Music, file sharing, record labels, artists...If you're really interested, read this!

reply to post by ShadowAngel85


Your right when you say most people don't know how the music industry works. You seem to be forgetting that most of the time record labels will do anything to please and keep artists under contract, that includes paying rent, leasing out cars for them, reserving rooms at the most luxurious hotels etc. What you don't understand is that the artists are charged for this at the end of the day. Let's not forget that artists also have to pay for the production, marketing and distribution of their albums...thus selling a diamond record will leave you with barely 100k but will benefit the record label.

Once contracts are terminated additional costs are brought up that artists never even knew they owed hence leading them to bankruptcy. Basically you get everything you want but it never belongs to you. Read up on Malice's book 'wretched pitiful poor blind and naked'. He was paying mortgage on everything despite selling millions of records and being signed to Star Trak (Pharrell Williams).

Then your forgetting theirs a hierarchy in the music business with those at the top making a greater profits. For example and artist could be signed to 'Shady Interscope', Eminem is signed to Dre, Dre is signed to his record label which in turn may be signed to another label. Each and every single one of these individuals will receive their share of profits off every record released by Shady Interscope.

edit: Independent artists make way more cash and they barely have anything. If you don't believe me do some research and you'll understand why artists prefer to remain independent and own all the rights to their music whilst making larger profits since they don't have as many pay outs.

Immortal Technique speaks on how major record deals milk artists.



Lupe Fiasco speaks out on his shady record deal.




Lupe at it again check out 3:40

[yvid][/yvid]

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by randomname

 

One of the points of his title "New boss..." etc. is about how YouTube and Google are funding the very blogs that promote the idea of not having to pay ... while they reap the benefits of the free traffic they get... but not sharing it with the artists at all.

Apparently... artists are the perennial losers in the distribution of their creations.

You are definitely right, but Youtube and Google pay out the record labels a certain amount of money. At the end of the day the everyone benefits but the artist.

A show of hands please (this ought ot be good...)

"How many responders here are musicians and/or songwriters?'

Cmon. Ill start.

1. Me-receives royalties, owns copyrights, world wide multi-continents "per-unit" royalties quarterly.
Label representation, RIAA member, songs in motion pictures and tv show.

Go ahead....NEXT?

And I only ask because most all Ive ever seen are commentors who ARENT in the business, knows nothing of copyrights, royalties...what "perpetuity" means, the difference with "performance rights" "ownership.etc.etc., management, representation, trademarks, patents or copyright protections

Thats why I just dont get into it. I would get nowhere.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


I would caution you (in a friendly way) not to assume too much about those you feel "don't know."

There are more people here than you think, and some of them... including the author of the article.... at least appear to be as knowledgeable and experienced as you seem to think is necessary to discuss the matter.

Where such knowledge is lacking, add it.... I know I would appreciate it.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


I'm an independent artist, musician and songwriter. These days I mostly just demo songs. I haven't actually made any money from the business since 1994. Links in sig.

Blessings and luck to you. The biz is a monster.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
And I only ask because most all Ive ever seen are commentors who ARENT in the business, knows nothing of copyrights, royalties...what "perpetuity" means, the difference with "performance rights" "ownership.etc.etc., management, representation, trademarks, patents or copyright protections

Thats why I just dont get into it. I would get nowhere.

Sound engineer, recording artist, producer and I know some very influential musicians. Like Maxmars said, don't assume too much.

Ahh #, Max is a mod here? COOl
If it's the same dude from the other site, ats is in good hands.
He posts some good commies too

reply to post by Maxmars


Point well taken. Thank you

I just skimmed the article. As it points out, the new boss will always be less than ideal if that boss isn't you. Turning to Apple, Amazon and Youtube is pleading allegiance to a new mob boss after the old one got wacked.

Another thing that doesn't seem to be taken into account is the number of artists. In the old days only a select few broke into the market. Today anyone can throw something out there. A quick search of the current releases on amazon shows over 45,000 new releases in the last 30 days. Since the pie is being shared by many more people, why is it a surprise that most are getting a tiny slice and many no pie at all?

I think the information presented by the forum members within these two pages can easily go hand in hand with the article.

This topic should be used for posterity by any artist interested in the music "biz."

I tip my hat to the very well-informed voices within these pages for offering their insight and perception on how things really are!

Cheers!

Im doing my diploma in Audio Engineering and Production at SAE here in New Zealand and have learnt only really a little about the legal side of things but really only relative to our laws so i am getting into a future within the biz but also do a lot of recording/producer/mixing for small bands and artists because it's what i love to do and i think i have a knack for it, also my brother is a recording artist has a band etc. and his girlfriend is a fairly well known singer in NZ as well.

So not like in the U.S or U.K where there's millions of dollars to be made for being so called "artist" it's not really the case here but from the info i know musicians get screwed big time if they're not in the pop genre because we all should know that the radio/media/record labels tell people what they should listen to and what is "good" music. lol

I know my brother a lot of musicians who actually make good music but not mainstream stuff so obviously are not that well known only to a certain fan base like making music for the love of music! and don't care really about the money i mean sure they get a little and it's cool but yeah i think people seem to forget that there are still folks out there that do it for the love.

As a college radio DJ for the past 3 years, I've seen my share of bands trying to get noticed. I try to give attention to bands on sites like bandcamp and so forth because I believe in promoting independent artists as much as possible.

File sharing is not killing the music industry. I think a lack of choice combined with the high cost of CDs (back in the 90s especially) is what got the ball rolling for the decline of the music industry. I never had much money in my teens and buying a CD required saving up several weeks of a meager allowance, unless I could buy used.

Fast forward to modern times and I have much more access to music than I could ever dream of. This keeps creativity alive.

If college radio can evolve and thrive in the face of the internet, then the music industry can certainly do the same.

tvguide.ca...

Earlier this week, Superior Court judge Elizabeth Allen White denied a motion by CBS and Paramount to dismiss the lawsuit, which opens up the possibility of a trial to determine if the former CBS sitcom stars are entitled to royalties from DVD and merchandising sales. The Daily Telegraph says that, unless the parties settle out of court, it will go to trial on July 17.

reply to post by BobAthome


That's an interesting aspect of this; but are actors (thespians) actually the "artist" or just performers? If they are performers, and not the creative 'owners' of the 'product,' what perpetual entitlement can they claim? It would be like former Boston Pop's musicians wanting compensation for what the Boston Pop's is doing at this moment without them. Or am I missing the point?