How Will Musicians Survive The Spotify Era - Music

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Just to be clear, i think artists should be paid more from streaming services, but I also think that young bands are spoiled and overvalue their music. Streams don't necessarily = lost potential sales. There's a lot of music I stream that, if I had to pay for it, I just simply wouldn't ever listen to. There's still probably just as many successful music artists now as any other era, there's just more more artists overall fighting for the piece of a pie.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

them

Location: Virginia

meccalecca wrote:

I understand what you're saying. But those artists did have financial backing. The advances that major labels gave bands like The Beatles were gambles, but gave those bands opportunities that unsigned artists never had. Of course the Beatles are the exception to the rule in pretty much every way. They made a ton of money early on with touring, merchandising and movies, to the point that they could afford to be a studio only band, but that really didn't last all that long.

If you look at Rolling Stones and McCartney (probably the two biggest touring acts in history), I would have to assume that album sales only lead to a very small % of their overall revenue.

It's extremely unlikely for any young band to receive a large advance if they have no plans to tour in support of their record. I've known many bands who had label interest turn sour because they didn't have enough touring experience.

From what I understand, in the eras when physical records were actually selling, bands made almost nothing off of the album sales. The revenue from those sales went to the labels. If you read the article, Dave Allen of Gang Of Four mentions that it took 35 years to recoup for the advance of one of their records. So, selling albums were definitely not a significant part of their revenue stream at any point.

Yes the record labels got rich off of albums that is true. Numerous songs from bands have that as a theme in their lyrics. I would just like to say the Beatles were not the only band who made money off of albums. And even though the labels made huge profits the bands/artists did get advances of some kind which was nice considering that there are also many songs about artists sleeping in their cars and saying in interviews how they couch hopped when first starting out.

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times from 1991.

According to sources familiar with the signing, which could be announced as early as today, the deal would provide Aerosmith with a lavish $10-million advance and a blue-chip royalty rate similar to Janet Jackson, who signed an unprecedented $40 million contract in March with Virgin Records.

Here is another article from 1991.

A Thriller $1 Billion Deal For Michael Jackson

By Tom Moon, Inquirer Staff Writer
POSTED: March 21, 1991
Sony Corp. is betting that Michael Jackson will become entertainment's first billion-dollar man.

Under a deal announced yesterday, Jackson would make six albums for Epic Records and a number of films for Columbia Pictures, both owned by Sony. For that, Jackson could earn as much as $1 billion.

That's a million dollars a thousand times over.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

them wrote:

Yes the record labels got rich off of albums that is true. Numerous songs from bands have that as a theme in their lyrics. I would just like to say the Beatles were not the only band who made money off of albums. And even though the labels made huge profits the bands/artists did get advances of some kind which was nice considering that there are also many songs about artists sleeping in their cars and saying in interviews how they couch hopped when first starting out.

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times from 1991.

According to sources familiar with the signing, which could be announced as early as today, the deal would provide Aerosmith with a lavish $10-million advance and a blue-chip royalty rate similar to Janet Jackson, who signed an unprecedented $40 million contract in March with Virgin Records.

Here is another article from 1991.

A Thriller $1 Billion Deal For Michael Jackson

By Tom Moon, Inquirer Staff Writer
POSTED: March 21, 1991
Sony Corp. is betting that Michael Jackson will become entertainment's first billion-dollar man.

Under a deal announced yesterday, Jackson would make six albums for Epic Records and a number of films for Columbia Pictures, both owned by Sony. For that, Jackson could earn as much as $1 billion.

That's a million dollars a thousand times over.

Well, Michael Jackson was the biggest artist of his era. And that was an advance. Advances are really just huge loans. And this just all supports that concept of needing money to make money as an artist. It certainly doesn't support the concept of the poor independent artist making a living off of album sales.

Look deeper into the % of album sales $ that went to these artists.

And for every Michael Jackson, there's a load of artists who received large advances but failed to make a big impact. So, the record label essentially owns them and the rights to all of their music.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

them

Location: Virginia

meccalecca wrote:

Well, Michael Jackson was the biggest artist of his era. And that was an advance. Advances are really just huge loans. And this just all supports that concept of needing money to make money as an artist. It certainly doesn't support the concept of the poor independent artist making a living off of album sales.

