The Reduction Theory

[nomadthethird]

In fact, it's pretty ridiculous just how little artists make.

I know how exactly how much that one indie band that went on Mute...whatwas the name?? I kind of liked them, they have three guys, they had a song that ripped off UFO by ESG?

LIARS! They did not make much at all on their contract, and it was split three ways. I don't even know how three people could live on what they made for a year, tbh, without some kind of supplement, esp if you need to buy instruments and such.

Anyway, what happens is that artists after they get advance money, if the album doesn't sell and make back that amount (or some amount specified in the contract), they have to give it back. Just like writers. A lot of them are left making money by selling merchandise / on tour.

Those mega millionaires in the business, like Britney Spears, don't make the money from sales, but the sales do end up reflecting in the amount they're offered in renewed contracts. Also, a huge portion of income for artists like that is promotional stuff, crap merch (fucking gross perfumes), movie appearances, endorsement deals, etc.

 

[droid]

I don't want to give my money to any industry, really, they're all equally stupid, but as far as the music industry is concerned: most labels, even the indie ones, are ultimately owned/distributed by parent companies that exploit labor and all sorts of horrible things that are par for the course in business these days.

I dont think thats really true these days. Certainly most of the vinyl I buy is either from genuinely independent labels who make almost no profit from sales, or from Jamaican labels who (despite some questionable policies) support a lot of people who would otherwise have little or no income.

In fact id say that most of the vinyl in the collections of people on this board come from labels who would only be described as being part of the 'music industry' in a marginal sense.

 

[nomadthethird]

I dont think thats really true these days. Certainly most of the vinyl I buy is either from genuinely independent labels who make almost no profit from sales, or from Jamaican labels who (despite some questionable policies) support a lot of people who would otherwise have little or no income.

In fact id say that most of the vinyl in the collections of people on this board come from labels who would only be described as being part of the 'music industry' in a marginal sense.

Well, then that's obviously not what I was talking about, is it?

I don't presume to know about the vinyl collections of people on this board. I also mentioned earlier that I think in general vinyl is different in terms of market values and relevance, etc.

But a lot of those "mid-sized" indie labels, in order to even survive, until the internet came along and saved the day, they really had no choice but to be bought out by BMG or whatever, one of the distributors or groups, in order to make it into stores at all.

 

[nomadthethird]

But I suppose capitalism is ok just so long as it's music that's the shill.

Of course!

 

[droid]

Grand - I'm just pointing out that there are thousands of 'indie' labels that wouldnt fall into the kind of categories you're discussing, and they're the labels that have traditionally brought out avant/electronica/jungle/garage/grime/dubstep/reggae/dancehall music, and supporting them does not signify support for anything remotely resembling the music 'industry'.

 

[Dunninger]

I still buy CDs and I like them. Ultimately they'll replaced by downloads, but a lot of the music I want isn't really available for download (legally) yet, so for now it's classic record shopping or mail order. And I find listening to music on the computer distracting, a real turn off.

 

[nomadthethird]

I still buy CDs and I like them. Ultimately they'll replaced by downloads, but a lot of the music I want isn't really available for download (legally) yet, so for now it's classic record shopping or mail order. And I find listening to music on the computer distracting, a real turn off.

In my apartment hook up all my electronics to my stereo so they play out of a real system...listening out of those terrible little built-in speakers is the pits ....

 

[mms]

Not many artists make their money from direct sales of their CDs. Maybe on smaller indie labels.

I don't want to give my money to any industry, really, they're all equally stupid, but as far as the music industry is concerned: most labels, even the indie ones, are ultimately owned/distributed by parent companies that exploit labor and all sorts of horrible things that are par for the course in business these days.

thats not really true, in my experience, sure its true in some cases of fake indies but there are good indie distributors and labels and 50/50 deals and general fairness and there are lots of them. which tick along despite the music industry, which is like tescos or something yep, distribution in the states is slightly more one sided and more indie distributors are owned by majors but in the uk thats not really the case, you know most of the music i guess we all listen to is distributed the independent way.

 

[nomadthethird]

Grand - I'm just pointing out that there are thousands of 'indie' labels that wouldnt fall into the kind of categories you're discussing, and they're the labels that have traditionally brought out avant/electronica/jungle/garage/grime/dubstep/reggae/dancehall music, and supporting them does not signify support for anything remotely resembling the music 'industry'.

But wait...grime is pretty popular, isn't it? So is dubstep, and definitely reggae and dancehall. Jungle I don't know, it seems that it has quite a following, but I'm not sure about marketshare.

 

[Dunninger]

In my apartment hook up all my electronics to my stereo so they play out of a real system...listening out of those terrible little built-in speakers is the pits ....

I have that too, but it still doesn't work for me. For me the computer/internet is great for research and checking something out, but not for really listening to music.

Anyway, I've never had the urge to get rid of records, my "collection" is of a size that's still fairly comfortable to handle.

 

[nomadthethird]

Anyway, I've never had the urge to get rid of records, my "collection" is of a size that's still fairly comfortable to handle.

Yeah, this probably has something to do with it. If you don't own much to begin with, you probably aren't going to have as much of an urge to throw it out or pare down.

 

[crackerjack]

But wait...grime is pretty popular, isn't it? So is dubstep, and definitely reggae and dancehall. Jungle I don't know, it seems that it has quite a following, but I'm not sure about marketshare.

I fear too much time on Dissensus has given you a distorted view of the UK market

That music sells piss all - plenty of people like it, but a lot of them don't buy it (mostly cos they're singles genres, plus maybe some class demographics).

 

[slim jenkins]

Yeah, this probably has something to do with it. If you don't own much to begin with, you probably aren't going to have as much of an urge to throw it out or pare down.

