Recording Industry: Beginning of the End?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

I stopped buying CD's when the RIAA started suing teens because they used Napster or downloaded music illegally. How many years ago was that? That was the last time I bought a CD in a store. I have purchased directly from rather unknown artists but never online or in a store.

Nothing like a pothead like Busta Rhymes lecturing me in a RIAA TV commercial about how illegal my music downloading is...... ummmm your a drug addict and you do illegal drugs and your telling me whats legal? Please.

100% agreed. While technically illegal, watching a profitable multi-million dollar industry go after kids and students in court was an amazing display of greed and stupidity. They shot themselves in the foot with an entire generation. I used to download songs, and if I liked them, purchase the CD. On average, I probably bought 2-3 CDs per week. When Napster was taken down by the recording industry, I essentially quit buying CDs. I thought the South Park take on the issue was brilliant, Lars Ulrich complaining about having to buy a smaller pool for his mansion.

One thing about the internet, anybody can get exposure. Just look at how YouTube has made overnight celebrities out of people with absolutely no talent. If nothing else, this should make it easier for good bands to get "out there". It seems that breaking into the recording industry is the hardest part of making it, now that obstacle has been removed. With a generation of internet savvy consumers, I can see this becoming the new direction of music.

Furthermore, the musician can still profit. Does anyone know how much the artist makes off of a $15 CD sale? I can't see it being much after everyone else takes their piece of the pie. Selling directly, musicians can sell their music for less money, but still make a better profit. It's win-win, unless you're a music company exec.

[Rick Lee]

So because you dislike ASCAP, BMI or RIAA, that means their copyrights are optional? And illegal downloading is ok? I played in cover bands throught high school and college and made money doing it in college, even got sponsored and paid by Anheuser Busch playing covers. Never heard a peep about copyright infringement from any club owners or A&R reps. Well, there was one gig at a place that billed itself as all original music and they made a comment when we did all of side 1 from Rush's 2112 as an encore. But I slept ok that night. And IIRC, every band that records a cover has to cite the original artist on the album jacket. I don't know if they share royalties or whatever. Old Van Halen sure did a lot of covers on their albums and played them live. Rush did an entire CD a few years of all covers. I'm sure they all have lawyers for that stuff.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Furthermore, the musician can still profit. Does anyone know how much the artist makes off of a $15 CD sale? I can't see it being much after everyone else takes their piece of the pie. Selling directly, musicians can sell their music for less money, but still make a better profit. It's win-win, unless you're a music company exec.

How do they make money if people steal their music with illegal downloads? Record co. or not, there's still no money being paid for the songs. Is $.99 a song really too much?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Rick, I saw it as a victimless crime. If I liked the music, I bought a CD. Now, I don't download or buy CDs. Do you speed? Jaywalk? Park in no-parking zone? There's a lot of little stuff that we all do that is against the law, it's all a matter of the impact that it has on others.

Your argument doesn't really hold much water, the recording industry was still doing well in the Napster days. Companies like iTunes have shown that people will happily pay a small fee for downloaded music. Apply this same business model to individual bands, and there's every reason to believe that people will pay money for music they like, purchased from the bands themselves.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by nota

then you get the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, ect extorting ''fees'' from clubs
and worse from kids,
but ever wonder how much of that goes to the artists???

the whole industry is rotten
and direct sales, at the site for CDs or online D/L is the only way for start up bands to make $$$...

Couldn't have said it better...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Rick, I saw it as a victimless crime. If I liked the music, I bought a CD. Now, I don't download or buy CDs. Do you speed? Jaywalk? Park in no-parking zone? There's a lot of little stuff that we all do that is against the law, it's all a matter of the impact that it has on others.

Your argument doesn't really hold much water, the recording industry was still doing well in the Napster days. Companies like iTunes have shown that people will happily pay a small fee for downloaded music. Apply this same business model to individual bands, and there's every reason to believe that people will pay money for music they like, purchased from the bands themselves.

Well, then my argument does hold water, because you say people are willing to pay $.99 for iTunes. If they're not willing, then it's stealing and it's not a victimless crime. You may hate the victims, but they are the ones who bankrolled the production of the music you illegally download. Speeding or jaywalking truly are victimless crimes. I've never hurt anyone by doing both on a regular basis. But I've never downloaded a song I didn't first pay for either. Sure the recording industry wasn't hurting in the days of Napster. But that was around eight years ago and the effects have definitely filtered into the industry's bottom line now, which is why the RIAA is suing people. They didn't do it back then because they hadn't started feeling the pinch.

