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

Release day economics

uniformmotion.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Release day economics

#21

Post by rasmusrygaard »

gravitronic wrote: post #5

I always like music industry posts showing up on HN as it's my view that the startup industry is in some ways like the music industry of years past. Competition is fierce. Most start out working on their (startup or music) product part-time until the product becomes popular enough that it is a "hit". At that point the entrepreneur may be lucky to end up funded ("signed") which will help their ability to pursue their…

I think the main difference between the two is that entrepreneurs have a viable alternative in working for an established company (if we can forget about the lack of jobs for a minute). Yes, musicians can work day jobs too, but there are hardly as many openings for professional musicians as there are for professional programmers. The startup analogy is valid, but for recording artists, taking the leap is often in direct conflict with whatever pays the bills.

Re: Release day economics

#22

Post by antonp »

DrCatbox wrote: post #4
Valien wrote: post #3

Now listening to a new band in Spotify. Thanks. Hope the meager cents adds up from hundreds or thousands of users.

Don't worry, much more meager cents will add up in the recording labels pockets, and Spotify, than this band!

Very sad, but true : http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music...

Having played in a band myself I certainly do end up with a bitter-sweet aftertaste when consuming music on Spotify. I've got a paid subscription and I'm absolutely loving it!

It just doesn't make sense: music is such an integral part of our lives yet the people who drive it end up being exploited in a blatant way.

"Don't hate the player. Hate the game." comes into mind when seeing the linked infographic... I just hope to see the rules change in my lifetime.

Re: Release day economics

#23

Post by ivancdg »

Spotify is such a rip-off for musicians; I love the way these guys highlighted that in a light-hearted way. But the economics of the alternatives are not going to make anyone rich, either.

For future reference: if you sign-up via CDBaby, there is a one-time fee of $35 (or $55 if they create your bar-code) and you are set-up with iTunes, Amazon, etc, without a yearly fee. Even though Derek's gone it's still a good deal.

Also, you should seriously consider contacting Magnatune. If they like your music you can be on all of those platforms for free. And John Buckman is a very nice guy. Et en plus il parle le français comme toi et moi.

Re: Release day economics

#24

Post by shabble »

gankit wrote: post #20
njharman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not consider this a business. In fact, the drive to monetize art is at the root of many problems with copyright expansion, culture privatization, and art quality.

How else would artists get paid?

The usual argument is either through patronage/sponsorship by some entity with the money to spare that enjoys their art, or by working in another field and making their art essentially as a hobby.

Whether that is a good thing or not is a much more complicated question, and I suspect we'd have a lot less technically skilled artworks if there was no way for an artist to develop those skills in their primary profession.

Sponsorship and patronage may be the way to go, but that risks the possibility of discouraging artists from producing any works that may offend their sponsor. The similarity to academia with grant funding and tenured professorship is quite clear.

What is probably a novel approach is essentially the pay-whatever-you-like, or "distributed patronage" movements that have been occurring more and more recently. The problem then is shifted to gaining popularity/mind-share sufficient to fund the artist.

Re: Release day economics

#25

Post by ivancdg »

stevewillows wrote: post #19

The author paid too much to press those CDs.

He probably did it in France; it is much more expensive here to do stuff like that than in, say, the UK or Germany.

They're way behind the US in terms of competitive pricing for factory-produced goods.

I ordered promo CDs pressed in California in 2009.

They were pressed in Taiwan with Japanese machines.

I received them 6 days later in Mountain View...at half the price of France, great quality. Incredible.

Re: Release day economics

#26

Post by CWuestefeld »

2arrs2ells wrote: post #12
frewsxcv wrote: post #11

If I listen to only non-RIAA signed bands on Spotify (which I do), how exactly am I supporting major record labels?

The implication seems to be that the major labels get some fixed percentage of Spotify's revenues. I have no idea if this is true or not.

Isn't this the same thing as the Microsoft issue, where they were getting paid for every PC shipped, whether or not it had Windows on it? MS got in trouble with the monopoly police for that...

Re: Release day economics

#27

Post by iand »

ivancdg wrote: post #23

Spotify is such a rip-off for musicians; I love the way these guys highlighted that in a light-hearted way. But the economics of the alternatives are not going to make anyone rich, either. For future reference: if you sign-up via CDBaby, there is a one-time fee of $35 (or $55 if they create your bar-code) and you are set-up with iTunes, Amazon, etc, without a yearly fee. Even though Derek's gone it's still a good dea…

Even though they look like ripoffs with their tiny payments Spotify and other subscription models have a few advantages for the artist over download models. For a start the artist gets paid even if the listener is just trying the track, hates it and never listens again.

The main advantage though is the open ended payment model. The OP should compare the 20 year revenue for each track. I listen to some tracks from 1996 every week and spent the period 1996-2001 listening to them multiple times a day. I'm not unusual (just getting old! :)

Re: Release day economics

#28

Post by physcab »

Consider for a moment this alternate viewpoint. What if submitting a song to was kinda like submitting a blog to . You don't get paid for blogging, but if you produce enough good content, you can create an audience and then sell them other things later on. Smart bloggers give out their content for free, then charge for premium services and products like consulting, books, podcasts, screencasts, merch, etc. Seems like the same model could be applied to independent artists as well. Then the questions become, which platform can you use to stay connected with your fans? Which platform will allow you to upsell other services for which you can make real money on? Which platform allows you to publish your content effortlessly to a potentially limitless audience?

Re: Release day economics

#29

Post by ctdonath »

physcab wrote: post #28

Consider for a moment this alternate viewpoint. What if submitting a song to was kinda like submitting a blog to . You don't get paid for blogging, but if you produce enough good content, you can create an audience and then sell them other things later on. Smart bloggers give out their content for free, then charge for premium services and products like consulting, books, podcasts, screencasts, merch, etc. Seems like…

...and us not-so-great bloggers? like non-hit bands?

Re: Release day economics

#30

Post by unohoo »

burrokeet wrote: post #6

If the band members are also the authors/composers of their recorded material, they will receive slightly more than what is suggested here, since they will also be due mechanical and/or performance royalties from various services. That being said, it's the best/worst time to be a musical artist - you can distribute yourself online (the biggest music marketplace) and receive a MUCH larger chunk of the revenue than eve…

>>it takes a label or label-like organization to sell records

with the new digital distribution methods and physical media almost on the decline, record labels hardly 'sell records' any more. They just do a huge marketing push for the artist.

If indie musicians can figure out a way to market themselves, they really wouldnt need a record label.

Post reply on HN