The True "State of the Art"

[acetheface954]

Elvis Presley worked for an independent label until he started to be noticed on a national level, then RCA/Columbia came knocking and bought out his contract with Sun Studios/Records

it was a case of there was so much money floating around that it was all but impossible to refuse the offers (that Presley got himself new management that made some of the decisions for him didn't help Sun Records - they would have grown very quickly on the back of Presley's dominance of the market place, but they may not have had the initial capital to market him as needed)

I.E. the accountants and other money men in the music business do not like the idea of forgoing profits for the sake of others being successful - they will buy contracts and then stifle an artist so that they fall out of favour, refuse to release albums because they are not up to scratch (which is usually not true, but the reason proffered), refuse to allow a released artist (someone whose contract has lapsed) to use their name as it is the property of the label (Prince /Love Symbol/Artist formerly known as Prince)

this has been the history of the music business since the 1910's, back then it was white guys get the publicity and black guys get the shaft, unless you happened to be smart about your business - consider the success fo cab calloway as a young man and an old man

all the commentary in the article is pointing to the need for individuals and artists/groups to be business smart rather than relying on pipe dreams and promises/prophecies that are lies or half-truths

i must admit that not being business savvy is what kept me back in my early years. if i knew then what i know now...SMH.

I don't know, man. To me, after I read the whoe article and took the autor's words into consideration, it seems that this guy is over-protecting the major labels. Like was said here before: "go get a regular job, you don't belong in the music industry." - this stance is, to me, someone who is afraid of things that are to come (like the powerless major labels, or the arise of independent artists).

lol yeah that's basically how I took it. "we don't need anymore artists. thank you for trying out but we're good". things can get misinterpreted mind you. i wouldn't say he's protecting the labels but I would say he sees trouble up the road.

 

[lateef7842]

Wow, I guess what they're saying about public schools is true. Either that, or a few people here need to get their tuition back from their private schools. ... Just kidding.

He didn't mean you shouldn't get into the music biz. He was just using that term to make a larger point. It's been damn near twenty years since the promise of the digital revolution came on the scene and all that's happened is that a new bunch of plantation masters have taken over from the old ones. Except, these guys don't pay you anything at all whereas the old guard threw you some crumbs to live off of. You at least got a signing bonus of a few grand. Enough to last you a couple of years if your were smart with your cash. Buy you a crib in working class area. Get decent whip. Etc ... You weren't rich. But, you got a little less than factory wages.

Digital promised to be the great equalizer. We were told we'd have more control over our creations and we'd be able to make a decent amount of cash because we'd be able to cut out the labels. Well, the labels were cut out and so is the cash. But, wait, the labels are still there. So, the only thing that was really cut out was the cash. Well, at least for us that is. The Gods of Tech are making a killing off of our dumb asses.

And that control? Well, that's being taken away, too. I've heard Spotify and, or, Pandora are seeking to make it so they can play your shit without permission. Imagine that. ...lol

David Lowery had a song played over a million times on Pandora; he got $16.89 (you should follow his blog, by the way http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/2...-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/).

Now, Pandora wants to fix things so they can pay even less than that. While the owner of Pandora is worth millions in stock options, you working a 9 to 5 making beats on the side.

Cats would laugh if they were asked to work their jobs for free while their bosses got paid a few grand. But, they gladly give up their creations for others to make billions from.

Wake up or don't. They're always hiring at McDonalds. Perhaps we could all work for them for free?

 

[acetheface954]

Wow, I guess what they're saying about public schools is true. Either that, or a few people here need to get their tuition back from their private schools. ... Just kidding.

He didn't mean you shouldn't get into the music biz. He was just using that term to make a larger point. It's been damn near twenty years since the promise of the digital revolution came on the scene and all that's happened is that a new bunch of plantation masters have taken over from the old ones. Except, these guys don't pay you anything at all whereas the old guard threw you some crumbs to live off of. You at least got a signing bonus of a few grand. Enough to last you a couple of years if your were smart with your cash. Buy you a crib in working class area. Get decent whip. Etc ... You weren't rich. But, you got a little less than factory wages.

Digital promised to be the great equalizer. We were told we'd have more control over our creations and we'd be able to make a decent amount of cash because we'd be able to cut out the labels. Well, the labels were cut out and so is the cash. But, wait, the labels are still there. So, the only thing that was really cut out was the cash. Well, at least for us that is. The Gods of Tech are making a killing off of our dumb asses.

