Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Courtney Love does the math (2000)

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#31

Post by b1daly »

Courtney Love my have done some math but it adds up to an empty argument. She conveniently leaves out the fact that most records, major and otherwise, sell virtually nothing and leave the label holding the bag on costs. So they structure the contracts to get the bulk of the revenue so they cover the cost the money losing releases. This objective reality, it's just how the business (has) to work. Really there are few viable alternative music business models.

As an indie musician this is frustrating. I've actually produced a pretty good record. It's available as a free download on my site:

http://sunshinefortheblind.com

Like many musicians I'm driven by love, if I could figure out how to make money with it that would be swell; as it is I just want people to listen:)

I would guess similar tensions must exist in the tech/VC space where a few hits got to cover the costs of the losers for the VCs. I would expect a similar disproportion in the way the individual deals would appear weighted in favor of VC against the companies they invest in. Im not familiar with how the investments are structured though.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#32

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

saddino wrote: post #30
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #23

My main issue with the maths as outlined here is the costs. I don't dispute that bands spend $500,000 recording an album or making a video but I do dispute that they should. I have a friend who is a producer / musician who has been in a successful (top 10 singles) band. He'll tell tales of spending a day in the studio sampling a snare drum sound. One day, one snare drum sound. Given the cost of studio time that's jus…

My indie band's self-produced CD cost us only $16K in 2001 (we were signed to a small label), but to be completely candid, we cut corners all over the place: 1) We dropped two tracks because the live lay down (which we used as the base for all overdubs and re-tracking) just didn't click. We recorded live over three days and we just got burnt out. If we had been signed to a major, I would have appreciated the ability…

The studio and the band can want that but the numbers seem to suggest that it's unsustainable even at music buying's peak. I'd also ask that given that by and large it's not the studio's money (as it comes out of the advance) so is their view that significant?

I'm not saying that bands have to produce an album in three days but you could have had maybe six times the time you spent (which I'm guessing would have removed plenty of pressure and allowed a little time to experiment) and still be coming in at under a quarter of half million dollar figure which seems to be seen as reasonable. I'm guessing that If someone had said to you your budget is $100,000 you'd have been absolutely convinced you could do something that did the music justice.

The question isn't about what would be nice, we're talking about commercial realities so it's about it's about what is feasible. From the band's perspective (and it's ultimately them paying) the figures Albini and Love put forward suggest that $500,000 is a long way from it.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#33

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

b1daly wrote: post #31

Courtney Love my have done some math but it adds up to an empty argument. She conveniently leaves out the fact that most records, major and otherwise, sell virtually nothing and leave the label holding the bag on costs. So they structure the contracts to get the bulk of the revenue so they cover the cost the money losing releases. This objective reality, it's just how the business (has) to work. Really there are few…

Doesn't that just make it more absurd? If I were the record company I'd be slapping down $500,000 recording costs.

If you can record an album yourself and afford to give it away free, it would seem to suggest that it's possible to do it cheaper than half a million dollars (though what do I know, you could be a .com millionaire...).

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#34

Post by b1daly »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #33
b1daly wrote: post #31

Courtney Love my have done some math but it adds up to an empty argument. She conveniently leaves out the fact that most records, major and otherwise, sell virtually nothing and leave the label holding the bag on costs. So they structure the contracts to get the bulk of the revenue so they cover the cost the money losing releases. This objective reality, it's just how the business (has) to work. Really there are few…

Doesn't that just make it more absurd? If I were the record company I'd be slapping down $500,000 recording costs. If you can record an album yourself and afford to give it away free, it would seem to suggest that it's possible to do it cheaper than half a million dollars (though what do I know, you could be a .com millionaire...).

They are slapping down recording costs, and they definitely less than in the nineties. However the marketing costs remain very high. I'm a full time music producer and have my own studio. That cut some of my out of pocket costs but the true cost of my album (it's eight songs) is probably $30-40k which I experience as opportunity cost (i.e. I'm not working on paying projects) and I stretched it over a couple of years. It's not a rational use of resource for me by any measure, I'm just obsessed. The cost of production can categorized in different ways; time, money, talent, effort. At a certain point one seems to reach a limit that can't be breached. Music is organized information, it takes a lot of fighting against entropy just to make it competent, never mind good. It's like some kind of law of information entropy dynamics! Seriously, if you compare any commercial release against the ocean of self produced music (like you find on MySpace)the amature stuff is not listenable and the commercial releases are, and they cost a lot.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#36

Post by ethank »

This article is from 12 years ago. A lot of the math doesn't apply anymore.

Labels will rarely front that much money for recording costs unless justified by past success. The days of million dollar videos are over (in just the last 5 years), and the 360 deal racket is the last great hope of recorded music labels.

The biggest problem with recorded music isn't the label, its the corporate parent. Labels are trying to make good on the promise of 360 by staffing for 360. They can't do so because of resource constraints and resource consolidation at the very top.

Also, blaming labels is one easy thing for artists to do. They should also blame themselves and their managers and lawyers for signing crappy deals to begin with.

I've been at many contract signings (in fact, one artist did the photo-op in my office because of the computer screens), and I never saw a gun held to a hand as they signed what I think everyone knows was an inevitable small disaster, and the small potential for success.

As for Ms. Love: the last 12 years she's been bailed out a lot by people that played in the system she abhors. I personally like Courtney. I've met her many times, and we share common friends, but a 12 year old article does little to comment on today's climate, and in situ it wasn't even that great either.

I'd much rather see what Troy Carter, Scooter Braun, Ken Hertz, Peter Mensch, etc, or producers like Dr. Luke would write about recorded music as a business today. It'd be a lot more interesting.

A few other points:

The RIAA should not be a metonym for recorded music.

Labels are rarely to blame for the problems they are blamed for, their corporate parents usually are.

Artists have the power as a creator which is much stronger than a representative body in 2012. Use it.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#37

Post by wccrawford »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #33
b1daly wrote: post #31

Courtney Love my have done some math but it adds up to an empty argument. She conveniently leaves out the fact that most records, major and otherwise, sell virtually nothing and leave the label holding the bag on costs. So they structure the contracts to get the bulk of the revenue so they cover the cost the money losing releases. This objective reality, it's just how the business (has) to work. Really there are few…

Doesn't that just make it more absurd? If I were the record company I'd be slapping down $500,000 recording costs. If you can record an album yourself and afford to give it away free, it would seem to suggest that it's possible to do it cheaper than half a million dollars (though what do I know, you could be a .com millionaire...).

I have to agree. Any other industry would be testing the waters and weeding out garbage more thoroughly instead of paying the insane costs for every band and then not paying any of them.

The thing is... The musicians allow this. They sign the contracts, even with these articles all over the internet. They knowingly step into this.

I think it's as sleezy as the next guy does, but until the musicians stop agreeing to it so freaking readily, there's not much the rest of us can do for them.

Re: Courtney Love does the math (2000)

#38

Post by rhizome »

basugasubaku wrote: post #21
rhizome wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and plagiarizes Steve Albini: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I don't see it. Can you point out similar passages?

Well, for one, compare Love's entire first section to the table at the end of Albini's essay.
Post reply on HN