yeah, and when are they going to start selling chapters of a book individually? Who wants to be forced to pay for the middle bits when all we really want is the juicy first and last chapters?
And speaking of songs... Why do I have to pay 99 cents for a whole one? Why can't I just pay 33 cents for the chorus?
Wrong analogy. When are they going to start selling individual stories from a short story collection?
If you are lucky, one of the collected stories appeared in, say, The New Yorker, which interested a publisher to put out the collection, complete with "filler" that some of which just might have been picked up by the small "literary" magazines.
And if you really want the juicy first and last chapters, go to your public library and check out the book. Last I checked it was 5-7 cents a page to copy. That'll get you five or six pages worth of "chorus."
The technology for an indie artist to make a professional recording in their garage is already here and has been for the last 10 years.. But as sad as it is, unless these artists are independently wealthy so that they can quit their day jobs and pay for videos, promotion and touring (while losing money) until they are established, 99% of them will never be heard by the mainstream.
Touring is very expensive for an unknown artist and costs much more than an average indie band will make in one night. Hotels, vehicle rentals, gas, flights, food... It all adds up to more than the $500 bucks or so they may make at the door (if they are lucky.)
The technology for an indie artist (band or author) to distribute work for profit has been here for the last (I guess) 5 years, at least: it's called the internet. A commercial web site (that can sell things) costs about $20-30 or so a month and you can sell for download MP3s or PDFs for whatever you want (99 cents, anyone?). If you need someone to design and set it up, that may be an extra $1000 or so. As for free publicity, ever hear of podcasts?
Yeah, and when are they going to start selling chapters of a book individually? Who wants to be forced to pay for the middle bits when all we really want is the juicy first and last chapters?
And speaking of songs... Why do I have to pay 99 cents for a whole one? Why can't I just pay 33 cents for the chorus?
The fact that whole albums aren't aired very often suggests to me that your analogy is almost fatally broken and that maybe you didn't really think it through. Entire movies get aired on TV, so entire albums would fit the same model if the album justifies that kind of treatment. But usually it's not, each song is its own story, assuming the song is a story at all, rarely part of a larger story.
The analogy fits only if the song really does fit into the album like a chapter in a book. By proportion, there are very few albums that are like that. Most albums are compilation packages, not cohesive products that compares to a novel.
The fact that whole albums aren't aired very often suggests to me that your analogy is almost fatally broken and that maybe you didn't really think it through.
The analogy fits only if the song really does fit into the album like a chapter in a book. By proportion, there are very few albums that are like that. Most albums are compilation packages, not cohesive products such as a novel.
Of course there are concept albums worth buying, but they are few and far between. I guess the last one I bought was The Flaming Lips' Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.
Is it just me or does it sound like the Labels want these to be some kind of embedded java app. That would be light weight!
Wrong analogy. When are they going to start selling individual stories from a short story collection?
If you are lucky, one of the collected stories appeared in, say, The New Yorker, which interested a publisher to put out the collection, complete with "filler" that some of which just might have been picked up by the small "literary" magazines.
And if you really want the juicy first and last chapters, go to your public library and check out the book. Last I checked it was 5-7 cents a page to copy. That'll get you five or six pages worth of "chorus."
Well i didn't expect anyone would take my comment literally as it was dripping with sarcasm, but I guess sometimes tone does not come across in written word.
That being said, as a recording artist who has seen both sides of the fence after been on both a major and indie label, I don't agree.
There is a big difference between a collection of short stories, (which I suppose is how some pop artists view their albums,) and a complete novel ( which is how some conceptual artists view their albums.) The artists who create individual songs as pieces of a complete vision are the ones I was referring to.... sarcastically.
And yes, songs like "Another brick in the wall part 2" were played on the radio and can now be purchased independently.. However, that doesn't mean that Pink Floyd created it as a lone piece. It actually makes much more sense when played in context of the much larger musical masterpiece it was created for known as "The Wall." Hence the term "album artist."
The technology for an indie artist (band or author) to distribute work for profit has been here for the last (I guess) 5 years, at least: it's called the internet. A commercial web site (that can sell things) costs about $20-30 or so a month and you can sell for download MP3s or PDFs for whatever you want (99 cents, anyone?). If you need someone to design and set it up, that may be an extra $1000 or so. As for free publicity, ever hear of podcasts?
There are several million current indie artists with their own websites and even selling songs via iTunes and other sites.. And of those millions of indie artists, very few are able to make a living at it. Even fewer will ever be able to tour and/or get on the radio. Not saying it can't or hasn't be en done, just extremely rare.
