Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

elusive quote and frustration evoked

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dobbie
    replied
    I am a big fan of classical music and Nxos label is doing brilliantly there discs sell for آ£5 when full prices ones would be آ£15. They only release new digital recordings and do a very broad range of music a lot of stuff not recorded before or currently unavaliable. I think they have really given the major classical labels a run for there money. I also get the idea that the majors ain't to clean on these cheap skates.

    Leave a comment:


  • PsychicWarVeteran
    replied
    Tom Petty had this to say in Rolling Stone back in October of 2002:

    "My top price [for a concert ticket] is about sixty-five dollars, and I turn a very healthy profit on that; I make millions on the road. I see no reason to bring the price up, even though I have heard many an anxious promoter say, 'We could charge 150 bucks for this.'"

    And with regard to CD prices:

    "It's funny how the music industry is enraged about the Internet and the way things are copied without being paid for. But you know why people steal the music? Because they can't afford the music... If you brought CD prices back down to $8.98, you would solve a lot of the industry's problems.... Everyone still makes a healthy profit; it might get the music business back on its feet."

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/new....asp?nid=16913

    I know, no hard figures in there, but it demonstrates that there are insane mark-ups on musical entertainment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    Much of it is talent and marketing fees. I thought I read somewhere that big artists (stadium acts) can get up to $2 or slightly more per disc.

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    replied
    I would wager its even less than a dollar. Once you have the production out of the way and have a "master" to make copies from, all you are spending money on is the cost of a blank CD (pennies) and the electricity to run the machines that burn and label them. Of course, you have to promote them and put them in cases with pretty gfx, but the actual cost of the CD itself is very small I bet.

    Maybe if you factor in all the other jobs associated with the creation of the finished product (which are done in-house mostly) you could approach a value of a dollar. Not sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    Jer-
    Are you posting multiple times so you can catch up with VonWeiner?
    Oh I get it, "catch up" with me as in number of posts. I'm, ah, a doofus. Sorry. :lol:

    DOH

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    "...it must be closer to a mere $1 USD to produce the physical media of a CD (CD, Booklet, Jewel Case)... CDs probably wholesale at around $4-5 USD."

    No expert, but I think your numbers are very close to reality for the average release. Obviously, for a band like Aerosmith or U2, who is being paid a crapload of money up front, it will require more sales to break even.

    "Now I'm no expert, but I bet with minimal investment but with extra other efforts one could do quite well self-publishing music (or really anything for that matter), and then advertise it online. "

    I think you are right on, the problem is that record companies will often provide advertising or provide up front money, which is an enticing proposition (even if in the long run it nets to zero or negative for the artist).

    Leave a comment:


  • VonWeiner
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    Jer-
    Are you posting multiple times so you can catch up with VonWeiner?
    Hehe, he can email me for that. Although, as Jerico knows me now, I can be slow to respond. Its all these kids running around me, they distract me so much. :oops:

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    appearantly, the edit feature isn't working properly.
    the last post should be the one to be read.

    If the delete feature comes back, I'll delete all the previous posts!
    :roll:

    That said, can Berry or one of the illustrious Chaos Engineers please
    delete the previous "unfinished" posts of mine?

    sorry about that everyone, I tend to edit my posts 2 - 9 times.
    It's probably my Mac that's to blame for the redundancy-- for the tautological errors.

    No one, not even the great MM, can beat Von Weiner!
    Luckily he's a great guy eh? What if he were an annoying hot bag of wind (like me)? :lol:

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Jer-
    Are you posting multiple times so you can catch up with VonWeiner?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    Originally posted by AriochRIP
    Doc:

    I'm a musician, so you're preaching to the choir with me. A friend of mine is in a band that scored a Number 1 single on their debut album (I have no idea how many total units they moved, but I'd think it was substantial given a number one single) and their label "rewarded" them by refusing to release their second record. Why? Because the label just didn't see "another number 1 hit" in the new material they'd submitted. So, they lost their deal.

    Incredible. As you said, whatever happened to "developing" an artist? Don't you think these guys earned a shot at a second record after hitting a homerun on their first? The whole system is a mess. A cutthroat mess at that.

