How is this acceptable?

Yeah do people even think this percentage is a record haha? Also this is an article from 2018

damn... this is actually true

in sports leagues (such as the NHL) the players are assured at least 35-40% and up to a max of of just over 50% of the league revenues. this makes sense as the athletes are not just ordinary employees - they are also the product being sold.

also not a commie, very right wing just not anti-union. only way to ensure people don’t get fucked.

fuck america

fuck america, fuck drumpf, fuck racism, fuck nazism, fuck fascism, fuck republicunts, fuck conservatards, fuck homophobes, fuck transphobes, fuck pedophobes, fuck cuckophobes, fuck cishets, fuck capitalism, fuck white people and fuck men

no i dont mind those things
i just hate america

Artists are lazy freeloading dropouts

nice triggerbait. well done, sir

musicians
painters
sculptors
poets
...anyone in the creative class gets completely taken advantage of by money-hungry non-creative business types.
It has been this way since at least the Renaissance.
In modern times, getting them (esp musicians) hooked on drugs was an efficient tool of control.
The music industry is the filthiest, but the art world isn't a lot better, just more sophisticated.

Attached: Jean-Michel Basquiat Untitled 1982 110.5 million mfw.jpg (1324x1405, 951K)

Yeah, sounds terrible until you do the math and put that 12% into a real dollar figure.

I will continue to do so

>Artists are lazy freeloading dropouts
>lazy
lolwut
>freeloading
what are they loading for free -- poverty?
>dropouts
of society? is that what you mean? because they don't live in a middle-class suburb like you and your momma's hot pockets? get real

-wow-
You've COMPLETELY missed the point. I weep for your future.

The industry people who went to college and spent years networking to get where they are certainly deserve more money than pothead hippies.

>tfw bandcamp exists
166 items in my collection, feelsgood paying money directly to musicians.

>go, le 4chin army!!!!

way more goes into producing/recording/distributing music and organizing performances than actually writing/performing music

>only received $5.1 billion

oh no

idiots

missing the fact that everyone who help produce,organize,distribute, and record all benefit from the person who writes and performs. isn't it fair to say the creator should get the most of it? if it wasn't for the musician, the other group would be out of work.

>t. music industry exec

How is it not acceptable? If you want the benefits of joining a label you must also accept the drawbacks, otherwise you become independent. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

There are thousands and thousands of musicians. They are expendable because the supply is high. There are far fewer record companies. Its basic economics.

The difference is the sports world is much more competitive and "objective", which means the best players are not replaceable, unlike musicians.

>sign up to a label that makes you famous and sells your stuff
>complain that it's unfair

how retarded can you be

This is not exactly fair. The record labels have created a controlled marketing environment within the public space. We need new payola laws in the US, it is crystal clear that the top 40 are bought and sold these days.

Athletes also risk serious physical injuries.

Basquiat is a hack

>isn't it fair to say the creator should get the most of it?
Their work is only worth as much as people are willing to pay for, so it IS fair.

>if it wasn't for the musician, the other group would be out of work
If it wasn't for the record executive they would be out of work.

>If it wasn't for the record executive they would be out of work.
wrong. independent artists exist.
but i see what you mean on a larger scale

not true. artists dedicate years of their lives to learning and practicing their craft, living in extremely modest circumstances to do so. this is a significant opportunity cost that the music industry views as an externality.
>If it wasn't for the record executive they would be out of work.
I propose that society has a somewhat fixed (is the term for this inelastic?) demand for music that is saturated by the recording industry. If recorded music didn't exist, the demand for live performers would quite clearly increase (as it existed historically). Similarly there is a somewhat steady demand for recorded music and "hit" music that has been taken over and controlled by the major labels with state assistance (radio monopolies and copyright law).

he was, at one point, forced to make art by being locked in a room by his art dealer with drugs, paint and canvasses.
also, not a hack.

>t.noncreativeNPC

Attached: 3454tu34thhm mfw.jpg (500x500, 187K)

That's not even the fact of the matter. Creative people who don't identify as artists, musicians, writers or anything in particular come up with all of the cool ideas, and image obsessed faggots steal them for profit and ego driven motives.

>Creative people who don't identify as artists, musicians, writers or anything in particular come up with all of the cool ideas, and image obsessed faggots steal them for profit and ego driven motives.
This is only possible due to the power of the major labels and advances in recording technology. Historically talent has been much more important to success. Live performers can't fake it.

