Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Those poor artists... making money now instead of 0.

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

07 Jul 2012, 8:25 pm

http://blog.tunecore.com/2012/06/the-in ... ernet.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201206 ... dels.shtml

Quote:
Previously, artists were not rolling in money. Most were not allowed into the system by the gatekeepers. Of those that were allowed on the major labels, over 98% of them failed. Yes, 98%
.

Of the 2% that succeeded, less than a half percent of those ever got paid a band royalty from the sale of recorded music.

How in the world is an artist making at least something, no matter how small, worse than 99% of the worlds’ unsigned artists making nothing and of the 1% signed, less than a half a percent of them ever making a single band royalty ever?

Finally, as much as I hate to say it, being an artist does not entitle the artist to get money. They have to earn it. And not everyone can.



Quote:
This is a point that Lowery and his friends always ignore: because they don't count all the bands that failed under the old system. Those artists don't matter to them. The fact that those guys can make some money today where they made $0 before means nothing to them. The only artists who count are the artists who used to make lots of money, but don't make much money any more. Another example of Lowery being wrong that Price responds to is the claim that recorded music revenue to artists has been going down. Price has data:


enjoy.

Edit: Oooh:
Image


_________________
.


JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

07 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm

It's kind of scarey. To think the previous model turned boybands and the likes of Britney in America into multimillionaires in some cases. Imagine how much money they would have made today, not only the royalties but the inflation since then as well.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

08 Jul 2012, 7:56 am

JanuaryMan wrote:
It's kind of scarey. To think the previous model turned boybands and the likes of Britney in America into multimillionaires in some cases. Imagine how much money they would have made today, not only the royalties but the inflation since then as well.

As I understand, the point is exactly the opposite: big stars make less money because that money goes to smaller bands.



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

08 Jul 2012, 8:41 am

True, but I'm saying had the big stars had the same success via the small bands of today with modern tech, think of the money.



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

08 Jul 2012, 4:01 pm

Big stars get insanely rich no matter what happens, so I think their eventual profit is irrelevant.



AspieRogue

08 Jul 2012, 4:08 pm

The problem with the music business today is that because it's SO easy to make music and to sell your music, the market is flooded. As a result, much of the music is absolute garbage. Truly talented and innovative bands aren't able to rise above the rest. You have more equity, but you also have considerably more mediocrity.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,513
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Jul 2012, 5:29 pm

It is a good shift, mainly that bands with the talent can either gain or hire out the savvy for internet marketing. Clearly playing live in the right places is a big deal but still - lots of bands out there who have great talent and ideas make it now, even if some people think they're half lost in the shuffle, vs. not making it at all back when the gate keepers worked the way they did.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

08 Jul 2012, 5:51 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
The problem with the music business today is that because it's SO easy to make music and to sell your music, the market is flooded. As a result, much of the music is absolute garbage.

This is as subjective as heck.

Quote:
Truly talented and innovative bands aren't able to rise above the rest.

Still subjective as heck.
Quote:
You have more equity, but you also have considerably more mediocrity.


Ar you really going to tell me that in the past the few bands picked by the record companies were all very non-mediocre? I would say that besides the obvious geniuses like the Lenons, the Jacksons and the Mercuries the law was and still is that 90% of everything is crud.


_________________
.


enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

09 Jul 2012, 5:04 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
The problem with the music business today is that because it's SO easy to make music and to sell your music, the market is flooded. As a result, much of the music is absolute garbage. Truly talented and innovative bands aren't able to rise above the rest. You have more equity, but you also have considerably more mediocrity.

No. It means there is more diversity. Before, if there were, say, 50 bands doing more or less the same kind of music, then you would have maybe one or two on the market to choose from. Maybe they would be qualified as "better" than the other 48-49, but that is only because you won't hear of them at all. Now, they are all available, so you can buy songs and albums from the one you prefer in reality.



iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

09 Jul 2012, 5:25 pm

The entire point of the iTunes Store is to get you to buy an iPod or similar to put the music on. Almost all of the cost for the songs is royalties to the band/etc. What they put there is just one large marketing tool to buy the bigger stuff. Apple makes almost no money off the sales in the Store.

This might have given them the gall to sell the Nazi music most likely...



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Jul 2012, 5:28 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
The problem with the music business today is that because it's SO easy to make music and to sell your music, the market is flooded. As a result, much of the music is absolute garbage.

This is as subjective as heck.

Quote:
Truly talented and innovative bands aren't able to rise above the rest.

Still subjective as heck.
Quote:
You have more equity, but you also have considerably more mediocrity.


Ar you really going to tell me that in the past the few bands picked by the record companies were all very non-mediocre? I would say that besides the obvious geniuses like the Lenons, the Jacksons and the Mercuries the law was and still is that 90% of everything is crud.


...how is it subjective when he says there's a lot lot of crap on the the market but you can then say "x people are obvious geniuses"?


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

09 Jul 2012, 8:46 pm

In what part did I say I was not being subjective?

My point was to show that his subjective claim can be easily be counteracted by another subjective claim. That's about how much subjective claims are worth.


_________________
.


cron