Tremolina said:

“If there are millions of owners of VTR’s who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs such as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents’ works.”

It's Bing Crosby's fault.

Tremolina said:

ayaya said:

Very true, the artist is always the last to get paid and under pain at that

Not true. Many artists, especially the established ones, are paid in advances. Plenty of them handsomely. So in fact, they are paid the first and without any pain.

This is a misconception that is quite prevalent. An advance from a record company is NOT a payment. It is ecentially a "loan" that will be recuped from the project. An established act with a track record will, of course, receive a bigger advance than an unproven act will.

leonche64 said:

Tremolina said:

Not true. Many artists, especially the established ones, are paid in advances. Plenty of them handsomely. So in fact, they are paid the first and without any pain.

This is a misconception that is quite prevalent. An advance from a record company is NOT a payment. It is ecentially a "loan" that will be recuped from the project. An established act with a track record will, of course, receive a bigger advance than an unproven act will.

It's not a "loan", at least not normally. It can be recouped. Of course, because it is an advance.

Point was, many artists ARE paid, first and without any pain.

Tremolina said:

leonche64 said:

This is a misconception that is quite prevalent. An advance from a record company is NOT a payment. It is ecentially a "loan" that will be recuped from the project. An established act with a track record will, of course, receive a bigger advance than an unproven act will.

It's not a "loan", at least not normally. It can be recouped. Of course, because it is an advance.

Point was, many artists ARE paid, first and without any pain.

Try to follow this. Say you start a new job. They give you a 3 year contract. On the first day, the company gives you $50,000 as an "advance." You use this money to buy equipment that you need to do your job. Computers, cell phones, shovel, or whatever.This goes into the debit side of the accounting ledger. They also add the cost of your training, paper, pencils, electricity, water you use, and a charge for the air you breathe. All of this is charged to your "project." You are starting work in the hole. Lets say you do a great job and start making the company money and a year later your direct efforts have generated $50,000 in revenue. Now you start getting paid, right? Nope. The company has a 3X/10 clause. That means the company will recoup three times their investment before they start paying you .10% of the NET.

Change "job" to record company contract and you have the system that is in place. Everything else can be substituted for recording, promotion, studio musicians, etc.

At no time are you free to walk away from that contract and work for someone else.

Better off going with a bank loan that charges 5%.

leonche64 said:

Tremolina said:

It's not a "loan", at least not normally. It can be recouped. Of course, because it is an advance.

Point was, many artists ARE paid, first and without any pain.

Try to follow this. Say you start a new job. They give you a 3 year contract. On the first day, the company gives you $50,000 as an "advance." You use this money to buy equipment that you need to do your job. Computers, cell phones, shovel, or whatever.This goes into the debit side of the accounting ledger. They also add the cost of your training, paper, pencils, electricity, water you use, and a charge for the air you breathe. All of this is charged to your "project." You are starting work in the hole. Lets say you do a great job and start making the company money and a year later your direct efforts have generated $50,000 in revenue. Now you start getting paid, right? Nope. The company has a 3X/10 clause. That means the company will recoup three times their investment before they start paying you .10% of the NET.

Change "job" to record company contract and you have the system that is in place. Everything else can be substituted for recording, promotion, studio musicians, etc.

At no time are you free to walk away from that contract and work for someone else.

Better off going with a bank loan that charges 5%.

You don't have to explain to me how a record company contract works. I advised plenty of artists about them. Nor do you need to exeggarate or draw pointless comparisons.

An advance is naturally not the same as a salary and artists usually also don't have to buy any equipment, let alone they need to pay for paper and pencils, water or even air. They are often paid an amount of money in advance to produce an abum and be able to make a living with.

Costs that usually are recouped therefore are the costs for studio time (thanks to new recording technology these days not so much needed anymore) and the costs for producing and distribution (with the internet these days neither). Unless, you are an idiot and you signed a deal telling you to pay for everything. Usually artists are paid (much) more in advances than the average costs.

When the advance is not recouped, the artist is not left with a loan. No, the record company then takes the loss. Therefore: often the artist gets paid FIRST and WITHOUT pain.

By the way: comparing artists to employees with normal jobs and salaries doesn't do them any favours. As soon as that would fly, their record companies would become their employers and the legal owner of their copyrights. Gone then are any and all control and renumeration possibilities they might have had.