    Nick.
    Interesting. Well sounds like your friend's band signed to a "corporate label." Perhaps this shows why it's smarter to start off on an Indie label first.
    I believe most successful bands do it that way. I guess that it allows: 1) a band to develop a significant fan base, 2) allows a band to avoid getting a "blacksheep" stigma attached to them-- ie. "This band can't sell albums. They were on <insert record company name here> and they got dropped." 3) You have creative freedom on Indie labels-- run by people who actually like music, that may well not have guys at the top who went to business school and may not be "true" music fans.
    Soundgarden is a good example. There's an article on them in the Alternative Music thread in the Forum. They avoided signing to a major label for a long time. Probably because of the reasons I just mentioned. I think it takes a degree of intelligence, if not business savvy in order to become a successful artist-- or rather, a successful artist with a degree of longevity. Nowadays 3 years is longevity! ::ironic laughter :lol: :: Indie labels are responsible for bringing out the best new music anyway.
    All that I just wrote is my opinion and my speculation. There is no scientific formula for success in entertainment in my opinion. If there is, it is:
    talent + creativity + new ideas + intelligence + business savvy + hard work + obsession + luck. Maybe I missed one or two variables. (charisma? looks?)
    There are probably a million people who can sing better then Britney Spears and Sheryl Crow, but does that mean they can put out an album that sells?
    Hey didn't that "William Hung" (whatever his name is), American Idol reject, sell a million albums? ::even more ironic laughter!::

    The toughest variable is the "luck" factor. (Put in all of the variables and without the luck factor there, sorry amigo, no success.) Ozzy Osbourne is a great example too if you want to pick a male artist. There are probably 100's of male singers I could point out! Ozzy knows that there are tons of people that can sing better than him, and so acknowledges that he is truly lucky and "blessed." True Ozzy probably wouldn't dream of attempting to sing a Christina Aguilera song, but Black Sabbath "Paranoid" will be in my CD player any day. C. Aguilera in my player? ::cough::gag!:: Michael M. would agree. From what I've heard from him, people who are narcissistic enough to believe that they have "God-given talent" and are "blessed" in that way are full of shite!
    But then also... what's your definition of success?
    I would be happy being as successful as Lemmy and Motorhead. Maybe even more happy at that level rather than that of Michael Jackson. Well Michael Jackson isn't successful anymore of course. Only successful in being in the top 10 list: World's Greatest Freaks of Nature!
    The biggest problem I see with musicians is that even if they are good at their craft, they ought to learn more about everything than just playing their instrument and getting some ass, and getting drunk, and being beligerent narcissist assholes. Musicians who are not like this, are one's I tend to like better. I would guess that it would help more than hurt to put time into
    learning about the business aspects of the music industry, how to record music, how to promote yourself, etc.....
    Ok, once again I've gone beyond making-the-point! Perhaps now is a good time to stop. :roll: Oh before I go...
    what makes me qualified to say anything about the music industry? Well I've written articles for small, local publications over the years. I have done my own "rags" over the years. I worked in college radio for 4 years. I am a musician also. And I read and pay attention to shit in general. ;)
    Maybe I need to write a book... but do I have the credibility until I become a rich-as-fuck entertainer? I dunno...
    Cheers!
    --Jer

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    Originally posted by AriochRIP
    Doc:

    I'm a musician, so you're preaching to the choir with me. A friend of mine is in a band that scored a Number 1 single on their debut album (I have no idea how many total units they moved, but I'd think it was substantial given a number one single) and their label "rewarded" them by refusing to release their second record. Why? Because the label just didn't see "another number 1 hit" in the new material they'd submitted. So, they lost their deal.

    Incredible. As you said, whatever happened to "developing" an artist? Don't you think these guys earned a shot at a second record after hitting a homerun on their first? The whole system is a mess. A cutthroat mess at that.