Look deeper into the % of album sales $ that went to these artists.

And for every Michael Jackson, there's a load of artists who received large advances but failed to make a big impact. So, the record label essentially owns them and the rights to all of their music.

All true. I'm Just old school when it comes to albums I guess. I know things will probably never be as they were with albums in some ways. I'm not big on change and I tend to fight it a lot. I figure even if a band makes just $1 of the proceeds from each album, and they sell 100,000 albums, that's $100,000. And, in a perfect world of course, the better the album the more it sells. So I would think that bands would put more into the quality of their albums so as to sell more. Instead of the focus on touring 300 days out of the year to make a buck. In my opinion if a band is up on stage every time they turn around and spends their days getting to and from gigs their world might become smaller. But if the band is afforded a chance to go to distant lands and explore other things more in life it will give them more to write about with their lyrics.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

them wrote:

All true. I'm Just old school when it comes to albums I guess. I know things will probably never be as they were with albums in some ways. I'm not big on change and I tend to fight it a lot. I figure even if a band makes just $1 of the proceeds from each album, and they sell 100,000 albums, that's $100,000. And, in a perfect world of course, the better the album the more it sells. So I would think that bands would put more into the quality of their albums so as to sell more. Instead of the focus on touring 300 days out of the year to make a buck. In my opinion if a band is up on stage every time they turn around and spends their days getting to and from gigs their world might become smaller. But if the band is afforded a chance to go to distant lands and explore other things more in life it will give them more to write about with their lyrics.

I'm still somewhat old school too. I still buy my albums on vinyl.

Think of it this way. 100,000 albums sold is still extremely good. It's not platinum but most bands will never sell 100,000 copies of an album. If it's a standard rock quartet, that's only $25,000 each if evenly split. If it took two years to record, that's only $12,500/year for each. That's not even enough money to pay rent in NYC.

One large festival performance can rake in an easy $50,000 for a mid-sized band.

some food for thought. according to Pollstar, The Walkmen sell an avg. of 1,000 tix per show. If they're making $10 per ticket, that's $10,000 per show. 100 shows per year = $1,000,000. They're a very small band compared to most, and it took them a long time to get there, but you can imagine how much an artist as big as Lady Gaga can make through touring.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

them

Location: Virginia

meccalecca wrote:

I'm still somewhat old school too. I still buy my albums on vinyl.

Think of it this way. 100,000 albums sold is still extremely good. It's not platinum but most bands will never sell 100,000 copies of an album. If it's a standard rock quartet, that's only $25,000 each if evenly split. If it took two years to record, that's only $12,500/year for each. That's not even enough money to pay rent in NYC.

One large festival performance can rake in an easy $50,000 for a mid-sized band.

some food for thought. according to Pollstar, The Walkmen sell an avg. of 1,000 tix per show. If they're making $10 per ticket, that's $10,000 per show. 100 shows per year = $1,000,000. They're a very small band compared to most, and it took them a long time to get there, but you can imagine how much an artist as big as Lady Gaga can make through touring.

Great points, I surrender Applause

Kiki

meccalecca wrote:

I'm still somewhat old school too. I still buy my albums on vinyl.

Think of it this way. 100,000 albums sold is still extremely good. It's not platinum but most bands will never sell 100,000 copies of an album. If it's a standard rock quartet, that's only $25,000 each if evenly split. If it took two years to record, that's only $12,500/year for each. That's not even enough money to pay rent in NYC.

One large festival performance can rake in an easy $50,000 for a mid-sized band.

some food for thought. according to Pollstar, The Walkmen sell an avg. of 1,000 tix per show. If they're making $10 per ticket, that's $10,000 per show. 100 shows per year = $1,000,000. They're a very small band compared to most, and it took them a long time to get there, but you can imagine how much an artist as big as Lady Gaga can make through touring.

Well I'm certainly thinking about all the money now. Drool