[Edited 11/15/11 6:47am]

Tremolina said:

leonche64 said:

Try to follow this. Say you start a new job. They give you a 3 year contract. On the first day, the company gives you $50,000 as an "advance." You use this money to buy equipment that you need to do your job. Computers, cell phones, shovel, or whatever.This goes into the debit side of the accounting ledger. They also add the cost of your training, paper, pencils, electricity, water you use, and a charge for the air you breathe. All of this is charged to your "project." You are starting work in the hole. Lets say you do a great job and start making the company money and a year later your direct efforts have generated $50,000 in revenue. Now you start getting paid, right? Nope. The company has a 3X/10 clause. That means the company will recoup three times their investment before they start paying you .10% of the NET.

Change "job" to record company contract and you have the system that is in place. Everything else can be substituted for recording, promotion, studio musicians, etc.

At no time are you free to walk away from that contract and work for someone else.

Better off going with a bank loan that charges 5%.

You don't have to explain to me how a record company contract works. I advised plenty of artists about them. Nor do you need to exxegarate or draw pointless comparisons.

An advance is naturally not the same as a salary and artists usually also don't have to buy any equipment, let alone they need to pay for paper and pencils, water or even air. They are often paid an amount of money in advance to produce an abum and be able to make a living with.

Costs that usually are recouped therefore are the costs for studio time (thanks to new recording technology these days not so much needed anymore) and the costs for producing and distribution (with the internet these days neither). Unless, you are an idiot and you signed a deal telling you to pay for everything. Usually artists are paid (much) more in advances than the average costs.

By the way: comparing artists to employers with normal jobs and salaries doesn't do them any favours. As soon as that would fly, their record companies would become their employers and the legal owner of their copyrights. Gone then are any and all control and renumeration possibilities they might have had.

[Edited 11/15/11 6:16am]

I have no idea what kind of advice you give, or what artist you are advising, so I can not comment. But I do know that you took my figurative comparison WAY too literaly.

When the advance is not recouped, the artist is not left with a loan. No, the record company then takes the loss.

This is the part you left out of your previous post which would have indicated that you understand the process. Self-corrected.

Not too much exaggeration on my part. But hey, I am a working musician in China. You have never heard of me, unless you live here. Don't take my word for it. Try Steve Albini, producer for Nirvana. It is worse than you think.

I know that piece by Steve. He does make several good points in it, but it's 20 years old, onesided and yes, also exeggarated.

The biggest problem with it, is that it doesn't put any responsibility on the shoulders of the artists for the "shit" they are in. Worse, he portrays artists as a bucnh of helpless morons willing to do ANYthing to get a deal. Not exactly helpful to do that, wouldn't you think?

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

You know, there was on thing I forgot to mention about what's wrong with the music industry.

It's the fact that recording artists have never banded together for fair and decent, standard industry contracts.

leonche64 said:

I have no idea what kind of advice you give, or what artist you are advising

For example, at the moment I have a client, singer/songwriter/musician, tied to an exclusive agreement with a major music publisher. He is very talented, makes great music, but they are not promoting him. On the other hand, he doesn't do what he is supposed to be doing either. He wants to get out of it, but they don't want to let him go without them keeping all his copyrights.

leonche64 said:

I am a working musician in China.

That's interesting. Do you release music there?

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

I knew that was a stretch, but I understood the concept. Once you sign the contract, you are bonded to it. Be careful for what you sign, I'll say.

You could be better say that it's time songwriters and recording artists band together to collectively bargain some decent and fair standard contracts.

You mean form some type of union, like the actors?

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

I will not deny that he had a habit of overspending. That has been said for years. However, Sony financed and promoted hugely almost every album that he made. Why the change on the last two albums. I saw a video that he did in 2001, and he said the reason Sony was giving him hell was because he was about to become a free agent, and they didn't want to see him go. He made billions of dollars for Sony.

There you go. He was the best selling artist in the world, under an extremely well paid, exclusive agreement with Sony. He tried to break it, they punished him for it. Both were wrong and stupid.

So if he was alive, how do you think both parties should have handled it?

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

You could be better say that it's time songwriters and recording artists band together to collectively bargain some decent and fair standard contracts.

You mean form some type of union, like the actors?