>Creative people who don't identify as artists, musicians, writers or anything in particular come up with all of the cool ideas
Copefagging this hard.

Attached: 1515325654369 tattoos.jpg (600x800, 113K)

>implying you aren't developing an existential crisis over your hot new mixtape right now

Attached: murder-charls-58dad995e906c.png (616x587, 743K)

>Live performers can't fake it.
They can in a world where people neither know nor care about the difference.

Don't be silly. Without live production techniques, people would know & care about the difference. They did historically.

Fuck you jew

>2019
>working with a label

Attached: 1536147215813.jpg (236x226, 14K)

souless faggots with more appreciation for making money than art can fuck off from Yea Forums

>producers aren't artists

>wrong. independent artists exist
Correct. And record executives can become executives in another business, so they wouldn't be "out of work" without artists.

Music, being a luxury, is an extremely elastic demand (if it becomes 1000% more expensive, you just won't pay for it), while cancer medicines are the complete opposite (you will do everything you can to pay them, even if cost goes up by 1000%). I don't think you know what you are talking about.

If recorded music didn't exist live performers would increase, but not by much, since demand would lower due to how inconvenient it is.

He's right, you know?

huh?

Attached: in-the-mouth-of-madness-three.jpg (750x422, 24K)

same as any industry. those who do the work and create the product are exploited for their labor. its basic capitalism... if you think that figures fucked up look how much laborers make in other industries...

Manual labor is not the only form of labor. Executive labor is labor too, and it's worth more than manual labor (which is usually easily replaceable).

no its not. most executives hardly do any work. are able to vacation leave and the company continues to function. theres no reason people should be billionaires while the people making their product are in poverty or struggling to get by. your absolute idiot bootlicker if you think executives do anything or deserve the money they exploit

>signing to a major label
Only brainlet artists do that

>most executives hardly do any manual work
Fixed. Now we agree.

>your absolute idiot bootlicker if you think executives do anything or deserve the money they exploit
If workers don't like it they can make their own cooperatives. But they rarely work, because they lack the talent from the executive.

It depends on the artist. Some shift from major to indie and vice-versa (both good and bad artists for each), some with good results and some with bad results.

jesus fucking Christ, no he wasn't.

If I was pro-management, I'd say to the complaining artists, "Don't like it? Flip burgers for a living. No one's putting a gun to your head to be in music."

A better answer is what's already happening. So, you're meme is sort of out of date. And what's happening is that since 1995 (roughly), SMART artists have used the internet to do for them the things that labels once did. Especially in terms of promotion. A good artist with something to say, or a pleasant way of saying nothing in particular, can make a nice little living if he does things right on the computer -- and he can do all of this without a label. Without a manager too.

Today's internet plus a state of the art computer at home allows an artist:
- To record his music.
- To make his music available for free or for a charge.
- To advertise & promote his music to a world-wide audience.
- To promote personal appearances and concerts.

So, if an artist wants to go old school and do the record label route, then he shouldn't complain about his 12% cut of the gross. He could just as easily rake in nearly all of his gross, and after pruning off a little for expenses (ISPs, software, copyright fees), his take-home could still be upwards of 80% or more. And that would literally turn the traditional record company model on its head.

>because they lack the talent from the executive.
its not talent. executives simply own shit and theres barrier of money that allows them to own shit and make more money and exploit labor. the workers simply dont have the money to control their own labor since under capitalism there exists a system where workers. capitalism upholds a system where the bourgeoisie own the labor of the worker. and even if workers can collectively gain control of their work environment they exist within a greater system of capitalism that still owns them...

and about the executives doing work... they absolutely dont. if you mean organizing, sending emails, communication, sales, marketing etc... i guarentee all of that type of work is done by people who gets far less than the ceo...

desu that recent video from spotify really shows just how much they don't give a shit about artists in this industry.

