How much does an album really get.... of all thing's i guess i never totally put in mind the production costs.

For example, Kanye's MBDTF had over 90 people work on it, that's including co-producers, singers, musicians etc.

And probably most notorious is Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy.. which started production in 1994 & didn't come out till 2008. And the total cost was 13 million & over 150 musicians over the years doing diffeent shit on the 50 songs(Eventually cut down to 14 for the album)

So if an album like those 2 costs so much.. and they both only go platinum.. how is the money evenly distrbuted?, and even though these 2 albums going over platinum is good for the time... it doesn't come close to the cost of the album.

Gunsnhalen said:

How much does an album really get.... of all thing's i guess i never totally put in mind the production costs.

For example, Kanye's MBDTF had over 90 people work on it, that's including co-producers, singers, musicians etc.

And probably most notorious is Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy.. which started production in 1994 & didn't come out till 2008. And the total cost was 13 million & over 150 musicians over the years doing diffeent shit on the 50 songs(Eventually cut down to 14 for the album)

So if an album like those 2 costs so much.. and they both only go platinum.. how is the money evenly distrbuted?, and even though these 2 albums going over platinum is good for the time... it doesn't come close to the cost of the album.

platinum is over 1 million in sales. A CD cost between $9.99 and 12.99 ... times any of those numbers by 1 million. Record label and the artist split that.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Gunsnhalen said:

How much does an album really get.... of all thing's i guess i never totally put in mind the production costs.

For example, Kanye's MBDTF had over 90 people work on it, that's including co-producers, singers, musicians etc.

And probably most notorious is Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy.. which started production in 1994 & didn't come out till 2008. And the total cost was 13 million & over 150 musicians over the years doing diffeent shit on the 50 songs(Eventually cut down to 14 for the album)

So if an album like those 2 costs so much.. and they both only go platinum.. how is the money evenly distrbuted?, and even though these 2 albums going over platinum is good for the time... it doesn't come close to the cost of the album.

platinum is over 1 million in sales. A CD cost between $9.99 and 12.99 ... times any of those numbers by 1 million. Record label and the artist split that.

I know platinum is 1 million in sales, but what if the cd doesn't make as much as the album costs? it's kind of like a movie that is big budget but under performs.

Like if you have an album that is 13 million big ones... and you only sell 1 million(5 Million worldwide) You just seemed fucked

The labels charge the costs to the act, who often make a small percentage of the sales. That's just not the studio costs, but music videos, promotion, wardrobe, and the act also have to pay managers and anybody else who works for them. That's why many remain in the hole with the labels, and are broke, even if they sell a lot. The act is charged even if the label chooses not to release material. Record contracts are generally designed to benefit the label, not the act. The labels also release some albums to fail on purpose, for tax writeoffs, or to make an act lose some of their audience if the act is planning to leave for another label. It's like one label doesn't want to make someone popular for a competitor. Thousands of albums/singles are released each year, very few sell much, even pre-internet. So you could say most records fail. But profits depend on the market. A local band might sell their album themselves, so they might make more than if they were signed to a major. If you have an orchestra or a large band, you have to split the money with a lot of people. A small percentage of performers are rich.

[Edited 10/18/12 9:13am]

Reasons artists don't make too much money from their albums in mainstream record labels (unless they're really big sellers):

• They have to pay for studio time they booked.
• They sometimes pay for promotion.
• As Mickey said, also pay managers and others that work for them (why you think so many people who back a certain artist sue them for x amount of dollars? because they never paid them)
• The labels have to get most of the moolah or else their label will disintegrate. I know, it's unfair to the artist but that's just how things go and that won't ever change.
• The reason artists back then and today tour so much is because money is still to be had in touring as long as you provide them with good merchandise then you'll be paid a good amount of money compared to when you release a song or an album.

The idustry sounds scarier & scarier. i have knowna bout promotion & producing.. and how the label get's most of the money.

But i never took much into account of how much an album costs, i know back in the day Def Lepard Hysteria took 3 years to complete & was millions of dollars.. so when it went 3 million it wasn't enough.

Luckily they pushed 6 top 20 singles & managed a diamond album

Idk how Asshole rose.. is not in debt... 13 million bucks spent from 94 to 06 on an album, over 150 musicians worked on it, and only 55 credited on the album(Since over 20 songs where cut off & bootlegged)

Even with touring & all that idk how he is not totally broke.

^ Well he's a songwriter also. Writers make money than singers and it's possible he didn't go out and spend all his money like an idiot like so many rock stars have done. You have to put it in context. It ain't as scary as people willingly spending the money they do get and then hiring people who don't know how to be accountants.

MickyDolenz said:

The labels charge the costs to the act, who often make a small percentage of the sales. That's just not the studio costs, but music videos, promotion, wardrobe, and the act also have to pay managers and anybody else who works for them. That's why many remain in the hole with the labels, and are broke, even if they sell a lot. The act is charged even if the label chooses not to release material. Record contracts are generally designed to benefit the label, not the act. The labels also release some albums to fail on purpose, for tax writeoffs, or to make an act lose some of their audience if the act is planning to leave for another label. It's like one label doesn't want to make someone popular for a competitor. Thousands of albums/singles are released each year, very few sell much, even pre-internet. So you could say most records fail. But profits depend on the market. A local band might sell their album themselves, so they might make more than if they were signed to a major. If you have an orchestra or a large band, you have to split the money with a lot of people. A small percentage of performers are rich.

[Edited 10/18/12 9:13am]

Truth!

