41–50 of 53 posts
I'm wondering if there is a mistake in the numbers. The album has 12 tracks, so if the whole album was streamed 7.7m times at $0.005 per track streamed, the royalty payment would be closer to $400,000
I'd assume that's 7.7 million track plays. 7.7 million * $0.005 = $38,500, which is the right order of magnitude. Then note that it says " less then [sic] half a cent per listen".
Yes, but can a small time musician make a fortune giving their album away? Timberlake had prior fame and considerable marketing resources (including dollars) at his disposal to get the business model right. That makes a world of difference. I've found that the most vocal proponents of copyright crackdowns and DRM are small-time musicians, authors, etc. Piracy won't affect Lady Gaga's sales, but for that indie band fr…
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/18/how-a-youtube-sensation-bea...
It seems like music is the loss leader these days, I'm curious to know the pay day from touring.
From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money. And, IMHO, that is how it should be. A recording, to my mind, is faked music, produced to an inch of its like. Its like air brushing. A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist. Buy a MP3 or C…
Yes, but can a small time musician make a fortune giving their album away? Timberlake had prior fame and considerable marketing resources (including dollars) at his disposal to get the business model right. That makes a world of difference. I've found that the most vocal proponents of copyright crackdowns and DRM are small-time musicians, authors, etc. Piracy won't affect Lady Gaga's sales, but for that indie band fr…
True, but it's a double edged sword. Before the internet and napster, were small-time musicians any better off? I still remember the market being dominated by big players with loads of commercial backing. The tech makes music production much easier/cheaper and publicity/distribution trivial. The flipside of that technology is that it makes mass piracy much easier. There are probably a lot of people willing to listen…
Artists today far more dependent on touring and merch revenue (fun fact: artists sold merch in the 1980s too!). There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about touring revenue. Justin Timberlake might pull in 6 figures from a show. Most indie acts can count on something more like $50 per band member per night.
It seems like music is the loss leader these days, I'm curious to know the pay day from touring.
From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money. And, IMHO, that is how it should be. A recording, to my mind, is faked music, produced to an inch of its like. Its like air brushing. A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist. Buy a MP3 or C…
It seems like music is the loss leader these days, I'm curious to know the pay day from touring.
From what I can tell, and the model I would advocate, is that recorded music is advertising for a live tour, which does make the money. And, IMHO, that is how it should be. A recording, to my mind, is faked music, produced to an inch of its like. Its like air brushing. A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist. Buy a MP3 or C…
Actually, from thousands of interviews I've read from artists, live tours are always a losing proposition money-wise.
Except for big bands (from Rolling Stones down to Kings of Leon or White Stripes levels of big) for any alternative artist, much less a group, it's bleeding money. And, no, merchandise doesn't do it, either.
>A real artist, or musician, can perform live, and that is where they should make their money, performing their art. That is the artist.
So those post 1965 Beatles albums, when they stopped performing live, are not real art. You know, like Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, Revolver et al.
It seems like music is the loss leader these days, I'm curious to know the pay day from touring.
The top artists are making huge amounts of money from touring. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1481408/top-25-tours-... eg Roger Waters' tour grossed $186 million on 72 shows. Madonna did $228 million. They obviously don't get to keep that, but they get a very healthy cut.
For small alternative artists (less 1 million album sales, which is the vast majority) it's almost always a losing proposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but it's a double edged sword. Before the internet and napster, were small-time musicians any better off? I still remember the market being dominated by big players with loads of commercial backing. The tech makes music production much easier/cheaper and publicity/distribution trivial. The flipside of that technology is that it makes mass piracy much easier. There are probably a lot of people willing to listen…
The major labels worked somewhat like venture capital firms. They funded lots and lots of small artists with advances that few artists were ever successful enough to pay back, with the ultimate effect of subsidizing a middle class lifestyle for them while on contract. Artists today far more dependent on touring and merch revenue (fun fact: artists sold merch in the 1980s too!). There seem to be a lot of misconception…
In other words, are less artists funded through A&R because there is a higher risk from piracy that previously, or is there also a factor that A&R becomes less important if musicians are able to self finance music production and distribution therefore allowing the masses to do talent discovery on their behalf?
I know a few independent small time artists and their plan seems to work on the basis of "do enough shows and get enough youtube hits & twitter followers and someone will offer us a contract".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Timberlake is such a successful artist it is beyond reasonable doubt that all deals he has are on favoured nations terms so what he actually made is likely at least on the high end of your estimate, and circa $7MM in a WEEK is a fortune whichever way you slice it. Also, Suit & Tie had 9,394 radio spins in it's first week, which is the most in the chart's history, that's a first week audience of 93.4MM people [1]. I'm…
I own a group of radio stations. We pay about 5% of our sales to music licensing costs. Frankly I never cease to be amazed at what a great deal that is compared to how Spotify / Pandora / etc are getting screwed big time on licensing fees. Traditional radio was / sometimes still is an extremely profitable business. Once you exceed basic costs, it's all gravy minus sales commissions and some production costs on commer…
Bloodhound gang is a good example. They record everything on a laptop, give all the tracks away and sell out a tour for $3million plus a few mln in merch, which is pretty good when theres less middlemen to siphon the income.
U2 made 700million last yr touring. None of their albums come close to that sales figure so they also give away songs to promote the real income of live shows