How do you think you know who Britney Spears or the Jonas brothers are? Heck, I can't stand either of them, yet almost every home in America knows who they are.. The answer is marketing and promotion, radio and tv. Something that unless independently wealthy, can only be accomplished with the support of a label..
There are millions of Indie artist songs in the iTunes store that no one will ever know or hear. And yes, most of those artists have their own website.
Perfect example: The artist "Mirah." Ever hear of hear? Probably not. She's an independent, kinda folky electronic musician who released her album "advisory committee" in 2001 and sold a few thousand copies (yes, she has a website and is in the iTunes store).. Last year, the FOX show "So You think You Can Dance" used one of her songs in a routine. In the next week she sold almost 50,000 copies of that song.. That's right, 50,000 sales with one airing of her song on a national tv show.. And that song came from an eight year old album that basically up to that point, sold nothing and went unheard..
That's the power of radio and Television. That's what record labels can provide. That's what most Indie artists will never get.
The new format will not have DRM, what it is about is making a virtual album, with included music videos, and even making of footage and liner notes. Making a digital album an appealing thing to fans. Apple introduced their own version, which is great. but i think labels want the ability to offer this at many different retailers, not just via itunes.
so ... this is good for consumers, as it will lead to choice and options.
And if people think the album is dead, they just arent listening to good artists. Kings of Leon, Whitney Houston, Laura Izibor, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and so many more are just amazing.
If you are a real fan of an artist, you will get the album... there is alot more to an artist than a radio single. sorry, but i think the people who don't get albums are just lame.... well those who think they are really fans of a specific artist.
artists don't have enough money to run themselves except on a small scale. Beyonce had 5 videos from her last album. my guess is that it cost close to $50 million for the studio and video production costs.
then there is playing live. Last year Frontier Airlines filed Chapter 11 because the CC processor wanted $150 million as escrow in case of financial troubles.
say you sell out a 20,000 seat arena at an average price of $100 per ticket. that's $20,000,000. no CC company will let you sell these tickets without a lot of money up front as a deposit in case you cancel a show. Just because you cancel a show and have to return the $20,000,000 doesn't mean you still don't pay most of the up front costs of setting up a concert. that's why you need Livenation to lend artists tens of millions of $$$
First, do people actually still watch videos? I thought that was so '80's...
From what I understand from someone I worked with who was in a band that had a major contract with the Metal Blades label (same one Slayer was on), it cost the band $12,000 to record their first record and a single, simple video for MTV and that was all done in a real major recording studio in NY and everything, before Pro Tools was even invented. That was in 1994 money. Still, that's nowhere near what Beyonce put into her videos because the record companies would never allow that kind of investment into a new artist.
Now, as far as the concerts, from what I understand, the band doesn't put up the money. The promoters carry insurance for cancelled gigs and everything. His band gets a percentage of the gate, which he disputes as being a realistic number because who's to verify the real number, and usually a base fee for performing. The record company originally setup everything for them and paid for the bus, roadies, etc.
All this comes out of the band's share. When all was said and done on his first album, after spending $12,000 to make the record and all the touring they did on it, and selling approximately 200,000 albums in the US and I'm not sure how much internationally, the record company billed them for $40,000. They didn't make a single cent. He said they were so broke on the tour that they each only ate one meal a day and couldn't afford to party.
Now, 200,000 album sales isn't quite a triple platinum release, but this is probably typical of the bands that don't quite make it. They still tour together, and are still a big hit in Europe and South America, but they've taken a lot of the responsibility of their equipment, travel, and everything onto themselves. They also still release albums, but have also taken the financial responsibility of that onto themselves, but sell fewer of them. They now make money at it - not a lot, but enough to justify doing it on a part time bases.
Guys, this discussion many people just don't seem to get it.
The new format will not have DRM, what it is about is making a virtual album, with included music videos, and even making of footage and liner notes. Making a digital album an appealing thing to fans. Apple introduced their own version, which is great. but i think labels want the ability to offer this at many different retailers, not just via itunes.
so ... this is good for consumers, as it will lead to choice and options.
And if people think the album is dead, they just arent listening to good artists. Kings of Leon, Whitney Houston, Laura Izibor, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and so many more are just amazing.
If you are a real fan of an artist, you will get the album... there is alot more to an artist than a radio single. sorry, but i think the people who don't get albums are just lame.... well those who think they are really fans of a specific artist.
These are good points - I hope this is what we get. I have a couple of favourite artists that would embrace this sort of thing.
However;
this is good for consumers, as it will lead to choice and options
don't ever ever write this phrase again unless you intend to spend eternity in an especially disagreeable pit of hell reserved for the most repugnant and corrupt politician.