Yes. Recording artists are pretty much the only group of creative people in all the media industries, that have consistently failed to do that.

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

There you go. He was the best selling artist in the world, under an extremely well paid, exclusive agreement with Sony. He tried to break it, they punished him for it. Both were wrong and stupid.

So if he was alive, how do you think both parties should have handled it?

I am not sure, because I am not familiar with the exact terms of their agreements, nor with their exact motivations. But it would have been better, for both, if they had just sat down together and tried to work something out.

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

You mean form some type of union, like the actors?

Yes. Recording artists are pretty much the only group of creative people in all the media industries, that have consistently failed to do that.

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder if some artist out there would one day publically suggest it. BTW, I am impressed with your list of what is wrong with the music industry today

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

So if he was alive, how do you think both parties should have handled it?

I am not sure, because I am not familiar with the exact terms of their agreements, nor with their exact motivations. But it would have been better, for both, if they had just sat down together and tried to work something out.

I see.

Tremolina how much do the record companies get for every blank CDR disc sold? The last time I checked it was about .57 cents. In later years music Cd's on average solf fore $13.95, in the States. As we say, do the math. Record companies didn't make nearly as much if they sold a music Cd's versus getting cents on every blank CDR sold.

Let me say this, record contracts come in many forms.

I'll be back to give my solutions.

dalsh327 said:

Tremolina said:

“If there are millions of owners of VTR’s who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs such as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents’ works.”

It's Bing Crosby's fault.

Would you still care to get into the questions I asked you? I am genuinly interested in your reply.

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

Yes. Recording artists are pretty much the only group of creative people in all the media industries, that have consistently failed to do that.

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder if some artist out there would one day publically suggest it. BTW, I am impressed with your list of what is wrong with the music industry today

There have been some. Don Henley for example with the Recording Artists Coalition (RAC) started some good initiatives. But the reality of that organisation is that it cannot exactly be called a "coalition". Not a "coalition of the willing" anyway...

Thanks by the way for the compliment.

[Edited 11/15/11 10:29am]

TD3 said:

Tremolina how much do the record companies get for every blank CDR disc sold?

Depends per country on the laws and collective rights agreements that exist there.

The last time I checked it was about .57 cents. In later years music Cd's on average solf fore $13.95, in the States. As we say, do the math. Record companies didn't make nearly as much if they sold a music Cd's versus getting cents on every blank CDR sold.

Of course they didn't make as much as on a normal CD, but then a copy on a CDR is not a normal CD, so that's not the point. The point is that BY DOING NOTHING they make money off something (homecopying) that would happen anyway. All pure profits, they wouldn't have made without these royalty systems. And I can tell you that around the world they make SHITLOADS of money a year with those kind of royalties.

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

Sounds like a good idea. I wonder if some artist out there would one day publically suggest it. BTW, I am impressed with your list of what is wrong with the music industry today

There have been some. Don Henley for example with the Recording Artists Coalition (RAC) started some good initiatives. But the reality of that organisation is that it cannot exactly be called a "coalition". Not a "coalition of the willing" anyway...

Thanks by the way for the compliment.

[Edited 11/15/11 10:29am]

Maybe one day it will happen, and you're welcome.

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

There have been some. Don Henley for example with the Recording Artists Coalition (RAC) started some good initiatives. But the reality of that organisation is that it cannot exactly be called a "coalition". Not a "coalition of the willing" anyway...

Thanks by the way for the compliment.

[Edited 11/15/11 10:29am]

Maybe one day it will happen, and you're welcome.

If songwriters and recording artists wish to improve their situations, they surely should.

Maybe the upcoming 2013 battles and the further downturn in revenues will help them wake up.

Tremolina said:

TD3 said:

Tremolina how much do the record companies get for every blank CDR disc sold?

Depends per country on the laws and collective rights agreements that exist there.

The last time I checked it was about .57 cents. In later years music Cd's on average solf fore $13.95, in the States. As we say, do the math. Record companies didn't make nearly as much if they sold a music Cd's versus getting cents on every blank CDR sold.

Of course they didn't make as much as on a normal CD, but then a copy on a CDR is not a normal CD, so that's not the point. The point is that BY DOING NOTHING they make money off something (homecopying) that would happen anyway. All pure profits, they wouldn't have made without these royalty systems. And I can tell you that around the world they make SHITLOADS of money a year with those kind of royalties.

