Thread: Provoke Change
View Single Post
  #25  
Old 04-04-2008, 01:27 AM
0neyellowdrum's Avatar
0neyellowdrum 0neyellowdrum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 172
Default Re: Provoke Change

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUNTERSDAD View Post
The only music I have bought in the last three years, I bought from iTunes. Either song by song, for .99, or by the album for a varied price. I must say however that most of that is older stuff, and some "oldies" if you will. In my opinion, if the record industry wnat to sell music then they have to start recording music. There are only a few bands around now that I would even lsiten to a little bit, and maybe buy a single or two, but hardly any full albums. Stop producing garbage and I will start buying again. I have plenty of equipment to play CD's but it sits idle for the lack of decent stuff to buy, much less download or steal. After I buy them from iTunes I may burn some to play on other machines, but that also is rare. I realize that ones taste, is ones taste but I cannot get my self to buy anything current. And why pay 15.00 for 8 or 10 songs when I can buy 1 or 2 for .99 each.
I really like this idea of paying only for the songs you want. Currently, though, my CD player in my truck and the one in my home will not play computer CD's. As such, I would need to replace my equipment and I am not ready to do that. Because there is still such a vast amount of 'oldies' music I still don't own I don't mind paying for the CD or DVD.

Quote:
So music will be available for free for everybody and the only way to earn a little money will be to go on tour."
When this happens we will all be debating how the concert promoters are ripping us off. Oh wait, they are presently ripping us off. Lol. Just imagine how much a ticket for a show will cost.

Quote:
or example did you know that if you got 'signed' recorded and realeased, your royalties would NOT be based on your album sales. not 100%. the artist's percentage is traditionally calculated on only 90% of sales. why? because when all there was, was vinyl, the average truckload of vinyl records - which are quite fragile - would be expected to have 10% cracked or scratched. and so returned after sales. when the change over to CD and other less breakable media occoured, the record companies just conveniently didn't change policy.
All of this is 'negotiated' and agreed to by both parties. If this is not a good business deal then shame on the artist for signing on. I suspect that at the time of the signing there isn't really any whining about what a bad deal the artist got.

Quote:
I would also suggest that the Independent labels actually feel closer to the music - after all, they're not usually founded on the basis of making a lot of money they are instead founded on the principle that they'd like to offer new and exciting artists a record deal.
No doubt and probably a more close relationship with the one (or few) in the Indie Label who has/have the most control and say about the operations of the company. Few hoops to jump thru to get results etc. That being said, I would think that at a major Label an artist has, at the minimum, a project manager of sorts as the go to person. A close relationship would be necessary. However, what business would want to spend on a project without wanting to see a return on investment? (read here big return) I know you said, 'from the outset' but their goal and the reason to take the risk is the same as the Major labels. To generate a lot of profit so they can spend on other risks and attract other artists. The Indie's just seem to take more risk.
__________________
"The more I practice the luckier I get!"
Reply With Quote