    Nick.
    Interesting. Well sounds like your friend's band signed to a "corporate label." Perhaps this shows why it's smarter to start off on an Indie label first.
    I believe most successful bands do it that way. I guess that it allows a band to avoid getting a "blacksheep" stigma attached to them-- ie. "This band can't sell albums. They were on <insert record company name here> and they got dropped." Not to mention you have creative freedom on Indie labels-- people who actually like music, that may well not have guys at the top who went to business school and aren't true music fans.
    Soundgarden is a good example. There's an article on them in the Alternative Music thread in the Forum. They avoided signing to a major label for a long time. Probably because of the reasons I just mentioned. I think it takes a degree of intelligence, if not business savvy in order to become a successful artist-- or rather, a successful artist with a degree of longevity. Nowadays 3 years is longevity! Indie labels are responsible for bringing out the best new music anyway.
    All that I just wrote is my opinion and my speculation. There is no scientific formula for success in entertainment in my opinion. If there is, it is:
    talent + creativity + new ideas + intelligence + business savvy + hard work + obsession + luck. Maybe I missed one or two variables. (charisma? looks?)
    There are probably a million people who can sing better then Britney Spears and Sheryl Crow, but does that mean they put out an album that sells?
    The toughest variable is the "luck" factor. (Put in all of the variables and without the luck factor there, sorry amigo, no success. Ozzy Osbourne is a great example too if you want to pick a male artist. There are probably 100's of male singers I could point out! Ozzy knows that there are tons of people that can sing better than him, and he is truly lucky and "blessed." True Ozzy probably wouldn't dream of attempting to sing a Christina Aguilera song, but Black Sabbath "Paranoid" will be in my CD player any day. C. Aguilera in my player? ::cough::gag!::
    But then also... what's your definition of success?
    I would be happy being as successful as Motorhead. Maybe even more happy at that level rather than Michael Jackson. Well Michael Jackson isn't successful anymore of course. Only successful in being in the top 10 list: World's Greatest Freaks of Nature!
    Ok, once again I've gone beyond making-the-point! Perhaps now is a good time to stop. :roll: Oh before I go...
    what makes me qualified to say anything about the music industry? Well I've written articles for small, local publications over the years. I have done my own "rags" over the years. I worked in college radio for 4 years. I am a musician also. And I read and pay attention to shit in general. ;)

    --Jer

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    Originally posted by AriochRIP
    Doc:

    I'm a musician, so you're preaching to the choir with me. A friend of mine is in a band that scored a Number 1 single on their debut album (I have no idea how many total units they moved, but I'd think it was substantial given a number one single) and their label "rewarded" them by refusing to release their second record. Why? Because the label just didn't see "another number 1 hit" in the new material they'd submitted. So, they lost their deal.

    Incredible. As you said, whatever happened to "developing" an artist? Don't you think these guys earned a shot at a second record after hitting a homerun on their first? The whole system is a mess. A cutthroat mess at that.

    Nick.
    Interesting. Well sounds like your friend's band signed to a "corporate label." Perhaps this shows why it's smarter to start off on an Indie label first.
    I believe most successful bands do it that way. I guess that it allows a band to avoid getting a "blacksheep" stigma attached to them-- ie. "This band can't sell albums. They were on <insert record company name here> and they got dropped." Not to mention you have creative freedom on Indie labels-- people who actually like music, that may well not have guys at the top who went to business school and aren't true music fans.
    Soundgarden is a good example. There's an article on them in the Alternative Music thread in the Forum. They avoided signing to a major label for a long time. Probably because of the reasons I just mentioned. I think it takes a degree of intelligence, if not business savvy in order to become a successful artist-- or rather, a successful artist with a degree of longevity. Nowadays 3 years is longevity! Indie labels are responsible for bringing out the best new music anyway.
    All that I just wrote is my opinion and my speculation. There is no scientific formula for success in entertainment in my opinion. If there is, it is:
    talent + creativity + new ideas + intelligence + business savvy + hard work + obsession + luck. Maybe I missed one or two variables. (charisma? looks?)
    There are probably a million people who can sing better then Britney Spears and Sheryl Crow, but does that mean they put out an album that sells?
    The toughest variable is the "luck" factor. (Put in all of the variables and without the luck factor there, sorry amigo, no success. Ozzy Osbourne is a great example too if you want to pick a male artist. There are probably 100's of male singers I could point out! Ozzy knows that there are tons of people that can sing better than him, and he is truly lucky and "blessed." True Ozzy probably wouldn't dream of attempting to sing a Christina Aguilera song, but Black Sabbath "Paranoid" will be in my CD player any day. C. Aguilera in my player? ::cough::gag!::
    But then also... what's your definition of success?
    I would be happy being as successful as Motorhead. Maybe even more happy at that level rather than Michael Jackson. Well Michael Jackson isn't successful anymore of course. Only successful in being in the top 10 list: World's Greatest Freaks of Nature!
    Ok, once again I've gone beyond making-the-point! Perhaps now is a good time to stop. :roll: Oh before I go...
    what makes me qualified to say anything about the music industry? Well I've written articles for small, local publications over the years. I have done my own "rags" over the years. I worked in college radio for 4 years. I am a musician also. And I read and pay attention to shit in general. ;)

    --Jer

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerico
    replied
    Originally posted by AriochRIP
    Doc:

    I'm a musician, so you're preaching to the choir with me. A friend of mine is in a band that scored a Number 1 single on their debut album (I have no idea how many total units they moved, but I'd think it was substantial given a number one single) and their label "rewarded" them by refusing to release their second record. Why? Because the label just didn't see "another number 1 hit" in the new material they'd submitted. So, they lost their deal.

