Found this post on another board: N after reading the Toni Braxton thread, I thought I would post it here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another strong breakdown of an artists’ exploitative relationship with the music label/industry. This short video helps with the basics of how an industry can reap tremendous financial gain while breaking the bank of the artist. We first saw it as a Tweet from Paul Porter but find that it also helps to expose as a lie the popular notion that artists go broke due to poor spending habits (the musical equivalent to the Black Buying Power mythology promoted more generally) and should be connected to broader arguments against a national/global so-called “underclass.” These myths of immature artist spending, “buying power” and of an “underclass,” all are part of a larger project of re-framing colonialism, capitalism and White supremacy as either non-existent issues or diminished in their capacity to harm the world’s majority. Similarly, I MiX What I Like! attempts to add depth to these issues by bringing them into that broader imperial context and to the level of ideology arguing that this is not as much about accumulating monetary gain as it is about manipulating popularity, cultural expression and image to justify the kinds of gross (and worsening) inequality in the world.

http://imixwhatilike.com/2011/07/09/thebizoftheft/

(sorry, dont know how to really post links or embed videos... but if you click the link and scroll down, you will see the video.)

purple05 said:

Found this post on another board: N after reading the Toni Braxton thread, I thought I would post it here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another strong breakdown of an artists’ exploitative relationship with the music label/industry. This short video helps with the basics of how an industry can reap tremendous financial gain while breaking the bank of the artist. We first saw it as a Tweet from Paul Porter but find that it also helps to expose as a lie the popular notion that artists go broke due to poor spending habits (the musical equivalent to the Black Buying Power mythology promoted more generally) and should be connected to broader arguments against a national/global so-called “underclass.” These myths of immature artist spending, “buying power” and of an “underclass,” all are part of a larger project of re-framing colonialism, capitalism and White supremacy as either non-existent issues or diminished in their capacity to harm the world’s majority. Similarly, I MiX What I Like! attempts to add depth to these issues by bringing them into that broader imperial context and to the level of ideology arguing that this is not as much about accumulating monetary gain as it is about manipulating popularity, cultural expression and image to justify the kinds of gross (and worsening) inequality in the world.

http://imixwhatilike.com/2011/07/09/thebizoftheft/

(sorry, dont know how to really post links or embed videos... but if you click the link and scroll down, you will see the video.)

The artist cut can be much less than that which is really what people dont get, they see numbers and chart positions and think "BANK" well the thing is its not the artists bank for the most part. Someone like Rihanna loses money on music but gains it on touring, endorsements and just her name being linked to things, but she is a much bigger star, now take someone lower on the ladder that also doesnt write, doesnt tour, doesnt have a "name" they are making pennies on the thousands, literally, but that is how the system works and you have to know it when you get into it. Everyone is so into that quick fame American Idol winner, but they make nothing, Katharine Mcphee an american idol runner up made less money at BMG selling 480,000 of her first record than her second record with another label (verve) and deal that sold about 120,000, and still she made more money from appearances and ads. So really it is like Diddy said that if he were only doing music (if we call it that) he'd be broke because he never made anything off it. Which is the BS image, I saw this local Rapper that i had heard off in NJ and a girl i know was in his video and i watched it and it sucked obviously, but i was seeing things in the video, cars, jewels etc...and i was like this motherfucker is broke and he is singing about money? and she told me that she got paid more (scale rate) than he made off it, when you take out what they spent renting that BS they lost a ton of money. Those things come out of the artists pocket not a label.Labels rarely pay for a video unless you got it like that.

the lables put money into these projects though, from recording to promotion to payola at the radio stations, so of course they take a lot of the money

NDRU said:

the lables put money into these projects though, from recording to promotion to payola at the radio stations, so of course they take a lot of the money

Depends though, it true they pay out, but the artist pays out of their advance to record an album. Great example would be back in 1995 the band "THE JAYHAWKS" took their signing bonus/advance and then some to record their "Sound of Lies" album, it cost them over a million to record the album, all of it was from them, and then taken as a "loan" against money earned for sales, so they made less than nothing on the record, and they write produce etc..everything and that was an INDIE label! U know how everyone says go indie...really?

lastdecember said:

NDRU said:

the lables put money into these projects though, from recording to promotion to payola at the radio stations, so of course they take a lot of the money

Depends though, it true they pay out, but the artist pays out of their advance to record an album. Great example would be back in 1995 the band "THE JAYHAWKS" took their signing bonus/advance and then some to record their "Sound of Lies" album, it cost them over a million to record the album, all of it was from them, and then taken as a "loan" against money earned for sales, so they made less than nothing on the record, and they write produce etc..everything and that was an INDIE label! U know how everyone says go indie...really?

the advance is to record an album, not just to have for being cool. A band does not need to spend a million dollars on an album! If they come in under, then they can keep the money.

A record company pays for a band to record, sets them up with publicity, appearances, etc, then gives them a cut and the opportunity to make money off of their names through touring

I know artists don't get rich off of making an album, but that only takes a few weeks to do. According to this article, if an album sells $1,000,000 (100,000 copies appx) then each musician is getting $23,000--for a few weeks of work.