And that control? Well, that's being taken away, too. I've heard Spotify and, or, Pandora are seeking to make it so they can play your shit without permission. Imagine that. ...lol

David Lowery had a song played over a million times on Pandora; he got $16.89 (you should follow his blog, by the way http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/2...n-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/)Now, Pandora wants to fix things so they can pay even less than that. While the owner of Pandora is worth millions in stock options, you working a 9 to 5 making beats on the side.

Cats would laugh if they were asked to work their jobs for free while their bosses got paid a few grand. But, they gladly give up their creations for others to make billions from.

Wake up or don't. They're always hiring at McDonalds. Perhaps we could all work for them for free?

your link doesn't work. $16.89? is that a fact?!!!

i for one love the digital era. despite not having the money, we have complete control over what we make. as long as you have the drive you can do whatever you want. we don't have to sit around waiting for someone to make something for us. we go to our bedroom studios and record to our heart's content. we have the power. we just don't fully know its capabilities yet. at least i don't.

 

[bandcoach]

Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist

is probably as a good a place to start as any on that site

I've only read through to slide 6 but it is telling it like it is

 

[rhythmgj]

If we could combine lateef's remarkably accurate and clear grasp of the situation, with acetheface's optimism, we might be getting somewhere. But it seems that the music community at-large is polarized. The current situation is dire, but also provides opportunity. The trick is understanding the geography of the business. These tech companies are not out to "level" anybody's playing field. They are not hippy-dippy prophets of a more "open and free" society. They are there to make money, just like the other cats were. If it's on the backs of music makers and other artists, because all of these digital delivery systems need to have content to deliver, then that's what they're going to do.

But again, there are opportunities, probably a bunch we haven't even thought of yet. It's just important to know who you're dealing with.

GJ

 

[bandcoach]

your link doesn't work. $16.89? is that a fact?!!!

i for one love the digital era. despite not having the money, we have complete control over what we make. as long as you have the drive you can do whatever you want. we don't have to sit around waiting for someone to make something for us. we go to our bedroom studios and record to our heart's content. we have the power. we just don't fully know its capabilities yet. at least i don't.

see the fixed link

the 3 images provided make for chilling reading (tables are my summary of the information presented for a single song Low by David Lowery and others royalty returns on 3 platforms; terrestrial radio means am/fm free to air: all returns for 1 quarter year)

Source	Plays counted	Fee paid	% owned	Total royalty paid	Fee per play ($)
SiriuXm	179	181.94	40	454.85	2.541061
Pandora	1159000	16.89	40	42.23	0.000036
Terrestrial radio	18797	1373.78	40	3434.45	0.182713

Ratio of fee per plays

Source	SirisuXm	Pandora	Terrestrial radio
SiriuXm	1.000000:1.000000	0.000014:1.000000	0.071904:1.000000
Pandora	70585.027778:1.000000	1.000000:1.000000	0.000197:1.000000
Terrestrial radio	13.907390:1.000000	0.000197:1.000000	1.000000:1.000000

This table is to be read as a Top line medium vs LHS medium e.g. SiriusXm/Pandora gives a 70.5k ratio of payments, i.e. 1 play on SiruisXM is worth 70.5k plays on Pandora or, more scarily put, Pandora/SirusXM gives a ratio of 14/1000000 plays at SiriusXm is equal to one play at Pandora

This difference will be even larger if Pandora gets its way and has Congress reduce the per-play-fee even further

 

[rhythmgj]

My personal story is "much brighter" than Mr. Lowery's-- after a combined 2,000 or so plays/sales (total figure of albums and singles sold, plus pay-per-click plays), I made a total of about $75. That was when I stopped counting several years ago (but then again, I haven't gotten a check in a long time either).

After a successful radio and promotional campaign that helped chart my album and get airplay and critical recognition literally throughout the world, I got $75. I suppose I broke even on physical product eventually, but I gave a _lot_ of promo CD's away.

This might be an exciting example of positive things to come for some people, but to me, it's not something I can make a living on and feed a family, and this after more than 30 years in the business.

We have a lot of work to do before the "Long Tail" pays off in any appreciable way.