    Incredible. As you said, whatever happened to "developing" an artist? Don't you think these guys earned a shot at a second record after hitting a homerun on their first? The whole system is a mess. A cutthroat mess at that.

    Nick.
    Interesting. Well sounds like your friend's band signed to a "corporate label." Perhaps this shows why it's smarter to start off on an Indie label first.
    I believe most successful bands do it that way. I guess that it allows a band to avoid getting a "blacksheep" stigma attached to them-- ie. "This band can't sell albums. They were on <insert record company name here> and they got dropped." Not to mention you have creative freedom on Indie labels-- people who actually like music, that may well not have guys at the top who went to business school and aren't true music fans.
    Soundgarden is a good example. There's an article on them in the Alternative Music thread in the Forum. They avoided signing to a major label for a long time. Probably because of the reasons I just mentioned. I think it takes a degree of intelligence, if not business savvy in order to become a successful artist-- or rather, a successful artist with a degree of longevity. Nowadays 3 years is longevity! Indie labels are responsible for bringing out the best new music anyway.
    All that I just wrote is my opinion and my speculation. There is no scientific formula for success in entertainment in my opinion. If there is, it is:
    talent + creativity + new ideas + intelligence + business savvy + hard work + obsession + luck. Maybe I missed one or two variables. (charisma? looks?)
    There are probably a million people who can sing better then Britney Spears and Sheryl Crow, but does that mean they put out an album that sells?
    The toughest variable is the "luck" factor. (Put in all of the variables and without the luck factor there, sorry amigo, no success. Ozzy Osbourne is a great example too if you want to pick a male artist. There are probably 100's of male singers I could point out! Ozzy knows that there are tons of people that can sing better than him, and he is truly lucky and "blessed." True Ozzy probably wouldn't dream of attempting to sing a Christina Aguilera song, but Black Sabbath "Paranoid" will be in my CD player any day. C. Aguilera in my player? ::cough::gag!::
    But then also... what's your definition of success?
    I would be happy being as successful as Motorhead. Maybe even more happy at that level rather than Michael Jackson. Well Michael Jackson isn't successful anymore of course. Only successful in being in the top 10 list: World's Greatest Freaks of Nature!
    Ok, once again I've gone beyond making-the-point! Perhaps now is a good time to stop. :roll: Oh before I go...
    what makes me qualified to say anything about the music industry? Well I've written articles for small, local publications over the years. I have done my own "rags" over the years. I worked in college radio for 4 years. I am a musician also. And I read and pay attention to shit in general. ;)

    --Jer

    Leave a comment:


  • krunky
    replied
    Jerico - it must be closer to a mere $1 USD to produce the physical media of a CD (CD, Booklet, Jewel Case). Production costs are a separate matter. CDs probably wholesale at around $4-5 USD. Which means that even if a store doubles its cost, CDs should only cost around $10 USD max, and everyone is being very well paid even so.

    I'm just guessing at these numbers, but I bet I'm close. In fact, in terms of the larger music industry, I bet my numbers are high. My numbers are probably what it would cost the average person to put together a CD. Per unit costs drop the more units manufactured.

    Nowadays, a digital home studio might max out at around $10-15K USD. But obviously that's an investment that could pay off continually thereafter. Of course it would also be nice to think that one could invest a modest sum in one's art and still manage to break even, maybe even turn a profit.

    Now I'm no expert, but I bet with minimal investment but with extra other efforts one could do quite well self-publishing music (or really anything for that matter), and then advertise it online.

    We are reaching the end of the gatekeepers, and they are scrambling for protection from legislators. These middlemen are something I've never thought actually had a legitimate purpose, they were always just standing in the way.

    Since I know you read comics - consider how many truly quality comics have been self-published. Consider how many have extensive creator control and copyright ownership even if they aren't self-published. Now just expand that to music, to books, to anything...

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerico
    Isn't it the cost to manufacture a single CD $5 usd?
    Yet here in the stores, the average full-length CD ranges
    from $13 to $18-- a mark-up (is that the correct term?)
    of over 2-fold.
    There are so many newer technologies now.
    Why haven't the prices dropped?
    I think it's actually costs less than that.

    The rest is promotion, distribution, and administration. Some of the money might even make it to the artist.

    I think I know your response to this, Jer, but do you really believe that record companies will pass the savings of new technologies on to the consumer? As long as we're pavlovian enough to keep paying the $16 bucks (because that's what we've been conditioned to pay), the companies will keep telling us that's the only way they can stay in business.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X