>muh company fairness
>muh fairness for the consumer
>waaah apple stop it!
not once do they talk about the actual fucking artists, only consumers and companies. go fuck yourself spotify.

btw. ask any artist which store gives them the biggest cut (other than bandcamp) and they'll say iTunes

>>most executives hardly do any manual work
>Fixed. Now we agree.

and also to add to id like to you explain exactly what work and talent they have that justifies them making 1000s off of every dollar one of their workers makes. theres a reason its obfuscated or like oh i know theyre having meetings, planning, things etc... its a purposeful obfuscation that its impossible to say what a ceo does because they cant do anything yet with people on the bottom making the product its perfectly clear what they do.

there's a reason these artists choose to sign to labels. the labels are the ones that dish out the cash and potentially make them stars. the labels are the ones making the gamble and therefore it's only logical that they make the bigger cut

Yea spending 6+ years to learn your instrument, tracking down loyal and talented individuals to join you, all of you meeting up to practice for free, playing empty shows just to get your name out there, paying thousands out of pocket for gear, music videos, and production, and driving hundreds of miles between shows, that's nothing. Fuck those lazy artists they dont work for it

>that justifies them making 1000s off of every dollar one of their workers makes
Easy. People prefer to pay them more than workers, because they deem their work is more valuable.

It doesn't even work this way anymore retard, it's all streaming money same as youtubers and gamers, record labels dont do shit anymore

Shouldn’t you be studying for your Econ 101 final?

thats what you get for selling out.

fuck spotify executives and fuck major label jews
they're all exploiter trash

>you don't like it just start your own company bro

God fucking damn it boomers need to die already.

His work is literal garbage.

i hate the music industry and i want it to die but people that make their living off of music should be grateful for subsistence levels

Why shouldn't they receive the rewards for their own work? Why should the vast majority of compensation earned from streams go to Spotify and the record label instead of the people who actually made the music?

>music industry generates $43 billion
>12% goes to artists
>probably 10-20% goes to Spotify, Apple Music, etc
>the rest goes to record labels
>executives of said record labels get a massive chunk because they’re le executive
It’s literally still the same; the money goes in the same pockets, it’s just the delivery method to the masses is slightly different now

if you dont liek america you can git out

Because those distribution methods are the actual reason that the revenue is being generated and/or why the artist became popular enough to become a fiscal entity.

Do these artists pay for pressings, distribution and advertising? Nobody is forcing people to sign on to labels. If it was so easy to pocket 100% of the profits everyone would do it.

unregulated capitalism

Attached: DD021793-FE54-4355-8E1C-7448DDFD082D.jpg (2835x3875, 1M)

not to mention production and songwriting. most of these 'artists' are just a voice, an instrument

>muh marketing
Fucking parasite. That's all you can offer? Worthless.

Why do you willingly ignore facts?

the people who have to work actual jobs are the ones who should get paid more, the ones who do the marketing and distribution and analysis and all of the boring terrible work, not the person who gets to make music and have fun for a living. i am too ignorant about things to talk about this though.

>Music, being a luxury, is an extremely elastic demand (if it becomes 1000% more expensive, you just won't pay for it), while cancer medicines are the complete opposite (you will do everything you can to pay them, even if cost goes up by 1000%). I don't think you know what you are talking about.
That's not true at all. Poor people working in coal mines use their free time to play and perform music. It is an essential aspect of human life. It is certainly more elastic than cancer medicine, which is why I used the word "somewhat". Your reasoning betrays an unjustified belief that human behavior is rational.
>I don't think you know what you are talking about.
I'm not an expert (I suspect you aren't either). But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is these labels would not be making money if they didn't have an artist to exploit. They do nothing but marketing, which is less important in the age of the internet. Nobody's buying the music because of the labels, they buy or stream it because they like the artists. The artist making the product that people enjoy should be the ones getting the reward, not people using the artist's art for their own gain.

the music industry exploits the fact that people gravitate towards popularity and instead of allowing things to become popular naturally they almost always just force things into popularity and they degrade the population by doing it.

>SMART artists have used the internet to do for them the things that labels once did.
This is a short-term thing. The major labels are in the process of controlling Youtube and internet distribution in general.

there are ppl who own these streaming companies who im sure who get the vast majority and do very little. the people programming and designing the websites, making emails, the busywork im sure are making very little and being exploited of their labor...

"art"

that's not true though, nearly every artist they promote is awful, things are popular because they're popular, the music industry has shown for the past 50 years that music does not need to be good to be popular and make money.

>That's not true at all. Poor people working in coal mines use their free time to play and perform music
So? That doesn't contradict what I said. The demand for music is still elastic as fuck. If it costed them ten times as much to CONSUME music (because we are talking about demand of music, not offer, which would be if they performed), then they wouldn't do it (if they did on the first place).