Timmy84 said:

Reasons artists don't make too much money from their albums in mainstream record labels (unless they're really big sellers):

• They have to pay for studio time they booked.
• They sometimes pay for promotion.
• As Mickey said, also pay managers and others that work for them (why you think so many people who back a certain artist sue them for x amount of dollars? because they never paid them)
• The labels have to get most of the moolah or else their label will disintegrate. I know, it's unfair to the artist but that's just how things go and that won't ever change.
• The reason artists back then and today tour so much is because money is still to be had in touring as long as you provide them with good merchandise then you'll be paid a good amount of money compared to when you release a song or an album.

Yup! Touring has always been where its at. There's always more money in touring. I was taught to look at labels as nothing more than glorified banks that will get a return on their investment, one way or the other.

Timmy84 said:

^ Well he's a songwriter also. Writers make money than singers and it's possible he didn't go out and spend all his money like an idiot like so many rock stars have done. You have to put it in context. It ain't as scary as people willingly spending the money they do get and then hiring people who don't know how to be accountants.

True, iw as actually just thinking the song writing thing could be key. And he has all rights to the name GNR.

And then people do spend money liek insane.... didn't MJ spent like a million or 2 a year?

Musicslave said:

Timmy84 said:

Reasons artists don't make too much money from their albums in mainstream record labels (unless they're really big sellers):

• They have to pay for studio time they booked.
• They sometimes pay for promotion.
• As Mickey said, also pay managers and others that work for them (why you think so many people who back a certain artist sue them for x amount of dollars? because they never paid them)
• The labels have to get most of the moolah or else their label will disintegrate. I know, it's unfair to the artist but that's just how things go and that won't ever change.
• The reason artists back then and today tour so much is because money is still to be had in touring as long as you provide them with good merchandise then you'll be paid a good amount of money compared to when you release a song or an album.

Yup! Touring has always been where its at. There's always more money in touring. I was taught to look at labels as nothing more than glorified banks that will get a return on their investment, one way or the other.

Yep.

Gunsnhalen said:

Timmy84 said:

^ Well he's a songwriter also. Writers make money than singers and it's possible he didn't go out and spend all his money like an idiot like so many rock stars have done. You have to put it in context. It ain't as scary as people willingly spending the money they do get and then hiring people who don't know how to be accountants.

True, iw as actually just thinking the song writing thing could be key. And he has all rights to the name GNR.

And then people do spend money liek insane.... didn't MJ spent like a million or 2 a year?

Yeah he did. But least he owned stock in his publishing. Glad his estate fixed his cash flow problem though.

Timmy84 said:

Reasons artists don't make too much money from their albums in mainstream record labels (unless they're really big sellers):

• They have to pay for studio time they booked.
• They sometimes pay for promotion.
• As Mickey said, also pay managers and others that work for them (why you think so many people who back a certain artist sue them for x amount of dollars? because they never paid them)
• The labels have to get most of the moolah or else their label will disintegrate. I know, it's unfair to the artist but that's just how things go and that won't ever change.
• The reason artists back then and today tour so much is because money is still to be had in touring as long as you provide them with good merchandise then you'll be paid a good amount of money compared to when you release a song or an album.

So the artist is the investor? I never understood why the label gets the most money, when the artist is the investor. What does the label do that they make the most money out of an abum?

Can't an artist just hire a label, like they hire musicians, so the artist is the one who gets the most from every album sold?

robertlove said:

Timmy84 said:

Reasons artists don't make too much money from their albums in mainstream record labels (unless they're really big sellers):

• They have to pay for studio time they booked.
• They sometimes pay for promotion.
• As Mickey said, also pay managers and others that work for them (why you think so many people who back a certain artist sue them for x amount of dollars? because they never paid them)
• The labels have to get most of the moolah or else their label will disintegrate. I know, it's unfair to the artist but that's just how things go and that won't ever change.
• The reason artists back then and today tour so much is because money is still to be had in touring as long as you provide them with good merchandise then you'll be paid a good amount of money compared to when you release a song or an album.

So the artist is the investor? I never understood why the label gets the most money, when the artist is the investor. What does the label do that they make the most money out of an abum?

Can't an artist just hire a label, like they hire musicians, so the artist is the one who gets the most from every album sold?

Nah it don't work like that unless said artist had his own label or had a level of both creative and financial control (as was the case with Ray Charles after his deal with ABC Records).

I Hate to say it, but i can see why some albums are full of nothing but computer beats(And sometimes stolen samples )

Cause with all the costs of marketing, tours, music videos, producers etc.

Hiring a ton of musicians to work on an album(And backup singers etc) Probably costs an arm & a leg to, a good example is Songs in the key of life.. Stevie himself played 5 different instruments, programed & produced it.

But also tons of guitar players, percusion players, backing vocals, clarinet, horns, sax, trumpet, arrangers, handclapping, bass etc. That where also on the album

But it's also amazing an album like Sign ''O'' The times is mainly just Prince! most of the other credited people are for the live It's Gonna Be A Beautiful Night.

Same with George Michael, he did the majority of work on his albums.

Gunsnhalen said:

I Hate to say it, but i can see why some albums are full of nothing but computer beats(And sometimes stolen samples )

Cause with all the costs of marketing, tours, music videos, producers etc.

Hiring a ton of musicians to work on an album(And backup singers etc) Probably costs an arm & a leg to, a good example is Songs in the key of life.. Stevie himself played 5 different instruments, programed & produced it.

But also tons of guitar players, percusion players, backing vocals, clarinet, horns, sax, trumpet, arrangers, handclapping, bass etc. That where also on the album

But it's also amazing an album like Sign ''O'' The times is mainly just Prince! most of the other credited people are for the live It's Gonna Be A Beautiful Night.

Same with George Michael, he did the majority of work on his albums.

Yeah people who were moaning about why there's not too many songs these days with instruments is because it pays a fortune to get that stuff and usually you have to PAY them so some artists are like "fuck it, we can use computers now". That way, they'll get more money than those who simply use instruments and nothing but.