'Big collection' is a relative term, obviously - as I keep telling my good lady. I have found, however, that there is always more pruning to be done. This may continue to be the case until only 'Kind Of Blue', 'Ziggy Stardust' and 'Shack Up' by Banbarra remain.

I seem to be wrestling with the idea of putting into action the old gun-to-the-head desert island selection challenge. The more shrewd I become, the more absurd something like a vast collection of, say, Dance 12s appears. Unless you're 18...or a DJ.

 

[Sick Boy]

Anyway, what happens is that artists after they get advance money, if the album doesn't sell and make back that amount (or some amount specified in the contract), they have to give it back. Just like writers. A lot of them are left making money by selling merchandise / on tour.
.

This is actually just not true at all.

When you get your advance it is almost always a non-recoupable advance. Meaning that the label can't ask for it back, but they can charge your royalties against it. So say they give you $100,000. You can spend $50,000 of it on your album, and pocket the other $50,000 but even then you're still not going to be making your royalty until the label have made the $100,000 back again. Maybe some super corrupt amateurish indie labels who prey on the mentally retarded don't do this but all of the major labels do. It's an old system that dates back a long time.

The only way a label can recoup your advance back is via royalties.

What they can do is cross-collatoralize if you don't make it all back. So say you only pulled $50,000 in sales off that $100,000 advance. What the label will do will give you another $100,000 for your second album on advance, and then make the full recoupable amount $150,000 - adding on the deficit from the last album. They can do this into infinity with artists that don't make money by claiming that by not making the advance back, they ran at a loss.

This isn't true of course because in a company like that, "losses" like that are ghost numbers. They are pulling money off even poor selling records in so many ways that you can't, that even asking for an advance back is sort of a rip-off on the traditional royalty rate most people get.

 

[crackerjack]

This is actually just not true at all.

When you get your advance it is almost always a non-recoupable advance. Meaning that the label can't ask for it back, but they can charge your royalties against it. So say they give you $100,000. You can spend $50,000 of it on your album, and pocket the other $50,000 but even then you're still not going to be making your royalty until the label have made the $100,000 back again. Maybe some super corrupt amateurish indie labels who prey on the mentally retarded don't do this but all of the major labels do. It's an old system that dates back a long time.

The only way a label can recoup your advance back is via royalties.

What they can do is cross-collatoralize if you don't make it all back. So say you only pulled $50,000 in sales off that $100,000 advance. What the label will do will give you another $100,000 for your second album on advance, and then make the full recoupable amount $150,000 - adding on the deficit from the last album. They can do this into infinity with artists that don't make money by claiming that by not making the advance back, they ran at a loss.

This isn't true of course because in a company like that, "losses" like that are ghost numbers. They are pulling money off even poor selling records in so many ways that you can't, that even asking for an advance back is sort of a rip-off on the traditional royalty rate most people get.

Sick Boy is entirely right. No one gives back advances (and i've never heard of writers doing so either).

When Guy Hands took over EMI there was this (probably apocryphal) story about him asking in one of his first meetings "So when do all these loss-making artists pay their advances back?" It was circulated as an example of how little he knows about the music biz.

 

[nomadthethird]

This is actually just not true at all.

When you get your advance it is almost always a non-recoupable advance. Meaning that the label can't ask for it back, but they can charge your royalties against it. So say they give you $100,000. You can spend $50,000 of it on your album, and pocket the other $50,000 but even then you're still not going to be making your royalty until the label have made the $100,000 back again. Maybe some super corrupt amateurish indie labels who prey on the mentally retarded don't do this but all of the major labels do. It's an old system that dates back a long time.

The only way a label can recoup your advance back is via royalties.

What they can do is cross-collatoralize if you don't make it all back. So say you only pulled $50,000 in sales off that $100,000 advance. What the label will do will give you another $100,000 for your second album on advance, and then make the full recoupable amount $150,000 - adding on the deficit from the last album. They can do this into infinity with artists that don't make money by claiming that by not making the advance back, they ran at a loss.

This isn't true of course because in a company like that, "losses" like that are ghost numbers. They are pulling money off even poor selling records in so many ways that you can't, that even asking for an advance back is sort of a rip-off on the traditional royalty rate most people get.

No, it isn't, Sickboy. BZZZt.

The fourth paragraph is closer to the truth.

Are you fucking kidding me? Losses are never "ghost" numbers.

 

[nomadthethird]

Sick Boy is entirely right. No one gives back advances (and i've never heard of writers doing so either).

When Guy Hands took over EMI there was this (probably apocryphal) story about him asking in one of his first meetings "So when do all these loss-making artists pay their advances back?" It was circulated as an example of how little he knows about the music biz.

Yes, they do, they can take it out of any other revenue you'd get based on the rest of the contract.

 

[nomadthethird]

Ever heard of the Whitney Housten debacle?

It may not be a "direct payback" situation, but you bet your ass major labels do write contracts that penalize artists financially who don't sell albums, usually it's considered fair to do this up to about the amount of the advance.

 

[nomadthethird]

MMS probably knows the most about this, I would guess...although he's more on the indie side than the major label side right?

 

[crackerjack]

Ever heard of the Whitney Housten debacle?

It may not be a "direct payback" situation, but you bet your ass major labels do write contracts that penalize artists financially who don't sell albums, usually it's considered fair to do this up to about the amount of the advance.

OK, I have heard about rare individual cases - not Whitney, but Sony pursuing Michael Jackson for the cost of his disastrous last album that Rodney Jerkins was supposedly getting zillions-per-track. (Rumour had it they wanted to leverage his Beatles rights with the debt).

Yes, they do, they can take it out of any other revenue you'd get based on the rest of the contract.

More often than not with new artists, if the album isn't making it's money back they're dropped. End of story.