GJ

 

[acetheface954]

My personal story is "much brighter" than Mr. Lowery's-- after a combined 2,000 or so plays/sales (total figure of albums and singles sold, plus pay-per-click plays), I made a total of about $75. That was when I stopped counting several years ago (but then again, I haven't gotten a check in a long time either).

After a successful radio and promotional campaign that helped chart my album and get airplay and critical recognition literally throughout the world, I got $75. I suppose I broke even on physical product eventually, but I gave a _lot_ of promo CD's away.

This might be an exciting example of positive things to come for some people, but to me, it's not something I can make a living on and feed a family, and this after more than 30 years in the business.

We have a lot of work to do before the "Long Tail" pays off in any appreciable way.

GJ

Wow i would definitely call that a success story. I'm guessing you did better because you have less people in your pockets am I correct?

 

[bandcoach]

did you read what he wrote?????

for 2000 plays/sales he got a total of $75

- that is something of the order of 3.75c per play/sale, not much at all
- when compared with terrestrial radio which pays 18c per play (i.e. revenue was 14.25c lower on average)

 

[acetheface954]

2k plays - $75
1m plays - $16.

$75 looks better to me.

 

[bandcoach]

perhaps but

what platforms?

what were the individual rates of return? i.e. what royalty rate was paid for each platform?

and that figure includes sales not just royalties (and sales can have a marked increase in perceived rate of return)

 

[acetheface954]

perhaps but

what platforms?

what were the individual rates of return? i.e. what royalty rate was paid for each platform?

and that figure includes sales not just royalties (and sales can have a marked increase in perceived rate of return)

oh i'm aware it was based on sales as well. but...he got one up on the majors which makes him the victor. how now he did it is beyond me. with just 2k plays and sales he made over 4x the amount of what the big brand artist made. that is huge to me even if it is only $75.

 

[bandcoach]

you are missing the point and being blinded by the aggregation of two distinct revenue streams

Note, Mr Lowery does not divulge returns on sales at all so we are comparing apples with oranges or more adeptly apples with tomatoe sauce

 

[acetheface954]

you are missing the point and being blinded by the aggregation of two distinct revenue streams

Note, Mr Lowery does not divulge returns on sales at all so we are comparing apples with oranges or more adeptly apples with tomatoe sauce

lol i didn't miss any point. wasn't looking for one really. i know that it's comparing apples and oranges. i know that you can't base it all off how much this artist pocketed versus the other. i just stated that it looks like he did better than lowery when i called it a success story. not stating any facts or opinions on the matter. i'm just saying "wow it "looks like" he, rhythmGJ, did better than lowery. rhythmGJ even said his outcome and i quote was "brighter". mod scientist? clever coach lol. very nice.

 

[rhythmgj]

Well, I suppose rates were higher a few years back; this was pre-Spotify. My aggregator was (is) CDBaby. I remember getting three checks, months apart, totaling in the neighborhood of $75. I could print-out a report with all of the relevant royalty rates of .003 this and point .006 that. But ace, if you are really not just being a stick-in-the-mud contrarian, and you really think of that as "financial success" and/or "beating the labels," then we really are _worlds apart_ in our understandings and applications of those terms.

And there is success there, don't get me wrong. I'm proud of what I accomplished, and I'm still making records, so who knows what the future holds. But I'm not a kid; I do have four of my own though. I've got to measure financial success very differently; pretty much in line with how most people would understand the term, and this particular scenario isn't it.

And it doesn't matter if you're an "artist" or not, this effects producers, beat-makers, and anybody on the creative side of this equation-- the money ain't there. That was true under the "old" model, and it's just as if not more true under this "new" model. Look at the "producer laundromat" thread and a number of others right here at FP to get a real picture of the situation. The people making money right now in the music business are the a) majors that already have their 360 game together, and b) the musical and audio equipment manufacturers and software designers that make all of the hardware and software (and updates, updates, updates, etc.) that we buy to improve our "workflow" and "processes." And, oh, yeah, c) the tech content providers like Spotify and the rest (they should have been "a)" in this example, but you get the point).

Internet-innovation, in regards to independent artists making a successful living, is a crock, and we were sold, and are still being sold, a bill of goods. That part is fact for 99.999999% of artists that have actually tried applying the model.

I know there's a way it could be different, we just haven't found it yet. And pretending things aren't that way will never be a solution. THAT was the point of the article, and that was the point of me posting it. We need another visionary like Berry Gordy. Where he or she at??!??

GJ