Also TD, it's not just record companies who have this royalty right. Recording artists too, as well as songwriters and/or their publishers.

Next to that of course, music copyright owners are paid many, many hundreds of millions a year for the public broadcasting on radio/TV/internet of their music, as well as in most countries, in ANY place where music is "made public", like bars, discos, stores and even club houses.

The music industry still has a lot of revenue coming from these sources.

It's the major downturn in record sales that is the only real problem with their revenues.

Tremolina said:

angel345 said:

Maybe one day it will happen, and you're welcome.

If songwriters and recording artists wish to improve their situations, they surely should.

Maybe the upcoming 2013 battles and the further downturn in revenues will help them wake up.

Worth seeing because the industry is sinking to the lowest denominator.

Tremolina said:

leonche64 said:

I have no idea what kind of advice you give, or what artist you are advising

For example, at the moment I have a client, singer/songwriter/musician, tied to an exclusive agreement with a major music publisher. He is very talented, makes great music, but they are not promoting him. On the other hand, he doesn't do what he is supposed to be doing either. He wants to get out of it, but they don't want to let him go without them keeping all his copyrights.

What is he supposed to be doing, if I may ask? Touring?

vainandy said:

TD3 said:

The record companies never developed anyone talent wise, the communites these artist lived in did mostly if not all of that... the church, the talent shows, the music/club scene.The fact that those institutions have vanished is partly is the reason why music sucks.

All they record labels have ever done really is PR and payola....

I think Tremolina and Graycap have hit hammer on nail on whats wrong with record industry. Just think in less than a decade most of use own devices the size of a wallet, that allows use to access music, movies, books, video games, TV, and/or your cable subscription package, anywhere at anytime and that's just for starters. Music isn't the only game in town folks and the record industry now is going to have to figure how they're going to compete for the consumer dollar.... in a way they've never had to before.

It trips me out how people think that smaller is better. I remember in the 1990s when boom boxes became about the third of the size of the huge ones from the early 1980s. The commercials used to brag on how small they were. Well hell, they were smaller but they didn't thump worth a damn. Those huge boom boxes would shake the walls. I see it this way, if a musical device doesn't thump hard enough for the neighbors to call the police on you, then it ain't worth a damn.

Tremolina said:

I know that piece by Steve. He does make several good points in it, but it's 20 years old, onesided and yes, also exeggarated.

The biggest problem with it, is that it doesn't put any responsibility on the shoulders of the artists for the "shit" they are in. Worse, he portrays artists as a bucnh of helpless morons willing to do ANYthing to get a deal. Not exactly helpful to do that, wouldn't you think?

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

You and I are left brain/right brain, haaaaa. I focused on the numbers chart at the bottom. This is a bit dated, but it is a good template on how the industry got to this point in history. It show how a band could have several hit records and have no money to show for it.

Tremolina said:

leonche64 said:

I have no idea what kind of advice you give, or what artist you are advising

For example, at the moment I have a client, singer/songwriter/musician, tied to an exclusive agreement with a major music publisher. He is very talented, makes great music, but they are not promoting him. On the other hand, he doesn't do what he is supposed to be doing either. He wants to get out of it, but they don't want to let him go without them keeping all his copyrights.

Once again, information comes out at the end, that would have shone a different light in the beggining. You are such a tease.

Tremolina said:

leonche64 said:

I am a working musician in China.

That's interesting. Do you release music there?

I have a band that gigs regionally and as a fill/support musician for international acts. I have played in support of Coco Lee, The Wonder Girls, Beyonce in Shaghai in 2007, Jay Chou, and a few others. Hong Kong and mainland China, where we are based, is night and day. Releasing music here is an entirely different animal. If you were to print a traditional cd, you would be able to find it at a bootleg booth a week before your release date. We sell/give away our original music at live shows in thumb drives.

angel345 said:

Tremolina said:

If songwriters and recording artists wish to improve their situations, they surely should.

Maybe the upcoming 2013 battles and the further downturn in revenues will help them wake up.

Worth seeing because the industry is sinking to the lowest denominator.

I can guarantee you that it will be very interesting. Possibly even some true powershifts and positive changes will occur within the industry because of it.