I have plenty of friends who've recorded and pressed their own cd's. That studio time can easily run $500 an hour and then you have a few thousand cd's to press and pay for. I'd much rather sell cd's at my gigs that people can get autographed and then throw right into their car's cd player on the way home than announce my band's website and ask folks to download songs. And if they don't pay for the songs, how do you even begin to recoop your production costs, let alone make any money?

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

So because you dislike ASCAP, BMI or RIAA, that means their copyrights are optional? And illegal downloading is ok? I played in cover bands throught high school and college and made money doing it in college, even got sponsored and paid by Anheuser Busch playing covers. Never heard a peep about copyright infringement from any club owners or A&R reps....

Despite your "experience", I know of what I speak. I said nothing about illegal downloading being OK, please reread my post. If you played in a "cover band" that performed in restaraunts, clubs, etc. (i.e. public venues), then either the club owner was paying BMI and ASCAP, or he was in violation of copyright laws. Just because you never heard a peep doesn't mean squat...

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by cowtown

On top of that, Amazon is beta testing (or maybe it's in release now) it's DRM-FREE download service. You can buy Dark Side of the Moon for $8. Or you can buy the songs for $0.50-$2 each. Different from iTunes, with its copy protection. The concept of the "album" is dead. So the record labels don't get $18 for that one good song on the disc any more.

Not a moment too soon, like Thom says.

I hope not. Not to bemoan the fate of record companies, but the kiddies down loading one song.....can you imagine not having the experience of Dark Side, or Close to Edge, or Grace, or Blood on the Tracks, or OK Computer or the White Album or Sgt Peppers...music and recordnig is more than Beyonce, I hope.

Or probably Im just old.

[Nostril Cheese]

The new Radiohead is actually quite good. Stand out tracks are the first one, House of Cards and All I Need. Although I'm sure they have been listening to Boards Of Canada. A few of the tracks sound just like them.

[Highlander179]

I hate the fact that when I have my sons birthday party at Chucky Cheese, we can't sing "Happy Birthday", we have to sing some stupid "Chucky Cheese Birthday Dance N Clap Song" because the real song was copywrited eons ago. The song that everyone grew up with and sings in their homes cant be sung in restaurants because they dont wanna "pay for use". Thats horse****!

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Furthermore, the musician can still profit. Does anyone know how much the artist makes off of a $15 CD sale? I can't see it being much after everyone else takes their piece of the pie. Selling directly, musicians can sell their music for less money, but still make a better profit. It's win-win, unless you're a music company exec.

In the "old" (recording contract) model? They (the record company) will usually let you pay back your "contract" loan at about $1 per copy sold. And, about the time you break even, they'll find more expenses for you. My band has sold almost 2 million copies of it's first Warner Brothers release, and never seen dollar 1 from actual sales of the record.
I agree that selling a product (record) that you own IS better, but it's all about volume. Think of M&K versus Magnaflow.

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

\ And IIRC, every band that records a cover has to cite the original artist on the album jacket. I don't know if they share royalties or whatever.

You have to contact the publisher of the song and pay a set fee, which I think now is somewhere around 9 cents per song, per copy. If you record your own version of YYZ and sell 1 million copies, you'll owe Rush's publishing company about 90 thousand dollars.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Well, then my argument does hold water, because you say people are willing to pay $.99 for iTunes. If they're not willing, then it's stealing and it's not a victimless crime. You may hate the victims, but they are the ones who bankrolled the production of the music you illegally download. Speeding or jaywalking truly are victimless crimes. I've never hurt anyone by doing both on a regular basis. But I've never downloaded a song I didn't first pay for either. Sure the recording industry wasn't hurting in the days of Napster. But that was around eight years ago and the effects have definitely filtered into the industry's bottom line now, which is why the RIAA is suing people. They didn't do it back then because they hadn't started feeling the pinch.

I have plenty of friends who've recorded and pressed their own cd's. That studio time can easily run $500 an hour and then you have a few thousand cd's to press and pay for. I'd much rather sell cd's at my gigs that people can get autographed and then throw right into their car's cd player on the way home than announce my band's website and ask folks to download songs. And if they don't pay for the songs, how do you even begin to recoop your production costs, let alone make any money?