Human behavior is not entirely rational, but it's not irrational either. You don't spend your entire work salary in music if that's how much music were to cost.

>I'm not an expert (I suspect you aren't either). But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You are literally wrong. The demand for music is one of the most elastic you could think of.

>- To make his music available for free or for a charge.
>- To advertise & promote his music to a world-wide audience.
>- To promote personal appearances and concerts.
Using what? Social media? Who gets the fruits of most of that labor? The owners of social media companies you idiot...

Are you serious?? It’s a shitload of work to write and record an entire album, you think writing good music is just easy or something? Those marketers and distributors would be shit out of a job if there wasn’t anyone making music to sell. You’re very ignorant of the amount of effort it takes to make good music

just look at that billie bitch
100% pure marketing machine, that's an artist where the labels actually deserve most of the revenue

We're not really talking about manufactured pop acts groomed from an early age where everything is done by the label, but artists who put effort into recording, touring, writing, and producing their own album.

They wouldn’t know about the artist if it weren’t for the label. I agree the artist should receive the highest percentage of the revenue because it is their manifestation at the end of the day, but that’s not how corporate capitalism works, and you can’t change that.

>you can't change that
Unless you abolish corporate capitalism.

i don't think it's easy to make a great album, i am sure that it is often extremely difficult, but that's fulfilling and meaningful and creative work, not working as a wage slave at some awful programming job, and anyways nearly all of the people who make money off of music make terrible music and probably put little effort in and probably do not deserve what they have

If the kikes didn't exist and it was still viable to be a career musician then I would make that my entire life but I live in this shit infested timeline so I'm doomed and blackpilled

>The demand for music is one of the most elastic you could think of.
Luxury cars. Luxury clothes. Saffron. All of these are more elastic goods than music, for reasons already stasted.
>to CONSUME music
Now you're shifting goalposts. I include in my definition of music as a good all musical consumption activities, not just the direct purchase of recording. And yes, of you could somehow increase the price of all of these things, perhaps by reducing leisure time, the demand would go down. Maybe the word "elastic" isn't correct, like I said I'm not an expert. But the underlying point remains: record labels do not create the demand for music. In fact it is clear to many musicians that recording in general is killing the traditional art.

the wage slaves at the programming jobs dont make any money anyway though, the spotify revenue goes to the head brass.

Exactly, and that sure has a foreseeable timeline, doesn’t it?

Hello 9gag :-)

It's up to the people to change their own reality. All it takes is a revolt of the masses.

i take back what i said in this post, i just believe that people who have dreams jobs deserve less money than people who have slave jobs

Anyone know a source for figures of this same thing for directors/writers in the film industry?
Was going to say actors instead of directors/writers but that feels like asking about how much the artists' instruments are paid.

There aren’t enough consumers of music that care about this enough to do something like that.

this is why i dont upload my music anywhere. nobody deserves to hear it but me :)

We could change the culture of music so that it's better suited for independent musicians.
Instead of wasting $10 at the movies or on a monthly netflix subscription you could buy a couple albums off bandcamp.
If everyone got involved and started supporting their fellow man then we could turn this all around and music could become a viable career again.

>>The demand for music is one of the most elastic you could think of.
>Luxury cars. Luxury clothes. Saffron. All of these are more elastic goods than music, for reasons already stasted.
Yes, of course, I'm not saying music is THE most elastic, just one of the most elastic things, especially if you compare it to luxury products themselves (the elasticity for car demand isn't as much as it is for music, since a car can be necessary for some people to go to work).

I'm not moving goalposts. We were talking about the demand of music being elastic, which is tied to consumption. What you are talking about is a scenario where you are the offerrer and the consumer of music, which doesn't fall under what we are talking about. Again, keep in mind the context of this discussion, which is rooted in selling records.

Yes, the word elastic is completely wrong, as the demand for music is inelastic.

Record labels do create demand for music. Most of their income goes DIRECTLY towards this goal, which is why they spend so much money on advertising (which increases demand).

Your last sentence makes no sense.

Music shouldn’t be a career. No art form should be.

Well that art costs a lot to make and sell and the artists gotta eat and pay bills too

That is wrong and selfish of you.
Think of all the people out there who make music their whole lives, why shouldn't they be able to live off their effort?