Then they tour off of it and get rich, plus get royalties as long as the record sells.

NDRU said:

lastdecember said:

Depends though, it true they pay out, but the artist pays out of their advance to record an album. Great example would be back in 1995 the band "THE JAYHAWKS" took their signing bonus/advance and then some to record their "Sound of Lies" album, it cost them over a million to record the album, all of it was from them, and then taken as a "loan" against money earned for sales, so they made less than nothing on the record, and they write produce etc..everything and that was an INDIE label! U know how everyone says go indie...really?

the advance is to record an album, not just to have for being cool. A band does not need to spend a million dollars on an album! If they come in under, then they can keep the money.

A record company pays for a band to record, sets them up with publicity, appearances, etc, then gives them a cut and the opportunity to make money off of their names through touring

I know artists don't get rich off of making an album, but that only takes a few weeks to do. According to this article, if an album sells $1,000,000 (100,000 copies appx) then each musician is getting $23,000--for a few weeks of work.

Then they tour off of it and get rich, plus get royalties as long as the record sells.

A million is actually cheap to do a record if you are actually going to a studio and doing "tracks" not just jams, this was one of the first times the Jayhawks brought in "strings" and all those extra things that the Beatles used back in the day. So this was far from jamming with a bunch of guys which can be done seriously for about 50,000 and most of that is studio costs which are outrageous. As for touring it depends who you are, Prince can make mega money on a tour because of ticket fees, sponsors giving him cash to play and the venues paying him to play, if you are a club band with a $15 gig selling a 100tickets, good luck, after you pay the bouncers the venue, the bar etc...not to mention your sound/roadies, good luck with buying a pack of gum after the show.

As for your recording again it depends who you are, and what your advance is, most artists dont even get an advance and the cost comes out of the first $$ made. Look at Rihanna, the new record she has basically cost about 1-2million to make just on writers being hired.

Its very very rare that artists have anything left of an advance, some have to pay for videos out of their advances, a label is not giving an artist money just to sign, now granted if you are Mariah Carey or Britney or Beyonce or on that level, the zeros on your check are many, but when you go way down after the few MEGA stars, there is very little being made.

lastdecember said:

NDRU said:

the advance is to record an album, not just to have for being cool. A band does not need to spend a million dollars on an album! If they come in under, then they can keep the money.

A record company pays for a band to record, sets them up with publicity, appearances, etc, then gives them a cut and the opportunity to make money off of their names through touring

I know artists don't get rich off of making an album, but that only takes a few weeks to do. According to this article, if an album sells $1,000,000 (100,000 copies appx) then each musician is getting $23,000--for a few weeks of work.

Then they tour off of it and get rich, plus get royalties as long as the record sells.

A million is actually cheap to do a record if you are actually going to a studio and doing "tracks" not just jams, this was one of the first times the Jayhawks brought in "strings" and all those extra things that the Beatles used back in the day. So this was far from jamming with a bunch of guys which can be done seriously for about 50,000 and most of that is studio costs which are outrageous. As for touring it depends who you are, Prince can make mega money on a tour because of ticket fees, sponsors giving him cash to play and the venues paying him to play, if you are a club band with a $15 gig selling a 100tickets, good luck, after you pay the bouncers the venue, the bar etc...not to mention your sound/roadies, good luck with buying a pack of gum after the show.

As for your recording again it depends who you are, and what your advance is, most artists dont even get an advance and the cost comes out of the first $$ made. Look at Rihanna, the new record she has basically cost about 1-2million to make just on writers being hired.

Its very very rare that artists have anything left of an advance, some have to pay for videos out of their advances, a label is not giving an artist money just to sign, now granted if you are Mariah Carey or Britney or Beyonce or on that level, the zeros on your check are many, but when you go way down after the few MEGA stars, there is very little being made.

OK, but the Beatles did their first album in a day, and Sgt Pepper (which took months) when they were the biggest band the world had ever seen. The Jayhawks may be admirable for wanting to make a complex album, but they are not the Beatles.

My band just went to the studio and tracked 11 songs in a day for $350. Of course we will need to do overdubs and mixing, etc, but it won't be any $50,000. That is for a simple rock recording, true, but people make decent R&B in their garages, too. If someone is spending $2 million it's because they are hiring Rodney Jerkins to produce them and Justin to write them a song and Li'l Wayne to rap on it.

As for $15 tix and 100 people, I thought we were talking about signed bands. If Rhianna needs to hire an army to make her album she hardly deserves to make anything from it anyway, but the exposure means a lot more than 100 people are going to want to see her.

However, I will concur that making an album takes a lot of time, effort, and money, and that is why I don't support stealing music. What little money an artist gets they definitely deserve!

My point is simply that a record company provides a great opportunity for an artist to be seen and heard at their absolute best. I am sure they are not perfect, but they allow an artist to become a brand name that can be sold for years to come.

But to put it into perspective, doctors come out of med school with massive debts, and don't make a lot of money until years into practice.

It's all an investment, not instant reward