Rick, the record companies started suing people years ago. They took down Napster, and started suing hardcore users. That was before they even felt a significant pinch. My actions at the time were not having any impact on the industry, as I purchased CDs from the artist's whose downloaded music I liked. To me, downloading was an easy way to make mix CDs, and preview new artists. I no longer download music, nor do I purchase CDs. I've pretty much lost interest in the industry as a whole.

Illegal downloading is a moot point these days, there's really not a good site out there. However, bands allowing fans to download their music for free/cheap is a good way to build their popularity. You make a valid point when it comes to studio time, but bands had to pay to make a demo in the past to submit to record companies. Now they can record their music, then distribute it for free online. CDs do still have their place, but their relevance is fading fast. My wife's younger siblings get all of their music from iTunes, they no longer mess with CDs. It's the way of the future.

[lfot]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Re iTunes, the artists only get around a nickel or dime per song because the labels get the lion's share and I have gathered that Apple probably gets somewhere from 20 to 30 cents. Take the labels out and the artists could grab a much bigger share from platforms/aggregators like iTunes and Amazon.

Exactly.
I'm an independent artist, and for every song I sell on iTunes, I personally get around 65¢. That adds up QUICK! I get as much return from iTunes as I do from selling actual CDs after you include distro and shipping and all that.

iTunes is a god-send for the independent music industry, no matter how many people complain about Steve Jobs and/or Apple.

The other god-send is CDBaby.com. Amazing company for independent artists.

[Jims5543]

I do not buy CD's in Stores as I said before. I buy at concerts or when I encounter bands performing in street festivals etc...

We just picked up a coupe of CD's from these guys when they were performing in Bush Gardens.
http://www.basicrockoutfit.com/

I saw Jeremy and gang (sooooo looking forward to you coming through again) and picked up a CD there as well.
http://www.bigheadtodd.com/

A couple of years ago in Palm Springs we saw a band performing on the street. The artist was called Benise. They were quite good live and I ended up with a couple of CD's and a DVD from them purchased at the street festival.
http://www.benise.com/

I still buy CD's just not in record stores anymore, I prefer to go and get it directly from the artist.

[Highlander179]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Illegal downloading is a moot point these days, there's really not a good site out there.

You're kidding right? There's more volume now, and higher quality, then when Napster was at its height.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Highlander179

You're kidding right? There's more volume now, and higher quality, then when Napster was at its height.

I just read something about how Limewire was being taken down, and that there were no good alternatives. Lots of sites, but not anywhere near the song selection as Napster had in it's heyday. Also issues with spyware and viruses.

It's not my thing anymore, so I can't personally comment.

[kstar]

More News: "Madonna Dumps Record Industry"

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/10/and-the-walls-came-tumbling-down-madonna-dumps-record-industry/

Excerpt:
Since reporting Monday that Nine Inch Nails had dumped its record label and was to offer future albums direct to the public, Oasis and Jamiroquai have also joined the move away from the record industry, but the biggest announcement of all is news today that Madonna has dumped the record industry.

According to reports, Madonna has signed a $120million deal with L.A. based concert promotion firm Live Nation to distribute three studio albums, promote concert tours, sell merchandise and license Madonna’s name.

Whilst the deal differs from Nine Inch Nails in that Madonna is not offering direct-to-public albums, Live Nation isn’t a record company. The deal shows that even for a world famous act, a record company is no longer required in the days of digital downloads and P2P music sharing.

This is getting really good.

Best,

Kurt

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Gogar

In the "old" (recording contract) model? They (the record company) will usually let you pay back your "contract" loan at about $1 per copy sold. And, about the time you break even, they'll find more expenses for you. My band has sold almost 2 million copies of it's first Warner Brothers release, and never seen dollar 1 from actual sales of the record.
I agree that selling a product (record) that you own IS better, but it's all about volume. Think of M&K versus Magnaflow.

Thanks for chiming in...I was hoping you'd see this thread!

[Gogar]

Good for Her. It will definitely spark a whole new series of debates. Is the transfer of money from one department of a huge corporation to another considered 'payola'? Since the promoter-cum-record label also owns the radio stations on which they will play everyone's favorite new Madonna songs every 15 minutes?