>I'm not saying music is THE most elastic
>>The demand for music is one of the most elastic you could think of.
Seriously, fuck you. You're not trying to respond to my point, you're just trying to peacock how clever you are. (You're not.)

Record companies invest a lot in promoting artists and the artists get their money from touring

I hate it when "artists" whine about having their "artistic genius" exploited. As if four chords and an autotune melody should garner you any revenue whatsoever.

>why shouldn't they be able to live off their effort?
Why should they is the better question

And in case by some freak accident you're genuinely trying to engage this issue, here's my argument:
Record labels do not spend money on promotion to create demand. They spend money to CONTROL demand. They take a relatively inflexible overall demand for musical activity and funnel as much of it as possible towards a small number of in-house artists.

I think people should get better paid the better they are at their job, regardless if it’s their “dream” or not

Then get a job.
It’s not selfish. Most art is awful in quality anyway. Literally less than 1% of art has any merit whatsoever. Paying people with no talent because muh time put in is backwards thinking. You pay for quality. Someone that has spent 10000 hours making music that isn’t good does not deserve any return. They wasted their time and they need to face reality.

because the remaining 88% goes to industry plants.

What the fuck is wrong with you? I said the demand for music was one of the most elastic things you could think of, and then you try to one-up by referencing other products that are super niche but more elastic. The point is not that music is THE MOST elastic thing ever, it's that it's super elastic, regardless of luxury cars.

>you're just trying to peacock how clever you are
The fucking irony, coming directly from the guy who tried to show off in economics because they learned about elasticity today and wanted to show off on Yea Forums about it despite getting the concept completely wrong. Jesus Christ, can't you see how embarrassing you are?

>Record labels do not spend money on promotion to create demand.
They DO create demand.
>They spend money to CONTROL demand.
They DO that as well.
Those are not mutually exclusive things.

>They take a relatively inflexible overall demand for musical activity
On the contrary, demand for music is SUPER flexible (elastic). This means it's very easy to controlate demand by changing prices. If you make music cheaper, A LOT of people will buy more music. If you make it more expensive, people won't bother buying more music because its not essential to their lives (unlike cancer medicina, which is inelastic and inflexible).

>and funnel as much of it as possible towards a small number of in-house artists
They create demand AND funnel it as well.

Now fuck off and I hope you fail your economics course for being a stubborn show-off retard.

Nobody is forcing you to become an artist. Get a real job if you want to pay your bills, as musicians are dispensable in today's society (and for good reason).

>executives simply own shit

Attached: 3F2E9A7C-A290-46E7-83ED-0E3FB79E064E.png (621x702, 56K)

Because the exploiters would have nothing to exploit without the artists.
Jesus Christ for a music board a lot of you seem to have contempt for musicians.

half of "music marketing" is just taking a bunch of press shot pictures of an attractive singer

Lol true. A lot of the time it's just promoting the attractive looking bands and people click it because they think the singer's hot.

Artists honestly shouldn't get shit. The company owns the label

I sincerely believe you're an asshole. Talking to you was a waste of time.

The label would be nothing without the artists.

And I think you are a stubborn show-off idiot. You should have kept your mouth shout if you have no idea what you are talking about.

its not

LATE STAGE CAPITALISM

>capitalism is flawless
imagine being this retarded

“I don’t feel like I’m part of the music industry, the music industry meaning the corporatised business structures where you have people who are in the lower level, people in the upper level, people in administration, and people making legal relationships between all those people.
“All of that has always really bothered me.
“When I think about it, it makes me angry that it exists as a parasite on the music scene, which is the fans, bands, shows, and the people who help them.
“When bands were signed to record labels before [the internet age], the contacts were unfair and the record label controlled the exposure.
“Now there is so much music it’s hard to be noticed. But that means there’s so much music available because it’s so easy for music to become available.
“So the barriers have been removed for exposure, and the relationships that bands build with their audience is going to be based on the music finding a sympathetic audience.
“If your music is not special, it’s no longer possible for hype and promotion to do all of the work. There are always going be a few mainstream pop stars, but that is no longer the main focus of music scene.

“The main focus is going to be people finding music on their own and discovering stuff that they like specifically for themselves.”

Attached: stevealbini1-tJozPRCLPntjkNQE1Ik9m_Z8wXTXdIua.jpg (620x571, 59K)

>There's this band. They're pretty ordinary, but they're also pretty good, so they've attracted some attention. They're signed to a moderate-sized "independent" label owned by a distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label.

They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so they can have some security, you know, get some good equipment, tour in a proper tour bus: nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work. To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well spent. Anyway, it doesn't cost them anything if it doesn't work. Fifteen percent of nothing isn't much!

One day an A&R scout calls them, says he's "been following them for a while now," and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just "clicked." Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time.

They meet the guy, and y'know what! He's not what they expected from a label guy. He's young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible with the right attitude. They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot.

Attached: Producer-Steve-Albini-007.jpg (460x276, 29K)

The A&R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name producer.
Butch Vig is out of the question: he wants 100 g's and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy who used to be in David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe: cost you 5 or 10 grand) and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot to think about.

Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he'll work it out with the label himself. Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children, without having to sell a single additional record. It'll be something modest.
The new label doesn't mind, so long as it's recoupable out of royalties.
Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer, one who says he's experienced in entertainment law, and he hammers out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good.
They'll be getting a great royalty: 13% (less a 10% packaging deduction). Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10?

Attached: sajpg.jpg (1200x900, 131K)

Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, and no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years, with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of money in any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000. Just think about it, a quarter-million, just for being in a rock band!

Their manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that contact over too. Hell, it's free money.

Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That's enough to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody in the band and crew, they're actually about the same cost.

Some bands (like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab) use buses on their tours even when they're getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night. It'll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.

The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! Ridiculous! There's a gold mine here! The lawyer should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe. They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picks them up in a limo.

Attached: cover.jpg (1123x1685, 492K)

They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm."
All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies!

Attached: 30-steve-albini.w700.h700.jpg (700x700, 156K)

Here is the math that will explain the real story:

Advance: $250,000
Manager's cut: $37,500
Legal fees: $10,000
Recording Budget: $150,000
Producer's advance: $50,000
Studio fee: $52,500
Drum, Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $3,000
Recording tape: $8,000
Equipment rental: $5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $10,000
Catering $3,000
Mastering: $10,000
Tape copies, reference CD's, shipping tapes, misc expenses: $2,000
Album artwork: $5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $2,000
Video budget: $30,000
Cameras: $8,000
Crew: $5,000
Processing and transfers: $3,000
Offline: $2,000
Online editing $3,000
Catering: $1,000
Stage and construction: $3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $2,000
Director's fee: $3,000
Band fund: $15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $5,000
New fancy professional guitars (2): $3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs (2): $4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $500
Big blowout party for their friends: $500
Tour gross income: $50,000
Tour expense (5 weeks): $50,875
Bus: $25,000
Crew (3): $7,500
Food and per diems: $7,875
Fuel: $3,000
Consumable supplies: $3,500
Wardrobe: $1,000
Promotion: $3,000
Agent's cut: $7,500
Manager's cut. $7,500
Merchandising advance: $20,000
Manager's cut $3,000
Lawyer's fee: $1,000
Publishing advance: $20,000
Manager's cut: $3,000
Lawyer's fee: $1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 = $3,000,000 gross retail revenue
Royalty (13% of 90% of retail): $351,000 less advance: $250,000
Producer's points: (3% less $50,000 advance) $40,000
Promotional budget: $25,000 Recoupable buyout from previous label: $50,000 Net royalty: (-$14,000)
Record company income: Record wholesale price $6.50 x 250,000 = $l,625,000 gross income Artist Royalties: $351,000 Deficit from royalties: $14,000 Manufacturing, packaging and distribution @ $2.20 per record: $550,000 Gross profit: $710,000

Attached: GettyImages-932054520.jpg (630x400, 165K)

THE BALANCE SHEET:
This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,531.25
The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.

The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige.

The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys.

Attached: original (1).jpg (604x393, 39K)

alot of my coworkers get by by teaching music. here in NYC is pretty standard to charge $80+ for a 1 hour lesson when freelancing. Pay rates at my job for teachers are $22+. It’s not the richest lifestyle but it’s def possible to live and make a career.

It’s really difficult to be a touring musician and hav loadsa money unless you’re selling out arenas

I forgot about Albini's music industry articles. He has some good points in there.

Every industry is like this

100% this
this whole conversation could be applied to any industry and the economy at large

Attached: D3Te4I-XoAAlObv.jpg (480x984, 84K)